Good morning, Autopians! I’m writing this from Delaware, on a house-hunting trip, after a red-eye flight last night (or was it the night before?). I’m exhausted, and I haven’t really slept for something like thirty-six hours at this point, but the show(down) must go on, so here we go. Today is all about Hondas that haven’t hit the road in years.
Yesterday’s Showdown featured big-ass V8 engines, and it looks like the Chevy has taken a clear win. I know those 8100-powered Silverados are popular trucks, so I’m not surprised. For my money, it’s the Ford van, though. No reason; I just think it’s cooler, and I already have a good Chevy truck that I love.
And yes, I’m aware that these aren’t classified as “heavy duty” trucks, not officially. And I know there are much bigger trucks and engines out there. But as far as things that normal people might buy and drive to Costco, these are definitely edge cases.
Now then: Hondas from the 1970s were cool little cars: fun to drive, reliable, and cleverly designed. Unfortunately, they were also ephemeral, succumbing to rust in short order in salt-ridden climates. In the automotive sanctuary known as California, however, a few of these endangered species live on. Today we’re going to look at two such specimens, both of which have been neglected for too long.
1975 Honda Civic CVCC – $4,000
Engine/drivetrain: 1.5 liter overhead cam inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Morro Bay, CA
Odometer reading: 72,000 miles
Operational status: Parked 9 years ago and hasn’t been started since
“We Make It Simple” was Honda’s slogan when the Civic first hit the US market. And simple it was: a tiny two-door hatchback with front-wheel-drive and lively handling that got fantastic gas mileage. But like Apple, Honda achieved that outward simplicity by employing a lot of very sophisticated behind-the-scenes technology.
Honda’s CVCC (Compound Vortex Controlled Combustion) system was one such technology. CVCC engines used three valves per cylinder, the normal intake and exhaust valves plus a smaller secondary intake valve that supplied the area around the spark plug with a richer mixture than the big intake valve did. This allowed the engine to run a leaner mixture overall, for cleaner running and better economy. It was so effective that this 1975 Honda Civic met California’s strict smog requirements with no catalytic converter. It’s a moot point now, however, because California only requires smog tests on 1976 and up vehicles.
This little Civic has been sitting for a long time – nine years, to be exact. The seller does say the registration is current, however, so it sounds like they planned to get it running. If nothing else, you can probably swap in some newer Honda engine; if it doesn’t require smog testing anymore, the world of potential engines is your oyster.
This one hasn’t quite entirely escaped the rust curse, but it’s California rust, with little bubbles here and there that you can probably safely ignore. It’s still cleaner than any first-generation Civic seen anywhere in the Midwest in ages.
1981 Honda Accord hatchback – $2,500
Engine/drivetrain: 1.8 liter overhead cam inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: San Ramon, CA
Odometer reading: 159,000 miles
Operational status: Starts and runs, but not driven for 4 years
If you’d rather have an old Honda that’s a little bigger, a little more everyday useful, here we have a first-generation Accord hatchback. It has a 1.8 liter four, also CVCC-equipped, and a five-speed manual. You could get an Accord with an automatic, of course, but why would you? Everyone drove a stick back then.
This Accord was a daily driver until four years ago when it was parked for an undisclosed reason. It does start and run, but the seller says it needs some carb work before it’s ready to go. It has a new battery already, which is a start (pun intended).
The seats are utterly trashed beyond repair, but the rest of the interior looks all right. You could find other bucket seats to drop in there easily, with maybe a little cutting of rails or drilling of holes. No point in trying to save these.
Like the Civic, this one isn’t perfect inside, but it’s mighty clean. Normally I’d rail against the beige paint, but it works here. This is a handsome car. Of course, I’d rather have that fantastic seafoam green that Honda offered on this generation of Accord, complete with the green velour interior, but this would do nicely too.
It would be awesome if all the cars we loved could be preserved, rust-free, for us to enjoy whenever we wished. But we all know that isn’t the reality. And I guess you could argue that it’s the high attrition rate that makes these cars interesting now, at least in part. Who looked twice at an Accord or Civic back then? They were just cars. Now they’re time capsules, windows into a past that was hyper-concerned with efficiency and not so big on safety or durability. Which one would you rather bring back?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
Two instances where we see an old car sitting in a wet driveway in a location where it probably hasn’t actually rained. The old “spray it down real good and take a pic while it’s still shiny” trick. Between these two, the Civic is a better bet, if not necessarily a better deal. For $4000 they’d better throw that brick in front of the rear wheel in for free.
