Has Honda's run - run out?

npaladin2000

..they'd announce that they're studying the situation to see if they can make a design change or retrofit kit available to reduce the risk of fire caused by improperly installed oil filters. I realize they have to keep from implying they're liable to avoid lawsuits (justly or unjustly; even if you ARE guilty of something you STILL want to get away with it without punishment, but that's another topic). From a goodwill PR and customer loyalty perspective, it would be beneficial for Honda to present the image that they care about their customers and will go the extra mile to protect them. But hiding behind a ruling instead of making some sort of effort to fix things when you ARE in a position to maybe fix things a bit just doesn't look good to the consumer. And later on, if they're forced to announce some sort of recall anyway, it's going to look REALLY bad, primarily BECAUSE it was forced by some other party, and not Honda itself voluntarily stepping forward.

BTW, I'm a "Honda hater," just to let you know (I drive a Mazda3...bwa ha ha). It's in quotes because I don't really "hate" the brand, I just don't personally find the cars appealing. But I give credit where credit is due (usually, heh) and while I don't personally like them, for the most part they HAVE been decent, reliable (if boring, sans Prelude) cars. But this whole CR-V situation makes me a bit leery of recommending Honda cars to friends (and obviously the CR-V will NOT be recommended to ANYONE by me right now...)

newcar31

"yes, Greg, but people get a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions!"

Including people like yourself! What about those "27 morons"?

saugatak

If it were Focus and NHTSA arrived at the same decision, would it still be different?

Yes. Ford doesn't have the blind loyalist defenders like Honda has (a positive IMO). If Fords were blowing up like CRV is, I'd imagine the comments of Honda loyalists would be something like this:

1. Whew, glad I didn't get a Ford Exploder.

2. Honda would never make an exploding car. Honda engineers are the greatest, the bestest, the innovativest . . .

3. NHTSA approved Ford's "rollover feature" as the best way to put out engine fires.

4. Tsk, tsk, if Ford could only make its cars in Japan . . .

5. Fried Oven RoasteD

6. Sorry about the wife and kids, but look on the bright side. Now you can get that CR-V you've always wanted.

7. Honda's transmissions aren't faulty. It's the excessive downshifting caused by all the rubbernecking at the exploded Fords.

8. Is an exploded Ford a lemon? We Honda owners wouldn't know b/c out of 48,284,464,584,656,565 lemon law cases, only 2 involved Hondas.

9. I was in Vegas yesterday and they were giving 3 to 1 that the rollover class action lawyers would get all the money before the exploder class action lawyers.

10. Who needs oil? VTEC can hit 8,000 rpm with spit and a bucket of warm piss.

I would like to see your analysis on this "poor design". Have you figured out something NHTSA couldn't?

Below is my analysis magnifico irrefutabilitis:

Primus Assumptionatis, a car with a "good design" doesn't burst into flames after a faulty oil change.

Ergo Sum Cognitio, a car that bursts into flames after a faulty oil change MUST have a "poor design."

A highly trained engineer such as yourself must bow down before the Descartesian elegance of my proof.

PT Cruisers are (apparently) bursting into flames without an oil change.

By my count, OHC cars spontaneously combusting = 2 vs. OHV cars turning into torches = 0.

If old Renee Descartes were alive and kicking today, I believe he would sum up our long-running OHC vs. OHV debate as follows:

"I burn, therefore I suck."

driftracer

anyone changing oil and doubling or pinching the gasket is a moron. At best, you have an oil trail, mid-stream, you have a blown engine, and worst-case, you have a fire.

Yes, a mistake like that is made by a moron. I've seen it done on plenty of vehicles, since my shop did the engine replacements after the fact.

Are you saying I can't call someone stupid for doing something stupid? If I did it, I'd expect to be called stupid.

Is political correctness getting in the way of free speech?

andre1969

and I'm too lazy to read all the way back, but is the reason for those CRV fires REALLY because oil gets spilled on the exhaust and then ignites?!

Hell, every V-8 Mopar I've ever owned, from my '57 DeSoto to my '89 Gran Fury, had the filter right over the exhaust, so that it would get a good drenching every time I changed the oil! And none of them ever caught on fire!

