I've had a 1993 with 222,000 (5 spd, original motor) for 40,000 and
this month got a 1997 with 188,000 (AT, motor replaced at 188K
due to continued driving after head gasket failure - prior owner).

So, recall in looking over the used car ads (craigslist.com) it dawned on me that I saw occasional 1997 generation models
with whole engines being replaced - liked mine was. But I don't recall the same with the 1993 generation, they seem to have the original engines.
Maybe my data base is too small?

So my question is: is one of these generations (1993 vs. 1997) known as being more reliable than the other?
If so, what causes the problems ...
Been active on the forum only this month so far. good info here, imo.

Thanks

 

Peronally, they all have their issues. IMHO, both of these gens (4th and 5th) are pretty solid....heck the guy on the news got 1M miles on a 4th gen....knock on wood, I have 370K on a 5th gen.

 

the f22a engines are a better platform over the f22bx engines.

I'm a 4gen man...I have owned a cd5 (5th gen) and I still like my 4th gen much better. The f22a engines are a really good engine. Has a much better flowing head and ppl underestimate the potential of the f22a engines. Although the f22bx engine blocks are IDENTICAL just the header are different.
IMPO I say go with the 4th gen accord