Had a 77 Accord back in the day. Loved that car. Those early Civics get the tinworm from looking at rain clouds. I’d take the Accord, its slightly larger size, and hit the junk yard for some swap out seats, and drive until the heat death of the universe.
The Civic is nice but over priced for what you get For less, get the Accord, fix stuff as needed, and still pay less.
My gran had a civic like that, only in fabulous 70s brown, so it had my vote even before I saw the seats in that Accord.
I grew up with Beige Accord, I die with Beige Accord.
Look at that Civic! So yellow and cute! I can’t say no to it!
My Dad had that Accord’s identical sibling and loved it. We’ll go beige.
Civic is neat. I almost traded my 600Z in on one back in the day, but the local Honda dealer was having trouble keeping Civics in stock.
Morro Bay being right next to the salty Pacific means a good likelihood of rust. Old Hondas rusted.
Even so, it looks as if the cute Civic got more care before it was parked. Fifteen hundred scoots would probably get the Accord’s interior right, and maybe buy a Pine Tree Air Freshener. I’d still worry about corrosion.
Ever driven an early Hondmatic? I have. So no.
The Civic is the logical choice, so I’m going with the Accord. Just like the shape (geometric shape, not condition) of the Accord better and the trashiness of the condition allows for some sympathetic upgrading.
Both should be saved, but the Civic is much more charming and would be more fun, with or without a swap.
I recently saw a dude crawl out of a CVCC. Those cars are tiny. It looked like a Shrinermobile.
The Civic is a cooler color
I know this is hyperbole but it did get me wondering. Apparently automatics took over much faster than I even thought. Mass production of them really only started after WWII, but by 1957 more than 80% of new cars in the US were autos (if wiki can be trusted), and I doubt it’s ever been lower than that since.
People really hate shifting!
That number actually makes sense, and it also makes sense that it wouldn’t necessarily feel that way to us. Automatic transmissions are a failure point (especially earlier examples) that is more likely to take a car out of commission than a manual. So when you look at listings, manuals would likely make up a higher percentage of surviving examples than they did new.
Combine that with the likelihood of, say, learning to drive on a cheap older car, so people remember that manuals were dominant. And the fact that the base models were manual also helps cement this. It is definitely different than now, where the auto is the only option for a large percentage of cars (though the lack of base model sales remains the same).
Wow, crazy. It’s weird that it’s just in this country, too. I wonder what about the US (other than us being lazy fools) makes it so much more prone to automatics. The longer expanses of roadways rather than short trips?
If anything, I’d say our lower density makes driving a manual *less* objectionable. Heavy traffic, small city streets, etc, makes it more of a chore.
My theory:
Automatics used to be expensive and inefficient options, and Americans were and are much richer than the rest of the world. Bigger cars, bigger engines, cheap gas, and automatic transmissions.
Yeah, conspicuous consumption and all that. *sigh*
I really dislike a lot about humans.
I don’t even think it was conspicuous as much as convenience.
The 50s were a time where lots of mundane tasks became easier with electric appliances and such. Why not make driving easier too, as long as you can afford it?
I also think the way we frame “freedom” might have something to do with it, too. We want to allow most people to drive, and you don’t want to require too high a bar for that freedom of movement (and, since we don’t have great public transit, it’s the easiest way for people to move around). So the easier to teach and easier to learn automatic wins for convenience.
https://legacy.npr.org/news/graphics/2012/03/gr-manual-transmission-300.gif
I found this graph in an NPR interview with a Car and Driver editor in 2011. This graphic states that it covers cars manufactured in the US, so it seems to exclude a lot of vehicles. I would be curious what this would look like if it included ’70s and ’80s imported Japanese vehicles as well as air cooled VW products. I presume the percent of manuals would be higher, but it is hard to imagine manuals would have exceeded 30% during the manual resurgence around 1980.
When I see something like this, I realize just how out of touch car enthusiasts are with the general public. Considering how lousy automatics were in the ’60s and ’70s, it must be true that people REALLY hate shifting for those to have been so popular.
Turbo Hydramatics and such were fine when paired with large V8s, but when everybody downsized, their limitations became more apparent. So it doesn’t surprise me to see a small spike around 1980.
The later ones with 4 speeds were decent. I’m referring to the old 2 and 3 speed automatics. The limited gear ratios meaningfully decreased performance. Plus, the lack of overdrive meant the engine had to rev fairly high to maintain highway speeds.