My attitude was always hell, it'll cook off! ;-) I guess nowadays it'll cook your car too, huh?

badgerfan

From what I gather from the Honda statements in the press, the oil actually sprays out under pressure during driving. The fires that have happened have little or nothing to do with any spilled oil that occurs when the old filter is removed. It takes oil under pressure spraying out of the filter seal area to do the damage.

driftracer

"the oil actually sprays out under pressure during driving"

As it would on any vehicle where the gasket was doubled or pinched, or MISSING (I've seen that, too). You have an oil pump that makes pressure and circulates oil - if you had a leaky water hose and turned it on, water would spray out.

I don't own a Honda. I don't own a Hyundai. I don't like Hyundai products. If this was about a Hyundai Santa Fe or Elantra, I'd feel the same way.

robertsmx

Its not Chrysler, it is NHTSA that investigated and found the problem.

robertsmx

..they'd announce that they're studying the situation to see if they can make a design change or retrofit kit available to reduce the risk of fire caused by improperly installed oil filters…

And at this point, I won’t be surprised Honda is working on increasing fool-proofness of the set up. It appears they have studied the situation (as has NHTSA), it is only that most people don’t want to accept it since it doesn’t fit their whim, and they like to jump to conclusions since it does.

robertsmx

Ford doesn't have the blind loyalist defenders like Honda has (a positive IMO).

Finger pointing can be fun, but it doesn’t accomplish anything. The problem here is some people claiming to be superior authority over a governing body that has actually investigated the problem. Does that include you, I think so.

At this time, NHTSA has looked into the problem, have any of you who challenge their conclusion done the same? Armchair investigation isn’t going to serve the purpose here. Oh, and regarding Ford, here is a short list of recalls that NHTSA came up with after investigating into the problem:

1996-1999 Ford Taurus Fire Recalls
NHTSA Number: 96V151000
Model Year: 1996; Year of Recall: '96
Summary: The fuel pressure regulator located on the fuel rail in the engine manifold plenum through the vacuum line resulting in either release of fuel from the compartment has a vacuum diaphragm that was damaged during manufacture of the regulator. If the diaphragm tears or ruptures, liquid fuel could enter the intake air cleaner assembly or the exhaust system. Fuel release in the presence of an ignition source could potentially result in a fire. Dealers will inspect the fuel pressure regulator. Those regulators produced during the suspect time period will be replaced.

NHTSA Number: 97V097000
Model Year: 1997; Year of Recall: '97
Summary: Vehicle Description: Passenger vehicles equipped with AX4S automatic transaxles. The low/intermediate servo cover can separate from the transaxle while the vehicle is being driven. If this occurs, transmission fluid will leak contacting the catalytic converter. The catalytic converter temperature may be hot enough to ignite the transmission fluid and cause a vehicle fire. Dealers will inspect the transmission and replace these servo covers.

NHTSA Number: 98V067000
Model Year: 1998; Year of Recall: '98
Summary: Vehicle Description: Passenger vehicles previously serviced under Ford Service Bulletin 97-17-9. These vehicles were inadvertenly equipped with an 18-gallon fuel tank rather than the 16-gallon as specified. The 18-gallon tank has a second valve location where a shipping plug should be installed. If this shipping plug is displaced, fuel leakage can result. Fuel leakage in the presence of an ignition source could potentially result in a fire. Dealers will install the correct fuel tank.

NHTSA Number: 98V288000
Model Year: 1999; Year of Recall: '98
Summary: Vehicle Description: Passenger vehicles equpped with the "California" emissions package. An incorrect transmission oil cooler line was installed. The line contacts the anti-lock braking system module support bracket and over time, can wear and develop a leak. Transmission fluid leakage onto the exhaust manifold or catalytic converter can result in a fire. Dealers will install the appropriate transmission oil cooler line.

Do you see anything like this on CR-V as of now? If you do, show it to me. If you don’t, what is your basis of being “mad” at Honda, NHTSA and people who disagree with you? Here is another recent recall on vehicle fire…

2002-2003 Nissan Altima Fire Recalls
Make: NISSAN
Model: ALTIMA
Affected Year(s): 2002 2003
Units Affected: 30589
TC Recall #: 2003060
Manufacturer:
Campaign Code: R80

Recall Details:
On certain vehicles equipped with the 2.5 liter engine, the exhaust pipe hanger pin may catch debris from the road which could be ignited by contact with the main catalyst. Correction: Dealer will remove the protruding portion of the exhaust pipe hanger pin.

