If my understanding is correct, one of the reasons you want an airbag test is to see if the car has working airbags after the repair.
Given that the bodyshop and adjuster have best-guessed that the airbags should have deployed, I'm with you in expecting HOA to conduct the test if only for ethical - not to mention businesswise - reasons on their part.
Obviously HOA needs to raise their level of corporate responsibility to their level of technical capabilities.
so basically, are we saying that Honda is expected to inspect every car after an accident to make sure it performed right? what if the airbags had gone off, and the customer questioned that? what if the customer claims they SHOULD NOT have gone off?
if we expect Honda to be responsible for airbag deployment on every car, then that is going to cost money. that money will come from OUR pockets in higher car prices and higher insurance premiums. the more i think about it, (and you know i LOVE to hold Honda accountable for their problems), i am not sure Honda should be responsible for inspecting something that was caused by a driver. whoever caused the accident should be responsible for any testing or diagnostics. i think that is fair.
O.K., O.K. I know this is getting old and I promise that this will probably be my last entry unless I get those pictures and blow a gasket.
Again, thanks to all for some constructive advise and for you others....well..
re gee35coupe
I tend to agree with your assesment. As I have said, my wife was totally at fault. The only issue we have ever presented was should the airbags have deployed or not. All we have ever asked for was for Honda to tell us that the system worked correctly or not. What has caused problems with us is Honda's lack of interest even after both their bodyshop and the adjuster said that the bags should have deployed.
As you rightfully stated, it is in Honda's best interest (at this point) to not touch the car. Then again, if we were to be hit again, and someone was injured in the car, and the system was found faulty, then they would be paying for an early retirement for myself.
So, as you stated, I am only one small peon amongst the million or so customers, and it is not worth it in this case. Of course, if life was lost, I'm sure I would be getting better attention.
re: anonymousposts
After reading your reply I can see why you chose the screen name you did.
First of all, dumping Honda at this point is a no brainer. Not being willing to test a cars safety features after a significant accident or even wishing to acknowledge any responsibility for the system, is pretty bogus, but it is a wonderful learning process on my part.
Secondly, to think that my wife would try to save face is pathetic at best. No where in any of my posts have I even remotely claimed that my wife was not at fault. This whole thing would never have even arisen if the bodyshop and the adjuster had not commented that the bags should have deployed.
Now read carefully and slowly...we are not blaming Honda. We simply want/ed to find out if the airbag system worked as designed. As for pictures, the adjuster has the pictures and I am trying to get in contact with him. At this point though, the pictures are pointless unless we keep the car and have another accident with similar results. At this writing, we will not be keeping the car. Bottom line is that my wife does not feel safe in the car now, and never will feel safe. And the funny thing is, is that Honda has done nothing to put her at ease or re-assure her that their cars and specifically this car is indeed safe.
re ssteelma
What you are suggesting is good with the BBB, but I'm afraid that by the end of October, we will be driving, or at least my wife will be driving another manufacturers car. As I stated above, my wife is in a nutshell paranoid to drive the car after it is fixed. She fears for herself and my daughter, and since Honda has done next to nothing to reasure us that the car is safe, our only recourse is to move on. Luckily in all this is the fact that no one was hurt.
In general:
Many here have questioned my actual description of the accident and the subsequent angle of attack. Again, after a lengthy discussion with my wife, she has said that the Honda was hit twice. This was never brought out initially to me. She said that when the SUV contacted the Honda almost headon, it turned the Honda clockwise and the SUV also made contact on the drivers right front wheel well. No damage was done to the drivers door, but the panel in front of the door was damaged.
Secondly, as I said initially, the SUV did not get that damaged. Well, come to find out that the SUV was not drivable. It was towed from the accident site. Yes, I realize that this could simply mean a fender was wedged on the tire, but it does show that there was more damage than I indicated when I stated that my wife said the SUV had very little damage compared to the Honda.
Sorry that the story seems to change, but it aint easy getting details from 1000 miles away. Seeing that I am not a trial lawyer, I possibly haven't asked all the right questions or possibly have not asked them in the right manner. Anyway, this is it!
Epilogue:
Honda did finally agree to test the system and it appears they did. At least they said they did. Their response to us has been, the system is working. Nothing more, nothing less. When pressed, they can produce no evidence of any testing taking place or any test data. So, I guess I am to take them at their word.
So, it is time to move on...Now, anyone want to buy a Silver 2003 Accord V6? Now, is that before or after the tranny recall?
Again, thanks to all who have contributed. It's been interesting to see the various opinions, comments, and suggestions. If something new pops up, I'll repost, but at this point, I'm worn out and will move on, and of course never buy another Honda product after the way they treated my wife.
If they did anything, they may just have turned on the ignition key to see if the self check for the sensors and computer worked and said the system was operable. I would have expected them to take the sensors to determine if the triggers measuring the forces worked as designed. I would worry that they didn't and wouldn't in another accident.
It's hard to believe something when the story has changed three times. I understand that you are 1,000 miles away and are relaying the information that you are getting but why does your wife keep adding things to the story? You don't even know the actual events that happened why should we or Honda believe you?
If his wife came out of that accident in good shape, what difference does it make if the airbags went off or not???
As I understand things, it takes a lot to make an airbag go off. Certain things have to happen in a certain fashion. It sounds like the built in crumple zones did a fine job without the airbags.
So now what? Buy another car that might not protect as well??
It's possible the replacement car could get involved in an accident too, and maybe "some guy" in a body shop will spout an opinion that the air bags should have deployed that time too??
Especially if the main impact was the passenger side. There was no one in the passenger seat so with the way the Honda system is designed the airbag would not have deployed.
Look, I've tried to explain things the best I can given information from my wife.
FYI the story has not changed 3 times. The story still remains the same. She was hit passenger front side almost head on. As I have spoken with her, she has added details which were not made clear to me in subsequent conversations.
As I stated before, I am not a trial lawyer and as I have posted here, people suggest things that I have no answer for, nor did I ask about. When speaking with my wife, I then go back and try to get some clarification on issues raised by some here. Initially, she was quite shook up and as we all know, after a cooling off period, "cooler heads do prevail" and I would suggest that as the initial shock of the incident wore off, she has remembered more exacting details.
As far as believing me, I could care less. I originally came in here to find out if anyone knew specific details on the inner workings of Hondas airbag system, that is, under what circumstances it will deploy. To put it mildly, there is no concensus in here and Honda is not saying anything either.
The whole issue would have been MOOT if the bodyshop Honda uses exclusively and the insurance adjuster had not said that the bags should have deployed. It was, afterall the bodyshop who commented to my wife that "you have a problem with Honda, because the bags should have deployed!" Oh, really? That was responded to in here with, "well you can't trust the bodyshop...etc. and I would be more apt to believe an insurance adjuster." O.K. fine. The insurance adjuster has seen the car and says they should have deployed in HIS OPINION.
So, let me ask YOU. If two experts or industry savvy people look at your car and say a safety system should have worked, would you not be the least little bit concerned? Would you not maybe want to question the manufacturer, or would you just say, "Hey no one got hurt, so the system must have worked correctly."
Regardless of contact, impact angle, etc., this all started because 2 third parties questioned us on why the system did NOT work. Furthermore injury has nothing to do with it either. When Consumer's Report reported on the increased change that a certain SUV was more likely to roll over in a turn, did it take massive amounts of injury claims to get the ball rolling? Just a report that it was more likely, not that it will ever happen to 99.9 percent of the owners, but the mere fact that it was more likely to tip over caused quite a stir.
The car was advertised with a gee-whiz-bang airbag system. Government 5 star and all that. Now, we get in an accident and simply want to know why the bags did not deploy? Maybe we are all wet, but maybe Honda should at least have the courtesy to say that we are all wet instead of shucking the responsibility first to the bodyshop and then to the adjuster!
As for Honda, at this point, they can pound sand! We asked a simple question and go a not so simple response not from one but from three individuals, ranging from "it's not our problem", to "we have no way to test the system." They treated my wife like a piece of crap, so why should I continue to patronize them?
As I said in a previous post, because no one was hurt, no red flag has emerged deep within Honda's legal force. It is a non-issue with them, but it is a real issue with us seeing that we now feel the car is unsafe. And afterall, I don't care how reliable the car is (oh, forgot about the tranny recall on my V6), or how the resale value is great, the bottom line is if the driver does not feel safe, then it is time to move on, and that is what we will do.
i agree. if you aren't happy with Honda, or don't feel safe, you shouldn't buy another Honda. you should never keep the damaged car anyway, if you get it repaired. they are NEVER the same, EVER.
one of Hondas main problems is that they don't hire intelligent support staff. while i don't think the airbags should have gone off, i do think they could handled your call better. if they would only come across as confident and intelligent from the start, they wouldn't instill so many "questions" in the minds of people that have to deal with them.
again, i think the car performed as it should. your cars SRS lights comes on when you start the car, so the system tests itself everytime you start it. if there is a problem, it would tell you. but Honda should have said:
"if you didn't have an illuminated SRS light on your dash other than at start up, the system is working as designed. the impact was not forceful enough to contact the sensors. your cars airbag system is functioning fine."
if they would only say that from the start, you wouldn't have had to feel so beat up by the whole ordeal.
but, the only other car i would feel safe in would be a Volvo or VW.
If the Accord turned around and was hit again on the side.
There had to be some angle if your wife was turning left and was hit on the passenger side. Unless the SUV came over into oncoming traffic, the Accord had to be turning at some angle to be impacted.
After we figure that angle, which in an above link was shown to be 30 degrees then we have to figure whether the bags should have deployed due to forces.
