and that's why people got letters saying that their transmission might fail and that they would fix it if or when it did but not until then.
I can't blame Honda for doing what they did, they didn't really have a choice, but at the same time, if I were an affected customer, a letter like that wouldn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy. I am just saying that a letter of that type IS NOT a proactive response. Waiting for something to break is not being proactive, in fact, it's the exact opposite of being proactive. The correct term to describe a company that waits for something to break instead of preventing the failure in the first place would be "reactive".
I'd lump both the Honda and Ford solutions in the group of "well it's better than nothing" catagory. Great that they'll cover it when it brakes, but it stinks that it might leave you stranded when it goes rather than fixing it ahead of time.
I understand that financially, Ford and Honda can't just recall all the cars and go to town on every single one in the event that a portion might fail, but at the same time, it is nothing to be proud of like some seem to be.
*edit - seems newcar and I are probably thinking along the same lines.
Well, sometimes it is better to not fix things proactively when there isn't a problem to begin with. Let us assume that certain manufacturer received batches of some parts between April 3 and April 17 that were bad and cause for recall. The batches received before and after were just fine.
My car was made with parts received in March. Would it make sense to get my car opened up? Does it make sense for the automaker to send me a letter as a precautionary measure? Or is it better for the automaker to keep quiet?
It has to be one of these, unless I missed one or some in which case, give me a fourth or fifth or whatever option. May be that will help.
Given the effect from marketing aspect, the easiest route is to keep quiet. It is debatable whether opening up a car without an issue is good or not, certainly not a healthy route from the bottom-line perspective. I wouldn't go for it in my car however.
The precautionary measure makes people aware of a "potential" problem. It hurts from marketing perspective, but doesn't from bottom-line perspective. It serves people like me well, that if there is a problem along the lines, I'd not be an illiterate. And if there isn't, what would I whine about it?
IMO, it is okay to brag about pro-active steps to accepting faults. At least compared to hiding them, or worse, blaming others (the mutual exchange between Ford and Firestone).
The fact that both Ford and Honda took the time to inform the owner and extend the warranty is a proactive step in my book.
At least it is proactive compared to the typical way manufacturers handle these problems, which is to fix those vehicles that break during the warranty period and let everyone else fend for themselves.
As for Ford not getting credit for its actions in regard to the fuel pump problems - that is true, but the car was surrounded by so much negative publicity at that point that the reaction was, "Oh no, not ANOTHER problem," instead of, "Ford is really stepping up to the plate."
Which is a shame, because the Focus is a very attractive car.
I would have to agree. They send a letter saying your transmission might be faulty, but we will fix it if it breaks. Isn't that special, the second most expensive purchase you can make may leave you stranded and broke down. I would have to think it would be time to do what you can to unload the car. As negative equity goes you are going to take a bath, as risk management goes. Are you willing to take the possibility of being stuck in the future? There is no way of knowing when these faulty transmissions will fail. If they do fail are you going to be confident the fix resolves the issue? Pro activity aside a transmission problem is a very serious problem and can be a nagging problem.
And what type of failure was it? Was it one that would happen with warning or was it a complete shut-down. Your argument depends on the severity of the problem.
I mean every time you go out in any car you run SOME risk of not returning due to the many hazards on the road.
I haven't either. I was responding to Grbeck who said he got a letter about the transmission in his Prelude. He said that it was the same transmission as the Accord V6 (I'm not sure about that).
Anyway, if Honda sent a letter, there must be more than just a "normal" number of failures, otherwise, why send out a letter?
Maybe the reason why we haven't heard of a rash of Prelude transmission failures is because there isn't a rash of Preludes to begin with, let alone automatic Preludes.
that Honda can make such great engines and such cruddy transmissions?
It seems that the automatic transmission on just about every recent model has transmission problems.
Is Honda puting the same faulty transmission into each car? Is it one bad common component (like VW's coil pack)?
The used prices on Hondas and Acuras are typically pretty high. There is NO WAY I'd pay the Honda premium on a used car that is the subject of transmission problems.
"It seems that the automatic transmission on just about every recent model has transmission problems."
