And yet even more on the legendary Honda failing transmissions--Honda won't let you buy a new one on your own

On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:50:13 +0000 (UTC), Tegger >
wrote:

>Dddudley > wrote in news:4c6d45d1$0$14557
:
>
>
>>
>> FWIW, I gotta think that there is some federal trade regulation that
>> requires the automakers to produce and maintain a supply of component
>> parts for their vehicles and that the time frame for that would be more
>> than 7 - 8 years.
>
>
>
>There isn't one anymore. There WAS one at one time, which was repealed
>around the late-60s or so.

You might want to contact your local states attourney general office
and see what they say about it.

Flatlander > wrote in
:

> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 10:50:13 +0000 (UTC), Tegger >
> wrote:
>
>>Dddudley > wrote in news:4c6d45d1$0$14557
:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> FWIW, I gotta think that there is some federal trade regulation that
>>> requires the automakers to produce and maintain a supply of
>>> component parts for their vehicles and that the time frame for that
>>> would be more than 7 - 8 years.
>>
>>
>>
>>There isn't one anymore. There WAS one at one time, which was repealed
>>around the late-60s or so.
>
> You might want to contact your local states attourney general office
> and see what they say about it.
>



Uh, why? The orignal law was federal, not state.


--
Tegger

ACAR > wrote in news:44aba925-d619-4fce-aecb-
:

> On Aug 20, 6:56*am, Tegger > wrote:
>
>>
>> > One thing for sure, Elmo's situation is another nail in the coffin of
>> > me ever upgrading to more modern transportation...
>>
>> Here's another one:
>>
>>snip
>
> How many RAV4s require the same repair as your example?



Pretty much all of them past about 150K miles, give or take. That's about
as long as any of them go now, before the dreaded P0420 DTC, Hondas
included.



>
> I just had my '89 Legend towed away. Don't even try to tell me that
> systems on that generation vehicle are anywhere near as reliable as
> the current crop.



Oh, they were. Given proper maintenance, they were just about bullet-proof.
The problem was, many were not given proper maintenance. That's why the
feds eventually imposed OBD-II.

Imagine how simple and reliable the 1991 system could be now, if automakers
had had 19 years to perfect it, and if EPA engineers weren't so hell-bent
on giving reasons why they should continue to suck from that juicy federal
teat.



> You need to go back to 1960s cars for mechanically
> simple.


But quite a lot less durable and reliable. By 1991, they'd hit the
motherlode for reliability, durability, and low emissions. But the federal
meddlers couldn't leave well-enough alone.




--
Tegger

In article
>,
ACAR > wrote:

> Elmo probably knew about the weak Honda trans when he bought the
> Odyssey. He should have brought the car into the dealership for an
> annual routine trans service so when it failed Honda would have a
> service history.

Elmo knew the 4 speeds were weak. This was a new model transmission,
the 5 speed.

Every bit of service done to the van was done at this one dealership.
There was no dearth of service history. And the transmission was
maintained ACCORDING TO HONDA'S SPECIFICATIONS. This much was
acknowledged by the dealership.

According to Honda in their Service News, in an article where they warn
against transmission flushes:

> In Honda vehicles, the transmission, as well as the systems that handle
> lubrication, cooling, fuel, and power steering, are designed to give
> thousands of miles of trouble-free service if you follow the maintenance
> schedule to the letter.

ServiceNews, Feb 2006, p. 4.

Looks like Honda lied, then chose to make the customer pay for it.

I used to tell great stories about how Honda took care of their
customers when Honda screwed up. While I will continue to tell those
stories, I will also tell THIS story for the rest of my life--and frame
it as how Honda screwed up big time and lost a customer.

I should have paid, at the most, the 12 hours of labor that this took,
and Honda should have AT LEAST picked up the entire cost of the
transmission itself. Instead, I paid $2218--and Honda considers that a
GENEROUS goodwill gesture.

This is a perfect example of penny wise, pound foolish.

Will I ever own a Honda anymore? Who knows. But American Honda Motor
Manufacturing did a superb job of taking my automatic response to
spending $30K--"shoot, that's a LOT of money, better buy a Honda"--and
turning it into, "shoot, that's a LOT of money, why risk it on a Honda?".

On 08/20/2010 06:09 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In >,
> > wrote:
>
>>> You need to go back to 1960s cars for mechanically
>>> simple.
>>
>>
>> But quite a lot less durable and reliable. By 1991, they'd hit the
>> motherlode for reliability, durability, and low emissions. But the federal
>> meddlers couldn't leave well-enough alone.
>
> Make mine a 4 cylinder manual transmission Honda. They haven't figured
> out yet how to screw that one up.

i don't know - the input shaft bearing [nearest the flywheel] on the
cable operated ef civic manual transmission's isn't a paragon of
reliability. they seem to have fixed it on later models though.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in

xample.com:


>
> ServiceNews, Feb 2006, p. 4.
>
> Looks like Honda lied, then chose to make the customer pay for it.




