Has Honda's run - run out?

talon95

"It's not just the transmission. Too high a percentage of Accords and TLs have too many rattles and creaks."

That may be, but rattles and creaks don't get you stranded in the middle of nowhere or rear-ended, now do they? And as I stated above, this is not a likely outcome if you're affected by the transmission issue, either.

At least Honda and Acura are taking the creaks and rattles seriously... there are several TSBs in place that attempt to address them in affected units.

"I'm convinced that Honda's build quality has actually gone down the last few years."

I agree that this is one reasonable conclusion, although my very reliable and well built 2003 Accord has gone a long way towards reassuring me that they're getting back on track (knock on wood). Even my 2000 Accord, aside from the transmission replacement, was otherwise an excellent car. That excellence is the only thing that kept me in the Honda camp... the overall quality of the car led me to conclude that the transmission problem was not a common situation for Honda. Had that car been problematic in other areas, I probably would have looked elsewhere for my next car... most likely Mazda.

At any rate, my only goal is to put the transmission situation into its proper perspective.

driftracer

You're not understanding what I'm saying, or the laws that are in place.

"So if my car has a problem, and the dealer fixes it 100%, I can still sue him for the knockdown in trade-in value?"

First, this has little or nothing to do with the dealer. The problem is that the breakdown occured at all. I, as an appraiser, will pay less for a car with a remanufactured transmission (at 30k miles, let's say), or series of electrical problems or water leaks, than the same car with no problems, whether the repairs fixes the problem or not - the car now has a reman major component and/or a history of failures and I don't want it - not at full market value, at least. It's the same idea that a vehicle that has been involved in an accident doesn't command full value like one that is perfect.

Secondly, this has nothing to do with the dealer - these statutes single out the manufacturer of the product.

The Magnusson-Moss Warranty Improvement Act indicates that after a series of problems, the consumer is entitled to the difference in what they paid for the product versus what they got in return - it's that simple.

The Uniform Commercial Code Fair Trade Amendment (paraphrased) indicates that the car shouldn't have broken down to begin with.

I'm certainly not going to justify my job position to you or anyone else - the 46,000 consumers helped through the firm I deal with and the judges who heard their cases aren't going to want to hear that their cases weren't justified and filed in compliance with federal and local laws.

If you choose to pay the same price for a vehicle with a horrible warranty/service history, or major reman components, or a series of water leaks as you would pay for one with a clean history, that's your business. I say that's crazy.

gagrice

I'm convinced that Honda's build quality has actually gone down the last few years

I was convinced Honda would never make it in the auto manufacturing business. I bought a 1978 Accord when they first came out. It was a headache from the beginning and I was 75 miles from the dealer in MN. The over-heating problems, minor engine problems and the cruise control never worked. New engine at 68k not under warranty. I swore I would never buy another Honda. And I haven't.

gee35coupe

We had nowhere to complain. The 1990-1993 had issues. The 1994-1997 ones had some too. It's just we couldn't all meet up on the internet in droves until around the late 90's. We really don't know how the initial quality of those generations compare to today. Also, it looks like Honda is still leading all the other reasonably priced makes in this area. If you don;t buy a Honda, who do you think is doing any better? And what data brings you to this conclusion.

And Talon is right about the transmissions. The failure was not a fatal malfunction. It was more like a glitch that progressively got worse. You get your car fixed and get over it.

Gagrice's experience sounds like the one I had with my 2000 Silverado. It spent the first month in the shop. With several return visits afterward. I'd still give GM another shot though. I'm smart enough to know that all GM's aren't crap.

talon95

"The over-heating problems, minor engine problems and the cruise control never worked. New engine at 68k not under warranty. I swore I would never buy another Honda. And I haven't."

Clearly that's your choice. I understand how an expensive major repair such as an engine replacement can be a difficult situation to forgive and forget. But equally clearly, despite some recent ups and downs, Honda's quality for at least the past 10 to 15 years is light years ahead of what you describe. Overall, the '70s and '80s were hardly high watermarks for quality for most automakers, anyway. Around that time, my dad got a new company lease car every 2 years, and his company contracted with a Pontiac dealer. One of those cars was a 1980 Pontiac Phoenix... that car and its other X-car brethren were so bad that they almost defy description... they're probably among the nadirs of automotive quality in all of automotive history. The rest, though better than the Phoenix, were not even close to impressive. Even though Pontiacs are hardly known for having stellar quality even today, the current Pontiacs are light years ahead of their counterparts of that era, just as the Hondas are.