Recent models? I don't think Honda has ever had good automatics. I know people who've had Honda auto transmission failures years ago. Our neighbor bought an 80's Integra brand new with an auto and they replaced that transmission a couple times---and it didn't have tons of miles on it, and it wasn't that old.
I think the internet is the reason why we hear more about the recent models, and I agree, they do build great engines AND great manual transmissions, but they can't seem to get their autos right. I don't really care anyway, because I buy manual transmissions, and Honda makes some of the best. I know, I've had 2 of them, and my Brother has had 3.
That being said, I don't really trust any companies' automatics, but if I had to get an automatic, I'd feel most confident with a GM or Toyota automatic and least confident with a Ford, Chrysler, or Honda automatic.
but sometimes automakers have a habit of making a tranny that's more or less passable with a smaller engine, but put it behind a bigger, torquier engine, and it's more prone to shredding itself at an early age.
One good example of this was GM's lightweight Turbo Hydramatic 200C of the late 70's. Fine transmission...for a Chevette!! Put it up behind a V-8 of around 5 liters though, and that seemed to be its breaking point. I'd like to believe that they didn't put it behind even bigger engines, but I'm afraid that would be a very naiive thought on my part! ;-)
The 4-speed automatic that Chrysler currently uses (I think they call it the 42LE in longitudinal FWD applications like the LH cars and 42TE in transverse applications, like minivans, the "cloud cars", and the Neon) has been a sore spot for Chrysler for ages. But even here, it seems to be less failure-prone in the smaller engines that don't have as much torque, like the 4-cyl engines and the small 2.7 V-6. Minivans, which weigh more and have torquier 3.3 and 3.8 V-6es, or the more powerful LH cars, that had the 3.2 and 3.5 (or even the older pushrod 3.3) seemed much more troubleprone.
Maybe it's a similar situation with Honda? Could it be that some of those trannies that are more trouble-prone were just made for smaller vehicles and engines, and can't take the strain from the added torque of a V-6 or a stronger 4?
BTW, are people still complaining about current Honda transmissions, or is it only the older 4-speed automatic? The new Accord has a 5-speed auto, and I haven't heard anything bad about it. Maybe I don't surf the net enough though, and just haven't run across it yet! ;-)
I've heard that, back in the day, automatic transmissions WERE a weak point in most Japanese cars. That and air conditioning. The rationale I heard is that it was because of the Japanese companies' inexperience with such products. Here in America, the automatic tranny has been around since like 1939, and by the 50's most cars had them. By the 60's most American cars also had air conditioning. So we had plenty of experience in building them, and building them more or less right. Although with downsizing in the late 70's, we also learned how to make these components smaller, lighter, and cheaper, and that's when they started to become more troubleprone, it seems.
The Japanese, however, simply didn't have experience in automatics or automobile air conditioners. However, unlike the domestic companies, they didn't sit around on their fat butts and keep putting out the same inferior components. They adapted quickly to American tastes.
To support my theory, note that the towing package on Hondas includes an oil cooler and a power steering cooler, both mandatory to tow even the lightest loads.
"By the 60's most American cars also had air conditioning..."
I think you meant to say most American cars had available air conditioning. Back in the '60s, air conditioning was still a costly option the average Joe couldn't afford. My Dad didn't own an air-conditioned car until he bought a new 1972 Ford LTD.
air conditioning was still optional on most domestic cars right up into the 80's, but by the 60's, it was ordered on the majority of cars. All of the 60's cars I've owned had air conditioning...both my '68 and '69 Darts, my '67 Newport, '67 Catalina convertible, and '69 Bonneville all had it. By that time, the price of a/c was down to around $300-350, so it was much more common to see it even on a cheaper car.
In the mid 50's, a/c was more like $500-550, and cars were cheaper as well, so it was incredibly rare back then, especially on low-line cars. In the late 50's, $2000 would get you a stripper full-sized Chevy, Ford, or Plymouth, but by the late 60's, it would probably only get you a stripper Valiant, Nova, or Falcon.
I think the first air-conditioned car my Mom & Dad has was the '68 Impala my grandparents gave them in 1972.
The last time I saw any stats on how much a/c added to the price of a car was in my 1985 Consumer Guide car book. Back then it was around $600-750, and I think automatic temperature control was usually another $150.
