Has Honda's run - run out?

grbeck

saugatak: "Not trying to insult you, but I'm not going to take your word about a law review article that the conventional wisdom on the Pinto is all wrong."

The article is found in 43 Rutgers Law Review (1991), beginning on page 1013. It was written by UCLA law professor Gary T. Schwartz. The memo and the article, unfortunately, are not on the web. I checked.

On page 1022, the article states that NHTSA developed the $200,000 figure as a standard in 1972 as a way to calculate the social costs of motor vehicle accidents. That is why Ford and other automobile companies used that figure, not because they were trying to figure out ways to dodge making improvements in a design.

saugatak: "I don't have a problem with tradeoffs in cost and safety in GENERAL, but I do disagree with some SPECIFIC decisions, like trying to save a few bucks by designing the car so that it blows up when rear-ended, or becomes a barbecue after a faulty oil change.

And your proof that these Honda CR-V fires are caused by Honda's desire to trim a few dollars in the CR-V's design is found exactly where...?

"Because I said so," or, "It has to be," do not count.

Incidentally, you are quite happy to follow "the conventional wisdom" regarding the infamous Pinto memo. The "conventional wisdom" about Honda is that it is an engineering-oriented company that goes the extra mile to make a better vehicle for the money. Are we expected to throw the conventional wisdom suddenly out the window in this case?

saugatak: "Moreover, there is a fine distinction between cost-benefit analysis in the design stage vs. after-the-fact cost-benefit analysis in the "Damage Control" stage.

Except that it's irrelevant at this point in the CR-V case, as no one - repeat, NO ONE - has proven there is a design defect causing these fires. Companies have no obligation to make design changes where no defect has been proven, even if a bunch of posters on Edmunds.com say so.

saugatak: "I would bet your house that neither Ford Pinto engineers nor Honda CR-V engineers realized that these cars would blow up under certain circumstances. If they did, even the beancounters would have authorized the extra $ it would to take to fix the design. Pre-production design fixes are relatively cheap, the cost of bad publicity, declining sales, lawsuits are expensive."

No, especially since, so far in the CR-V's case, the "blow ups" have not been linked to a design flaw. Maybe this will change if a DEFINITE CAUSE FOR THESE FIRES CAN BE LINKED TO CR-V DESIGN. I will happily consider that evidence when it is presented, and change my view of this situation if necessary.

The linkage, incidentally, must established outside of this forum (as hard as that may be for some posters - who suddenly seem to have become experts in product liability law, automotive design and engineering - to accept). I don't expect Honda to conduct a recall or send out a notification until the company knows EXACTLY what is causing these fires. If I were a CR-V owner, I wouldn't want Honda to take premature action. The last thing I'd want is to think the problem is solved, when it really isn't. Honda should not jump the gun and "do something" just to satisfy people who think it should "do something."

Unless Honda management is now expected to consult the Psychic Hotline and conduct a recall based on its advice.

saugatak: "Damage Control" cost benefit analysis on the Pinto and CR-V is that, with so many cars already made and out there, it will cost a LOT to recall and fix them, so Ford and now Honda are stonewalling."

And your proof that Honda is stonewalling is found where?

saugatak: "Your little lecture on cost benefit analysis doesn't make a distinction between 'design' and 'damage control.' It seems to me that you're focusing on "design" cost-benefit analysis, and I'm wondering why?

Probably because I, like everyone else on this thread who loves to give "little lectures," don't know whether there is a design defect, and whether Honda is truly to blame.

So, taking the prudent course - which some of my fellow "lecturers" should follow - I am waiting until ALL of the facts are in before making a judgment and expecting Honda to take action.

saugatak: "Everyone else on this thread has been talking about how much it would cost Honda to fix the problem NOW, not when the CR-V was designed."

Not to offend anyone, but I don't give two hoots about what "everyone else on this thread" is saying.

saugatak: "You're such a big fan of Honda that you're willing to PAY for the opportunity to become Kentucky Fried Human if your CR-V ever spontaneously combusts."

