Welcome back to Shitbox Showdown! If you like your cars Japanese and well-loved, then today’s pairing is for you. We’re going to look at one car from each of Japan’s titans of longevity, both a little threadbare, both with a pile of miles on them already, but carefully maintained where it counts.
Yesterday’s vote count was way down; I’m assuming that many of you had the day off, like I did, and thus weren’t sitting around surfing the web while pretending to work. From the comments, I expected this one to go for the Corvair, but imagine my surprise when it lost two-to-one to the Vanagon. The silent majority of Volkswagen lovers have spoken, it seems.
As for me, I’m team Corvair on this one. It’s just cooler. I can definitely respect the Vanagon, and I have a good friend who owns one and loves it, but that Corvair is just perfect: the mag wheels, the red and white interior, the patina, everything. I don’t even mind the rust and dents, actually.
I feel like I’ve been neglecting Japanese cars of late, and I guess the reason is that most of them I just don’t find very interesting. They’re excellent, no one can deny that, and do their job admirably, but it’s not really fun to read (or write) about a reliable car that does everything well, unless you’re actively shopping for a reliable car that does everything well. It’s not “Sensible Used Car Showdown,” after all.
However, if I’m going to celebrate the questionable cars, then sometimes I should give the sturdy, dependable ones their moment to shine as well, especially well-worn ones with lots of miles. So that’s what we’re going to check out today, in the form of a tidy Honda wagon and a very weird Toyota van. Here they are.
1992 Toyota Previa LE All-Trac – $4,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.4 liter overhead cam inline 4, four-speed automatic, AWD
Location: San Mateo, CA
Odometer reading: 347,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives great, current registration
Before the minivan market settled into the Caravan Formula – a transverse V6 driving the front wheels – manufacturers tried all sorts of things. Ford and GM scaled-down their full-size vans, Volkswagen soldiered on with rear-mounted flat-fours, and Japanese makers simply brought over their existing cab-over-engine vans, which were already “mini” by American standards. They were also weird by American standards, with drivetrain layouts and locations that hadn’t been seen since the early Ford Econolines and Dodge A-series vans.
The biggest problem with this arrangement is the big lump in the interior between (or under) the front seats. Toyota, after finding some success with its toaster-shaped TownAce (simply called “Van” here in the US), refined the design and flattened the floor for the Previa by laying the engine nearly on its side, only 15 degrees off horizontal, under the front seat. The engine in question is a longitudinally-mounted 2.4 liter four, driving the rear wheels, or, as in this case, all four.
Despite the high mileage, this van runs great, the seller says. They’ve owned it since 1998, and maintained it well mechanically. It’s currently registered and just passed a smog test, always a good sign. Even the air conditioning works.
It isn’t the prettiest thing on the road, though. The clearcoat is gone, one front fender and some side trim are mismatched, and despite the seller’s assertion that the interior was just detailed, it still looks pretty grubby to me. Still, it’s a good-running Toyota minivan, the predecessor to one that’s about to get a lot better-known around these parts.
1993 Honda Accord EX Wagon – $4,500
Engine/drivetrain: 2.2 liter overhead cam inline 4, five-speed manual, FWD
Location: Napa County, CA
Odometer reading: 217,000 miles
Operational status: Runs and drives great, current registration
The Honda Accord, in four-cylinder manual form, has been my go-to recommendation for a durable, reliable, economical car that’s also a bit of fun to drive for many years now. Choose whatever generation you like, you’ll find a willing engine under the hood, firm and direct controls under your hands, and a rock-solid platform supporting it all – as long as you avoid the rusty ones.
The fourth-generation Accord just about perfected the formula, with a fuel-injected 2.2 liter four, crisp styling, and excellent road manners. I’ve never owned an Accord of this generation, but I’ve admired them since they came out, and I’ve driven quite a few. It’s really hard to find fault with them – the performance, the economy, the driving position, and the visibility all add up to a near-perfect driving experience. There’s nothing special about it; it’s just all really, really good. I’m not sure how Honda engineers would feel about me saying they peaked thirty-three years ago, but I’m not sure I care, either.
This Accord EX wagon from the final year of this bodystyle is the one to get, too. An update in 1992 fixed the biggest problem with them – those damned motorized seat belts – by replacing them with a driver’s side airbag. The EX model has all the power toys, and the seller says it all works, though the driver’s side window is a little slow and sticky. It runs and drives great, and has had a ton of work done in the past year and a half to keep it that way.
Cosmetically, it looks like the worst damage has been caused by the sun. The interior has faded, but it’s intact and in good condition otherwise. The paint is dull, and somehow has failed, but only on the left pillar of the tailgate. There has to be a story behind that, though the seller doesn’t say what it is. But most Accords of this era turned to rust long ago, so this one is doing pretty well, it seems.