I've heard that nowadays, a/c adds, on average, about $1000 to the price of a car.
technically an option on the Toyota Echo. At least it was when my uncle was thinking about buying one back in May of '02. Good luck finding one without it, though!
And I'm pretty sure that the base Altima, at least when it came out in '02, still had a/c as an option. I'm sure there are a few basic cars where it's still an option.
there are several areas of the nation that don't NEED a/c. I worked at a dealership in Wyoming where only half of the vehicles on the lot had a/c - we lived in the mountains, and you just didn't need it, save for maybe 1-2 days a year.
On the Honda subject, most of our lower model Civics when I was with Lithia (Medford, OR) came without air - we'd install Honda air for between $900-1100.
Many kids (or parents) looking for a cheap, good car, would buy a DX, HX or LX with a 5-speed and no air - perfect basic transportation for college or high school.
...to have air conditioning was Packard back around the late 1930s. Do Mopar products still have "Airtemp" A/C units? I remember GM having two companies supply A/C components - Harrison Radiator and Frigidaire. AMC had an excellent system called "Weather Eye." I forget what Ford's system was/is called but the Ford product's I've owned produced the coldest conditioned air. I could probably keep ice cream in those cars on the hottest summer day with the A/C running.
I knew a guy who had moved from Washington State, and had brought his Honda Civic with him. I forget the year, but it was a late 80's model. It didn't have a/c. Didn't need it up there, he said.
Once upon a time, cars had better fresh-air ventillation than they do today, so you could almost get by without air. Vent windows, those big vent boxes under the dash that brought fresh air forced from the cowl intakes, rear windows that rolled down ALL the way, pillarless designs, and windows that curved less, allowing the roof to shade more of the passenger compartment, all contributed to make the cars a bit more liveable without a/c.
I don't think Chrysler does the Airtemp thing anymore. I think 1977 was the last year of those big, bulky V-2 compressors, and the next year they went to the lighter, cylinder-shaped one, although it still would've been called Airtemp.
I dunno if this is true or not, but I heard that nowadays Chrysler and Honda use the same supplier for a/c compressors. The a/c in my Intrepid is okay, but doesn't blow nearly as cold as the units in the older Mopars and GM cars I had. Well, the ones that worked, anyway! But then again, those old ones used good, old-fashioned ozone-depleting R-12 Freon!
with R12 being a better refrigerant - the average temp difference between 134 and 12 is about 5-8%. Doesn't seem like much, but on a 95 degree day, and your goal is 30 degrees below ambient temperature, the difference between 65 degrees and 72 degrees is noticeable.
We used to service air conditioners where I used to work, and I could never tell the difference between the two refrigerants. I've heard from many people that R12 was far superior, but I could never tell.
I've worked on different cars on the same day with different refrigerants many times and they always blew pretty close to the same temp out of the vents. We did most of these services on super hot days too, because that's when people wanted their A/C working.
I dunno, maybe there is a difference, but it's not much, and not enough to notice in my experience.
Has Honda designed and engine that has the oil filter in such a bad awkward position that it cannot be replaced without taking a chance on its leaking oil onto the exhaust manifold? Its beginning to sound that way based upon the number of cases of newer CRV's burning to the ground. Its starting to sound like the CRV's are becoming this years Ford Explorer/Firestone tire problem. At least Ford and Firestone spent millions trying to resolve the problem. I wonder if Honda will even think about retrofitting its engines with a kit to fix this problem...or will they just start blaming the mechanics?
That's news to me. Maybe you could show some links where a significant number of CRV's are catching on fire. Since it's as bad as the Ford Explorer/Firestone fiasco that should be pretty easy, right?
So .0002% so far is a significant number of fires? Call me crazy but that doesn't seem nearly as significant as the Ford/Firestone thing that someone compared it to earlier.
"Honda concluded it was a technician's error, and they have taken steps to make sure service technicians who work on this vehicle understand that they need to be particularly diligent when they replace the oil filter"
This also from the article:
"While Boyd said the problem is "absolutely not a design defect," he said the CR-V's engine is configured "such that there is a higher likelihood of oil spraying onto the manifold than . . . on other vehicles."