I'm such a fan of Honda, that I've spent several posts defending Ford, GM and Audi...

Maybe what I'm really a fan of is knowing all of the facts before making a judgment. A very prudent course of action, I might add.

isellhondas

Excellent Post!

nvbanker

Ditto.

anonymousposts

That should finish the night..

gee35coupe

They are SUV's. They weren't designed for runs through the cones and quick darty maneuvers. I'd be willing to be anyone who tips over an SUV has attempted something they weren't designed for. Kinda like going rock hopping in a Vette.

npaladin2000

"I'd be willing to be anyone who tips over an SUV has attempted something they weren't designed for"

You're right. They're trying to drive them like they would a car. Mostly because it got sold to them as being "like a car, only better." Oops.

The CR-V is the worst offender...when I test drove one, it felt like the springs were made out of Jell-O. Just driving on pavement with seams made the car undulate back, and forth...and back....and forth....getting seasick now...

gee35coupe

That would explain why you flipped it. I owned a RAV4 and all through the owners manual were warnings about it not having the dynamics of a car. I never flipped it. But then I was intellligent enough to know it wasn't a car. And I read the owners manual which is something I'm sure most SUV flippers don't do.

saugatak

And your proof that these Honda CR-V fires are caused by Honda's desire to trim a few dollars in the CR-V's design is found exactly where...?

I thought I made myself clear earlier. Honda's trying to save money NOT on design, but in failing to follow up and make a fix to the CR-Vs out there.

If you don't think Honda is stonewalling and blame-shifting to oil change guys (some of whom were trained by Honda according to Honda procedures), I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

Incidentally, you are quite happy to follow "the conventional wisdom" regarding the infamous Pinto memo. The "conventional wisdom" about Honda is that it is an engineering-oriented company that goes the extra mile to make a better vehicle for the money. Are we expected to throw the conventional wisdom suddenly out the window in this case?

I am following the "conventional wisdom" on the Pinto because I have not read the law review article you are referring to. If that law review article is correct, I'd change my viewpoint.

The "conventional wisdom" on Honda is that it is a great company, but the title of this thread is "Has Honda's Run - Run Out?"

So do me a favor and read the title of the thread before stating that the conventional wisdom is that "Honda is an engineering-oriented company that goes the extra mile . . ." It seems that conventional wisdom is changing, and blown trannies and exploding vehicles are responsible for that shift.

Also, IMO, fighting lawsuits to the death on exploded CR-Vs is NOT going the extra mile, failing to be proactive and putting in a heat shield or some other fix to this design flaw is NOT going the extra mile, leaving your customers to FRY is NOT going the extra mile.

No, especially since, so far in the CR-V's case, the "blow ups" have not been linked to a design flaw. Maybe this will change if a DEFINITE CAUSE FOR THESE FIRES CAN BE LINKED TO CR-V DESIGN. I will happily consider that evidence when it is presented, and change my view of this situation if necessary.

While you are WAITING for proof, CR-V owners risk getting fried alive.

I bet you don't own a CR-V, because if you did, you'd be screaming for answers. Always amazes me how people have no problem sitting on the sidelines being clinical when it's not their buns being toasted.

NVBanker thought your response to my post was excellent, but he also said that if he had a CR-V, he would trade it in on the spot.

So I guess NVBanker is like you, if he owns a CR-V, he wouldn't bother waiting for proof, he'd dump it. Since he doesn't own a CR-V, he thinks it's appropriate to wait for proof before convicting Honda.

If I were a CR-V owner, I wouldn't want Honda to take premature action. The last thing I'd want is to think the problem is solved, when it really isn't. Honda should not jump the gun and "do something" just to satisfy people who think it should "do something."

Answer these questions honestly: If you were a CR-V owner, would you let your wife and child continue to drive it? Would you let your wife and child ride in a ticking time bomb until Honda finally came up with an answer? Would you be willing to gamble your wife's and child's life on the possibility that Honda would "do the right thing" and fix this instead of stonewalling?