I'm not sure how this is a lie. That's the no-flush mention. It does NOT
prohibit drain-and-fill, which all any AT needs.



>
> Will I ever own a Honda anymore? Who knows. But American Honda Motor
> Manufacturing did a superb job of taking my automatic response to
> spending $30K--"shoot, that's a LOT of money, better buy a Honda"--and
> turning it into, "shoot, that's a LOT of money, why risk it on a
> Honda?".
>


You won't have a lot better luck with any other make, frankly. Federal
government regulations now impose such horrendous costs on automakers that
they're all dumbing-down their cars and their after-sales service. Honda
remains one of the better ones.


--
Tegger

Is this "legendary transmission problem" something that I should start
watching for in a few years when the mileage on my 09 Civic EX (4cyl/4-door
sedan/5-speed auto trans) gets into the high five figures?

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in message
...
> Some of you know about my 2002 Odyssey with 73K miles and its failed
> transmission, and American Honda's "generous" offer to pay 50% toward
> the cost of replacing it.
>
> And, of course, you know my feelings on the subject.
>
> Anyway, I dropped the van off yesterday. In talking with the service
> writer, he indicated that as of about six months ago, if you need to
> replace the transmission in your 02 or 03 V6 Honda, and you come in to
> ask that the dealership do this, American Honda will not sell you a
> replacement unit of any kind under any circumstances.
>
> Please allow me to repeat this: American Honda will not sell you a
> working transmission to replace the self-destructing one they sold you 8
> or 9 years ago when you bought the car new.
>
> The ONLY way to get an American Honda transmission, he said, is if you
> are under some sort of warranty or goodwill accommodation with American
> Honda.
>
> ????
>
> So the natural question is, how do you handle customers who for whatever
> reason are not under such an arrangement?
>
> This particular dealership has an arrangement with a junkyard to get
> units from them. The junkyard "warrants" them for life (or, as we all
> know, just keeps throwing units at the customer as the old ones die--but
> no doubt the customer ends up paying labor, right?).
>
> I didn't pursue this with the service writer. I'll talk with the
> service manager this week to clarify. I mean, this sounds low rent
> sleazy.
>
> Interesting side note: The transmission I'm getting as part of my
> goodwill arrangement is sufficiently different from the grenaded factory
> unit that it needs a different control program. Since my control module
> can't be flashed, Honda requires that I get a new computer with this new
> transmission--hence the high cost of the overall job. Honda's TSBs
> flesh this out; this is so important to Honda that years ago, after they
> had already replaced a bunch of transmissions and later discovered the
> need for the new control program, they went back and GAVE the
> already-repaired customers brand new computers for free.
>
> Of course, now I have to PAY for the computer...
>
> Anyway, this puts the idea of taking it to AAMCO into a whole new light.
> I don't know the TRUE importance of the new control program; would a
> third-party-rebuilt unit similarly self-destruct a few years down the
> road because neither the inherent design nor the control computer was
> taken care of?
>
> Inquiring minds and all that.
>
> For reference, Honda's 50% accommodation leaves me holding the bag for
> $2218 plus tax.
>
> In my mind, that's just retroactively raising the price of the van
> $2218. And to think that when I bought it, it was the most expensive
> car this dealership had ever sold. Apparently, that wasn't good enough.
>

On 08/20/2010 05:50 PM, Tegger wrote:
> > wrote in news:44aba925-d619-4fce-aecb-
> :
>
>> On Aug 20, 6:56�am, > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>> One thing for sure, Elmo's situation is another nail in the coffin of
>>>> me ever upgrading to more modern transportation...
>>>
>>> Here's another one:
>>>
>>> snip
>>
>> How many RAV4s require the same repair as your example?
>
>
>
> Pretty much all of them past about 150K miles, give or take. That's about
> as long as any of them go now, before the dreaded P0420 DTC, Hondas
> included.
>
>
>
>>
>> I just had my '89 Legend towed away. Don't even try to tell me that
>> systems on that generation vehicle are anywhere near as reliable as
>> the current crop.
>
>
>
> Oh, they were. Given proper maintenance, they were just about bullet-proof.

honda's of that generation are great - later 80's/early 90's was their
finest hour. great mechanicals, great ergonomics, they really were at
the top of their game.