Having changed the oil on thousands of vehicles, including all kinds of Hondas including my own, I can say that there are MANY, MANY, Honda vehicles where the oil gets on the exhaust manifold when changing the oil filter.
Here is another piece from the article:
"The problem is believed to happen one of two ways: The O-ring gasket on the old oil filter sometimes sticks to the crankcase, and if the new filter is installed over it, oil can leak around it. Or, if the gasket on the new filter isn't lubricated properly, it might set incorrectly and allow oil to leak around it. Then it can spray onto the hot manifold and burn."
That's a bunch of baloney. Those issues affect ANY car with a spin on oil filter above the exhaust manifold. Hondas have had that configuration FOREVER. I don't see why those potential oil change issues would be unique to the new CR-V. There is something else going on, no doubt.
sounds like a little issue that can result in a big problem. I wonder if a small, spin on adapter could be installed to make fitting of the filter easier and, if still screwed up, possibly channel oil away from the exhaust?
Those issues aren't unique to the new CR-V. You can double gasket ANY car, you can have a pinched gasket on ANY car. Those kinds of mistakes just happen, but that kind of mistake shouldn't result in the car bursting into flames.
But the funny thing is this 2.4l engine goes into the Element and Accord as well, why aren't those having similar problems? There are many, many more Accords on the road than there are CR-Vs.
fire from a doubled gasket - moreso, though, I've seen engine failures.
As a service manager, I was good friends with all the quickie lube places in town - when they made a mistake, the car or truck came to us for an engine replacement.
To err is human, but why is it affecting the CR-V alone? I think the TSX gets a version of the 2.4l as well. But there are 10 times as many Accords on the road.
maybe some lawyer is trying to jump on the band wagon and did some searching and advertising for the foundation of a class-action suit - CA suits are VERY lucrative (I know, been involved in a few).
I've changed oil on just about every kind of car on the road. There are so many cars that have the oil filter located near the exhaust. Just about every Honda 4 cyl that has ever been made has the oil filter located above the exhaust. If that is truly the reason, then we should be hearing stories like this about all kinds of cars, not just the new CR-V.
Honda might have sold nearly 400K CR-Vs (since 2002) with the same design in the USA alone. With that number compared to reported fires (27), chances are less for it to be a design issue, and more so, either about lousy oil change job, or bad assembly on select batch of vehicles produced.
It would be interesting to find out the geographical location of the complaints and the dealerships involved. I believe most of the CR-Vs sold along the east coast are imported from Europe (one of the two sources of CR-V, other being Japan).
know if Honda switched their engines around in their FWD/AWD vehicles with the 4 cyl?
Hondas used to always have transverse 4 cyl engines placed in the engine compartment with the exhaust coming off the front and routed underneath the engine and the intake coming off the back.
Did this change? I haven't worked at the oil change joint for a while now.
Does the exhaust now come off the back? If so, the oil filter would be above a much hotter part of the exhaust than what they used to be.
Yeah, Honda reversed the layout of the engine when they changed the direction in which the engine spins. I'm told they made the change so that their engines would be easier to fit into cars from other manufacturers (the whole "Honda gets by selling engines to others" business model).
But that happened with 2002 CR-V launch. However, I believe newcar31's question relates to some difference in engine layout in AWD CR-V compared to FWD CR-V. Is that right?
Hmmm. I guess if the exhaust is coming off the back of the engine, then the oil filter shouldn't be above any exhaust pieces, at least not like they used to be.
I'm stumped as to how oil is getting on the exhaust. I guess I would need to look underneath one to understand better.
Why no 2002s? Why no Elements or Accords? Why only the first oil change? Half had problems with the way the gasket was set. What about the other half? Were the other half found to be other reasons, or were the investigations inconclusive?
Lots of questions, not many answers.
I'm reading lots of conclusions we can jump to, though.
I don't think Honda even knows why. You're right, there are lots of questions.
Not only do I wonder why 2002s haven't been affected, I wonder why all Hondas and all vehicles with oil filters near exhaust aren't affected. Honda has placed oil filters near exhausts for as long as I can remember and I've never heard about a problem with that....and I'd like to think I would've heard about it if there was a problem. I can't count how many times I've changed oil on Hondas with super hot exhausts, letting the oil drain all over the exhaust, and not having a fire.