You say you wouldn't want to think the problem is solved if it actually isn't. I agree with you. Who knows if the problem is solved? That's why I would dump it, and I think most people think the same thing.

Whoever is willing to hold on to a time bomb like that risking their family's life is either poor or really, really cheap.

Unless Honda management is now expected to consult the Psychic Hotline and conduct a recall based on its advice.

Humor is my forte, not yours. Stick to the facts.

So, taking the prudent course - which some of my fellow "lecturers" should follow - I am waiting until ALL of the facts are in before making a judgment and expecting Honda to take action.

Again you're ignoring a CRITICAL distinction. Waiting until ALL facts are in is prudent for YOU, a non-CRV owner.

It is NOT prudent IMO for a CR-V owner to gamble with his and his family's life waiting for the fix to come in.

Not to offend anyone, but I don't give two hoots about what "everyone else on this thread" is saying.

It's not a matter of giving offense, it's that your lecture on cost tradeoffs in safety design was IRRELEVANT to the issue being discussed, i.e. the possibility that Honda was not issuing a "fix" due to costs.

Maybe what I'm really a fan of is knowing all of the facts before making a judgment. A very prudent course of action, I might add.

Prudent for WHOM?

saugatak

And I'm glad your daughter enjoyed the high resale values on her CRV!

I think he's more glad that she dumped it before it blew up on her.

That SURE won't be the case when it's time to move the Saturn!

Hmmm . . . I wonder what the CR-V's trade-in value is now? Think maybe it took a MAJOR hit?

It sounds like his daughter is quite the trader. Sold the CR-V high and used that cash to buy a car that won't explode on her.

Sounds like a smart girl to me. I'd be proud to have a daughter as smart as that.

npaladin2000

Probably true. Joe and Jane Sixpack tend not to read the manual...they figure something with a steering wheel is "plug and play" so to speak.

I know enough not to (which means I also know enough to hate being restricted to slow speed in corners). But most ordinary people don't, and they're GOING to push it too hard if they try to treat it like their old car.

gee35coupe

To wait if they have any idea this problem could be traced to a design issue. The lawsuits have already started. If they had any idea they were at fault, it would be cheaper to fix the cars first. Since in this case they will have to defend themselves, possibly pay damages, AND then fix the vehicles. The "Honda is cheap and is stalling" line doesn't make any sense.

Just as the "blow up" comment shows, some people aren't thinking before they post. Mistakes during oil changes is a known fire risk
http://www.roberts.ezpublishing.com/croberts/oil.htm
There are other links that indicate the same thing. It's not a CR-V only issue. But if you are intent on making inflammatory posts I guess thinking would be low on the priotity list.

A thinking man would be wary but not very concerned about the problem since it has only happened to 40 (on the high side) out of over 200,000 CR-V's. Additionally, why would the resale matter since after you have proven your CRV "survived" it's first oil change, the danger is apparently over.

talon95

"If I were a CR-V owner, I wouldn't want Honda to take premature action. The last thing I'd want is to think the problem is solved, when it really isn't. Honda should not jump the gun and 'do something' just to satisfy people who think it should 'do something.'"

From Honda spokesperson Andy Boyd:

"Although Boyd said the problem is 'absolutely not a design defect'..."

Honda supposedly can't explain why the oil leak is resulting in fires in CR-Vs, but somehow they're confident enough to say this with absolutely no degree of uncertainty.

IMO, the gun has already been jumped.

OK, it's wonderful that they claim to know what this issue is NOT. Pardon me if, given their inability to date to explain why the oil leaks result in fires, I find it reckless and premature for Mr. Boyd to be making such a statement.

I can see the responses now... "Where is your proof that there is a design defect?" (BTW, I'm not claiming there is one... I'm just not willing to close that door yet...)

To which I say... Honda is confident enough to say that this is NOT a design defect. I've yet to say THEIR proof of that statement. Where is THAT proof?

And the NHTSA report is NOT that proof, since they expressly stated that it does NOT constitute finding that no safety-related defect exists. They may not have found a defect so far, but they're not willing to rule out the possibility, either.