Also, certain operating conditions may cause the pre-catalyst to overheat and damage the catalyst substrate. If substrate particles enter the combustion chamber, they may score the cylinder walls, resulting in increased oil consumption. If the engine oil level is not checked on a periodic basis, engine damage may occur which could result in fire. Correction: Dealer will reprogram the engine control unit to prevent the possibility of the pre-catalyst overheating. If the conversion efficiency of the pre-catalyst has deteriorated, then the catalyst will be replaced. The original pre-catalyst will then be inspected for evidence of damage to the catalyst substrate. If damage is present, the vehicle engine will be replaced.

Sorry to burst your bubble (and ego), but I would rather believe in NHTSA, and its conclusions than whimsical ideas popping in the minds of a few here.

newcar31

"Are you saying I can't call someone stupid for doing something stupid?"

I am saying that you originally jumped to the conclusion that these fires were caused by "27 morons". Not all of the fires were due to a pinched gasket or double gasket.

You can't call somebody out for jumping to conclusions if you yourself are guilty of it.

robertsmx

I am saying that you originally jumped to the conclusion that these fires were caused by "27 morons". Not all of the fires were due to a pinched gasket or double gasket.

True. But, if the basis of an investigation points away from a design defect, and the cause of an issue happens to vary, would you still blame the design? Or could you conclude that the guilt lies somewhere else?

If it had to be “jumping to conclusion”, which of the two would suggest so?

ateixeira

James: thanks for the comic relief.

And the lesson in latin. LOL

I'll defend the so-called "morons", and point out they are hired by Honda, trained and certified by Honda, and given exactly 12 minutes by Honda to do a thorough job of changing your oil and filter.

As if a scolding memo from Honda will solve this problem. Even if you believe the CR-V is only prone to fires when a mistake is made, don't you think the techs should be given an adequate amount of time?

The mistake may be a procedural one, and I believe Honda comes out with those procedural guidelines. 12 minutes?

Is that unsafe? That might be the real problem.

-juice

andre1969

is anything like the Dodge/Chevy/Isuzu dealer where I bought my Intrepid, it's not like they're hiring high-paid, hi-tech professionals to change your oil. Sure, they have those guys at the shop, but they're not going to pay one of them $25-30 an hour or more to do oil changes when they can hire a high school kid or someone who got fired from Jiffy Lube to do it for like $6-7 or whatever!

robertsmx

I'll defend the so-called "morons", and point out they are hired by Honda, trained and certified by Honda, and given exactly 12 minutes by Honda to do a thorough job of changing your oil and filter.

I’ve no experience with a typical dealership, Honda or not, outside of car purchases and getting my cars serviced, so this is an interesting point that an automaker controls service department of a car dealership. Does that really happen? Or is it a made up story? I will have to ask the service department about it. I don’t understand why would Honda Motor Company (or any automaker for that matter) limit oil change time per car.

isellhondas

I'm not at all sure this is correct but I'll ask.

I hate to see statements made that may or not be right.

gee35coupe

So it's not only Honda techs.

The oil isn't spilled on the manifold, it is squirting under pressure from the incorrectly installed filter.

NHTSA has no problem issuing recalls for faulty design when it is warranted. There is nothing wrong with the design. It's the oil change procedures that are not adhered to.

There are aftermarket oil change relocating kit available for anyone who feels it is necessary. I'm sure a Honda dealer would gladly install one for anyone so inclined. For a fee of course.

As far as the 12 minutes, it's not only Honda that pays by "book" rates. All services at the dealership are done that way. Why not also mention after a tech gets more proficient than the book, he can still get paid for time listed. So evev if the "book" says it should take 1 hour for a brake job, if the tech can do it in 45-50 minutes, he makes more $ per hour. Some expert techs can get paid for 60 or more billed hours in as little as 40 hour weeks.

newcar31

"is anything like the Dodge/Chevy/Isuzu dealer where I bought my Intrepid, it's not like they're hiring high-paid, hi-tech professionals to change your oil. Sure, they have those guys at the shop, but they're not going to pay one of them $25-30 an hour or more to do oil changes when they can hire a high school kid or someone who got fired from Jiffy Lube to do it for like $6-7 or whatever!"

