hi all,

i'm in the market for the used car, and a late 1st generation CL seems to be a good buy - i've spotted a '99 CL 3.0 in good condition for sale by original owner in my area. the mileage is on the high side (85k) but i'm not looking to put a lot of additional miles on the car (mostly errand/town/weekend driving) so i think that's fine. anything in particularl i need to look out for with this car, other than the usual things like tires, exhaust, brakes, etc.?

thanks,
marc

 

how many times the tranny has been replaced(if any), has it had any aftermarket mods, etc.

 

thanks for the reply liloj. i think the car is stock, has premium package, and the owner claims to have serviced it regularly at the original dealership. (i'll learn more tomorrow hopefully when he replies to my email.)

so if the tranny has been replaced more than once (or at all), is that a bad sign? or should i be glad that it has a newer tranny? are there certain problematic cars that keep blowing their trannies, even after having them replaced? is that a function of the engine or something?

thanks,
marc

 

yes it is a bad sign if the tranny has been replaced but if im not mistaken the 98 and 99 trannys are covered under teh extended warrenty set to 100k set by Acura

also i would look out for electrical problems as well and it would be smart to get the VIN number from the seller and run a car fax on it just to be on the safe side

newer trannys are always better but is it a 2.3/2.2 or a 3.0? the 3.0's have the problems with trannys and how many miles does this car have and what is the price asking for?

we will let you know if its worth it or not

good luck

 

look out for electrical probs...check to see if the windows roll up/down ok

 

i see... i thougth the extended warranty on the transmission was only for the 2nd gen CL? didn't know Honda did the same for the 1st gen model.

yup, ran a background check on the car and it looks clean.

it's a 3.0. 85k miles, claims to be well-maintained (i'll check the dealer for records of course), asking around $8k. i'm definitely concerned about the transmission issue (yes, honda autos suck, esp. these older ones from the "jerky-shift" era) and would use it to negotiate the price.

do you guys think i'd be better off looking for a similar-year/mileage TL for a little more money, or is it the same story durability/reliability wise?

just a litle background for the curious... i live in NJ just outside NYC and need a set of wheels primarily for weekend errands, but having a nice car for extended drives would be a big plus in my life. i absolutely love driving and have been dying for a car ever since i got out of college a few years ago, but living in NYC made it impossible... now that i just moved across the river to jersey it's almost a necessity.

my parents have a low-mileage '91 Accord that i can use for the interim but the AC is broken, some other small problems are cropping up (already changed distributor, auto shifter, etc.) and my parents are concerned about safety (no airbags). it was considered totaled by the insurance company after an accident last year, but my parents fixed it up anyway so it's basically a "disposable" car now. originally i wanted a cushy yuppie-mobile like everyone else (bmw 3, acura tsx, infiniti g35) but it's definitely out of budget for a while and really more than i need. the Mazda 3s looks slick, but once you add on some basic options like auto, side airbags and ABS it goes for over $18k! for that much i'd probably rather get an Accord LX, or spend a couple k more and get an Accord EX. also looked at the Scion tC but same deal, runs dangerously close to $20k. besides, if i am just "compromising" with an interim car, may as well save on a decent used car well under $10k (cheaper insurance too) until i can afford what i *really* want. i also looked at late model used Accords, Civics, etc., but the resale is so ridiculous it doesn't seem worth it - i refuse to pay more than 50% of original retail for a used car.

so the real question i guess is, is something like a '99 CL a good fit for me, or would i be better sticking to the 'rents' honda junker? at least if that thing dies it's of no consequence, and i could probably make it through the fall/winter at least. another alternative is something like a high mileage '97-98 Lexus (e.g. ES300), which are built like tanks - my friend got one with 75k miles, drove it another 100k, and hasn't had to service it once. but toyotas are so lifeless, i'm afraid i might die in an accident falling asleep at the wheel... i'd also be willing to invest a little more in a 2nd gen (maybe 2002) CL, since they were going for firesale prices new and i have seen some good deals on used ones, but that may still be more than i want to spend on a used car.

cheers,
dorkus

 

just called the seller... i couldn't understand him on everything, cell phone was breaking up a bit and he had a slight accent (i think chinese?) but here is what i gathered. when i asked him about if he had had any transmission service, at first he asked "what do you mean?" which made me a bit suspiscious, but then he elaborated that he did all the regular maintenance and never had a problem with it, so no tranny overhaul or replacement sounds like.

then he dropped the bomb, which i think is why his asking price is low - "i owned the car 5 years now, it was in an accident when it was about a year old." ok, this i knew, but i played innocent - "oh really? what kind of accident?" "i was hit by another car." "oh, was it frontal, side, rear? did it affect the car at all?" "it was rear, but the car was fixed and no problems." "was it major or minor" "... it was pretty major... it was about $14k in repairs." yikes. well, as long as the car was repaired competently (i'll have to check service records) and there have been no associated problems, i guess i could just use it as a bargaining tool.

i also asked general questions - any mechanical or electrical problems - he said no. he did make a comment somewhere in between all that, "i cannot say the car is like brand new, but everyone who look at it say it like brand new." i thought that was at least a little more honest than just saying it was a perfect car.

in general he was a bit hesitant when answering questions and elaborating, but i think it was just a language barrier, and he was otherwise very polite and coureous. he's offered to pick me up at the train station by his house so i can take a look and drive the car... i'm gonna see if i can make it down this afternoon. if i go, i'll bring my high-res digital camera along to take pictures so you guys can have a gander.

cheers,
dorkus

 

I have a 97 3.0 and am the original owner. Purchased new in Aug of 98. I have never had the transmission replaced and it has 145k. I did a lot of towing with the car for about three of the years I have owned it. So the tranny has seen more than it share of work. I did have the alternator replaced at about 100k because it died on me. Besides that I have not had any mechanical issues with the car or major incidents. I has been super reliable. I change the oil about every 5 – 6k and put a new air filter in every now and then.

Minor issues
Seat does not return to correct position on driver’s side when you let someone in the back seat. The power motor still works no problem.

Driver’s window cable broke at 51k but they covered it under warranty.

Paint on front bummer is messed up from what looks like some sort of acid. I should have had this fixed when it was still under warranty.

 

14K accident =


i love the cl, but keep looking

 

oh if the alternator hasnt shit the bed yet, it will so be prepared for that too.

 

yeah I am not sure why he did not trash the car for 14k... the car was only worth about 14k one year ago... so either he is lying, you missheard him, he got ripped, or something because no one in their right mind would fix a 99 CL for 14k. Even the insurance company would have junked the car and cut you a check for 10k or something.

btw I own a 99 2.3 works fine for me.