As mentioned before, I don't think Honda should deploy the resources to test every accident that has questionable airbag operation. That would drive everyones costs up. If the insurance adjuster thinks the airbags should have gone off, maybe they should test them on their dime. Ultimately faulty airbags would cause them to lose money due to higher injury claims.
You say you came here for advise. While there may be no consensus why your airbags didn't deploy, there does seem to be one that they should not have. The facts as presented to not support airbag deployment.
As far as Consumer Reports SUV warnign causing a stir. Not really. They still sell like hot-cakes. There have been other warnings that aftermarket 20-inch wheels add to the tendency. Check out how many are heeding THAT warning.
Justin you are dead on. Your post just popped up before mine.
Yes, if you feel you were that mistreated and no longer have confidence in a brand, it's time to move on. But, to what? A car that may not protect as well?
Life is short...it's time to move on rather than agonize over what should or shouldn't have happened.
Just my not so humple opinion for whatever it's worth...
There are too many "ifs". First the car was hit in the passenger side bumper, then it was more of a head on impact, then it was hit head on so the car spun around and got hit in the side again. Sounds like three stories to me. After my accident I was shaken but I was able to clearly explain my accident just a few moments later to my husband, the police, and the other woman's insurance agent.
Smart airbags are relatively new on the market. The system in the Accord is designed to not deploy an airbag if there is no passenger in the seat directly impacted by the accident. Therefore if your wife was hit in the front-side as you first indicated then the airbag would NOT have deployed.
And from Honda's perspective if your wife can't give you the correct events from that day then she's probably changed her initial description of the accident to them as well. If you work at McDonalds and someone says "hey I got the wrong order, I wanted a cheeseburger instead of a Big Mac" and then they come right back in and say "No it wasn't a Big Mac, it was a 6-piece nuggets that I ordered", and then they come back a third time and say "Yeah I wanted nuggets but I ordered 10 and not 6" you would be doubting the validity of their claim.
So what will you buy? A Camry? An Altima? How will you know that their airbag system is working properly? As I stated before the only way to know for sure that your airbags are working is to have a major accident. If your wife does have another accident and the airbags don't deploy, whether by design or failure, then you will be right back at square one. Sounds like an expensive proposition to me.
I know, we've beat this one to death, but I'm curious about one small point. Assuming, for the sake of clarity, that your wife was driving from south to north, was the SUV heading south? That would make sense if the SUV originally hit her car at something of an angle in the right front. That's what I originally thought had happened, but that doesn't make sense if the SUV really hit her pretty much head on AND spun her car back enough to hit her a second time on the left front wheel, apparently mostly from the side.
So now I wonder, was the SUV actually coming from the west, headed east? If so, and if it was really pretty much head on at a combined impact speed of about 50 mph, I'm inclined to be more sympathetic with your concerns than I was originally.
Except about the law suit threats. You're still off in left field on those, or your wife is.
The really odd thing is that IF your car has a black box, and IF Honda gets data from it as part of its evaluation of whether the airbag system was working properly, it seems likely to be of practical use only to the insurance company of the SUV owner, which will probably use it to cement its case that your wife was at fault, so that your insurance company should then be stuck with the entire tab for repairs. The effect of which you will feel when you apply for insurance for your new car.
Anonymousposts: It escapes me as to what exactly you are trying to prove with your posts.
1) You are not his wife, you were not in the same accident, and your ability to relay information has no bearing on what he wants to know. I don't see how you can compare two different accidents with two different sets of people and circumstances in the way you are trying to.
2) Considering the description of the phone calls to Honda, it doesn't seem like their service is contingent on how "together" his wife's version of the accident is, considering they don't seem to want to talk to her at all.
3) If you get the wrong order at Burger King or wherever all they do is fix the order. Because it's virtually valueless anyway and because them giving you the wrong order will probably not cause your death (any more so than eating there in the first place). The point is, a lifesaving device in a $25K car has nothing to do with fast food. Additionally, if I spent $25K on a new car, get into an accident, and then ask a simple question about the lifesaving devices in my car I would expect an honest answer somewhere down the line. Period.
4)"the only way to know for sure that your airbags are working is to have a major accident" This is ludicrous. Like just about any other component in ummm.....anything (especially cars) there are ways to test operational ability besides waiting for failure. If that were the case there would be a few less dealerships making money off of all those "needless inspections". In fact, why bother having inspections of any kind! The SRS light (previously mentioned) is a basic indicator as to the operational status of the passive restraint system. I would hope there are others, but even just that renders your statement invalid and more importantly, misleading.
"Sounds like an expensive proposition to me. " Even assuming your logic, I'd rather have a financial burden (new car) than a dead spouse due to my inane negligence.
Having said that, I am not a large proponent of airbags at all (in their current iterations) and think Honda is mainly just guilty of some crappy customer service in this instance. And they are certainly not alone in that grouping. Seems like airbag deployment is dependent on many accident specifics that we are not yet sure of in this particular case. I'd love to hear more specifics if you aren't to busy to post them when they come to your attention.
If you read the owner's manual it clearly states that the airbags will sense the point of impact and the speed involved and deploy the airbags, or not, accordingly. It also states that if there is no one in the passenger seat the air bag will not go off. It also states that if the impact is not severe enough that the airbags will reduce injury the airbags will not go off.
So I don't believe the airbags should have gone off reading what was in the owner's manual.
"2) Considering the description of the phone calls to Honda, it doesn't seem like their service is contingent on how "together" his wife's version of the accident is, considering they don't seem to want to talk to her at all."
In the business I work in we become much less willing to work with a customer if they are inconsistent. Honestly, we should give Honda the same benefit of the doubt as we are giving this guy's wife. It's all heresay and third party information at this point.
"The point is, a lifesaving device in a $25K car has nothing to do with fast food."
lastwraith meet an analogy. Analogy please meet lastwraith. I'll give you a few moments to get aquainted. If you want to concentrate on the fast food aspect of my analogy then you are missing the whole point.
"The SRS light (previously mentioned) is a basic indicator as to the operational status of the passive restraint system."
There ya go. The SRS system does a self-check when the car is started. Since the SRS light was not on in the case it appears the SRS was working without issues and worked as designed in this instance. The main point of this poster is that he wants Honda to check the system .. the system is checked every time the car is started.
Why did the adjuster and the bodyshop say the airbags should have deployed? Maybe they aren't that experienced with Honda's new smart airbag system. That's what I'm guessing because from what I have read here and in the owner's manual the system worked as designed.
"This is ludicrous. Like just about any other component in ummm.....anything (especially cars) there are ways to test operational ability besides waiting for failure."
Read above. The system self-checks itself. Honda could do a test that says the system was working but until you run the car into a wall and the airbags deploy (or not) you will not know for sure that they are working.
The factor in whether or not the airbags should have employed is did the sensors trigger that should have triggered during the accident.
The 'black box' if the car has one that recorded the speeds and inputs during the last few seconds of the car's life might tell that. If the sensor didn't trigger, then Honda should check it to be sure the sensors going into the cars are correctly engineered and correctly built by the supplier. I recall in recent couple of years some car company having sensors that didn't trigger the air bag in some car and were recalled.
A radio car repair host discussed this accident on his show last evening. He talked about the airbags should go off at 15 mph impact into a solid wall. Hitting something that has crush involved will involve lesser forces.
A knowledgeable forensic accident reconstructor (there are those folks) would probably be the one to look at both cars and collect the info and determine if the air bags should have employed. He might be worth paying if you stood to collect any compensation for loss. In this case there was none.
Honda is obviously NOT going to want to seek out if their system failed. They have much to lose. They will flim-flam the customer more rather than find out the truth.
It's nice to think your car company of choice is honest..., but dollars talk more than integrity.
I know what an analogy is, but I also know when an analogy is pointless. To compare the idiocy at McDonald's to a person asking an auto manufacturer about a safety device potentially malfunctioning is the ultimate comparison of apples to oranges. Also, being in the service industry myself there is a point where giving a customer the runaround is self-defeating. To tell a customer to essentially get lost on the phone when a simple answer such as, "if your SRS light is functioning, so is your passive restraint system" is a cut and dry case of idiotic customer service. Saving work for both customers and service people is at least partially the reason for even having customer service and obviously the few people at Honda who were contacted failed miserably in this regard.
One of the reasons I jumped on your post in the first place was your tendency to be either abrasive or downright incorrect, or both. Among other things you said that were untrue, the i-SRS system employed by Honda (the newest system available in a 2003 model) has been on the market since at least 1998. It was first used in Japanese cars and then brought over for autos in the US. Besides that fact, what difference does it make if i-SRS is new to the market anyway? It still needs to work.
Just because the SRS light indicated a working passive restraint system doesn't mean Honda cannot either send someone to check the car or have it checked by a third party. You have a check engine light in your car too, but that doesn't mean a competent mechanic might not find something wrong with your car even without that light being lit (hey, it's an analogy!). At the very least, checking continuity between the i-SRS sensors, control module(s), and inflator activators would probably make the accident victim feel a lot better before driving the car again. And if I was Honda, getting someone to break out a multimeter or whatever equipment they need to use would be a small price to pay to win over a customer. BTW, you apparently didn't bother to read what I wrote, since I said it was a "basic" indicator. The poster wants Honda to check the passive restraint system because a Honda approved repair place and just about everyone else in the known universe that saw the car told him the airbags should have gone off in that specific instance. I think it is fair to say that judging a system by it's own idiot light when already suspecting the system to be faulty would render you the idiot, especially when you are trusting your loved one's life to that same system. Also, Imadazol97 is correct, there are multiple sensors and the cumulative information determines the firing state and inflation response.
