Both of these cars were discontinued and very few were made to begin
with, so few in fact that Consumer Reports says "insufficient data"
for their reliability record.

What I'd like to know:

- What are likely to be my maintenance costs for a 1997 model
year of either one of these vehicles, over the next 3 years?

- Does any BMW really have significantly higher maintenance costs
than any Honda? Or is this likely to be proportional to the car's
price when new (which are about the same)? 

- Do discontinued cars necessarily have higher maintenance cost
than ones that are still manufactured? Please use a 1997 Honda
Accord V6 for comparison.

- Please find out the 0-60 acceleration performance for the 1997
model year of all 3 cars mentioned above, with automatic
transmissions.

- What is the general wisdom (Internet anecdotes OK) regarding
changing the color of a car? Maaco only charges $389 for a full
paint job... Is this a good idea?

- I have heard that some Extended Warranties are a ripoff. If
possible, please find one with good reputation, which would be
available for the 1997 cars mentioned above.

- Assume I'm only looking for low-mileage cars (70K on a '97).

---

Clarification of Question by atr-ga on 19 Aug 2003 14:38 PDT

In response to the comment... I'm a software engineer (not mechanically 
inclined). So, in terms of maintenance, I need labor costs in addition
to the cost of parts.

---

Clarification of Question by atr-ga on 26 Aug 2003 08:50 PDT

I've been able to estimate the elusive "maintenance" question
by looking at the costs of third-party warranties. Assuming
third-party warranty companies are not stupid, it would seem
like the maintenance on a 318ti is about 30% higher than it is
on a same-year Prelude.

I will close the question now.

If this were car talk, they would immediately want to know if you're a
man or woman, how old you are, are you single?  available?  how much
you enjoy maintaining and working on cars, etc.

I own a BMW 318i which I recently bought used.  I also have (and still
do) worked for a BMW service shop & parts store.  Although I'm not an
automotive technician (I can't fix cars).. I can answer these
questions for you.

BMWs are VERY rare to have problems.  I had a 1989 before my present
one (1997), and both were in near perfect condition.  A lot does
depend on the previous owner, history, etc..  but one was owned by a
spotless, granny who never went anywhere, and the other owned by a
reckless, 21 year old boy who liked to go out drinking & leave the
windows open when it rained.  From what I've seen-- the Hondas are
more likely to have a few more problems, due to a lesser production
quality, and more often a lot more use.

     I'd absolutely, positively, go with the BMW-- it is proven to
hold up a lot longer, and of course, be the better performance
vehicle.

  BUT- you do need to remember, that while BMWs need service less- the
cost is a lot more. The maintenance cost is not the problem, but the
parts will cost you a LOT more.  Ex.. a screw that would be 39 cents
anywhere else, is 1.19 for a BMW.  Take any part for an average
(Honda, Subaru, Toyota, etc) car.. and X the cost by around 3-- that
will be the cost if you buy BMW parts.

Personally, I think it's much more worthwhile.   The Honda will
probably give you a lot more acceleration, possibly speed... but the
BMW a lot more luxury, and comfort.

Sorry I didn't answer all of your questions, and certainly not
systematically, but as I've driven both cars (Honda & BMW) - I wanted
to throw my 2 cents in ;)

-Rebekah

Thanks for your comments.

But even if nothing goes wrong with the car, what about regular maintenance
such as oil changes, transmission service, brakes, radiator, rubber
replaceables (seals / gaskets / belts / hoses), etc?

What about regular 50,000, 75,000, and 100,000 mile service?

I heard BMW transmissions are "sealed"... does that mean that you cannot
service a BMW transmission at Jiffy Lube, but only at a BMW shop?