This is true. For the most part, a tech at a dealership that changes your oil is not doing engine overhauls and clutch replacements in between oil changes. Most dealerships have some kid doing oil changes, not master technicians.

And nobody should assume that the oil change tech at the dealer is any more or less qualified than someone who works at Jiffy Lube. As Andre correctly pointed out, many of the dealership oil change techs used to work at quicky lubes and vice versa.

Something to keep in mind is that the average pit guy at a quicky lube is WAY more experienced than a dealership oil change tech when it comes to changing oil filters..usually. I can't imagine any single dealership doing anywhere near 100+ oil changes in one day, but that is not unusual for a high volume quicky lube. The more times you do something, the more experience you have with it. Unlike most dealerships, the quicky lubes are set up for quick oil changes. There are no lifts, just drive over the hole in the floor, which is why a 12 minute oil change from a dealership is a more rushed job than a 12 minute oil change from a quicky lube. At a quicky lube, you might have 3 or more people who each have their own specific job going to work on one car (and are supposed to check each other's work), at a dealership, it's usually one person on a car with nobody to double check anything.

Another thing to keep in mind:

Even the "experts" make foolish mistakes.

ateixeira

Check out the post from "extech" in the CR-V thread, he used to work in a Honda dealership and shared some details.

They basically get the equivalent of 12 minutes of pay to do an oil change, no matter how long it actually takes, and that includes filling out the paperwork.

And if it's always the newest guy doing that job, they have the least experience (i.e. least productive) and are most likely to make mistakes.

Really it's a combination of factors, but rushing the new guy with the least experience to do the job where there is simply no room for error is a recipe for ... CR-V Bar-B-Q.

-juice

driftracer

pay their guys between .3 and .5 for an LOF - in fact, I've never seen anyone paid over .5, with the norm being .3 or .4.

LOFs aren't designed to make techs, or the dealership, rich. They're there to provide a needed service and usually compliment other services, depending on the mileage of the car.

I'd fire anyone who whined about only getting paid a few tenths because it took them an hour to do an oil change!

Just like with a 1.5 hour (by the book) alternator replacement. The guy with experience gets ahead of the game, because he gets paid 1.5 and can do it in .7 - the new guy takes 3.0, but gets paid 1.5 - it's just the way it works...

ateixeira

I read back and he claimed he was getting 0.2-0.3 hours from a couple of different dealerships.

That does sound low.

-juice

driftracer

paid - usually .4/.5 - doesn't matter - there's no stopwatch holding you to do it in 12-15 minutes, so that excuse is out the window.

The point is that an LOF is a loss leader, where on a $20 LOF, the dealer MIGHT make a dollar after they pay the guy .3/.4....it's not that that's all the time he's allowed, it's all that he'll be paid on...

lil302000

Andy Boyd said, that this is not a design flaw. The CR-V is configured in a way that oil spraying from a leaking filter goes onto the manifold unlike other configurations. the investigation is still on going as to why 03 and 04 cars are having these problems. Honda does not intend to recall and place a shield to keep the oil form the manifold. The piece on Auto channel also states the investigation is on going from the stand point of why 22 03s and 5 04s have had this problem. The only thing the investigations have found to conclude was that there was faulty installations from the techs.

lil302000

that techs are allowed a time to perform services and install parts. My motorcycles service manual has them and every OEM part I have bought states an install time. What Hondas oil change time is I have no idea.

driftracer

I worked part time for a towing company from 1995-1999 - I saw oil, fuel, and transmission fluid related fires.

I think someone's just on a witch hunt - maybe supported by one of the lesser reliable vehicle manufacturers?