This brings me to a question for johng2, is the car in question a 2003 accord sedan or coupe? Forgive me if I missed that info in one of your previous posts. I believe in 2003 side impact curtains were on the EX V6 sedan but only the coupes got i-SRS standard. From what I remember reading anyway.
As much trouble as this ordeal has been, I think you will be hard-pressed to find an all-around performer that is as safe as the Accord for the same price. However, I wish you luck. Also, I don't think it is Honda's responsibility to go and check out every car after an accident but maybe they ought to re-educate some of their phone people to avoid customer escalations like this one. The goal of customer service is to service the customer and in this case, I don't think the request was all that unreasonable. Especially when a simple response over the phone would have sufficed. Have a good one.
"Also, being in the service industry myself there is a point where giving a customer the runaround is self-defeating."
What about when the customer gives the company the run-around. So far we have gotten three different versions of the events in here. Is his wife giving Honda these same different versions of the story? If she is then I would have a hard time believing her as well if I am on the other end of the phone at Honda. If she is so upset and unclear about the events of the accident how can we even be sure that we are getting the correct version of events from the conversations with Honda Customer Service?
"To tell a customer to essentially get lost on the phone when a simple answer such as, "if your SRS light is functioning, so is your passive restraint system" is a cut and dry case of idiotic customer service"
Maybe they did. We have not heard any of the conversations. Why are we going to give someone on Edmunds any more of the benefit of the doubt than we are giving Honda. If unpleased with the answer provided by the customer service department his wife should have asked for a supervisor instead of threatening legal action because she did not like what a customer service rep said.
"Besides that fact, what difference does it make if i-SRS is new to the market anyway? It still needs to work"
We have no indication that it didn't work. From everything I have heard in here and read about the airbag system in the Accord owner's manual the airbags should not have deployed under these circumstances. Yesterday we were driving through a Toyota dealer's lot and saw a couple of cars with moderate dents to the passenger front and the airbags had not deployed (this was in a 00-01 Camry, a Scion XA, and a 03+ Corolla). Until we see pictures of what happened (doesn't look like that will happen though since she hasn't even sent any pictures to her husband yet) we have no choice but to given HOnda the benefit of the doubt since there were no prior mentions of SRS problems nor was the SRS warning light on at the time of the accident.
"I think it is fair to say that judging a system by it's own idiot light when already suspecting the system to be faulty would render you the idiot, especially when you are trusting your loved one's life to that same system"
My point has been that even if Honda checks the car and says that the system worked as designed is this person going to keep the car? Doesn't appear so, therefore what purpose is having the system checked serving? None IMO. His wife was not injured and in the owner's manual it states that the airbags will NOT deploy if the sensors determine that the airbags will not be a factor. Since she wasn't injured this seems to be the case.
>This brings me to a question for johng2, is the >car in question a 2003 accord sedan or coupe?
My car is a 2003 EX V6 Sedan.
>As much trouble as this ordeal has been, I think you will be hard-pressed to find an all-around performer that is as safe as the Accord for the same price. However, I wish you luck.
I appreciate that. Hopefully, I will never have to find out!
Honda on the whole over the years has been pretty decent to us. That is, we've never really had a major problem. Now though and I know that every car has its problems, but with the V6 tranny issue too, has just tipped the scales even more. Mind you, I'll be the first, and I have mentioned that there are no guarantees that we will find a better or equal car. The main issue right now is that my wife does not feel safe. For any reason including paranoia, if she does not feel safe, well, it is time to move on.
>Also, I don't think it is Honda's responsibility to go and check out every car after an accident
I couldn't agree more. I never faulted Honda for this except in that two independent sources, one of which happens to be the bodyshop THEY use exclusively, indicated that something was in their opinion amiss. This was not my bodyshop, but the shop HONDA recommended and the one they use exclusively. So, we can hardly be accused of using a shop biased against Honda. And for that matter a shop that doesn't understand Honda's systems seeing that it is Honda's primary repair facility.
I would also agree that their customer service has a lot to be desired. Hindsight is 20-20 but they could have offered some help instead of saying that it was NOT their problem, and that they had no way to test the car even if they had wanted.
Again, 30 years of manufacturing and engineering have told me that every thing can be tested. And if they made it, they certainly know how to test it, and this goes beyond the idiot light on the dash. I doubt that this is much more than the computer talking to the sensors and getting a reply that they are electrically connected so to speak. This is far simpler than being able to detect if the sensor will act correctly.
I'll be taking a trip south in two weeks, and I'm still trying to get the photos of the damage. I personally believe that once I see the photos, I'll have a better idea as to whether the system worked correctly or not. What good it will do is not much.
Lastly, there has been some talk of a pending lawsuit. We never said anything about a lawsuit. It was only after my wife could not make any headway with Honda's cust. service and threatened them with legal action did they become interested. We never once stated that we were going to press for litigation. The only point being, if we don't get some answers then maybe you will give answers to our lawyer. Hey, if that's what it takes to get the ball moving, then so be it. But we were never, nor did we ever say we were going to sue.
thanks again. It was interesting to say the least.
You are unbelievable. I'd add another word or two but I will leave it at that.
>So far we have gotten three different versions of the events in here. Is his wife giving Honda these same different versions of the story?
Are your reading skills deficient? There are not 3 versions. One story with added details. For the record, Honda did not care, nor were any of the deatils ever discussed. If you had bothered to read the posts closely, you will see that my wife never got that far. It was a simple, it's not our problem, etc. There was no discussion of details around the accident. How does one give details when the other party fails to even acknowledge the fact.
>Maybe they did. We have not heard any of the conversations. Why are we going to give someone on Edmunds any more of the benefit of the doubt than we are giving Honda.
And why would you give Honda the benefit of the doubt? What causes you to put so much trust in Honda, that they can do, nor would they ever do anything wrong?
Secondly, why would I come in here and ask for some advice if I were making all this up? What possible purpose would I have to spend this amount of time on something that has been grossly reported.
>If unpleased with the answer provided by the customer service department his wife should have asked for a supervisor instead of threatening legal action because she did not like what a customer service rep said.
Once again, this shows me that you simply jumped in at some point to add your ASSumptions. If you had bothered to actually read the history here, you would have seen that my wife did ask to speak with a supervisor and in fact filed a complaint against the first rep.
Do yourseld a favor and go back and re-read what you supposedly read the first time around. Maybe then you will see that she spoke with 3 reps.
"Maybe they did. We have not heard any of the conversations. Why are we going to give someone on Edmunds any more of the benefit of the doubt than we are giving Honda."
The person writing here should be assumed to be giving a correct version of their story. You seem to always assume Honda makes no mistakes. And attacking the reporter is not a good way to handle the idea that someone doesn't like the story being related here on Edmunds.
Didn't his wife have injuries from being bumped around/??? She didn't have to taken to the hospital for treatment but still had been bumped around. Sounds rough enough for air bags to me...
"Are your reading skills deficient? There are not 3 versions. One story with added details."
Story 1 - Your wife was hit in the passenger side front bumper. Story 2 - The collision was more of a head-on impact. Story 3 - It was a head-on impact that spun your wife's car around and then caused her to get hit again in the door.
Whether it's three different stories or one story with added events it's still three completely different versions of what happened. Going back to my beloved food analogy it's like having a whopper, a whopper with cheese, and then a whopper with cheese and bacon. I know they are all hamburgers but only one will kill you if you are allergic to pork.
"And why would you give Honda the benefit of the doubt? What causes you to put so much trust in Honda, that they can do, nor would they ever do anything wrong?"
Why should I give you the benefit of the doubt over Honda? I've had an experience where I was unhappy with a Honda vehicle we purchased and Honda came through for us. Sure it took a couple of phone calls but we remained calm and were able to agree to a solution. I'm not saying they never do anything wrong but I've been working with customers in automotive situations for 6 years and know that customers will exaggerate the truth, lie, etc to get their way. I'm not saying your wife is doing this but my combined experience with Honda and with customers makes me wait until I see/hear both sides of the story before making a judgement.
"Secondly, why would I come in here and ask for some advice if I were making all this up? What possible purpose would I have to spend this amount of time on something that has been grossly reported."
I never said that you were making it up. I said that your wife is obviously a little unclear on the events of that day and if she is the same way with Honda then they are probably less willing to help. They talk to hundreds of people a day with various stories and situations. The less sure someone is of their story and what happened the less credible they are in these situations. If your wife didn't even get to the point of describing the accident to Honda then obviously her demeanor might not have been conducive to Honda having a professional conversation with her. Or maybe you are right and Honda is terrible. Either way, the main issue here is whether the bags should have gone off or not. I do not believe that they should have.
"Once again, this shows me that you simply jumped in at some point to add your ASSumptions. If you had bothered to actually read the history here, you would have seen that my wife did ask to speak with a supervisor and in fact filed a complaint against the first rep."
Not once in the post below does it say that your wife asked to speak to a supervisor. It states that she told the first rep that they could talk with her lawyer and then they gave her a different number where she states the filed a complaint against the first rep.
"The person writing here should be assumed to be giving a correct version of their story."
Why should we assume that? Why should we automatically assume the company is at fault? That's what is wrong with today's society if you ask me. It's all finger-pointing and "wasn't my fault". Aren't people/companies supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in this country. So far, to me, Honda has not been proven guilty.
If this were a trial this person would have NO credibility. If you don't like my food analogy how about this. If you are a witness on the stand and the first statement to police says "I saw a man with a gun" then the next time you said "I saw a man with a gun pointed at a woman" and then on the stand you said "I saw a man with a gun and he shot a woman" The attorneys would eat you alive.