So, I don't have proof that there IS a design defect, but Honda doesn't have proof that there isn't one, or at least if they do, they're not sharing.

npaladin2000

"OK, it's wonderful that they claim to know what this issue is NOT. Pardon me if, given their inability to date to explain why the oil leaks result in fires, I find it reckless and premature for Mr. Boyd to be making such a statement."

Unfortunately, they can get away with saying that, because it's nearly impossible to prove a negative.

However, someone should call them on that. By saying a problem is "absolutely NOT" something, they have to thereby know WHAT the problem is, since that's the only way to prove that it's "absolutely NOT" something else.

gee35coupe

While Honda may not have found a definite reason why these SUV's caught on fire, they do have more evidence and resources to answer the question than we ever will. Additionally, if the answer were standing right out in front as many in here think it is, NHTSA would have seen it when they checked Honda's data. I mean I have to place a lot more weight on with their findings since Honda has a lot to lose and NHTSA only job is to keep us safe. I mean come on man. These are fires that are destroying vehicles. If you think Honda and NHTSA arent't aware of the gravity of this situation, I guess there's not point in debating crash tests, emmisions, or any other aspect of highway safety since NHTSA just slaps an "approved" stamp on anything.

I mean if there was NO evidence that shows improper filter installation, I have to believe NHTSA would issue a news release calling Honda a big fat liar.

talon95

"While Honda may not have found a definite reason why these SUV's caught on fire, they do have more evidence and resources to answer the question than we ever will."

Fine... since it's to their benefit AND ours to reassure CR-V owners that they and their families are safe, show us this evidence, rather than making statements that at the end of the day appear to be nothing more than baseless and unsupported spin control.

"If you think Honda and NHTSA arent't aware of the gravity of this situation, I guess there's not point in debating crash tests, emmisions, or any other aspect of highway safety since NHTSA just slaps an "approved" stamp on anything."

When you consider all of the unanswered questions and the lack of a identified cause for why the oil leaks result in fires, I personally feel it was irresponsible for the NHTSA to close this investigation, even though they included the disclaimer that they would take further action if warranted. Do they slap an "approved" stamp on anything? I don't know about that, but given that the answers to the most critical questions are conspicuously absent in their report, it's difficult to NOT come to that conclusion here.

Are they aware of the gravity of the situation? Well, perhaps they are, but pledging to include improved instructions with replacement oil filters falls far short of a preemptive strike, at least in my eyes.

BTW, not everyone is so inclined to hang on the NHTSA's every word. For example, there have been huge debates on several forums regarding the validity of their side impact tests. The last time I checked, the US was still a democracy, and we have a right to question the findings of government agencies.

"I mean if there was NO evidence that shows improper filter installation, I have to believe NHTSA would issue a news release calling Honda a big fat liar."

Can an improper oil filter installation result in an oil leak? Well, you don't exactly have to be Mr. Goodwrench to figure that out, so pardon me if I don't consider this conclusion to be any kind of startling revelation. But as I've stated so many times before, this is an incomplete answer, as it doesn't explain why the leaking oil results in a fire. And that's the question that weighs most heavily on the minds of many of us, yet it remains unanswered.

saugatak

It really doesn't save Honda any money to wait if they have any idea this problem could be traced to a design issue.

You've demanded proof for design defects.

Where's your proof that stonewalling isn't the cheaper strategy?

Maybe the fix is so expensive that Honda thinks it's cheaper to stonewall?

If they had any idea they were at fault, it would be cheaper to fix the cars first.

Where's your proof for this? It's almost always cheaper to stonewall and never admit anything and make people hire lawyers to go after you. Most people don't bother.

Since in this case they will have to defend themselves, possibly pay damages, AND then fix the vehicles. The "Honda is cheap and is stalling" line doesn't make any sense.

WRONG. It makes a hell of a lot of sense. The bad publicity has already hit them. If they admit they screwed up, they have to pay out huge awards to EVERY CR-V owner because the value of their CR-V has gone down or because it was torched.