I already know you’re all going to say these two are both too expensive, and you’re probably right. Toyotas and Hondas tend to be over-valued in the used car market, because everyone knows they’re reliable and durable. Are they worth it? I can’t answer that for you. But this is all conjecture anyway, so ignore the price, and just focus on the cars. Which one jumps out at you?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
My sister dailies a Previa of this generation and likes it a lot.
Even so, I’m a Honda stan, so the Accord it is.
I’m a sucker for 4WD vans. The Toyota.
Owner of a fairly new to me 94 Accord sedan, automatic. Was my Mom’s and before that my neighbor’s Mom’s, <100k miles, garaged most of its life, and still looks pretty. That said, it’s fairly rusted underneath and has been a maintenance headache as soon I put it back on the road. Sitting in my barn for several years probably didn’t help it. First pin holes in the power steering rack hydraulic tubing, fixed those in place, then a leaking gas tank, then the exhaust. This week it’s making loud squeaking noises I traced to a lower ball joint with a torn boot so I just ordered an upper and lower set. Can’t wait to see what’s next. Thanks for letting me vent…
Oh, and I voted for the Previa and all it’s funkiness. Back when Toyota made interesting stuff
I’d say Toyota are making interesting stuff again now finally like the Corolla and Yaris GR. But not ‘here’s a mid engined AWD minivan’ levels of weird.
I hear ya, they are getting better but still not like the 90s stuff with the early All-Tracs, Previa, Celica, Supra, and MR2.
For me, wagon > van is pretty much always the case. Therefore, although both look like pretty decent cars, I’ll take the Honda.
I had to go with the manual wagon, but mainly because I had a 93 accord (non-wagon) with that transmission and they’re terrific cars. I always wished mine had been a wagon.
I had a ’90 with the fun seat belts and no airbags (I’d still be fine with that combo), and I’d just like to say that the automatic transmission was quite livable as well.
It was a pretty firm shifting auto and you could easily feather the throttle to get the shifts you wanted with the firmness (or not) that you wanted by letting off at the right time. Apparently partially due to the firmness of the shifts, the autos from 90-93 were very durable as well. Mine lasted well over 240k miles and on, as I sold it to my mechanic at the time so his helper could use it.
I got my brother’s ’91 Previa (not AWD though) from his estate and loved it. It was a decent off-roader as well, as long as you knew where the shock mounts were located. When we no longer needed a van, we sold it at 300k miles still running fine. If it had been the AWD version, we would have kept it. With that mid-engine layout, it handled really well in fast tight cornering. Massive interior space and clever seating options. Our daughter loved it when we set it up for the limo mode with the second seat facing backwards. Great vehicle, so of course I voted for the Previa. Oh, and it had been t-boned when only a week old too!
I’m a mark for Japanese wagons. Japanese vans, not usually so much.
As a poor recent college graduate I purchased the lower level Honda Civic. I lived that car until I was run off the road flipped several times and ended up in the woods. I was able to get it back on the road for $1,000 and was not hurt. I’ll go with the wagon
I’m all over that Accord wagon. Classic Honda design and 90’s relative simplicity.
The Previa is interesting with its mid-engine design and all-wheel drive, but still not enough to dissuade me from the Honda. Might be a harder choice if it had been an original cab-forward Toyota Van.
Aside — I passed a (very rusty, clapped-out) Previa on the highway yesterday. Still admirable for that legendary Toyota durability.
Both are good choices, but that’s peak era Honda to me so it’s the Accord all the way.
Sadly the pricing for both is California normal.
WHITE ACCORD WAGON!!!!!
I love these cars. I have two in my driveway right now. The handling, seating position, interior, and general character are in fact excellent. That D pillar paint failure seems to be an Accord wagon thing: one of my wagons had the paint missing on both rear pillars. Pretty easy rattle can paint correction though.
A couple corrections- I believe every wagon was an LX, not EX. With that sunroof especially. Also, I can confirm a 1991 wagon has an airbag and does not have power seatbelts.
80s and early 90s Hondas are just remarkably well built cars. The interiors hold up better than any other make and they’re just mechanically excellent.
Did you mean EX because of the sunroof not LX? They did offer both though, there have been a few LX wagons on Bring a Trailer fetching insane money. I think I’ve only seen more EXs out there with this gen, assume most people that were spending on an Accord wagon were going for the nicest one possible and budget buyers were more likely getting a Taurus wagon or Chrysler van instead.
I thought it was DX<EX<LX. Is that not the case?
Only two trim levels for 1992 Accord wagon, starting with LX and peaking with EX.
Ah – no, DX<LX<EX (<EX-L or SE when applicable), no DX on the wagons as Donald mentioned though.
Simpler times as nowadays it’s all variable, Sport can either be a step below an EX/EX-L (ex. Civic, Pilot), comparable to an EX (CR-V, sort of Accord), or a step above (Odyssey).
wasn’t the SE an EX with the DX/LX engine and passenger front airbag for the CB generation?