Let the conspiracy theories begin....

lil302000

have been no deaths and one injury a woman was struck by traffic running from her burning CR-V.

gagrice

What kind of filter has a gasket that is not an integral part of the filter? All the filters I have changed have a rubber gasket that stays with the filter.

lil302000

is no conspiracy just an outcome. Who knows it could fade into history, it could be litigated at cost to everyone, when the investigation is concluded Honda could be compelled to install a shield. Time will tell all I have is my opinion as all do.

driftracer

of filter gaskets separate from the filter, even on new filters - it's just something you have to check for - after removing the old filter, YOU HAVE TO wipe the filter fitting area and double check for the old gasket - then, you apply a thin coat of new oil so the new filter gasket doesn't stick the next time you change your oil.

If anyone here has learned anything from my quick lesson, and I sincerely hope NOT, identify yourself and I'll send you my bill for training.

lil302000

had it happen to me a couple of times. When you buy a new one check it at the store.

newcar31

anybody who changes oil as a job knows to look for the old gasket. I guarantee if there's a new guy changing oil at a dealer or quicky lube, one of the first things they learn is to check for the old gasket....yet double gaskets still happen. Medical doctors who go to school for 10 years make mistakes. So do high school kids who change oil at car dealerships. So do career mechanics at car dealerships. So does the President of the United States.

If Honda thinks that their bulletin means that nobody will ever double gasket a CR-V again, they've got another thing coming.

driftracer

"anybody who changes oil as a job knows to look for the old gasket"

If "anybody" knows this, assuming you're including "everybody" in your "anybody", then we shouldn't be having this dicussion, because I can tell you about several CRVs that were involved because "anybody" didn't check the gasket or didn't make sure it wasn't pinched.

Sure, that's one of the first things you learn - obviously, these folks forgot, got in a hurry, had to take a call, won the lottery, something...

PF_Flyer

Mazda Mania



Liven up your evening and join your fellow enthusiasts every Tuesday from 6-7pm PT/9-10pm ET for our Mazda Mania Chat!
The chat room opens 15 minutes before the scheduled chat time, so come early and get a good seat! Hope to see YOU there on Tuesday!

Mazda Mania Chat Room

PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards

andre1969

that went back to the old-school way of having a drop-in cartridge that goes inside a metal cannister. They need a gasket to seal the area where the cannister seats up to the engine, and another smaller one where the bolt that holds the whole thing on goes together.

Back in the day, a lot of cars had this type of filter. Mopar went to the more convenient spin-on filter with the 1958 Wedge Head engines. Pontiacs were using them in 1959, and I think by the early 60's most domestic cars had them.

Thankfully, archaic Chevrolet used them at least through 1967. I say "thankfully", because the last time I needed filters for my '57 DeSoto, I discovered that they use the exact same part, and I was able to snag a whole case of them from the auto parts store a few years back!

I remember hearing awhile back that there was going to be a mandate forcing cars to go back to those old-style drop in cartridges. It turns out that the cartridges don't hold nearly as much oil as the spin-on filters when you throw them away, and it's a lot harder to extract oil from those spin-ons. You know, better for the environment and all that bs! ;-)

I can also tell ya from experience that it's a real bee-ach to line up everything on those drop-in cartridge types. Now hopefully the CRV is easier than a '67 Impala or a '57 DeSoto, but I'll admit there's been a few times that I didn't put everything back quite right when doing my DeSoto's filter change, and the result would be a nice mess on the exhaust pipe, and the garage floor!

grbeck

talon95: "Clearly this situation is completely different. Honda has admitted to the fires, and both Honda and the NHTSA felt that the circumstances behind them were unusual enough to warrant an investigation."

These situations are more alike than a casual glance would suggest. No has denied that the Honda fires have happened. And no one denied that Pintos, if hit hard enough from behind, could catch fire.

What Mother Jones left out is the fact that ALL small cars of that time, when hit from behind with sufficient force, could burst into flames. The media, which is generally ignorant about passenger car safety and risk factors, jumped on the bandwagon and branded the Pinto as posing a special danger to occupants.

The Mother Jones article was clearly written to paint the Pinto as more unsafe than comparable small cars. The facts, as measured by actual fire-related fatalities per thousands of vehicle, show otherwise.

Some are ready to paint the CR-V as a "defective" vehicle, without any supporting proof, except that these incidents happened.

saugatak: "It's that their executives made a business decision to callously ignore the problem, which led to more people turning into toast, when the problem could have been prevented with a recall.