I had a 1980 Toyota Tercel that left me stranded on vacation with about 17,000 miles on the odometer. Seems Toyota knew of a high percentage of failures in the igniters in the electronic ignition, but decided to replace them as they failed rather than doing a recall. My cousin had a 1984 Corolla sedan that had a complete transmission failure 18 months after it was delivered. Toyota refused to cover it, and she had to go to arbitration to pursue it... fortunately, the arbitration board decided in her favor. Like you, this incident burned her for life as far as Toyota goes... she'd never even consider buying another one. Yet look at Toyota today... recognized year after year, along with Honda, for manufacturing some of the highest quality cars available.

Then we have Hyundai... remember the Excel? Yes, I know that we're all trying to forget that misbegotten bucket of bolts. But now this year, Hyundai is the top rated non-luxury brand in initial quality by JD Power. Honda is rated right after it. Amazing how things can change over time.

As I said above, it's your choice. But sometimes it makes sense to treat ancient history for what it is. Given the improvements in the state of technology and manufacturing in recent years, that 25 years since your problematic Accord is practically an eternity.

saugatak

Relax. I just didn't understand how it worked. Not trying to insult you or your firm, even if it came across that way. Sorry about that.

OK I understand the rationale and the basis for the lawsuits now.

I see now why you're so critical to the case.

I guess you're needed to provide the expert testimony that a "perfect" car would be worth X and the fixed-up car is now worth X - $10,000 or something like that.

driftracer

I appraise the vehicle as it sits, but considering its history - the actual wording in the law is "at the time and place of sale, given the defects known to the vehicle, what SHOULD the consumer have paid for the vehicle?"

"The consumer is entitled to the difference in the vehicle, as warranted, and the product the consumer actually recieved".

The lemon law for each state, if applicable to a case, is really just an add-on.

I'm then forced to break out my crystal ball, travel back in time with the owner to XYZ Chevrolet, and advise him not to buy the car, but if he must he should pay $XXX less...

It's a strange bit of testimony and explanation (how I came up with the "diminution in value"), I promise you!

nvbanker

Sounds about as complex as betterment calculations to me.

driftracer

diminution, and diminished value are all related, but have separate uses, and are all tough to explain and justify.

nvbanker

especially to a jury of "peers".....know what I mean?

merc1

Oh that one. That did nothing for me. Yes the Mazda 6 without the sport package is just as bland as they come to me.

M

saugatak

Thanks for the explanations. Interesting.

Just curious, but at what point do you say the diminution in value is not worth pursuing this case? Is there some de minimis cutoff?

I can see how a faulty repair job would significantly lower the vehicle trade-in, but if the repair job is good, I'm having difficulty seeing how it would significantly impact trade-in by a lot.

Assuming a de minimis cutoff of around $10K, what kind of complete repair job can chop off $10k of value off a car?

driftracer

"I can see how a faulty repair job would significantly lower the vehicle trade-in, but if the repair job is good, I'm having difficulty seeing how it would significantly impact trade-in by a lot."

I understand your thought process here, and that's exactly the case that defense counsel tries to present.

I don't want to insult your intelligence with an analogy, but this is how I explain it in court.

You're a used car manager at a large dealership. You evaluate and take in trade 20-30 cars a day. This particular day, you'll look at 10 Honda Odysseys. Let's assume they're all accident-free and relatively clean, no mileage issues (high mileage) or other trade-in problems. ONE of them has had three remanufactured transmissions installed. The transmission in THAT one is OK for now. The other 9 have never had a transmission problem.

Your choices are:

1) Don't even consider taking #10 in trade, first, because you can make that choice, and you certainly aren't forced into buying anything you don't want. (Think about what this does for value - you wouldn't want it at ANY price)

2) Hit it HARD because you're going to wholesale it and won't consider retailing it.

3) Hit it hard because you're going to have the transmission gone through and have to provide an extended warranty, at your cost, to appease a potential consumer purchaser.

