If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
CR-V safety recall
I just got in the mail a safety recall on my 2010 CR-V. It has to do
with the auto transmission control module software. I called one dealer and they said to allow 1/2 day but realistically if anyone knows, how long does the actual repair take? And do they just plug into the electronics to make the change or have to change out the module itself? |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
CR-V safety recall
On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 06:50:56 -0500, "Observer" > wrote:
>I just got in the mail a safety recall on my 2010 CR-V. It has to do >with the auto transmission control module software. I called one >dealer and they said to allow 1/2 day but realistically if anyone >knows, how long does the actual repair take? And do they just plug >into the electronics to make the change or have to change out the >module itself? My 2009 was completed this week. Car in @ 0945, promised beween 3-4 p.m. and that included oil change and state inspection. Their work estimate for the 4 hours, for what I understand is simply a software reprogramming . Was ready @ noon. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
CR-V safety recall
"Observer" wrote in message ... I just got in the mail a safety recall on my 2010 CR-V. It has to do with the auto transmission control module software. I called one dealer and they said to allow 1/2 day but realistically if anyone knows, how long does the actual repair take? And do they just plug into the electronics to make the change or have to change out the module itself? My wife's CRV was done together with an A1 service -- total time was a little over an hour. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
CR-V safety recall
"Observer" > wrote in news:ug2397tirgmg673fmleqfe7hikfuu466p6@
4ax.com: > I just got in the mail a safety recall on my 2010 CR-V. It has to do > with the auto transmission control module software. I called one > dealer and they said to allow 1/2 day but realistically if anyone > knows, how long does the actual repair take? And do they just plug > into the electronics to make the change or have to change out the > module itself? This one is just a software flash. Probably takes less than a half-hour, all told. The "1/2 day" thing would have more to do with the service department's workflow than anything else. It basically means they're not quite sure exactly when they're going to get to your car, depending on what happens with the ones that come before it. -- Tegger |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
CR-V safety recall
In article >,
Tegger > wrote: > This one is just a software flash. hehehe Yeah, just like I had to get a new control module, complete with new software, when Honda replaced my 02 Odyssey transmission last year. And just like Honda reflashed the ECUs on all those Civic hybrids that were going through batteries. The SOLE purpose of this and all other Honda "software flashes" is to benefit Honda by making the car perform in such a way as to get it through the warranty period--never mind how the car performs for the customer afterward. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
CR-V safety recall
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
CR-V safety recall
In article >,
Tegger > wrote: > Actually, most software flashes are designed to eliminate or ameliorate > undesirable or destructive behavior. Like the hybrid flash? Which was designed to do exactly what you describe. BUT: the customer pays in lower gas mileage. In days past, Honda would have apologized for designing/building a bad traction battery, and would have replaced the battery with one that actually works to make the car what the car is supposed to be. IOW, Honda would have eliminated the undesirable behavior--the battery going bad early--while simultaneously delivering on their promise of what the car is supposed to be. Instead, the new Honda simply flashes the software to basically limp the battery along until Honda's obligations with respect to warranty claims are over. That the flash takes the gas mileage down to what a Civic LX gets every day without effort, is the customer's problem. Honda has spent quite a bit of time figuring out how to solve THEIR problems ($$$$$) in software. Whether it FIXES the problem, whether or not the car the customer gets back is the car the customer bought or THOUGHT he bought, doesn't matter to the new Honda. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
CR-V safety recall