People screw up oil changes on all kinds of cars every single day. Why it's causing new CR-Vs to catch fire is beyond me.
Over on the Edmunds Maintenance and Repair CRV discussion. Looks like at least three of the victims posted there many months ago after their CRV burned soon after a dealer performed oil change.
Is the oil filter above or near the exhaust manifold? If so I call this at least partially a Honda design flaw, accompanied by service people error.
A filter gasket can occasionally get stuck to the machined engine block surface which if not noticed will just result in rapidly forming a puddle of oil on the ground on most vehicles.
I would bet we will see a Honda recall of some sort on this issue to place a baffle to keep sprayed oil off hot surfaces.
Seems Honda is on a run of bad recall publicity. No one is perfect.
Comments
I can't blame Honda for doing what they did, they didn't really have a choice, but at the same time, if I were an affected customer, a letter like that wouldn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy. I am just saying that a letter of that type IS NOT a proactive response. Waiting for something to break is not being proactive, in fact, it's the exact opposite of being proactive. The correct term to describe a company that waits for something to break instead of preventing the failure in the first place would be "reactive".
I understand that financially, Ford and Honda can't just recall all the cars and go to town on every single one in the event that a portion might fail, but at the same time, it is nothing to be proud of like some seem to be.
*edit - seems newcar and I are probably thinking along the same lines.
My car was made with parts received in March. Would it make sense to get my car opened up? Does it make sense for the automaker to send me a letter as a precautionary measure? Or is it better for the automaker to keep quiet?
It has to be one of these, unless I missed one or some in which case, give me a fourth or fifth or whatever option. May be that will help.
Given the effect from marketing aspect, the easiest route is to keep quiet. It is debatable whether opening up a car without an issue is good or not, certainly not a healthy route from the bottom-line perspective. I wouldn't go for it in my car however.
The precautionary measure makes people aware of a "potential" problem. It hurts from marketing perspective, but doesn't from bottom-line perspective. It serves people like me well, that if there is a problem along the lines, I'd not be an illiterate. And if there isn't, what would I whine about it?
IMO, it is okay to brag about pro-active steps to accepting faults. At least compared to hiding them, or worse, blaming others (the mutual exchange between Ford and Firestone).
At least it is proactive compared to the typical way manufacturers handle these problems, which is to fix those vehicles that break during the warranty period and let everyone else fend for themselves.
As for Ford not getting credit for its actions in regard to the fuel pump problems - that is true, but the car was surrounded by so much negative publicity at that point that the reaction was, "Oh no, not ANOTHER problem," instead of, "Ford is really stepping up to the plate."
Which is a shame, because the Focus is a very attractive car.
I mean every time you go out in any car you run SOME risk of not returning due to the many hazards on the road.
Anyway, if Honda sent a letter, there must be more than just a "normal" number of failures, otherwise, why send out a letter?
Maybe the reason why we haven't heard of a rash of Prelude transmission failures is because there isn't a rash of Preludes to begin with, let alone automatic Preludes.
It seems that the automatic transmission on just about every recent model has transmission problems.
Is Honda puting the same faulty transmission into each car? Is it one bad common component (like VW's coil pack)?
The used prices on Hondas and Acuras are typically pretty high. There is NO WAY I'd pay the Honda premium on a used car that is the subject of transmission problems.
Recent models? I don't think Honda has ever had good automatics. I know people who've had Honda auto transmission failures years ago. Our neighbor bought an 80's Integra brand new with an auto and they replaced that transmission a couple times---and it didn't have tons of miles on it, and it wasn't that old.
I think the internet is the reason why we hear more about the recent models, and I agree, they do build great engines AND great manual transmissions, but they can't seem to get their autos right. I don't really care anyway, because I buy manual transmissions, and Honda makes some of the best. I know, I've had 2 of them, and my Brother has had 3.
That being said, I don't really trust any companies' automatics, but if I had to get an automatic, I'd feel most confident with a GM or Toyota automatic and least confident with a Ford, Chrysler, or Honda automatic.