Mostly – the ’93 SE added the passenger airbag and leather + Bose as typical for SEs to that point, and various other unique trim bits. It did have the same 140hp as the EX of 92-93, and that output (along with ABS) first appeared in the ’91 SE (pre-airbags but still leather/Bose).
The CD/5th gen they moved to a regular EX-L which is what I was thinking of with the ‘or’ statement. But CD is when they started saying “Special Edition” more than SE and it moved to being a value trim in between LX and EX, so the way I put it could be confusing too. CD-on Special Editions were more like the CB 10th Anniversary (LX with ABS, body color trim & EX bits like the coupe alloys, but no moonroof and kept the LX engine).
More noting how Honda did used to make it simple and consistent. Canada OTOH was always different, I think LX/EX/EX-R this gen but parallel to DX/LX/EX.
You own TWO Accord wagons?
Are you considering adopting technically-adult children?
Two white accord wagons, no less. One of them even has VTEC.
Bruh
Both good choices. I went Accord, more for manual wagon and lower miles as others said. My manual Accords were 6th and 7th gens and I always admired the simple design of this gen. I feel like half the wagons I’ve seen are this color combo.
It did always bug me that the wagon debuted in the second year of this gen, the year before the facelift, and they changed the nose but left the taillights alone with the pre-facelift design – signals on top and horizontal lines. Felt incongruous next to the coupe and sedan, and seemed like if they knew the design was going to change they should have started with a new/different design. (I was an odd child, why do you ask?)
Fun fact: when Accord wagons debuted for ’91 they had the airbag standard, a year ahead of the sedan & coupe, so no Accord wagons ever had the motorized belts.
I’ve always liked Previas, but my ideal spec would be with the dual moonroofs, which you couldn’t get with All-Trac for some reason. (Weight?) Also what’s hanging down by the B-pillar in the second row?
They changed the nose?
Yes, 1991 kept the same front (and wheels etc) as the coupe/sedan and changed over at the same time, except carried over the earlier taillights. I’m sure the ratio of wagons left more heavily favors 92-93 based on an extra year and probably just increased volume after the intro year.
I like that Accord, but I have always wanted a Previa, and still do. I can’t think of a cheaper way to get a mid engine all wheel drive car in my life, so if Previa is possibility, I’m voting for it!
I was going to stay away from the wagon due to the awful shake of early ’90’s automatics at idle, but then I saw it was a manual, so it’ll be fine. My brother had one of these in rough shape. It was an interesting car.
You sure you didn’t just have cars with shot motor mounts? The active mount tended to go on these with age, usually if you put it in neutral, the shake went away.
Haha, it’s definitely possible. Yeah, in neutral, or once you started driving, the shake would go away.
Previa, the mid engine sports car of minivans. Or would be if it had a manual and supercharger (Was that combo offered?). Still, it’s a glorious design and I’ll take it as is, maybe swap the trans for fun. Yes, the mileage is a concern, but it’s like being offered a ride on the space shuttle versus an Airbus. I know which one I’m choosing, even if it does break up on reentry.
With the way the world is these days, breaking up on re entry tends to feel like a bonus?
Manuel Wagon wins out today.
If the van was the supercharged 5 speed spec it’d be a no brainer, going to have to wagon it up in this pairing though.
You couldn’t get a Previa with a stick and supercharger…it was one or the other, not both.
I know Previas are super reliable, but at this age and mileage, it will need some work, and working on that will be a freaking nightmare.
Honda all the way.
Manual wagon with a spot of brown – yup yup!
I like the Previa, but it’s not worth it for the 130k extra miles at the same price as the Honda.
I’d take both for $4,500. Since that’s not an option, I’d make a standing offer of $2,500 for the Previa and keep searching.
Tough call. We had the previous Gen toaster van with the 5 speed and a really weird custom interior. The dealership got base model utility versions and put in custom seats and carpet in the back. Front was stock base model. Anyway, required the manual to get out of its own way. Betting next Gen wasn’t much better so reluctant vote for the honda.
Manual Wagon! What more needs to be said?!
I’m going to be one of the few that voted for the Previa. But that’s just because I’ve always wanted one. Was hard to choose it over such a decent example of an Accord wagon.
Same thoughts here!
Honda, because manual transmission, and also just because I like Hondas of this vintage. Lower mileage counts, too.
Nothing really bad about the Previa. In fact, they’re neat-looking and not bad to drive.
It all boils down to my gut feeling that the Toyota is nearer the end of its road than the Honda.
I sold Hondas from 1980 to 2015 and this generation of the Accord is one of my favorites. I owned 15 Accord sedans, but never one of the wagons, to my dismay. If Honda had referred to it as a “Touring” or “Shooting Brake”, maybe the wagon would have generated more interest and survived longer. 🙂