I think the most important thing to remember is that his wife was unhurt. Obviously the "regular" restraint system didn't need "supplimenting". Looks to be that simple.
If your wife doesn't want the car anymore, that's fine. That's why we have such choices.
I am a customer service/collections rep for the financial arm of a large used car retailer. I have heard some of the wildest stories you can come accross. I'll just say this. If you tick off the low rung rep, it will color your entire dealing with the company. Everything is notated and those notes can have bias and still be factual. Just as a story from a customer can include all the facts "as they see them". You can train reps all day long, but they are still people with thier own personalities, treat them with respect and you'll get much further than just yelling/insulting/cussing.
I've never seen a rep get fired for hanging up on an irate customer.
"Didn't his wife have injuries from being bumped around/??? She didn't have to taken to the hospital for treatment but still had been bumped around. Sounds rough enough for air bags to me..."
And how do you know that? I've been in a few accidents where I've been bumped around quite a bit and the airbags didn't deploy.
You don't have enough information to come to that conclusion.
Since it's a sedan, I'd be curious to know (anyone feel free to volunteer) if it was actually equipped with the new-at-the-time i-SRS system. Seemed like a neat restraint system from what I read. Just curious, no biggie.
Considering the fiasco, I can't really blame her for wanting to switch to another car. Also, I think at this point we all "need" to see those photos once you get them and have time to post
And the rest of this is for my good friend anonymous because at this point you are simply entertaining.
His wife wasn't giving them the runaround, she was frazzled maybe but she certainly seemed to have clearly stated her request. Her request for a check on the car doesn't mean she needs to tell them anything about the accident at all, so who cares how accurate the story is (plus she didn't even originally get to tell it on the phone)? They can always simply get the report (which they don't need anyway just to check the restraint system) from either the local authorities or the bodyshop. Even assuming there were 3 different stories, the first person she talked to could have only gotten one story....why didn't they satisfy the customer the first time when they had no cause to disbelieve her? Anyway, to say the least, I disagree with your interpretation.
"Maybe they did. [tell them if the SRS light is functioning then so is their system] We have not heard any of the conversations." No they didn't, which is why another poster brought up that fact. And why should we believe the poster about his wife? Because he has no reason to lie. Plus if they had told her that on the phone I'm sure there would have been no 2nd, 3rd, and however many other phone calls there were to Honda.
"We have no indication that it [SRS] didn't work." That's not entirely true, but I mostly agree with you. We have the opinions of people ranging from Joe-down-the-block to the insurance adjuster and body shop guys who all say some airbag should have gone off. While I might agree that in this instance perhaps no airbags were supposed to go off, that wasn't the point. Also, you said the passive restraint system was new on this model as if that was an excuse for it's faulty operation. It was not new to market and I don't see how that is relevant anyway. You wrote alot but never answered that question I posed to you. Why does it matter how new the technology is? If it has made it to market it should work, period.
"therefore what purpose is having the system checked serving? None IMO" Of course it serves a purpose. He told you that his wife now feels unsafe about the car because Honda is so unwilling to test it and because she believes that one of the car's celebrated safety feature (SRS) may have failed her on some level. A testing of the passive restraint system would help her to actually get back in the car and drive it, or at least give them peace of mind when selling it to someone else. What would you do, "Hey here's a car that my wife survived a crash in but we really don't know if the passive restraint system worked/works at all so have fun in it!" That's just stupid. BTW, I agree that even without this function working the other built in safety features are still probably enough to survive most crashes. Though rebuilds depend a heck of a lot on the shop doing the rebuild.
"Why should I give you the benefit of the doubt over Honda?" Why do you read this forum? And what are you expecting to find in it. People have little reason to waste the time to post something and lie here, especially in this case. Hell, why bother believing his wife had an accident at all then? One of the greatest things about the forums is being able to collate data and discover trends. When people post, you can mentally file it away and when you come across it again its a little more alarming (if it's a negative trend). For example, I know that on the Accords model year 90-93 there is a tendency towards main fuel relay failure when it's hot resulting in a no start, a penchant for the whole exhaust system to rust away because Honda didn't bother with stainless, a distributor you have to keep your eye on, and some pretty crappy interior door handles (they break off with very little assistance). The smoother-than-previous-generation Honda fare but often screwed up trannies in the newer V6s is another trend (though this is not really due to Honda but a third party that didn't conform to Honda specs). This may be just another uptight customer or it may be part of a larger issue on the 2003 models but either way there is no reason to doubt the convictions of the poster.
"Why should we assume that? Why should we automatically assume the company is at fault?" We're not, we are just assuming from what was told to us that they are reluctant to test the system. Anyway, they are now apparently doing just that.
Forget the analogies already geez. Even so, in your lawyer analogy all those statement are technically correct. If you saw someone shoot another person with a gun, they had to: 1) at least have the gun in the first place, and 2) at some point I should hope they pointed it at the same person they were shooting. Hey, new details reveal themselves to witnesses over time. Guess what? That's why the police say to call them if something new comes to mind!
Customer service is as much an art as a science. And in my opinion you get farther with honey than with vinegar, on either end of the phone. Having said that, I still think the situation was handled poorly.
If the rep heard the "first" version of the story the way it was told here, there was no need to "test the system". The accident victim was unhurt and the details of the accident didn't point to airbag deployment.(something that's near unanimous here) They say there is no need to inspect the system since it seems to have performed as designed. End of call. But sometimes you have customers who will have it thier way or no way and no amount of "customer service" will satisfy the situation. You just aren't going to please everyone. The job is "customer service" not "kiss every customers' hiney".
I don't think anyone is lying. In fact, none of us have even seen the car yet. Not even the victims' husband. Everyone is guessing right now.
As far as your analysis of Anony's analogy. I disagree with you. Kobe just got off on questions raised when the victim's story kept changing with her adding more "details" as time passed. You don't build credibility like that.
...it looks like on this board we have some consumers (and a Honda salesperson, not surprisingly) with the mind to give HOA the benefit of the doubt despite expert opinion of HOA contractors. And asserting that johng2 should just let it go because his wife "wasn't hurt anyway."
Unbelievable.
Would we really give the same advice to someone we care about ? I'd be bothered and repulsed to have such attitudes manning Customer Care of HOA.
The thought track has been way off-base on many fronts. We're talking lives at risk here where to make flippant suggestions is insensitive at best.
I would like to see pictures. I would rather have airbags that deploy. If there hadn't been some recall recently for nondeployment, I wouldn't wonder if there had been a possible failure to have a sensor activate the airbag.
Anonymous and Gee35 are married and both have the same opinion. I haven't retraced all of this with rebuttals to count exactly who thinks what beyond recent answers saying Honda did great -forget it.
I do know, with all respect to the distaff side, that my wife has had two minor accidents. Hearing the description and seeing the car were two different things. It was much more emotional on her part. So the damage may be more or less from the long distance description the gentleman received. It really comes down to PICTURES.
I know the Neon on my walking route has minor damage to the softer, upper part of the hood and the air bags are sitting out having deployed in a relatively soft crash. Lots of dollar damage but cushioned stop due to hitting above the bumper.
Where's Steven Spielenberg when we need him for a good picture???
That woman was such a mess. Even without her changing story I don't see how they could have found him even nearly guilty. Her motive for pressing the charges and continuing with the case was so obvious after they released the medical records on her....yikes. At least she had the sense to abandon the charade. The DA's mishandling of that, especially considering the amount they spent pursuing the case, was simply atrocious. Anyway, Kobe got off for very many reasons, not the least of which was the accuser's questionable character and the prosecution's bungling.
I don't think Honda needs/must test it either and neither does John or his wife as far as I understand. Honda could have placated everyone with a satisfactory answer in the first place.
I've seen reps get away with just about everything with problematic customers, but most knew when it was in their own best interest to give a simple response get the customer out of their face.
The classic example is the retail stock question: "Do you have _____ item?" (regardless of the real answer, state of the warehouse, floor, etc) -"If it's not on the shelf we're out of it sir/madam." How many times have we heard that? May not be true, but it's an answer the customer can understand and be relatively content with. The art of the absolute minumum acceptable response is generally what customer service seems to be. Those few employees that actually take pride in servicing the customer are harder to find.
Ah well, that's in part why we search for more reliable products I guess....to avoid the whole scene in the first place.
Is a second hand story. None of us knows what "really" happened in that accident.
Which HOA contractors are you referring? Niether the bodyshop nor the insurance adjuster were HOA contractors. The HOA guy said the car was fine. The body shop was where the local dealer has his work done.
I'm getting the feeling that this topic is rather done to death and that we need to move on here. The impression I get reading all this is that the dynamics of a vehicular accident is incredibly complex and really can't be deduced from anecdotal evidence--by "anecdotal" I mean the literal meaning of that word, which is "not having been subjected to precise scientific analysis".
I don't think we have the tools at hand to take this issue any further and that we should drop it before the level of argument requires me to start deleting and possibly closing the topic and removing the posting privileges of some people.
I'd really rather have us all enjoy ourselves here.
Found some minor problems with it: Cracking / popping noise from A pillar, driver side Rattles in the headliner around sunroof (in cold weather) Rattles from headrests in the front seats Rattles from the seatbelt slider on the passenger side door Rattles from the trunk (fixed by securing the back seat release handle in the trunk, done by Hoda service) During downshift from 3rd to 2nd gear car decelerates dramatically, compared with feeling of hitting the brakes. This happens mostly in traffic.
It seems that some of those problems are more common then others. Would like to know if people with similar problems had successfully fixed them, and how.
so I've scanned this and a few other boards for a while and I keep coming across posts talking about the "break in" period with a new car and how important it is.
