Volvos aren't so much reliable as serviceable. You're always fixing something from a troublesome tail light to a flaky power window switch. They're built well by the standards of the time but they're not 1980 Honda Accord reliable. Don't even pretend they are. The only reason they last so long is because people are willing and able to fix them when they do break.
chiodos wrote: Maybe i should have mentioned i have 750,000 miles worth of 1980s volvo iron in my driveway. Not to mention cars dont rust in half where im from, they dont rust at all actually.
Well based upon that evidence, I guess that I need to offer my apologies and concede the Internet to you for the evening.
Goodnight Irv.
Woody does speak the truth about these! It was a sea change when it arrived. My dad got a 79 new, and people were just amazed by it at the time; the interior alone was far nicer than the other small cars of the time. My dad passed his down to me in ~87-88, and it still looked and drove like a new car with 150k on it, when most other cars of the day had already gone to the junkyard.
Mine ended up with the Kamei air dam, a bunch of A/T parts including sway bars and springs, and I think Tokico struts. Even with ~70hp, it was a hoot to drive.
David S. Wallens wrote: My Accord, like so many of them, was Sky Blue:
As was mine (actual photo):
It wasn't my first car, but it was my first car that wasn't a sub-$1000 beater. 85 Accord LX. I loved it. It was reliable-ish. I had a timing belt break on me while driving down the road (the motor sort of gently died). Non-interference engine, so a new timing belt and I was back in business. Also had an alternator die while driving it. Thing I remember about that was that the cassette I was listening to started to slow down just before the engine died. Mind you, it had over 100k on it when both of these things happened.
As for you, OP, I'm going to put on my Dad Hat and say that if you were my kid, I'd want you in something newer and safer with better crumple zones and airbags and more metal around you. Because you are going to crash. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when. That Accord is definitely a cool car, but as a first car for a young driver, eh, I dunno. I think a nice P71 might work better. 
I drive an 89 every day, but mine has fuel injection and a bunch more hp. I think mine has 120 and it's still perky enough to drive on modern streets pretty easily.
I think it's overpriced, unless the condition is absolutely perfect.
Honda did really well in that era.
The 79 4dr Accord we owned was like stepping into a new world after many years of GM cars. It had things in it GM never dreamed of. Odd thing is no AC. Dealer had to add that. We got lucky with buying the car. It had come in on the trailer that morning (wife had seen the trailer in the road on the way to work and called me) and the person who ordered it had found one somewhere else. Instead of going to the next person on the list, the salesman said its yours if you want it. I paid sticker list price. No gouging add-ons I didn't want. It was the last 79 Accord sold by Cale Yarborough Honda in Florence, SC.
I love the white-letter tires on the Accord hatch.
David S. Wallens wrote: I love the white-letter tires on the Accord hatch.
BF Goodrich Radial T/As, baby! 
They were ahead of their time as far as interior trim, and refinement were concerned. The original Accord really re-wrote the book on what was to be expected from a small car. They weren't all that much fun to drive, but they were smooth, reliable, and had a light feel to them.
If you are looking at the best cars from 1980 though, I'd rather have a Corolla. They were every bit as reliable as the Hondas, but had RWD, and were much more fun to hoon around in.
Of course I'm biased....I had a 1980 Corolla that I loved. I also had a friend with a 1980 Accord. It stranded us in the middle of IL once, after the crank broke! (never heard of that before or since....but it happened)
In CA, rust with these cars isn't a problem so people racked up huge amounts of mileage with this generation. They were momentum cars but the engines had a long stroke so there was some torque. 80 mph cruise would yield 30+mpg.
The big PITA is the brakes. New rotors meant removing the suspension corner and pressing off the rotor with the hub. So that also meant the wheel bearings required replacement as well. The Honda dealer had a special machine for turning rotors while still on the car. I would use only organic brake pads because semi-metallics would warp the rotors and run the grease out of the wheel bearings with the excessive heat.
In '91, a friend of mine had a fatal problem with the motor in her zillion-mile '80 Accord. She was moving to Houston in a week from LA so she was going to write the car off. I told her if she spent about $1,800 bucks, I could fix the car and drive it to Houston. Since that was a lot cheaper than replacing it, she said yes.
I called the Watanabe Co in the Valley and got a used Japanese take-out motor complete for $250. I also bought a new clutch, belts, a water pump, and a few front end parts. It took me a week of working nights and odd hours to swap the new goodies in. When done, the car ran and drove like a champ so I had the AC recharged at the local gas station, rubbed out the paint, and off I went to Houston. Apart from barely avoiding taking a turkey buzzard through the windshield at 80 mph in the hill country, the trip was uneventful. She drove that car into the new millennium.
It would be a cool car to keep around for the occasional novelty of driving around an old car, but I wouldn't want to daily that.
Tom_Spangler wrote:David S. Wallens wrote: I love the white-letter tires on the Accord hatch.BF Goodrich Radial T/As, baby!
What else, right?
You'll need to log in to post.