By admitting nothing, Honda is forcing owners to hire lawyers and do lawsuits. Most people won't do this. It's almost always cheaper to stonewall.

driftracer

How truly sad and restricted your life must be to go through it with such an alarmist, hand-wringer attitude. Kinda reminds me of the kid who wouldn't go outside in the sunlight because he was scared of his own shadow...

"I think he's more glad that she dumped it before it blew up on her."

"leaving your customers to FRY is NOT going the extra mile"

"Would you let your wife and child ride in a ticking time bomb until Honda finally came up with an answer?"

A "ticking time bomb"? Are you kidding me? These FEW incidents were specifically related to technician error, and no other explanation has been proven.

Do you work nights and watch shows like "The Young and the Restless" and "General Hospital"? Your posts have more drama and embellishment that an academy award winner's acceptance speech.

robertsmx

if the answer were standing right out in front as many in here think it is, NHTSA would have seen it when they checked Honda's data.

If more people understood this, today could end up being a boring day. But, this is the bottomline people jumping to blame Honda are completely ignoring.

talon95

"If more people understood this, today could end up being a boring day. But, this is the bottomline people jumping to blame Honda are completely ignoring."

If Honda had not felt compelled to publish results of an investigation that made a transparently weak attempt to divert all blame to another party, suggested a band-aid solution that didn't address the true cause of the fires, and that claimed that "it's absolutely not a design defect" when it was abundantly clear that they couldn't know this with absolute certainty if they didn't know the reasons behind the oil leak resulting in a fire, people wouldn't be jumping on Honda.

Since it made what appear to many people to be questionable claims and left so many key questions unanswered, it seemed like more of a diversionary tactic than a real attempt to provide useful information.

talon95

" These FEW incidents were specifically related to technician error."

We've been through all of this several times before. Just because you're willing to settle for that (IMO) transparently weak and obviously incomplete explanation, don't expect everyone else to.

When Honda and the NHTSA come out with a complete and unambiguous explanation for why the oil leak is causing a fire, regardless of who or what caused the oil to be there, then we'll see about "convicting" the mechanics. Until then, I'm going to take the "wait and see" attitude that you claim to be taking. Your posts reveal time after time that your conclusions are already firmly in place.

robertsmx

Could you answer these questions for me...
1. Do you think you know better than Honda or NHTSA engineers regarding the issue?
2. Do you think Honda doesn't realize how this affects its business, and customer base?

talon95

"1. Do you think you know better than Honda or NHTSA engineers regarding the issue?"

Never claimed that I did. However, I've explained repeatedly why it's obvious to me that their explanation is incomplete and therefore unacceptable as a final conclusion. You don't have to have a PhD in Automotive Engineering to know that there's a distinct difference between the agent that introduces a substance into an environment (the "it's all the mechanic's fault - the morons caused the oil leak" claim) and why that substance reacts in the environment in a particular way (the unanswered "why is the oil resulting in a fire when it doesn't in most other cars?" question). As I said, this doesn't require an automotive expert, it just requires a basic understanding of cause and effect.

You don't have to let the press releases and NHTSA report do all of your thinking for you. Evaluating the apparent legitimacy of that information, expressing your opinion about that legitimacy, and thinking beyond that information is not illegal in this country. And despite your claims to the contrary, it's not impossible to do, either.

2. Do you think Honda doesn't realize how this affects its business, and customer base?

I'm sure they do. However, that doesn't guarantee that they're taking the steps that are in the best interests of that customer base. In a situation like this, the most common responses are either to take a proactive position and be completely open about all information, or to circle the wagons. To me, it seems clear that while they're doing the former with the Accord transmission recall, they're doing the latter with the CR-V fire issue. Their response to the CR-V issue is little better than lip service, again IMO.

gagrice

Do you think Honda doesn't realize how this affects its business, and customer base?