Ok-
What/how long is it?
What do I need to be sure to do (and not do) during it?
And finally, if the answer isn't terribly technical, why?
I just bought a new Accord EX6 which I'm expecting to last a long time, but I'll take as much help and advice along the way as I can.
The Honda Owners Link website states the following:
"What is the break-in period of my Honda?
Help assure your vehicle's future reliability and performance by paying extra attention to how you drive during the first 600 miles (1,000 kilometers). During this period:
Avoid full-throttle starts and rapid acceleration. Avoid hard braking. New brakes need to be broken in by moderate use for the first 200 miles (300 km)."
" Avoid full-throttle starts and rapid acceleration. Avoid hard braking. New brakes need to be broken in by moderate use for the first 200 miles (300 km)." "
Blane - thanks so much for the response....guess I should have explored the obvious before posting the question. Based on the answer, it just became obvious to me why you should never buy a demo model. 50 trips of full-throttle starts, rapid acceleration, and lots of hard braking....
quick question....I have a month old 2--5 EX V6 with about 1100 miles on it....I'm finishing up my 4th tank of gas and wondering at what point is the car "broken in" to the point that I'm getting normal mpg performance? I've definitely seen mpg improve with the 3rd and 4th tanks, but can anyone tell me how long the improvement might continue and when I can expect it to level off?
Also - just a note that I've had no problems whatsoever in these first 1100 miles. I'm not getting the "rattle" or clicking in the window I've read about here. My only complaint about the car is the sluggish responsiveness when accelerating out of a complete stop. I didn't expect it to be incredibly responsive, but coming out of a 1996 LX6, I'm pretty sure that car had a more responsive pedal.
From what I have found that Honda gains mileage pretty good until 3000-4000 miles with some continued improvement until 10,000.
My current Honda is very new, I am just finishing up my 3rd tank and I am getting 25.4 with commuting mostly highway driving 75 mph with some stop-n-go.
I purchased a 2005 Accord V-6 last December and have noticed that whenever it is first started (generally after the car has cooled down, there is a definite "clunk" in the transmission. I spoke with a Honda Tech and they said there was a TSB from Honda on this which stated that it was due to the brakes when you go from reverse to drive and was nothing to worry about. A friend recently purchased an Acura TL and he has similar noises and the service tech their told him to bring it in because they were having potential transmission issues. Anyone else had this issue or heard similar/different explanations?
Don't know for sure, but there has been some discussion on these many Honda threads about it being the Brake ABS check and that it is normal. Not sure, because I have a manual shift and don't have the same situation.
I recently bought a 2001 Accord 5-speed, after driving an automatic for ten years. I find the shifting very notchy. It really takes a lot of effort to get it into 1st and reverse. Higher gears are also balky. All my previous five Hondas with a stick shifted beautifully--almost effortlessly. My Honda dealer tells me there is nothing wrong with the car. He said the 1998-2002 series Accord has a much notchier shift characteristic than earlier models. I don't believe this. Why would Honda change the driving experience for the worse in an area for which they always were highly praised?
Comments
Given that the bodyshop and adjuster have best-guessed that the airbags should have deployed, I'm with you in expecting HOA to conduct the test if only for ethical - not to mention businesswise - reasons on their part.
Obviously HOA needs to raise their level of corporate responsibility to their level of technical capabilities.
if we expect Honda to be responsible for airbag deployment on every car, then that is going to cost money. that money will come from OUR pockets in higher car prices and higher insurance premiums. the more i think about it, (and you know i LOVE to hold Honda accountable for their problems), i am not sure Honda should be responsible for inspecting something that was caused by a driver. whoever caused the accident should be responsible for any testing or diagnostics. i think that is fair.
just my opinion on the ordeal.
Again, thanks to all for some constructive advise and for you others....well..
re gee35coupe
I tend to agree with your assesment. As I have said, my wife was totally at fault. The only issue we have ever presented was should the airbags have deployed or not. All we have ever asked for was for Honda to tell us that the system worked correctly or not. What has caused problems with us is Honda's lack of interest even after both their bodyshop and the adjuster said that the bags should have deployed.
As you rightfully stated, it is in Honda's best interest (at this point) to not touch the car. Then again, if we were to be hit again, and someone was injured in the car, and the system was found faulty, then they would be paying for an early retirement for myself.
So, as you stated, I am only one small peon amongst the million or so customers, and it is not worth it in this case. Of course, if life was lost, I'm sure I would be getting better attention.
re: anonymousposts
After reading your reply I can see why you chose the screen name you did.
First of all, dumping Honda at this point is a no brainer. Not being willing to test a cars safety features after a significant accident or even wishing to acknowledge any responsibility for the system, is pretty bogus, but it is a wonderful learning process on my part.
Secondly, to think that my wife would try to save face is pathetic at best. No where in any of my posts have I even remotely claimed that my wife was not at fault. This whole thing would never have even arisen if the bodyshop and the adjuster had not commented that the bags should have deployed.
Now read carefully and slowly...we are not blaming Honda. We simply want/ed to find out if the airbag system worked as designed. As for pictures, the adjuster has the pictures and I am trying to get in contact with him. At this point though, the pictures are pointless unless we keep the car and have another accident with similar results. At this writing, we will not be keeping the car. Bottom line is that my wife does not feel safe in the car now, and never will feel safe. And the funny thing is, is that Honda has done nothing to put her at ease or re-assure her that their cars and specifically this car is indeed safe.
re ssteelma
What you are suggesting is good with the BBB, but I'm afraid that by the end of October, we will be driving, or at least my wife will be driving another manufacturers car. As I stated above, my wife is in a nutshell paranoid to drive the car after it is fixed. She fears for herself and my daughter, and since Honda has done next to nothing to reasure us that the car is safe, our only recourse is to move on. Luckily in all this is the fact that no one was hurt.
In general:
Many here have questioned my actual description of the accident and the subsequent angle of attack. Again, after a lengthy discussion with my wife, she has said that the Honda was hit twice. This was never brought out initially to me. She said that when the SUV contacted the Honda almost headon, it turned the Honda clockwise and the SUV also made contact on the drivers right front wheel well. No damage was done to the drivers door, but the panel in front of the door was damaged.
Secondly, as I said initially, the SUV did not get that damaged. Well, come to find out that the SUV was not drivable. It was towed from the accident site. Yes, I realize that this could simply mean a fender was wedged on the tire, but it does show that there was more damage than I indicated when I stated that my wife said the SUV had very little damage compared to the Honda.
Sorry that the story seems to change, but it aint easy getting details from 1000 miles away. Seeing that I am not a trial lawyer, I possibly haven't asked all the right questions or possibly have not asked them in the right manner. Anyway, this is it!
Epilogue:
Honda did finally agree to test the system and it appears they did. At least they said they did. Their response to us has been, the system is working. Nothing more, nothing less. When pressed, they can produce no evidence of any testing taking place or any test data. So, I guess I am to take them at their word.
So, it is time to move on...Now, anyone want to buy a Silver 2003 Accord V6? Now, is that before or after the tranny recall?
Again, thanks to all who have contributed. It's been interesting to see the various opinions, comments, and suggestions. If something new pops up, I'll repost, but at this point, I'm worn out and will move on, and of course never buy another Honda product after the way they treated my wife.
johng
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
As I understand things, it takes a lot to make an airbag go off. Certain things have to happen in a certain fashion. It sounds like the built in crumple zones did a fine job without the airbags.
So now what? Buy another car that might not protect as well??
It's possible the replacement car could get involved in an accident too, and maybe "some guy" in a body shop will spout an opinion that the air bags should have deployed that time too??
I don't understand????
FYI the story has not changed 3 times. The story still remains the same. She was hit passenger front side almost head on. As I have spoken with her, she has added details which were not made clear to me in subsequent conversations.
As I stated before, I am not a trial lawyer and as I have posted here, people suggest things that I have no answer for, nor did I ask about. When speaking with my wife, I then go back and try to get some clarification on issues raised by some here. Initially, she was quite shook up and as we all know, after a cooling off period, "cooler heads do prevail" and I would suggest that as the initial shock of the incident wore off, she has remembered more exacting details.
As far as believing me, I could care less. I originally came in here to find out if anyone knew specific details on the inner workings of Hondas airbag system, that is, under what circumstances it will deploy. To put it mildly, there is no concensus in here and Honda is not saying anything either.
The whole issue would have been MOOT if the bodyshop Honda uses exclusively and the insurance adjuster had not said that the bags should have deployed. It was, afterall the bodyshop who commented to my wife that "you have a problem with Honda, because the bags should have deployed!" Oh, really? That was responded to in here with, "well you can't trust the bodyshop...etc. and I would be more apt to believe an insurance adjuster." O.K. fine. The insurance adjuster has seen the car and says they should have deployed in HIS OPINION.
So, let me ask YOU. If two experts or industry savvy people look at your car and say a safety system should have worked, would you not be the least little bit concerned? Would you not maybe want to question the manufacturer, or would you just say, "Hey no one got hurt, so the system must have worked correctly."
Regardless of contact, impact angle, etc., this all started because 2 third parties questioned us on why the system did NOT work. Furthermore injury has nothing to do with it either. When Consumer's Report reported on the increased change that a certain SUV was more likely to roll over in a turn, did it take massive amounts of injury claims to get the ball rolling? Just a report that it was more likely, not that it will ever happen to 99.9 percent of the owners, but the mere fact that it was more likely to tip over caused quite a stir.