I am seeing these with the benefit of hindsight, though. By objective measures, new vehicles are infinitely better than old vehicles. Two and three speed automatics seem primitive in a world of 10 speed transmissions, but if the alternative was a 3 or 4 speed manual, they look much better.
Although, this is another issue where my judgment is clouded by car enthusiasm. I care enough about performance that I would have chose the manual option. The average person doesn’t care much about performance, so the automatic is the obvious choice if available and affordable.
Exactly, and this is another example of Drew’s point above regarding survivors. Most of the 60s cars left today are Chevelles, 442s, Mustangs, Challengers, etc. Cars where performance mattered, where manual transmissions made more sense and were more common, and so on.
A million 4 door Impalas with straight sixes and Powerglides went to the junkyard. A million more Galaxies followed. Those cars are forgotten, but they’re the reason 80+% of sales were automatics, even poor ones.
They sold so many air cooled VWs in the US, an overwhelming majority of them manuals, so I bet that would skew things. The Beetle didn’t ever get a full auto, just the automatic stickshift. No clutch, and you had two forward gears and I think, a low gear for steep hill starts. Later air-cooled models did get full autos, but they didn’t sell in numbers even close to the Beetle. The Beetle was so ubiquitous for so long, I could see that impacting people’s views of the popularity of manual transmissions.
I was thinking of the autostick when I wrote that. I don’t view that as either a manual or automatic. They are interesting, though. I haven’t had an opportunity to drive one, but I have seen a few at car shows. It is weird to see a two pedal Beetle.
Although, ubiquity of the Beetle is significant when considering familiarity with manual transmissions. It seems like almost everyone in the ’60s and ’70s at least drove a Beetle at some point, even if they didn’t own one.
“Everyone drove a stick back then” is probably true, even if the majority of vehicles sold were automatics.
I’ve never driven one either, but I got a chance to ride in one. It was pretty neat, although I can’t imagine what that transmission did to the performance of an already slow car.
I’ve got an air-cooled Beetle I’ve had since I was a kid. It’s remarkable the way that owning a Beetle lets you connect with so many people, because you’re right, just about everyone alive during that period has a Beetle or knew someone who did. My folks never had one, but both have stories about riding in one that someone they knew owned. Almost every time I take the Beetle out, someone will stop me in the parking lot to say they had one, or an old boyfriend/girlfriend had one, and how many memories seeing my car brought back.
From what I have heard, acceleration with an autostick is glacial. It is basically a normal 4 speed manual, but with an automated clutch and no 1st gear. Gears 1 and 2 were the same ratios as 3rd and 4th in the manual cars. L was equivalent to 2nd gear in the manual cars. So in normal driving, you were essentially starting out in 3rd gear. Not hard to imagine why that it wouldn’t be quick.
I also own a Beetle so I have had a lot of random parking lot conversations. It is fun to hear how big a role these vehicles played in people’s lives, even if they are not necessarily car enthusiasts. Old cars are great to drive, but they are also great as a way to connect with other people.
Both? Both.
I had an 83 Accord, when they switched to the square headlights. Great little car for high-school me. I thrashed that thing and it kept going. Drove it to the junkyard in the end. Picked the Civic because oof that accord interior.
This is a tough one. On first glance, I thought I’d go for the Civic. It’s the more classic of the two – especially down to the color. But the cleaner body and lower price of the Accord were pretty compelling. I think what pushed it back over the edge to the Civic for me, was the significantly lower mileage and less suspicious current condition.
I chose the Civic. Since it hasn’t run in nine years… ‘busa swap?
I hate watered down pictures. I’ll take the Civic
Civic, I learned to drive manual on that little fucker.
If I’m dumping all the time energy and money into an old slow project, I’ll take the Civic. So much more charming
Neither, because VTEC didn’t kick in until 1989, yo.
But the Civic is pre-smog for California which means with a bit of engine swap magic, VTEC could very well kick in soon, yo
My son wants to get a sticker for our 94 Accord that says “VTEC No” because the original owner (my neighbor) opted for the cheaper motor
CVCC kicked in yo 😛
I sooo wanted today’s showdown to be between a Lada Niva and a Golf
They’re saving that for sweeps week.
The Civic. Because yellow.
I’ll take little. Yellow. Different.
Too soon to suggest these look exactly like a Rivian R3?
Yes, but I like where your head’s at.