I think they know full well. Just as Ford knew Pinto's were a problem and Explorers with Firestone tires were rolling over and Chrysler mini-van doors would pop open ejecting a child. They all know they have a problem. They do what they have to do to protect the bottom line.... That's why I say Honda has joined the rest of the Automakers. There run at being better, is OVER! All you have to do is look at the sales numbers. 2004 CR-V is off 50% from 2003. It seems there are men that don't want their families to end up in a blazing car on the highway.

nippononly

there is a page in this month's issue of Automobile that details Jean Jennings' husband rolling their Suburban three times trying to avoid a bad accident that happened right in front of him on the freeway. Three full rolls and he managed to get out and walk away. The paramedics were apparently stunned - they had not expected any survivors based on what they saw when they pulled up.

Not all SUV rollovers happen because people try to drive them like cars.

And hey, Honda doesn't really have any big SUVs anyway. Wonder if their HUT SportTrac fighter will sell well next year...

talon95

"All you have to do is look at the sales numbers. 2004 CR-V is off 50% from 2003. It seems there are men that don't want their families to end up in a blazing car on the highway."

Well, although we agree that we're both dissatisfied with Honda's response to the CR-V fire issue so far, I have to point out that your claim about sales isn't accurate. Sales of CR-Vs have still been strong this year, with sales through June of 69,979, just 400 units shy of 2003.

These sales figures precede the news of the fires, however, so whether or not sales will continue to be strong for the balance of the year remains to be seen.

anonymousposts

"2004 CR-V is off 50% from 2003."

Are you speaking of July sales only? As of the June 30, 2004 the 2004 CRV has sold 11,403 units compared with 11,253 through the same period last year.

robertsmx

Never claimed that I did. However, I've explained repeatedly why it's obvious to me that their explanation is incomplete and therefore unacceptable as a final conclusion…
As I said, this doesn't require an automotive expert, it just requires a basic understanding of cause and effect.

Something doesn’t seem to be “obvious” to NHTSA and Honda engineers. How is it obvious to you? That part, I’m questioning.

You don't have to let the press releases and NHTSA report do all of your thinking for you.

True, and I don’t. But in the end, I would rather go by report from an independent agency than my gut feeling/assumptions.

I'm sure they do. However, that doesn't guarantee that they're taking the steps that are in the best interests of that customer base.

You’re contradicting yourself in the two statements. It appears you’re making a claim to know better than Honda.

In a situation like this, the most common responses are either to take a proactive position and be completely open about all information, or to circle the wagons.

Open to whom? If you mean consumers, 99% of the consumers aren’t going to have a clue about the expansive details on the issue. And first of all, they are unlikely to be interested in reading a 100 page book (if that’s all it would take). Consumers expect a conclusion, not a direct involvement in an investigation.

To me, it seems clear that while they're doing the former with the Accord transmission recall, they're doing the latter with the CR-V fire issue.

Can’t provide solution without being aware of the problem. It is supposed to happen that way, and did, in case of transmission recall. Pro-activity followed.

In case of CR-V, I would refrain from making statements and suggesting fixes without knowing the problem.

npaladin2000

"Can’t provide solution without being aware of the problem. It is supposed to happen that way, and did, in case of transmission recall. Pro-activity followed.

In case of CR-V, I would refrain from making statements and suggesting fixes without knowing the problem."

If they are "certain it's not a design issue" then that must mean they KNOW what the problem is, in order to know that it's not a design issue.

nippononly

is doing well, considering it is in about its third year now. Several co-workers at my office have the new one - no fires, and nothing but smiles from them when I ask about their cars.

gagrice

The figures I saw were 140,000 2003 CR-V's sold. 70,000 2004 units sold. Isn't this about the end of the 2004 year? I see a lot of 2005 vehicles being offered. I am going by the dealership today I will stop and see if I can get a 2004 CR-V at a fire sale price. I will post the results.

npaladin2000

"see if I can get a 2004 CR-V at a fire sale price"

Ok everyone, all at once:

GROAN!!!!

nippononly

I think those are actually calendar year sales figures, in which case 50% would be about right, given that June 30 is 50% of the way through the year.

I am going to go check on sales...