That's the reality of that formerly broken but now fixed minivan - it has to "compete" against perfect vehicles just like it; you can't force any dealer or consumer to buy it; and it would be STUPID to pay real money on something like that when you could get 9 more just like it with no significant service history.

On the de minimus issue, the key word is "significant" an open for judgment. The lemonlaw/breach of warranty world revolves around a "significant impairment of use, safety, or value". If I can't point out that standard, I can't devalue the vehicle. A repeat dash rattle, for instance, doesn't qualify, contrary to common consumer belief. It may be annoying, but it doesn't significantly impair your ability to use the vehicle, it doesn't affect safety, and if you slip a matchbook in the dash crack, it's gone, and the used car guy won't devalue your trade....

driftracer

"Assuming a de minimis cutoff of around $10K, what kind of complete repair job can chop off $10k of value off a car?"

The law applies regardless of the current or initial value of the car. You can't say that someone who bought a Kia Spectra or Ford Focus for $11,000 brand new, and now has a two year old car worth $4,000 isn't able to use the lemon law or breach of warranty statute to their advantage - to say not would be a pretty strong discrimination.

saugatak

OK I follow you. In the scenario you mentioned, it doesn't sound like it'd be too hard to establish the level of damages. Just compare the dealer offer (or lack of an offer) to the KBB or other appropriate value.

I'd guess if someone took a big hit come trade-in time, they'd be looking for a lemon law lawyer real fast.

The one thing I don't understand from your explanation is why you aren't getting any Honda reman transmission cases?

Based on what you're saying, a reman Honda transmission would qualify for lemon law suits.

saugatak

The law applies regardless of the current or initial value of the car. You can't say that someone who bought a Kia Spectra or Ford Focus for $11,000 brand new, and now has a two year old car worth $4,000 isn't able to use the lemon law or breach of warranty statute to their advantage - to say not would be a pretty strong discrimination.

No, I didn't make clear what I wanted to say or you misinterpreted me.

I'm asking, at what point is the lawsuit not worth it? I mean, if the trade in loss is only $5k, is it worth paying legal fees plus expert witness fees.

I would think a lot of these cases can only be worth it from the consumer's perspective if:

1) the trade-in hit is huge; or
2) even if the trade-in hit is huge, there's a big chance that the other side will be forced to pay my legal fees.

driftracer

"The one thing I don't understand from your explanation is why you aren't getting any Honda reman transmission cases?"

Because even in a huge population area like Phildelphia, the rest of PA, the whole State of New Jersey, the State of Delaware, and most of New York, and considering the HUGE Honda owner population in those areas, we simply aren't seeing the cases like all the Honda nay-sayers say we should.

In 3 years, I've seen ONE Honda transmission case - and believe me, if there's a wimper in their vehicles, Honda owners, especially, would cry fowl ASAP.

driftracer

"I'm asking, at what point is the lawsuit not worth it? I mean, if the trade in loss is only $5k, is it worth paying legal fees plus expert witness fees."

There is no cost to the consumer, at all. Most firms operate this way - the firm gets the fees from the manufacturer after the case settles or is ruled on. If the case sucks, the firm should have taken a better look at it before it was filed - they lose their tail and learn a lesson. Still, the consumer pays nothing.

saugatak

That sounds great!

From now on, if I have any vehicle problems whatsoever that might qualify for the lemon law, I'm talking to a lemon law lawyer! Hell if it don't cost me anything why not?

I remember you were having a conversation with someone else on this topic and as you 2 were trading war stories, you mentioned how you require deposits from your clients b/c if they don't continue to make payments on their lemons, you end up with no case.

driftracer

they have to prove current payment history - that says a lot - we've had a number of repos, and that shoots the case in the foot, especially in PA (doesn't matter as much in Jersey).

Of course, the firm can still get fees (the fees aren't that high, compared to other areas of law), and minimize the payment to the client if they mess up their own case. Volume is the key in this arena of law.

Kinda funny to be even dicussing lemon law cases in a Honda topic - out of 4,839 cases, I've had 12 Hondas....

saugatak

Edmunds policies forbids solicitations b/c you probably would have generated LOTS of business from the people on Edmunds who have blown their Honda trannies!

driftracer

isn't easily done in a long distance format!