The car was advertised with a gee-whiz-bang airbag system. Government 5 star and all that. Now, we get in an accident and simply want to know why the bags did not deploy? Maybe we are all wet, but maybe Honda should at least have the courtesy to say that we are all wet instead of shucking the responsibility first to the bodyshop and then to the adjuster!
As for Honda, at this point, they can pound sand! We asked a simple question and go a not so simple response not from one but from three individuals, ranging from "it's not our problem", to "we have no way to test the system." They treated my wife like a piece of crap, so why should I continue to patronize them?
As I said in a previous post, because no one was hurt, no red flag has emerged deep within Honda's legal force. It is a non-issue with them, but it is a real issue with us seeing that we now feel the car is unsafe. And afterall, I don't care how reliable the car is (oh, forgot about the tranny recall on my V6), or how the resale value is great, the bottom line is if the driver does not feel safe, then it is time to move on, and that is what we will do.
johng
one of Hondas main problems is that they don't hire intelligent support staff. while i don't think the airbags should have gone off, i do think they could handled your call better. if they would only come across as confident and intelligent from the start, they wouldn't instill so many "questions" in the minds of people that have to deal with them.
again, i think the car performed as it should. your cars SRS lights comes on when you start the car, so the system tests itself everytime you start it. if there is a problem, it would tell you. but Honda should have said:
"if you didn't have an illuminated SRS light on your dash other than at start up, the system is working as designed. the impact was not forceful enough to contact the sensors. your cars airbag system is functioning fine."
if they would only say that from the start, you wouldn't have had to feel so beat up by the whole ordeal.
but, the only other car i would feel safe in would be a Volvo or VW.
There had to be some angle if your wife was turning left and was hit on the passenger side. Unless the SUV came over into oncoming traffic, the Accord had to be turning at some angle to be impacted.
After we figure that angle, which in an above link was shown to be 30 degrees then we have to figure whether the bags should have deployed due to forces.
As mentioned before, I don't think Honda should deploy the resources to test every accident that has questionable airbag operation. That would drive everyones costs up. If the insurance adjuster thinks the airbags should have gone off, maybe they should test them on their dime. Ultimately faulty airbags would cause them to lose money due to higher injury claims.
You say you came here for advise. While there may be no consensus why your airbags didn't deploy, there does seem to be one that they should not have. The facts as presented to not support airbag deployment.
As far as Consumer Reports SUV warnign causing a stir. Not really. They still sell like hot-cakes. There have been other warnings that aftermarket 20-inch wheels add to the tendency. Check out how many are heeding THAT warning.
Justin you are dead on. Your post just popped up before mine.
"Justin you are dead on. Your post just popped up before mine."
i am saving that, using it later
Yes, if you feel you were that mistreated and no longer have confidence in a brand, it's time to move on. But, to what? A car that may not protect as well?
Life is short...it's time to move on rather than agonize over what should or shouldn't have happened.
Just my not so humple opinion for whatever it's worth...
Smart airbags are relatively new on the market. The system in the Accord is designed to not deploy an airbag if there is no passenger in the seat directly impacted by the accident. Therefore if your wife was hit in the front-side as you first indicated then the airbag would NOT have deployed.
And from Honda's perspective if your wife can't give you the correct events from that day then she's probably changed her initial description of the accident to them as well. If you work at McDonalds and someone says "hey I got the wrong order, I wanted a cheeseburger instead of a Big Mac" and then they come right back in and say "No it wasn't a Big Mac, it was a 6-piece nuggets that I ordered", and then they come back a third time and say "Yeah I wanted nuggets but I ordered 10 and not 6" you would be doubting the validity of their claim.
So what will you buy? A Camry? An Altima? How will you know that their airbag system is working properly? As I stated before the only way to know for sure that your airbags are working is to have a major accident. If your wife does have another accident and the airbags don't deploy, whether by design or failure, then you will be right back at square one. Sounds like an expensive proposition to me.
So now I wonder, was the SUV actually coming from the west, headed east? If so, and if it was really pretty much head on at a combined impact speed of about 50 mph, I'm inclined to be more sympathetic with your concerns than I was originally.
Except about the law suit threats. You're still off in left field on those, or your wife is.
The really odd thing is that IF your car has a black box, and IF Honda gets data from it as part of its evaluation of whether the airbag system was working properly, it seems likely to be of practical use only to the insurance company of the SUV owner, which will probably use it to cement its case that your wife was at fault, so that your insurance company should then be stuck with the entire tab for repairs. The effect of which you will feel when you apply for insurance for your new car.
1) You are not his wife, you were not in the same accident, and your ability to relay information has no bearing on what he wants to know. I don't see how you can compare two different accidents with two different sets of people and circumstances in the way you are trying to.
2) Considering the description of the phone calls to Honda, it doesn't seem like their service is contingent on how "together" his wife's version of the accident is, considering they don't seem to want to talk to her at all.
3) If you get the wrong order at Burger King or wherever all they do is fix the order. Because it's virtually valueless anyway and because them giving you the wrong order will probably not cause your death (any more so than eating there in the first place). The point is, a lifesaving device in a $25K car has nothing to do with fast food. Additionally, if I spent $25K on a new car, get into an accident, and then ask a simple question about the lifesaving devices in my car I would expect an honest answer somewhere down the line. Period.
4)"the only way to know for sure that your airbags are working is to have a major accident" This is ludicrous. Like just about any other component in ummm.....anything (especially cars) there are ways to test operational ability besides waiting for failure. If that were the case there would be a few less dealerships making money off of all those "needless inspections". In fact, why bother having inspections of any kind! The SRS light (previously mentioned) is a basic indicator as to the operational status of the passive restraint system. I would hope there are others, but even just that renders your statement invalid and more importantly, misleading.
"Sounds like an expensive proposition to me. "
Even assuming your logic, I'd rather have a financial burden (new car) than a dead spouse due to my inane negligence.
Having said that, I am not a large proponent of airbags at all (in their current iterations) and think Honda is mainly just guilty of some crappy customer service in this instance. And they are certainly not alone in that grouping. Seems like airbag deployment is dependent on many accident specifics that we are not yet sure of in this particular case. I'd love to hear more specifics if you aren't to busy to post them when they come to your attention.
Be safe out there everyone!
So I don't believe the airbags should have gone off reading what was in the owner's manual.
"2) Considering the description of the phone calls to Honda, it doesn't seem like their service is contingent on how "together" his wife's version of the accident is, considering they don't seem to want to talk to her at all."
In the business I work in we become much less willing to work with a customer if they are inconsistent. Honestly, we should give Honda the same benefit of the doubt as we are giving this guy's wife. It's all heresay and third party information at this point.
"The point is, a lifesaving device in a $25K car has nothing to do with fast food."
lastwraith meet an analogy. Analogy please meet lastwraith. I'll give you a few moments to get aquainted. If you want to concentrate on the fast food aspect of my analogy then you are missing the whole point.
"The SRS light (previously mentioned) is a basic indicator as to the operational status of the passive restraint system."
There ya go. The SRS system does a self-check when the car is started. Since the SRS light was not on in the case it appears the SRS was working without issues and worked as designed in this instance. The main point of this poster is that he wants Honda to check the system .. the system is checked every time the car is started.
Why did the adjuster and the bodyshop say the airbags should have deployed? Maybe they aren't that experienced with Honda's new smart airbag system. That's what I'm guessing because from what I have read here and in the owner's manual the system worked as designed.
"This is ludicrous. Like just about any other component in ummm.....anything (especially cars) there are ways to test operational ability besides waiting for failure."
Read above. The system self-checks itself. Honda could do a test that says the system was working but until you run the car into a wall and the airbags deploy (or not) you will not know for sure that they are working.
The factor in whether or not the airbags should have employed is did the sensors trigger that should have triggered during the accident.
The 'black box' if the car has one that recorded the speeds and inputs during the last few seconds of the car's life might tell that. If the sensor didn't trigger, then Honda should check it to be sure the sensors going into the cars are correctly engineered and correctly built by the supplier. I recall in recent couple of years some car company having sensors that didn't trigger the air bag in some car and were recalled.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
A knowledgeable forensic accident reconstructor (there are those folks) would probably be the one to look at both cars and collect the info and determine if the air bags should have employed. He might be worth paying if you stood to collect any compensation for loss. In this case there was none.
Honda is obviously NOT going to want to seek out if their system failed. They have much to lose. They will flim-flam the customer more rather than find out the truth.
It's nice to think your car company of choice is honest..., but dollars talk more than integrity.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
One of the reasons I jumped on your post in the first place was your tendency to be either abrasive or downright incorrect, or both. Among other things you said that were untrue, the i-SRS system employed by Honda (the newest system available in a 2003 model) has been on the market since at least 1998. It was first used in Japanese cars and then brought over for autos in the US. Besides that fact, what difference does it make if i-SRS is new to the market anyway? It still needs to work.
Just because the SRS light indicated a working passive restraint system doesn't mean Honda cannot either send someone to check the car or have it checked by a third party. You have a check engine light in your car too, but that doesn't mean a competent mechanic might not find something wrong with your car even without that light being lit (hey, it's an analogy!). At the very least, checking continuity between the i-SRS sensors, control module(s), and inflator activators would probably make the accident victim feel a lot better before driving the car again. And if I was Honda, getting someone to break out a multimeter or whatever equipment they need to use would be a small price to pay to win over a customer. BTW, you apparently didn't bother to read what I wrote, since I said it was a "basic" indicator. The poster wants Honda to check the passive restraint system because a Honda approved repair place and just about everyone else in the known universe that saw the car told him the airbags should have gone off in that specific instance. I think it is fair to say that judging a system by it's own idiot light when already suspecting the system to be faulty would render you the idiot, especially when you are trusting your loved one's life to that same system. Also, Imadazol97 is correct, there are multiple sensors and the cumulative information determines the firing state and inflation response.
