Obsolete Moon Roof



i have a beloved 1995 Honda Accord EX , 4 cylinder with * 66,000 * original miles. It gets 24 mpg (city) and 30 mpg (h). It has been maintained on schedule and always garaged.

During a recent heavy rain storm that lasted less than an hour, the interior got soaked. My mechanic determined that the Moon Roof’s rubber seal was at fault. He told me that the seal was an integral part of the unit, could not be replaced separately, and that the part was obsolete. He suggested that we/he seal it permanently with caulk.

As we live in Arizona, I seldom use the Moon Roof.

Any other ideas?


Is this the factory moon roof or an aftermarket add-on? If it is a factory roof, the seal will leak, but the factory set-up includes a drain pan with a drain that runs through the roof pillars. It will leak into the interior if the drains are clogged. Unclog the drains and that should fix the problem.

If it is aftermarket cut into the factory roof, you could replace it with another kit of the same or similar size or caulk it in place.


Thank you Busted Knuckles,

It is a factory installed roof.

i don’t think your idea would work.

Tests showed the water entering car from the center back of the moon roof… and pouring right down on the drink holder and center console. The water didn’t even have time to flow toward the sides…

But I am annoyed that Honda, knowing how long its cars last, no longer makes this ~$700 part…


I would still try clearing the drains, I have a 1989 Accord that did the same thing and after the dealership cleared out all four drains for the roof it hasn’t leaked a drop on the interior since.


Thanks. Will suggest your idea to my mechanic.

I love my Honda… In the 15 years I’ve had it all I’ve done is is rear brake job, repair an oil leak, replace the muffler, the accumulator/modulator, and the timing belt, and fix a faulty electric window control. Of course, I’ve seen to the normal maintenance. I’m a defensive driver, always signal, never tailgate, make no sudden starts or stops, and plan my trips to maximize gas usage and reduce wear and tear.


Whether or not you think it will work, it is worth a try. If you are skeptical, that is fine, but you came here for help for a reason.


what makes you think i’m skeptical? - i said i would suggest the idea to my mechanic


You wrote:

i don’t think your idea would work.

Here is the definition of skeptical:

? ?/?sk?pt?k?l/ [skep-ti-kuhl]

  1. inclined to skepticism; having doubt
  2. showing doubt

Now do you understand?


At 4:01, I expressed my doubt to “Busted Knuckles”.

At 4:04, nfa480 joined the discussion and explained that he had had the same problem and that Busted Knuckles’ idea had worked for him.

At 4:49, I read nfa480’s comment, immediately thanked him, and told him that I would suggest the idea to my mechanic.

At 5:01, 11 minutes after I wrote the above, you chimed in. You did NOT offer a suggestion or confirmation of what was suggested. Rather, you accused me of being skeptical and sarcastically wrote “you came here for help for a reason.”

At 5:25, I queried, “what makes you think i’m skeptical? - i said i would suggest the idea to my mechanic.”

At 7:21, almost two hours after I asked you why you said what you did, you gave me the definition of skeptical, and repeated what I wrote in response to the first contributor. You totally ignored my answer to the second contributor and ended sarcastically, “Now do you understand?”

I think your sarcasm is rude and uncalled for. If Busted Knuckles, the first responder, did not like my initial answer and expressed his displeasure I might understand. But, you chimed in 11 minutes after i said i would tell my mechanic about the idea.

If you wrote that you had not seen my response to nfa480 when before you sent in your first comment, I would have understood. But you had over two hours to see that your comments were uncalled for and RUDE.


I believe it is possible to be skeptical and still mention it to your mechanic at the same time.

You asked Whitey why he thought you were skeptical, and he answered. Why do you interpret that as sarcastic and rude?


First, I never said you were skeptical, I said, “If you are skeptical, that is fine…” However, since you didn’t seem to understand the nature of skepticism, I thought I would offer you some info. Sorry you saw that as sarcastic and rude. It wasn’t meant to be either. It was a direct answer to your direct question. Perhaps if you didn’t have a chip on your shoulder, you would have seen that.