One good example of this was GM's lightweight Turbo Hydramatic 200C of the late 70's. Fine transmission...for a Chevette!! Put it up behind a V-8 of around 5 liters though, and that seemed to be its breaking point. I'd like to believe that they didn't put it behind even bigger engines, but I'm afraid that would be a very naiive thought on my part! ;-)
The 4-speed automatic that Chrysler currently uses (I think they call it the 42LE in longitudinal FWD applications like the LH cars and 42TE in transverse applications, like minivans, the "cloud cars", and the Neon) has been a sore spot for Chrysler for ages. But even here, it seems to be less failure-prone in the smaller engines that don't have as much torque, like the 4-cyl engines and the small 2.7 V-6. Minivans, which weigh more and have torquier 3.3 and 3.8 V-6es, or the more powerful LH cars, that had the 3.2 and 3.5 (or even the older pushrod 3.3) seemed much more troubleprone.
Maybe it's a similar situation with Honda? Could it be that some of those trannies that are more trouble-prone were just made for smaller vehicles and engines, and can't take the strain from the added torque of a V-6 or a stronger 4?
BTW, are people still complaining about current Honda transmissions, or is it only the older 4-speed automatic? The new Accord has a 5-speed auto, and I haven't heard anything bad about it. Maybe I don't surf the net enough though, and just haven't run across it yet! ;-)
The Japanese, however, simply didn't have experience in automatics or automobile air conditioners. However, unlike the domestic companies, they didn't sit around on their fat butts and keep putting out the same inferior components. They adapted quickly to American tastes.
And yes, if Honda put a stick in the Ody or Pilot, I would buy one. But, I have issues.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
I agree with andre about the increased engine torque, and add to that the higher weight of the models that are affected.
Honda specialized in 4 cylinder Accords, remember they were the best sellers in the country *before* the V6 model even came out!
Now they are making big V6s to go in Pilots and Odysseys, much heavier and torquier vehicles. It is new ground for them - heavier duty.
-juice
-juice
I think you meant to say most American cars had available air conditioning. Back in the '60s, air conditioning was still a costly option the average Joe couldn't afford. My Dad didn't own an air-conditioned car until he bought a new 1972 Ford LTD.
In the mid 50's, a/c was more like $500-550, and cars were cheaper as well, so it was incredibly rare back then, especially on low-line cars. In the late 50's, $2000 would get you a stripper full-sized Chevy, Ford, or Plymouth, but by the late 60's, it would probably only get you a stripper Valiant, Nova, or Falcon.
I think the first air-conditioned car my Mom & Dad has was the '68 Impala my grandparents gave them in 1972.
The last time I saw any stats on how much a/c added to the price of a car was in my 1985 Consumer Guide car book. Back then it was around $600-750, and I think automatic temperature control was usually another $150.
I've heard that nowadays, a/c adds, on average, about $1000 to the price of a car.
And I'm pretty sure that the base Altima, at least when it came out in '02, still had a/c as an option. I'm sure there are a few basic cars where it's still an option.
-juice
On the Honda subject, most of our lower model Civics when I was with Lithia (Medford, OR) came without air - we'd install Honda air for between $900-1100.
Many kids (or parents) looking for a cheap, good car, would buy a DX, HX or LX with a 5-speed and no air - perfect basic transportation for college or high school.
Once upon a time, cars had better fresh-air ventillation than they do today, so you could almost get by without air. Vent windows, those big vent boxes under the dash that brought fresh air forced from the cowl intakes, rear windows that rolled down ALL the way, pillarless designs, and windows that curved less, allowing the roof to shade more of the passenger compartment, all contributed to make the cars a bit more liveable without a/c.
I don't think Chrysler does the Airtemp thing anymore. I think 1977 was the last year of those big, bulky V-2 compressors, and the next year they went to the lighter, cylinder-shaped one, although it still would've been called Airtemp.
I dunno if this is true or not, but I heard that nowadays Chrysler and Honda use the same supplier for a/c compressors. The a/c in my Intrepid is okay, but doesn't blow nearly as cold as the units in the older Mopars and GM cars I had. Well, the ones that worked, anyway! But then again, those old ones used good, old-fashioned ozone-depleting R-12 Freon!