On 10/09/2011 06:14 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In >, > > wrote: > >> Actually, most software flashes are designed to eliminate or ameliorate >> undesirable or destructive behavior. > > Like the hybrid flash? > > Which was designed to do exactly what you describe. > > BUT: the customer pays in lower gas mileage. > > In days past, Honda would have apologized for designing/building a bad > traction battery, and would have replaced the battery with one that > actually works to make the car what the car is supposed to be. IOW, > Honda would have eliminated the undesirable behavior--the battery going > bad early--while simultaneously delivering on their promise of what the > car is supposed to be. > > Instead, the new Honda simply flashes the software to basically limp the > battery along until Honda's obligations with respect to warranty claims > are over. That the flash takes the gas mileage down to what a Civic LX > gets every day without effort, is the customer's problem. > > Honda has spent quite a bit of time figuring out how to solve THEIR > problems ($$$$$) in software. Whether it FIXES the problem, whether or > not the car the customer gets back is the car the customer bought or > THOUGHT he bought, doesn't matter to the new Honda. to be fair to honda, they don't actually make the battery cells, and a lot of those are well below par of late. all kinds of manufacturers [users] have been hit all across the board, not just honda. now, many have worked with their supplier and will replace the defects free of charge, makita for instance. so really, your criticism is really directed to honda for /not/ doing the right thing with their supplier, and not replacing sub-par battery packs. -- nomina rutrum rutrum |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
CR-V safety recall
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In >, > > wrote: > >> Actually, most software flashes are designed to eliminate or ameliorate >> undesirable or destructive behavior. > > Like the hybrid flash? > > Which was designed to do exactly what you describe. > > BUT: the customer pays in lower gas mileage. > This has been well described in multiplle sources. Shameful to say the least. If I were a Honda hybrid owner, I would be thoroughly ****ed and waging a war. Once a car company has a tainted record, it takes years to recover IF it recovers at all. I'll just stick with my old turd boxes.. . Thank you! JT |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
CR-V safety recall
On 10/10/2011 04:06 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In >, jim > > wrote: > >>> Instead, the new Honda simply flashes the software to basically limp the >>> battery along until Honda's obligations with respect to warranty claims >>> are over. That the flash takes the gas mileage down to what a Civic LX >>> gets every day without effort, is the customer's problem. >>> >>> Honda has spent quite a bit of time figuring out how to solve THEIR >>> problems ($$$$$) in software. Whether it FIXES the problem, whether or >>> not the car the customer gets back is the car the customer bought or >>> THOUGHT he bought, doesn't matter to the new Honda. >> >> to be fair to honda, they don't actually make the battery cells, and a >> lot of those are well below par of late. all kinds of manufacturers >> [users] have been hit all across the board, not just honda. > > Not the customer's problem. Honda sold them something, then failed to > deliver--and we're supposed to be "fair to Honda"? > > The battery problem is Honda's problem, but instead the new Honda makes > the customer pay the price. The REAL solution would be to give the > customer what the customer actually paid for--but no, that would cost > Honda money. No, it's better for HONDA that they spend as little as > possible to fix the problem--and that means developing a one-time > software fix instead of paying for parts to fix it. > > The Honda I knew would have been falling over themselves to apologize > while they fitted a different battery that allowed the car to meet ALL > performance specs as advertised, not just a "lasts the length of the > federally mandated 8 year warranty (but doesn't do diddly to increase > your gas mileage)" spec. > > Look: if Honda wants to play with the big boys, then they have to step > up to the plate and play. They can't have it both ways. They can't > commit to something, sell the hell out of it to hundreds of thousands of > customers, then step back and point at their suppliers and shrug their > shoulders. > > > >> now, many have worked with their supplier and will replace the defects >> free of charge, makita for instance. so really, your criticism is >> really directed to honda for /not/ doing the right thing with their >> supplier, and not replacing sub-par battery packs. > > That's EXACTLY my point. we're on the same page re solution dude. i was only pointing out that this is a problem across the board with rechargables, and not just honda have been affected. we also agree honda should step up to the plate and do the right thing on replacement, but that's not what they've done, and it's not what they're going to do going forward either based on what i can see. the way they ****ed their customer base over on transmissions [we know it's deliberate because this crosses product lines, and is compounded by their not supplying the after-market] is what killed it for me. that's why i won't buy a new honda. -- nomina rutrum rutrum |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Official: U.S. had to force Toyota into safety recall | john | Technology | 8 | February 3rd 10 04:14 PM |
2008-09 Canadian Civic safety recall | M.A. Stewart | Honda | 12 | December 12th 08 10:48 PM |
Safety Recall F22 | Mike Albanese | Jeep | 2 | August 15th 06 01:24 AM |
Safety Recall - Bonnet Closure - 156 | hologram | Alfa Romeo | 11 | August 4th 06 12:34 AM |
Vehicle Safety Recall Notification | Doug | Alfa Romeo | 5 | December 13th 04 11:02 PM |