a '97 civic ex coupe five-speed with 130,000 miles and an unknown service history or a '94 civic ex coupe five-speed with 57,000 miles bought from a trusted and responsible friend?

so i currently drive the '97 civic. it's a great little car, and drives beautifully, but still i bought it from a used car dealership, and of course it has no service records, and in the back of my mind i always feel like it will turn out the engine was held on with duct tape or something equally ridiculous. i've owned it for about a year now, with no problems at all (well, the compressor on the a/c did just die), but when i look at it i find myself wondering "is the car leaning to the left too much?" "what was that noise in the idle just now?" etc.

now, i just found out a client that i've worked for for years is selling his '94 civic (again, ex coupe). he's been the only owner, and it's been garage kept. he doesn't drive it to work (he lives in chicago), so most of the miles are in-town weekend driving. he does take it out on the highway from time to time to give the car a chance to work a bit. he's very conscientous about cars and has all of the service records, and says that nothing major has gone wrong with it.

so, it has half the miles of the car i currently own, but is three years older. i know that any car can fall apart at any time, but which one would you all consider to be more reliable? which car would be better to drive? from pictures i've found, it seems the '94 has a similar body style to the '97. can anyone confirm that? i've found a few reviews that say the 92-95 civics lack punch in acceleration. i don't need to beat people off the line at stop lights, but i do zip through traffic a good bit (it's the training on the chicago streets), so i want a car that has decent acceleration. i'm quite happy with my current car in that respect.

oh, i should mention that price isn't an issue -- he's willing to sell it to me for $3500, which is $600 below blue book, so i might even make a few hundred dollars selling my current car.

any thoughts anyone has would be most appreciated. let me know if i forgot to include any relevant information.

 

In Chicago/Indy/New York any big city, nothing beats a V6+ but if I had to choose between those two I'd go with what you know. You know the 94 has been well kept, and has nothing wrong with it. Although nothing major has happened to your 97, there is always the chance of the "Backwoods Mechanic" fix breaking on you. I'd take the 94.

 

thanks for writing back, pitchblack. your thoughts are similar to mine ... even if it's a bit older, i'd rather have something i know has been taken better care of, be it a car or a computer or a sandwich (okay, not the sandwich ... haha). does anyone else disagree?

does anyone know much about the changes from a '94 to a '97 civic? should it drive about the same? i know the basic amenities (power windows, tape player, a/c, etc.) are all in both ex models. are there any major styling differences that might be disappointing when i see the car?

again, many thanks to everyone who's read this, and especially any responders. it's always great to have some expert opinions behind a decision

 

Well, I wouldn't call my opinion "expert" in any sense of the word, but I'd like to second what Pitch said. It's always better to go with what you know, rather than what you don't. Also, the fact that it has 70,000+ less miles on it is a huge factor, imo.

My vote is for the '94.

 

+1^^^ will get more miles out of the car than the 97^^^

 

obviously you know that this is the same as your car (you may have a coupe though) but these are for sedans, the weight and length may vary a bit


Specs:
Engine Type and Size inline sohc 16-valve 4-cylinder,1590 cc / 97 cu. in.
Horsepower 127 @ 6600
Torque (lb-ft) 107 @ 5500
Transmission 5-speed manual, 4-speed EC auto opt.
Wheelbase / Length 103.2 in. / 175.1 in.
Curb Weight 2518 lbs.
Pounds Per Horsepower 19.8
Fuel Capacity 11.9 gal.
Fuel Requirement unleaded regular
Brakes, front/rear vented disc / drum
Drivetrain front engine / front drive





and for the 94


Specs:
Engine Type and Size inline sohc 16-valve 4-cylinder,1590 cc / 97 cu. in.
Horsepower 125 @ 6600
Torque (lb-ft) 106 @ 5500
Transmission 5-speed manual, 4-speed EC auto opt.
Wheelbase / Length 103.2 in. / 173.0 in.
Curb Weight 2213 lbs.
Pounds Per Horsepower 17.7
Fuel Capacity 11.9 gal.
Fuel Requirement unleaded regular
Brakes, front/rear vented disc / drum
Drivetrain front engine / front drive

 

Definitely hit up the 94. The EG coupes are money both for style and pick up. The EX I can tell you first hand has no trouble getting up to speed, especially once you hit the high RPMs. Hello VTEC. That guy is pretty much letting you steal that car from him for that price. The style is pretty much the same as the EK coupes but the EK are a bit bigger I believe and EGs have the slight lip on the hood. There sort of like inbred cousins.................really similar.

 

i would take the 94 .. just because, u know the person has taken care of it and has not beat on it.. evn tho its 3 years older than the one u already have.. it will probably bring u better luck in the long run because u dont know who had your car that u have now before u.. if your worried about acceleration, get some after market parts ( if thats ur thing)

 

heck get the 94!!, if you need more power swap a motor, as far as the ride goes, I currently have a 2000 and miss my 95 more than anything!!!! Out of the 2, for whatever reason, the older civic just was more fun and comfortable to drive(in stock trim)

 

go with the 94 bro...I know 130k on a civic isnt anything to worry about, but you'll get many more miles out of the 94