This brings me to a question for johng2, is the car in question a 2003 accord sedan or coupe? Forgive me if I missed that info in one of your previous posts. I believe in 2003 side impact curtains were on the EX V6 sedan but only the coupes got i-SRS standard. From what I remember reading anyway.
As much trouble as this ordeal has been, I think you will be hard-pressed to find an all-around performer that is as safe as the Accord for the same price. However, I wish you luck.
Also, I don't think it is Honda's responsibility to go and check out every car after an accident but maybe they ought to re-educate some of their phone people to avoid customer escalations like this one. The goal of customer service is to service the customer and in this case, I don't think the request was all that unreasonable. Especially when a simple response over the phone would have sufficed.
Have a good one.
What about when the customer gives the company the run-around. So far we have gotten three different versions of the events in here. Is his wife giving Honda these same different versions of the story? If she is then I would have a hard time believing her as well if I am on the other end of the phone at Honda. If she is so upset and unclear about the events of the accident how can we even be sure that we are getting the correct version of events from the conversations with Honda Customer Service?
"To tell a customer to essentially get lost on the phone when a simple answer such as, "if your SRS light is functioning, so is your passive restraint system" is a cut and dry case of idiotic customer service"
Maybe they did. We have not heard any of the conversations. Why are we going to give someone on Edmunds any more of the benefit of the doubt than we are giving Honda. If unpleased with the answer provided by the customer service department his wife should have asked for a supervisor instead of threatening legal action because she did not like what a customer service rep said.
"Besides that fact, what difference does it make if i-SRS is new to the market anyway? It still needs to work"
We have no indication that it didn't work. From everything I have heard in here and read about the airbag system in the Accord owner's manual the airbags should not have deployed under these circumstances. Yesterday we were driving through a Toyota dealer's lot and saw a couple of cars with moderate dents to the passenger front and the airbags had not deployed (this was in a 00-01 Camry, a Scion XA, and a 03+ Corolla). Until we see pictures of what happened (doesn't look like that will happen though since she hasn't even sent any pictures to her husband yet) we have no choice but to given HOnda the benefit of the doubt since there were no prior mentions of SRS problems nor was the SRS warning light on at the time of the accident.
"I think it is fair to say that judging a system by it's own idiot light when already suspecting the system to be faulty would render you the idiot, especially when you are trusting your loved one's life to that same system"
My point has been that even if Honda checks the car and says that the system worked as designed is this person going to keep the car? Doesn't appear so, therefore what purpose is having the system checked serving? None IMO. His wife was not injured and in the owner's manual it states that the airbags will NOT deploy if the sensors determine that the airbags will not be a factor. Since she wasn't injured this seems to be the case.
My car is a 2003 EX V6 Sedan.
>As much trouble as this ordeal has been, I think you will be hard-pressed to find an all-around performer that is as safe as the Accord for the same price. However, I wish you luck.
I appreciate that. Hopefully, I will never have to find out!
Honda on the whole over the years has been pretty decent to us. That is, we've never really had a major problem. Now though and I know that every car has its problems, but with the V6 tranny issue too, has just tipped the scales even more. Mind you, I'll be the first, and I have mentioned that there are no guarantees that we will find a better or equal car. The main issue right now is that my wife does not feel safe. For any reason including paranoia, if she does not feel safe, well, it is time to move on.
>Also, I don't think it is Honda's responsibility to go and check out every car after an accident
I couldn't agree more. I never faulted Honda for this except in that two independent sources, one of which happens to be the bodyshop THEY use exclusively, indicated that something was in their opinion amiss. This was not my bodyshop, but the shop HONDA recommended and the one they use exclusively. So, we can hardly be accused of using a shop biased against Honda. And for that matter a shop that doesn't understand Honda's systems seeing that it is Honda's primary repair facility.
I would also agree that their customer service has a lot to be desired. Hindsight is 20-20 but they could have offered some help instead of saying that it was NOT their problem, and that they had no way to test the car even if they had wanted.
Again, 30 years of manufacturing and engineering have told me that every thing can be tested. And if they made it, they certainly know how to test it, and this goes beyond the idiot light on the dash. I doubt that this is much more than the computer talking to the sensors and getting a reply that they are electrically connected so to speak. This is far simpler than being able to detect if the sensor will act correctly.
I'll be taking a trip south in two weeks, and I'm still trying to get the photos of the damage. I personally believe that once I see the photos, I'll have a better idea as to whether the system worked correctly or not. What good it will do is not much.
Lastly, there has been some talk of a pending lawsuit. We never said anything about a lawsuit. It was only after my wife could not make any headway with Honda's cust. service and threatened them with legal action did they become interested. We never once stated that we were going to press for litigation. The only point being, if we don't get some answers then maybe you will give answers to our lawyer. Hey, if that's what it takes to get the ball moving, then so be it. But we were never, nor did we ever say we were going to sue.
thanks again. It was interesting to say the least.
johng
>So far we have gotten three different versions of the events in here. Is his wife giving Honda these same different versions of the story?
Are your reading skills deficient? There are not 3 versions. One story with added details. For the record, Honda did not care, nor were any of the deatils ever discussed. If you had bothered to read the posts closely, you will see that my wife never got that far. It was a simple, it's not our problem, etc. There was no discussion of details around the accident. How does one give details when the other party fails to even acknowledge the fact.
>Maybe they did. We have not heard any of the conversations. Why are we going to give someone on Edmunds any more of the benefit of the doubt than we are giving Honda.
And why would you give Honda the benefit of the doubt? What causes you to put so much trust in Honda, that they can do, nor would they ever do anything wrong?
Secondly, why would I come in here and ask for some advice if I were making all this up? What possible purpose would I have to spend this amount of time on something that has been grossly reported.
>If unpleased with the answer provided by the customer service department his wife should have asked for a supervisor instead of threatening legal action because she did not like what a customer service rep said.
Once again, this shows me that you simply jumped in at some point to add your ASSumptions. If you had bothered to actually read the history here, you would have seen that my wife did ask to speak with a supervisor and in fact filed a complaint against the first rep.
Do yourseld a favor and go back and re-read what you supposedly read the first time around. Maybe then you will see that she spoke with 3 reps.
johng
The person writing here should be assumed to be giving a correct version of their story. You seem to always assume Honda makes no mistakes. And attacking the reporter is not a good way to handle the idea that someone doesn't like the story being related here on Edmunds.
Didn't his wife have injuries from being bumped around/??? She didn't have to taken to the hospital for treatment but still had been bumped around. Sounds rough enough for air bags to me...
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Story 1 - Your wife was hit in the passenger side front bumper.
Story 2 - The collision was more of a head-on impact.
Story 3 - It was a head-on impact that spun your wife's car around and then caused her to get hit again in the door.
Whether it's three different stories or one story with added events it's still three completely different versions of what happened. Going back to my beloved food analogy it's like having a whopper, a whopper with cheese, and then a whopper with cheese and bacon. I know they are all hamburgers but only one will kill you if you are allergic to pork.
"And why would you give Honda the benefit of the doubt? What causes you to put so much trust in Honda, that they can do, nor would they ever do anything wrong?"
Why should I give you the benefit of the doubt over Honda? I've had an experience where I was unhappy with a Honda vehicle we purchased and Honda came through for us. Sure it took a couple of phone calls but we remained calm and were able to agree to a solution. I'm not saying they never do anything wrong but I've been working with customers in automotive situations for 6 years and know that customers will exaggerate the truth, lie, etc to get their way. I'm not saying your wife is doing this but my combined experience with Honda and with customers makes me wait until I see/hear both sides of the story before making a judgement.
"Secondly, why would I come in here and ask for some advice if I were making all this up? What possible purpose would I have to spend this amount of time on something that has been grossly reported."
I never said that you were making it up. I said that your wife is obviously a little unclear on the events of that day and if she is the same way with Honda then they are probably less willing to help. They talk to hundreds of people a day with various stories and situations. The less sure someone is of their story and what happened the less credible they are in these situations. If your wife didn't even get to the point of describing the accident to Honda then obviously her demeanor might not have been conducive to Honda having a professional conversation with her. Or maybe you are right and Honda is terrible. Either way, the main issue here is whether the bags should have gone off or not. I do not believe that they should have.
"Once again, this shows me that you simply jumped in at some point to add your ASSumptions. If you had bothered to actually read the history here, you would have seen that my wife did ask to speak with a supervisor and in fact filed a complaint against the first rep."
Not once in the post below does it say that your wife asked to speak to a supervisor. It states that she told the first rep that they could talk with her lawyer and then they gave her a different number where she states the filed a complaint against the first rep.
johng2 Sep 23, 2004 4:04pm
Why should we assume that? Why should we automatically assume the company is at fault? That's what is wrong with today's society if you ask me. It's all finger-pointing and "wasn't my fault". Aren't people/companies supposed to be presumed innocent until proven guilty in this country. So far, to me, Honda has not been proven guilty.
If this were a trial this person would have NO credibility. If you don't like my food analogy how about this. If you are a witness on the stand and the first statement to police says "I saw a man with a gun" then the next time you said "I saw a man with a gun pointed at a woman" and then on the stand you said "I saw a man with a gun and he shot a woman" The attorneys would eat you alive.
R-Restraint
S-System
I think the most important thing to remember is that his wife was unhurt. Obviously the "regular" restraint system didn't need "supplimenting". Looks to be that simple.
If your wife doesn't want the car anymore, that's fine. That's why we have such choices.