> The problem was, many were not given proper maintenance. That's why the
> feds eventually imposed OBD-II.
>
> Imagine how simple and reliable the 1991 system could be now, if automakers
> had had 19 years to perfect it,

in terms of achieving goals, the technical challenge since the period
above is that of life limitation, not getting it to work well or
"improvement". with bean counters setting the engineering agendas, it's
all about getting stuff to last for a design period, but then having it
fail. light bulb manufacturers figured this out decades ago - that's
why things like domestic tungsten filament bulbs only last 800 or 1000
hours - it's what they're designed for. apply the same principles to
cars, and you have a more predictable revenue stream. or so they think.
truth is though, designing in failure costs a lot more and takes a
heck of a lot more in r&d and lead time for testing than just making it
to work reliably. when the bean counters do their math, they'll model
increased sales decreased lifespans create, but it seems they don't
factor in reputation damage or losing customer loyalty.



> and if EPA engineers weren't so hell-bent
> on giving reasons why they should continue to suck from that juicy federal
> teat.
>
>
>
>> You need to go back to 1960s cars for mechanically
>> simple.
>
>
> But quite a lot less durable and reliable. By 1991, they'd hit the
> motherlode for reliability, durability, and low emissions. But the federal
> meddlers couldn't leave well-enough alone.

mechanically, that's pretty much correct, some engine improvements
aside. but i'm not sure that emissions regs are as you say. fact is,
manufacturers like honda have always been way ahead of any regs on
economy and emissions, and will probably continue to be so.

fromt he political perspective though, when we have regulators who
mandate emissions and economy targets for manufacturers, but then waive
those requirements if a honking great gas guzzler has a few different
o-rings in it so that it qualifies as "flex fuel" and is thus exempt
from c.a.f.e., you /know/ that the regs are a secondary concern.



>
>
>
>


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

So, then, if I think I'm likely to keep the Civic beyond the expiration of
the factory warranty, would the "legendary transmission problem" make it
advisable to purchase an extended warranty?

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" > wrote in message
...
> In article > ,
> "PE" > wrote:
>
>> Is this "legendary transmission problem" something that I should start
>> watching for in a few years when the mileage on my 09 Civic EX
>> (4cyl/4-door
>> sedan/5-speed auto trans) gets into the high five figures?
>
> Not the same one, but yes--the auto transmission in a modern car is by
> far the weakest link in the whole chain.
>
> And let's face it: Honda is just like GM now, where they plan the car
> to become obsolete so that you come back and buy a new one.
>
> From what I've seen, it's cheap insurance to change the trans fluid at
> least twice as often as what Honda says. No guarantees, though. But if
> you're religious about having your maintenance and repairs done at the
> dealer, that kind of diligence shows Honda that you're serious--and when
> the transmission fails at 75K miles (not saying it will), you have a leg
> to stand on when demanding accommodation for the repair.
>

On 8/19/2010 6:48 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<OoSdnZjWeuO_1PDRnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d@speakeasy .net>,
> jim > wrote:
>
>> at this stage elmo, this might be a local decision rather than
>> corporate. i know i will dump problem customers once they reach a
>> certain "pita" point. and you're almost certainly pressing their
>> buttons big time.
>
> Screw 'em. They pressed my buttons the moment the tranny started
> failing on a gently used original owner 2002 Honda that went out the
> door for $30K.
>
> If this is the best they can do...
>
> I didn't call the Honda customer service line, on advice of many people
> who should be knowledgeable who all advised that 50% was the limit.
> Plus, I just wanted to move on.
>
> I'm sure glad I didn't settle for the 25%, though. It's all about
> knowing where that line is. I *think* 50% is the line today, without a
> HUGE amount of hassle.



Dec 02 I bought a new 03 Accord EX-L V6 from dealer A.

Jul 07 I bought new 07 Accord EX-L V6, this time from dealer B.

May 08 the 03 Accord transmission went out at 85,300 miles. I brought
it to dealer B. Next day they called and said the trans was shot, did I
want them to fix it and did I want them to call Honda and see if they
could do anything for me, since I was an established Honda customer. I
said sure. Next call was that they could put in a factory rebuilt,
36,000 3 year warranty, and split the cost 50-50 (about 1550. to me). I
said go. Two days later he called and said it was done. Total out the
door cost to me was $1492.14 (less than the estimate - and they gave me
a free oil change since it was due - note dealer B had never seen or
serviced this car before)

I don't know if an 02 Odyssey is a much more expensive trans than an 03
Accord, or if the time/difficulty to change it is so much greater to
account for the difference between my 50% (1492.14 including tax) and
your 50% ($2218 plus tax)

I bought the vehicle knowing it had a 36,000 mile, 36 month warranty. I
was quite pleased with the adjustment I got, realizing I was 49,300
miles and 41 months over the warranty. (More than double both time and
miles).

In your case you are 37,000 miles and 60 months past the warranty. For
how many miles and how many months should/can any manufacturer stand
ready to do multi-thousand dollar repairs on every unit it has ever built?