Besides, I'm exclusive with one firm and have nothing to do with incoming cases, save for a few referrals sent in. None of those were Hondas, of course.

lemko

...of a blown Honda tranny. My co-worker's wife lost the transmission in her 2001 Acura TL sedan at 30K miles. I believe they had it repaired with no hassle from Acura.

seminole_kev

same here. Wife's old boss's Accord (previous generation) blew it's tranny out around 25K miles....of course that could have been from lugging around that boss's fat butt. ;-)

nippononly

saugatak

you are really making me laugh today.

ateixeira

Didn't see this posted here yet, it's from yesterday:

http://www.detnews.com/2004/autosinsider/0406/30/autos-199589.htm

The way I see it nobody is perfect (even Lexus had sludge), the real issue is how you deal with the problems that do creep up.

In this circumstance it seems like Honda is stepping up.

-juice

nvbanker

Finally, and under protest, juice. Don't you think?

newcar31

from that article:

"In most cases, the gears will be inspected and the flow of transmission fluid will be modified, Honda said. If damage from insufficient lubrication is found, the transmission will be replaced, the company said. Recall repairs typically are paid for out of reserves set aside for that purpose."

Ouch. I'd sell my car and take a loss (if I was upside down) after transmission replacement on a new car. That's a major undertaking. I guess I'm just really picky. I wouldn't want to be making payments a car with major bodywork or major mechanical work (engine, transmission).

driftracer

that everyone is willing to crucify Honda over this urban legend-type problem - sure the problem has existed in a few vehicles, and the fact that they would consider a check and replace recall on all these vehicles says a lot about them.

In June alone (I just counted), I did 6 DCC transmission cases, 9 from Hyundai and 8 from Ford - I've yet to hear of these manufacturers considering a full-blown recall to make sure everything is right - in over 3 years and 4800 cases, I've done ONE Honda transmission case!

Our magical, perfect Honda has a problem, though, and steps up way beyond the call of duty, and folks are ready to set fire to their cars at the dealers!

andre1969

I think if I had a tranny replaced under warranty, I'd think my chances of being struck by lightning twice would be pretty slim. Unless I had an early 90's Chrysler product with a 4-speed automatic or something like that!!

My grandparents had a '77 Granada that needed a new tranny when it was still fairly new. Replaced under warranty, and the new one never gave them any problems. They only kept the car till '81 though.

My Mom & stepdad's '99 Altima lost its tranny at 35,000 miles. Replaced under warranty. I dunno how many miles it has now, but I think it's over 100,000.

My uncle's '97 Silverado needed a transmission "overhaul" (that's what the paperwork said, I guess that sounds better than a rebuild!) about 4-5 years ago, I guess. Under warranty. It now has about 101,000 miles on it.

Now one that WAS a POS was my roommate's '98 Tracker, which needed an "overhaul" (there's that word again!) about every 20,000 miles. The warranty was up at 60,000 miles, and the last one was just before that. Then it more or less behaved until around the early 80K range. All Tune and Lube said it needed a new tranny, and offered to put in a used one for $1800 or so. The local transmission place found a bent piece of linkage, and bent it back for 20 bucks and a handshake. About 4 months later though, it did fail. Same tranny place got it running for about 60 bucks, but said it would probably do it again.

Around the 92K mark, it did. He had a used tranny with 55,000 miles, installed, for around $1100 total. I think he has around 115,000 miles now, maybe a bit more, and no troubles since then. I think that first tranny was just cursed!

newcar31

"sure the problem has existed in a few vehicles"

Apparantly, the problem exists in all vehicles affected by the recall since Honda feels it's necessary to "modify the flow of transmission fluid". Why would that be necessary if only a few vehicles are defective?

seminole_kev

while I'm not "crucifing" Honda over, I have directly known it to happen. So it isn't an "urban ledgend". In fact, as many Accords as are sold, I only know two people well that have modern day Accords....and one of those tranny's failed at around 25K miles. (The one that failed was a previous generation Accord, the other one that I know - that hasn't failed - is the newest model.

I realize your line of work puts you more in the know as far as lemon law reports go, but I'll tell you this: Out of all the cars I've personally known well enough to discuss, from Hyundai's to Mercedes, I've never personally known a car to drop its tranny remotely as early as that Honda did.

Not saying Honda's are junk or anything because I believe they are far from that, but you can't just wave your hand and say there's no problem here.

newcar31

"I think if I had a tranny replaced under warranty, I'd think my chances of being struck by lightning twice would be pretty slim."