I am a customer service/collections rep for the financial arm of a large used car retailer. I have heard some of the wildest stories you can come accross. I'll just say this. If you tick off the low rung rep, it will color your entire dealing with the company. Everything is notated and those notes can have bias and still be factual. Just as a story from a customer can include all the facts "as they see them". You can train reps all day long, but they are still people with thier own personalities, treat them with respect and you'll get much further than just yelling/insulting/cussing.
I've never seen a rep get fired for hanging up on an irate customer.
And how do you know that? I've been in a few accidents where I've been bumped around quite a bit and the airbags didn't deploy.
You don't have enough information to come to that conclusion.
Since it's a sedan, I'd be curious to know (anyone feel free to volunteer) if it was actually equipped with the new-at-the-time i-SRS system. Seemed like a neat restraint system from what I read. Just curious, no biggie.
Considering the fiasco, I can't really blame her for wanting to switch to another car. Also, I think at this point we all "need" to see those photos once you get them and have time to post
And the rest of this is for my good friend anonymous because at this point you are simply entertaining.
His wife wasn't giving them the runaround, she was frazzled maybe but she certainly seemed to have clearly stated her request. Her request for a check on the car doesn't mean she needs to tell them anything about the accident at all, so who cares how accurate the story is (plus she didn't even originally get to tell it on the phone)? They can always simply get the report (which they don't need anyway just to check the restraint system) from either the local authorities or the bodyshop. Even assuming there were 3 different stories, the first person she talked to could have only gotten one story....why didn't they satisfy the customer the first time when they had no cause to disbelieve her? Anyway, to say the least, I disagree with your interpretation.
"Maybe they did. [tell them if the SRS light is functioning then so is their system] We have not heard any of the conversations." No they didn't, which is why another poster brought up that fact. And why should we believe the poster about his wife? Because he has no reason to lie. Plus if they had told her that on the phone I'm sure there would have been no 2nd, 3rd, and however many other phone calls there were to Honda.
"We have no indication that it [SRS] didn't work." That's not entirely true, but I mostly agree with you. We have the opinions of people ranging from Joe-down-the-block to the insurance adjuster and body shop guys who all say some airbag should have gone off. While I might agree that in this instance perhaps no airbags were supposed to go off, that wasn't the point. Also, you said the passive restraint system was new on this model as if that was an excuse for it's faulty operation. It was not new to market and I don't see how that is relevant anyway. You wrote alot but never answered that question I posed to you. Why does it matter how new the technology is? If it has made it to market it should work, period.
"therefore what purpose is having the system checked serving? None IMO" Of course it serves a purpose. He told you that his wife now feels unsafe about the car because Honda is so unwilling to test it and because she believes that one of the car's celebrated safety feature (SRS) may have failed her on some level. A testing of the passive restraint system would help her to actually get back in the car and drive it, or at least give them peace of mind when selling it to someone else. What would you do, "Hey here's a car that my wife survived a crash in but we really don't know if the passive restraint system worked/works at all so have fun in it!" That's just stupid. BTW, I agree that even without this function working the other built in safety features are still probably enough to survive most crashes. Though rebuilds depend a heck of a lot on the shop doing the rebuild.
"Why should I give you the benefit of the doubt over Honda?" Why do you read this forum? And what are you expecting to find in it. People have little reason to waste the time to post something and lie here, especially in this case. Hell, why bother believing his wife had an accident at all then?
One of the greatest things about the forums is being able to collate data and discover trends. When people post, you can mentally file it away and when you come across it again its a little more alarming (if it's a negative trend). For example, I know that on the Accords model year 90-93 there is a tendency towards main fuel relay failure when it's hot resulting in a no start, a penchant for the whole exhaust system to rust away because Honda didn't bother with stainless, a distributor you have to keep your eye on, and some pretty crappy interior door handles (they break off with very little assistance). The smoother-than-previous-generation Honda fare but often screwed up trannies in the newer V6s is another trend (though this is not really due to Honda but a third party that didn't conform to Honda specs). This may be just another uptight customer or it may be part of a larger issue on the 2003 models but either way there is no reason to doubt the convictions of the poster.
"Why should we assume that? Why should we automatically assume the company is at fault?"
We're not, we are just assuming from what was told to us that they are reluctant to test the system. Anyway, they are now apparently doing just that.
Forget the analogies already geez. Even so, in your lawyer analogy all those statement are technically correct. If you saw someone shoot another person with a gun, they had to: 1) at least have the gun in the first place, and 2) at some point I should hope they pointed it at the same person they were shooting. Hey, new details reveal themselves to witnesses over time. Guess what? That's why the police say to call them if something new comes to mind!
Customer service is as much an art as a science. And in my opinion you get farther with honey than with vinegar, on either end of the phone. Having said that, I still think the situation was handled poorly.
For everyone else, enjoy your Hondas!
I don't think anyone is lying. In fact, none of us have even seen the car yet. Not even the victims' husband. Everyone is guessing right now.
As far as your analysis of Anony's analogy. I disagree with you. Kobe just got off on questions raised when the victim's story kept changing with her adding more "details" as time passed. You don't build credibility like that.
$2000 downpayment.
$355 per month for 36 months.
This comes to a total of $14,780.00 for a 3 year lease. Can anybody tell me if this is a good deal or not.
Thanks.
Unbelievable.
Would we really give the same advice to someone we care about ? I'd be bothered and repulsed to have such attitudes manning Customer Care of HOA.
The thought track has been way off-base on many fronts. We're talking lives at risk here where to make flippant suggestions is insensitive at best.
Anonymous and Gee35 are married and both have the same opinion. I haven't retraced all of this with rebuttals to count exactly who thinks what beyond recent answers saying Honda did great -forget it.
I do know, with all respect to the distaff side, that my wife has had two minor accidents. Hearing the description and seeing the car were two different things. It was much more emotional on her part. So the damage may be more or less from the long distance description the gentleman received. It really comes down to PICTURES.
I know the Neon on my walking route has minor damage to the softer, upper part of the hood and the air bags are sitting out having deployed in a relatively soft crash. Lots of dollar damage but cushioned stop due to hitting above the bumper.
Where's Steven Spielenberg when we need him for a good picture???
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
I don't think Honda needs/must test it either and neither does John or his wife as far as I understand. Honda could have placated everyone with a satisfactory answer in the first place.
I've seen reps get away with just about everything with problematic customers, but most knew when it was in their own best interest to give a simple response get the customer out of their face.
The classic example is the retail stock question:
"Do you have _____ item?"
(regardless of the real answer, state of the warehouse, floor, etc)
-"If it's not on the shelf we're out of it sir/madam."
How many times have we heard that? May not be true, but it's an answer the customer can understand and be relatively content with. The art of the absolute minumum acceptable response is generally what customer service seems to be. Those few employees that actually take pride in servicing the customer are harder to find.
Ah well, that's in part why we search for more reliable products I guess....to avoid the whole scene in the first place.
Night all.
Which HOA contractors are you referring? Niether the bodyshop nor the insurance adjuster were HOA contractors. The HOA guy said the car was fine. The body shop was where the local dealer has his work done.
I don't think we have the tools at hand to take this issue any further and that we should drop it before the level of argument requires me to start deleting and possibly closing the topic and removing the posting privileges of some people.
I'd really rather have us all enjoy ourselves here.
Can we move on, please?
thank you
MrShiftright
Host
But I'd really like to change the subject.
Shifty the Host
Found some minor problems with it:
Cracking / popping noise from A pillar, driver side
Rattles in the headliner around sunroof (in cold weather)
Rattles from headrests in the front seats
Rattles from the seatbelt slider on the passenger side door
Rattles from the trunk (fixed by securing the back seat release handle in the trunk, done by Hoda service)
During downshift from 3rd to 2nd gear car decelerates dramatically, compared with feeling of hitting the brakes. This happens mostly in traffic.
It seems that some of those problems are more common then others. Would like to know if people with similar problems had successfully fixed them, and how.
Ok-
What/how long is it?
What do I need to be sure to do (and not do) during it?
And finally, if the answer isn't terribly technical, why?
I just bought a new Accord EX6 which I'm expecting to last a long time, but I'll take as much help and advice along the way as I can.
Thanks!
Rich
The Honda Owners Link website states the following:
"What is the break-in period of my Honda?
Help assure your vehicle's future reliability and performance by paying extra attention to how you drive during the first 600 miles (1,000 kilometers). During this period:
Avoid full-throttle starts and rapid acceleration.
Avoid hard braking. New brakes need to be broken in by moderate use for the first 200 miles (300 km)."
Avoid hard braking. New brakes need to be broken in by moderate use for the first 200 miles (300 km)." "
Blane - thanks so much for the response....guess I should have explored the obvious before posting the question. Based on the answer, it just became obvious to me why you should never buy a demo model. 50 trips of full-throttle starts, rapid acceleration, and lots of hard braking....
Great point about "demo", or "executive", cars. Thanks.
I bout HONDA EX- L 2005 two weeks ago.
LOL good one
Also - just a note that I've had no problems whatsoever in these first 1100 miles. I'm not getting the "rattle" or clicking in the window I've read about here. My only complaint about the car is the sluggish responsiveness when accelerating out of a complete stop. I didn't expect it to be incredibly responsive, but coming out of a 1996 LX6, I'm pretty sure that car had a more responsive pedal.
From what I have found that Honda gains mileage pretty good until 3000-4000 miles with some continued improvement until 10,000.
My current Honda is very new, I am just finishing up my 3rd tank and I am getting 25.4 with commuting mostly highway driving 75 mph with some stop-n-go.
Good Luck,
MidCow
Good Luck,
MidCow