...edit, OK here are the autosite figures through May:
http://www.autosite.com/editoria/asmr/svsuv.asp

As you can see sales are about the same level as last year at this time. They are on course to sell about 140,000 again this year, extrapolating from the numbers here.

robertsmx

Yep. And I'm going to take their word for it. I've not investigated the 27 vehicles, Honda and NHTSA have.

Something that intrigues me more than anything else is "first" oil change associated with the 27 fires. Based on all that I have read, that is the only trend I have noticed. A design issue will gain more weight if fire resulted in "non-first" oil change.

anonymousposts

www.hondanews.com has the sales results through June of this year.

http://hondanews.com/CatID1000?mid=2004070150112&mime=asc

robertsmx

And "2003 sales (calendar year)" included 2002 models also, just like "2004 sales (calendar year)" will include 2005s. Trying to put down a vehicle at any cost, eh?

In June 2004, Honda sold 11,403 units of CR-V (compared to 11,253 units in June 2003 which was all-time best June sales for CR-V). One additional sales day was involved this year (25 days compared to 24 last year). The YTD sales are off only about 400 units.

Not too bad for a vehicle preparing to go into the fourth year of its design cycle. In typical Honda fashion, MMC (mostly cosmetic/content changes) can be expected for 2005 model.

This situation could affect some sales, especially considering how dealerships selling competing vehicles function.

isellhondas

You know, your posts are getting tiring. First of all, don't you think "explode" is a bit over the top?

My wife drives and loves her 2003 CRV. It's our second one. Had the oil changed for the second time last week and drove home without a thought of a problem.

Oh, sorry to disappoint you but used CRV's remain in VERY high demand and they enjoy VERY high resale values. I should know since I sell them.

gagrice

You know, your posts are getting tiring. First of all, don't you think "explode" is a bit over the top?
You're right BURST INTO FLAMES would be more accurate. I would expect you to defend Honda it is your livelihood. One of my best friends is a Honda salesman. He is completely honest when he is not on the sales floor. Oh, and he drives a new Buick. Says they are the best cars on the road.

newcar31

"I would expect you to defend Honda it is your livelihood."

No doubt. Even if Honda were found to be at fault, or at least partially at fault, there are certain people in here that would find a way to defend them.

It's not surprising that the biggest defenders of Honda in this situation are a Honda salesperson, and two of the biggest Honda fan boys on Edmunds, gee35, and robertsmx.

robertsmx

It's not surprising that the biggest defenders of Honda in this situation are a Honda salesperson, and two of the biggest Honda fan boys on Edmunds, gee35, and robertsmx

And you couldn't be farther from truth. Although, I wouldn't mind working for Honda someday.

Do you sell cars? (Non-Honda, of course).

gagrice

It took 11 years and 37 deaths before The NHTSA & Chrysler fixed this problem. In my book that eliminates the NHTSA from being on top of safety issues. Someone is going to have to win a big lawsuit before Honda and the NHTSA get off their lazy butts and do anything.

http://www.maryalice.com/cases/chrysler.html

newcar31

No, I do not sell cars, and I don't hate Honda. I've owned two Hondas.

and if you need to find robertsmx, isellhondas, or gee35coupe, all you have to do is go to a thread where Honda needs defending.

PF_Flyer

I know this is a hot topic (pardon the puns here) but this is getting a little too heated and showing signs of becoming a personal beef rather than a heated discussion. (Which is fine)

Time to stop trying to prove, disprove, or discredit each others positions and move on.

Back to the discussion...

Be sure to check out our Town Hall chat lineup for Tuesdays... First up, talk the latest in new automotive technology during the Hybrid Vehicles Chat from 12-1-6pmPT/3-4pm ET
NOTE: This is a NEW time slot for this week!

Hybrid Vehicles Chat Room

Immediately following at 6-7pm PT/9-10pm ET, we keep the chat party going with the Mazda Mania chat.

Mazda Mania Chat Room

The Town Hall chats are a great place to take these message board topics LIVE. Hope to see you there this week!

PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

anonymousposts

NHTSA has said that Honda is not at fault, technicians are. Unless you want to add them to the growing list of companies that Honda is supposedly paying off to win comparison tests and quality surveys then why continue to blame Honda? Fact is, we aren't really being pro-Honda we are being pro-common sense. It has happened on 27 CRV's. That's marginal. I am sure it's a big deal to those who have those 27 CRV's BUT that's what insurance is for. It's no worse than suffering an engine failure that causes an accident or having a tire blow out that causes an accident.

Every brand has "fans" or you wouldn't have people saying that the Focus having 13 recalls isn't that bad, you wouldn't have people saying that Toyota sludge isn't that bad, and you wouldn't have Mazda people calling rust a stain.

newcar31

"Every brand has "fans" or you wouldn't have people saying that the Focus having 13 recalls isn't that bad, you wouldn't have people saying that Toyota sludge isn't that bad, and you wouldn't have Mazda people calling rust a stain."

I know. I was just pointing out that the biggest defenders of Honda in this situation also happen to be either:

A) a Honda salesperson

HUGE Honda fans. Some might say Honda extremists. People who will go to any length to defend Honda.

For example, robertsmx's ridiculous ramblings on "weight shift".

talon95

"The figures I saw were 140,000 2003 CR-V's sold. 70,000 2004 units sold. Isn't this about the end of the 2004 year?"

Model year has become such a flexible concept that it's difficult to report sales figures based on it most of the time. For example, the 2004 Acura TSX came out in April 2003, while the bulk of all 2004 models came out in September. So the industry does most of its reporting on a calendar year basis. They usually only report on sales for a model and model year when that model year is over.

gee35coupe

Accompanied by a full disclosure statement. Since we are dealing in "maybe's" MAYBE the technicians are at fault just like they said. I mean they DID say that oil is hitting the exhaust components. What are you looking for? The flash point of different brands of oil?

The link above was telling but the preentation was flawed. It didn't take NHTSA 14 years to do anything. They found there was a problem but they allowed Chrysler to do a "service campaign" which was woefully inadequate. In this case NHTSA says Honda is not at fault. Can't get any more direct than that. While they may still be monitoring the situation, at this point in time they have indicated there is technician error.

I'm not defending Honda. I'm just reading the news and stating the facts as they exist. There's nothing to defend really since no one has accused Honda of anything except the keyboard engineers/statisticians here.

talon95

Sorry I missed the part of your post asking us to "stop trying to prove, disprove, or discredit each others positions and move on." I saw the chat invitations and thought that's what the message was limited to. I didn't read through the entire message before I made some additional posts.

I deleted two responses that I posted before I read your post that I believe would fall into the categories of the posts that you asked us to stop. My apologies for posting them against your direction.

gagrice

There's nothing to defend really since no one has accused Honda of anything except the keyboard engineers/statisticians here.

Looks like the Honda Element is the latest victim of the mysterious oil change fires....
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/crv_fires.html

It's funny how Honda blames it all on the Lowest paid employees of the company. Not a company I would consider working for. Also, according to one fellow on the CR-V thread. This is a poor design in the fact it is very difficult to get your hand into feel if there is part of the seal left on the face. Or the dealers can put their top mechanics on the oil changes to make sure they are done correctly.

strager

Ignoring the CR-V fire controversy, I think Honda over the last few years in the U.S. has become a producer of boring cars for the older demographic. Acura on the other hand is exactly the opposite.

Civic with its dated 90's styling and the bloated Accord with the Buick look have diminished the appeal that Honda once had for young drivers, imo.

It seems that Honda is taking forever to get some stylish JDM cars to the US market: the Fit, Edix, Odyssey, to name a few.

nippononly

doesn't really fit the NA line-up if you ask me, but it is sure true that the Fit is long overdue here. Honda already has a "premium" brand, Acura. So the Honda-branded "non-premium" line-up needs to stay in touch with its roots - reliable cars that are a good value for the dollar and a little more fun than average cars in their class.