I've worked on different cars on the same day with different refrigerants many times and they always blew pretty close to the same temp out of the vents. We did most of these services on super hot days too, because that's when people wanted their A/C working.
I dunno, maybe there is a difference, but it's not much, and not enough to notice in my experience.
-juice
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1895&ncid- =1895&e=5&u=/nm/20040709/us_nm/autos_honda_fires_dc
Honda says it's the technician's fault.
"Honda concluded it was a technician's error, and they have taken steps to make sure service technicians who work on this vehicle understand that they need to be particularly diligent when they replace the oil filter"
This also from the article:
"While Boyd said the problem is "absolutely not a design defect," he said the CR-V's engine is configured "such that there is a higher likelihood of oil spraying onto the manifold than . . . on other vehicles."
Having changed the oil on thousands of vehicles, including all kinds of Hondas including my own, I can say that there are MANY, MANY, Honda vehicles where the oil gets on the exhaust manifold when changing the oil filter.
Here is another piece from the article:
"The problem is believed to happen one of two ways: The O-ring gasket on the old oil filter sometimes sticks to the crankcase, and if the new filter is installed over it, oil can leak around it. Or, if the gasket on the new filter isn't lubricated properly, it might set incorrectly and allow oil to leak around it. Then it can spray onto the hot manifold and burn."
That's a bunch of baloney. Those issues affect ANY car with a spin on oil filter above the exhaust manifold. Hondas have had that configuration FOREVER. I don't see why those potential oil change issues would be unique to the new CR-V. There is something else going on, no doubt.
The significant number is 27, not whatever percentage so far, because they're basically still brand new.
There were also more oil leaks that did not result in a fire because owners noticed them soon enough.
-juice
Investigations are finding pinched oil filter gaskets and in some cases double gaskets.
-juice
But the funny thing is this 2.4l engine goes into the Element and Accord as well, why aren't those having similar problems? There are many, many more Accords on the road than there are CR-Vs.
-juice
As a service manager, I was good friends with all the quickie lube places in town - when they made a mistake, the car or truck came to us for an engine replacement.
-juice
It would be interesting to find out the geographical location of the complaints and the dealerships involved. I believe most of the CR-Vs sold along the east coast are imported from Europe (one of the two sources of CR-V, other being Japan).
http://money.cnn.com/2004/07/09/news/international/honda_fires.re- ut/index.htm?cnn=yes
Hondas used to always have transverse 4 cyl engines placed in the engine compartment with the exhaust coming off the front and routed underneath the engine and the intake coming off the back.
Did this change? I haven't worked at the oil change joint for a while now.
Does the exhaust now come off the back? If so, the oil filter would be above a much hotter part of the exhaust than what they used to be.
In that case, I doubt any difference exists.
I'm stumped as to how oil is getting on the exhaust. I guess I would need to look underneath one to understand better.
-juice
Why no Elements or Accords?
Why only the first oil change?
Half had problems with the way the gasket was set. What about the other half?
Were the other half found to be other reasons, or were the investigations inconclusive?
Lots of questions, not many answers.
I'm reading lots of conclusions we can jump to, though.
Not only do I wonder why 2002s haven't been affected, I wonder why all Hondas and all vehicles with oil filters near exhaust aren't affected. Honda has placed oil filters near exhausts for as long as I can remember and I've never heard about a problem with that....and I'd like to think I would've heard about it if there was a problem. I can't count how many times I've changed oil on Hondas with super hot exhausts, letting the oil drain all over the exhaust, and not having a fire.
People screw up oil changes on all kinds of cars every single day. Why it's causing new CR-Vs to catch fire is beyond me.
Is the oil filter above or near the exhaust manifold? If so I call this at least partially a Honda design flaw, accompanied by service people error.
A filter gasket can occasionally get stuck to the machined engine block surface which if not noticed will just result in rapidly forming a puddle of oil on the ground on most vehicles.
I would bet we will see a Honda recall of some sort on this issue to place a baffle to keep sprayed oil off hot surfaces.
Seems Honda is on a run of bad recall publicity. No one is perfect.