I wouldn't be concerned so much about the transmission failing again as having the dealership tear down my car and try to put it back together again......perfectly. Other issues can arise when something that major is done to a car. Many dealerships can't even fix a rattle without screwing something else up, and I'm supposed to trust them with a transmission replacement?

robertsmx

Apparantly, the problem exists in all vehicles...

Apparent? Not to me. Going beyond the need doesn't make everything "apparent", just that you're willing to take the extra effort, for a greater satisfaction.

newcar31

So Honda is "going beyond the need" by "modifing the flow of transmission fluid"?

Honda customers are going to be more satisfied if Honda "modifies the flow of transmission fluid" in their Hondas? That's just an "extra effort" aimed at pleasing customers and not really necessary?...because Honda customers are really sensitive to the flow of their transmission fluid?

andre1969

okay, I'll admit, ya got me there! ;-) Now that I think about it, I don't know if I'd trust my dealership if my Intrepid's tranny decided to drop! Their service department has never impressed me, and I even heard a salesman once come right out and say "Our service department sucks!"

Last time I had to go in for servicing, I had a problem where my oil pressure light would come on at low idle speeds. Took them three tries to finally fix it! Three tries to fix something that, I found out, was already documented in a TSB.

robertsmx

I couldn't tell either way. Obviously, nothing is apparent to me. I only attempted to explain that it is possible to go beyond need. And it is just that, a possibility, not certainty. To be certain, it will have to be "apparent", and it is not (either way).

badgerfan

Based on Honda's statements, my conclusion as an engineer is the issue is definitely a design related flaw, and potentially a serious one at that. Lack of adequate lubrication to a gearset could cause catastrophic failure rapidly. The problem is not just a few isolated defective parts getting into the vehicle but affects every transmission Honda has built that is being recalled. Since the failure occurs more rapidly when driven at high speeds for extended periods of time, not all vehicles would ever show the problem, but any one of them could be forced to fail when driven in these certain conditions.

My take is that Honda is being proactive on this recall precisely because they know after these vehicles begin to get up in mileage, the failure rates will be potentially huge, as the odds of the vehicle being driven under conditions that will cause failure is more and more as the car has seen more driving situations.

The more transmissions they can get the "field fix" oil jet on before the gears have been damaged, the less it will cost them in bad publicity, irate customers, and the cost of an extended warranty replacement of entire transmissions, rather than a minor cost for the oil jet kit. For sure if the problem was isolated just to a few transmissions due to a small number of defective parts, Honda would just handle the problems on a case by case basis, perhaps using a hidden extended warranties.

driftracer

"I've never personally known a car to drop its tranny remotely as early as that Honda did."

Reviewing the repair orders that I see on a daily basis woud flat scare you, then.

Today's mix:

2003 Ford F-250 4x4, trans overhauled at 1,720 miles, replaced with a reman at 3,680, failed again at 5,100, another reman installed...

2002 Hyundai Accent, reman installed at 13,276, failed again at 26,790, another reman installed...

2001 Ford Windstar LX, on it's fifth reman at 47,356 miles...

I could go on, but it only serves to depress.

ateixeira

nvbanker: can't say, I haven't followed the saga closely enough.

I'd take a new tranny and run with that warranty, perhaps keep the car longer, at least the length of that warranty. Better to have a sure thing.

One catch? I do tow once in a while. I'd make sure I got that flow modification, or whatever.

-juice

gee35coupe

Honda identified the problem and is fixing it before anyone even knew it was there. It ain't like rust or clutch chatter that ruined the ownership experience of many owners before a certain make would step up and fix it. I mean honestly, they've sold over 600,000 Accords by now. If the problem was anywhere near critical, like the clunk was in the previous V6's, it would be all over Edmunds.

This is the place to be when it comes to getting your [female dog] on.

andre1969

has a 1990 Dodge Dakota with a 3.9 V-6 that has about 400,000 miles on it. It's on its second engine, which ain't bad at all for the age. But, get this...he's had to put FIVE transmissions in it since he's had it! Now I don't remember how long he's had it, or how many miles he's put on it, but it looked like a rural West Virginia reject when he bought it!

seminole_kev

Oh, I'm certain that there are honest lemons out there from all makes, but if this tranny thing was a urban ledgend, I wouldn't have known that accord that's tranny had to be replaced at such a low mileage number.

newcar31

"Honda identified the problem and is fixing it before anyone even knew it was there. It ain't like rust or clutch chatter that ruined the ownership experience of many owners before a certain make would step up and fix it."

