he s2000! [/B][/QUOTE]
So was the Honda you were comparing to the 87 Reliant also used and about the same age? Also was it a Civic HB or CRX -- you mention both but they aren't the same car and didn't cost the same(with the CRX running $500-1000 more)? Lastly, were you comparing "equal" cars; for instance a bottom-of-the-line model Reliant with a bottom-of-the-line model Honda?

Having said all that, I would still fully expect a used Civic (or CRX) to cost more than a used Reliant (with them both being the same age) but I would also expect that the Honda would depreciate , at worst, the same rate as the Reliant -- thus you'd get most all your money back when you sold it. In addition, driving a Civic/CRX would be much more fun than that Reliant, and the Honda would most likely get much better gas milage (unless the Reliant had a smaller engine and was grossly underpowered).
[/B][/QUOTE]

STL,
I'd have to go look at some old Kelly's blue books to get the numbers- I was checking the Raleigh and Durahm, NC want ads daily for a couple of weeks- was more interested in the CRX Sis, but of course many of them had been driven harder. I was also looking at mid 80's accords. Basically, because Honda's had such a great reputation, the used ones were "overpriced" at the time ( just as a year ago, I would have said that while MSRP was a great price for an s2000, used ones selling at little or no discount to MSRP were "overpriced")- you are correct, a CRX Si or even an HB would have been more fun (I think they also made another 2 seat civic, but can't remember the designation). You're correct, the Honda would have gotten better mileage, although the Reliant got mid 20s, same as my s2000! My point is, I never thought I'd drive a car like that until I owned one, and it was a good purchase (and a much maligned car). Even today, Kelly's prices comparably equipped 87 CRX Si at nearly twice what the reliant would cost- and at the time I didn't want to spend twice as much for car. It's the same theory that was put forth at the time when minivans were coming out- since no one wanted american small wagons, they were the best value for the money. Of course, that buying strategy only works if a car sells poorly because it is unpopular, and that that unpopularity is due to trends or fashion, and not due to relialbility or "value"

 

At that time Civics came in HB and 4-door (and both were 4 seaters) with several different trim levels (std, DX, LX) and CRX were the only s seaters with different trim levels (std, DX, Si).

If you think about it, today's KBB prices are most likely further apart then they were back in 1990 because the Honda most certainly has held it value better. I doubt the CRX cost twice as much as the Reliant back then. I do see what you saying, but you're also comparing apples to oranges. Comparing 87 CRX Si versus a 87 Reliant (in 1990) is like a comparing Geo Metro to a S2000 -- yes the S2000 will cost more but they are really totally different cars.