It isn't any different than the rust or clutch chatter problems (if anything, it's worse because it's been ongoing), and FWIW, my rust issue with my Mazda6 hasn't gotten worse and if or when it does, believe me, you'll hear about it.

If I had a brand new car that needed the transmission replaced, I wouldn't want it anymore. THAT would ruin the ownership experience for me. It's too big of an operation to be done on a new car....and if I didn't need a new transmission, I'd still be wondering what, if any damage was done by not having proper lubrication.

seminole_kev

"If I had a brand new car that needed the transmission replaced, I wouldn't want it anymore."

That's no joke! I'd rather have them replace the engine than the tranny. I just would have no faith in a new vehicle that had to have the tranny replaced by the dealer.

gee35coupe

It's already happened to a few people and Mazda didn't have an answer at all. They were left in the lurch. In fact the transmission problem was discussed in that forum and it was mentioned that at least you can replace a transmission. But rust will always be there on the car covered up by whatever "fix" they applied. It also effected a whole year worth of Mazda6's.

Not to mention the clutch chatter issue that they JUST found a fix for.

Even though there weren't many of them, it nearly shut down the forum, there were so many people complaining there. Not so about the transmission issue on the Accord and there are at least 10 times as many of them on the road. We'll just take up bandwidth discussing the recall not actual failed transmissions.

As far as preference engine or transmission, it would suck either way to me. But as long as the car ran as it's supposed to, and didn't require any other service on the replaced assembly, it would be fine by me.

newcar31

I wouldn't be happy if I had the clutch chatter problem either. If the transmission needed to be removed to replace the clutch in my car....bye bye Mazda6. That's all there is to it. Honda, Mazda, Toyota, it doesn't matter to me. The car would be gone.

As far as the rust issue is concerned, mine hasn't gotten worse. It wasn't even that bad to begin with. I'm still not happy about it, but if it looks the same in 5 years as it does now (you can barely see it, and you have to look for it), I won't have a problem. Yeah, it affected a whole year worth of Mazda6s. Honda's automatic transmission issues affect many different models, different years, and span different generations of models.

"As far as preference engine or transmission, it would suck either way to me. But as long as the car ran as it's supposed to, and didn't require any other service on the replaced assembly, it would be fine by me."

I know you guys don't even like to have cars with bodywork, but transmission replacement is OK? Sounds like you're gearing yourself up for it.

carguy58

Ok I understand its a big deal. Honda can't be perfect and not every automaker can be perfect. I had a borken tranny once. Should I turn around and bash all over Ford for it? No. I think the reason why the tranny broke in that car was because of a car accident I had. I understand this is not one of Honda's prouder moments but they are taking care of their customers the best they can. I remember what a joke Honda and other Japanese makes were in the 80's to some people. Look where they are now. They didn't build up a loyal fan base by building crap. I have bashed Honda regulary because of the styling of the 03 Accord(I thought it is one of the worst mistakes Honda has ever made to be quite honest.)

As far as creaks and rattles are concerned I have seen complaints of it regulary on the Accord boards(mostly 03 models.) It looks like Honda has that straightened out for 04. As for the 04 TL having problems the tires from what I have seen have drawn alot of complaints. The new TL other than the tires has problems like every other car on the road does.

I have an 02 CL and the car is fine.

One last point, most of any cars today can last you a long time if you take care of it.

gee35coupe

You can tell the difference looking at a car. No bodyshop will apply the number of coats and type of paint for a perfect match to the rest of the car. It an aesthetic preference.

As for the transmission, I've bought cars at 120K and up. I don't know if they have the same transmission or engine as new. And I don't care. I never advocated Toyota owners ditch thier Toyota's when the sludge problem occured, I just thought Toyota should fix them. Replacing a component is totally different than just covering up a problem.

Besides, as I said, the trannys aren't failing here. They are just recalling them to look. Let's wait and see how many people actualy have to get new transmissions before we compare it to the Mazda6 which actually had the rust problem.