The real-world accident statistics clearly show that there wasn't a problem with the Pinto in the first place - at least not compared to other small cars of the time. As I said above, Pinto critics clearly painted the car as being more dangerous than its competition, particularly the cars from Germany (VW Beetle) and Japan. This has not proven to be the case.

I remember a Product Liability book from law school that highlighted the actual number of fire-related deaths per thousands of registered vehicles for the Pinto and several competitive small cars. The Pinto was in the middle of the pack. The real-world statistics did not show that the Pinto was any more hazardous than its contemporaries in this regard.

Based on the real-world statistics, there was no problem for Ford executives to ignore. There was media-driven hysteria, however, over fire-related fatalities that were rooted in bigger vehicles hitting smaller vehicles, but not any special defect with the Pinto. (The infamous Grimshaw case highlighted in the Mother Jones article, for example, involved a 1962 Ford Galaxie plowing into a 1972 Ford Pinto at 35 mph...I doubt that any of the other small cars of that time would have fared much better.)

newcar31

"If "anybody" knows this, assuming you're including "everybody" in your "anybody", then we shouldn't be having this dicussion, because I can tell you about several CRVs that were involved because "anybody" didn't check the gasket or didn't make sure it wasn't pinched."

Sure, but that doesn't mean they didn't know to check, they just didn't. It really doesn't happen all the time. If it does happen, it usually makes itself known in the service bay after you start up the engine.

I just think Honda over-estimates the ability of all oil changers around the world to be perfect 100% of the time with CR-V oil changes. It's such routine proceedure, and it's usually performed by someone less than career oriented.

driftracer

Nevermind.

newcar31

CR-V thread, made me laugh:

"actually people are brave who trust Beaves/Buttheads "grease-monkeys""

No doubt there are people who care about their oil changing job, but bringing up Beavis and Butthead almost made me fall out of my chair laughing.

During the years I worked at a quicky lube and thanks to massive turnover in this kind of work, I worked with Beavis, Butthead, Snoop Dogg, Eminem, Kid Rock, the cast of MTV's Jackass, Huey, Dewey, Lewy, Cheech, and Chong.

Cheech left quicky lube and went to work at a Mercedes Benz dealer. Kid Rock came to quicky lube from a Mistu dealer.

andre1969

I knew a guy who used to work for Jiffy Lube. He said that when they did a tranny service, they'd just loosen the bolt enough on the bottom of the pan so that the fluid would drain out, then put it back together and add fluid.

Somehow, I think there's supposed to be more to a transmission service than that :-/

newcar31

That's the cheap, lazy tranny service for foreign cars with transmission pan drain plugs.

If your buddy was concerned about his ticket, he'd be selling transmission flushes and pan drop filter changes whenever possible.

gerry100

While at the Jiffy Lube I use ( they have always done great work for me by the way), I inquired about the shiny new Viper Coupe parked out side.

After finding out it belonged to one of the techs and making the reflexive comment about how changing oil must pay pretty well, I was told " he lives with his parents".

Shortly thereafter, one of the Techs was busted for dealing H from the Jiffy Lube.

talon95

"Some are ready to paint the CR-V as a "defective" vehicle, without any supporting proof, except that these incidents happened."

This whole circus began with the fact that the NHTSA felt that there was enough reason to be concerned about a possible defect to warrant launching a defect investigation (as classified by the NHTSA). If the instances of fires in the CR-V were not considered unusual when compared with other competitive vehicles, the situation would have been branded as normal and there would have been no reason to launch an investigation. At any rate, the media is simply reporting on the results of the NHTSA report... to this point, there doesn't appear to be any "Mother Jones/Pinto" style deliberate distortion of facts such as you described.

And for the record, that report includes the following disclaimer:

"THE CLOSING OF THIS INVESTIGATION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING BY NHTSA THAT NO SAFETY-RELATED DEFECT EXISTS."

So not even the NHTSA is willing to make the definitive statement that a defect is not responsible. At this point, there's no conclusive supporting proof one way or the other regarding a defect. And until I see such a definitive statement, I'll continue to raise these very reasonable questions. I'll continue to demand that the NHTSA provide full disclosure regarding their investigation (as opposed to the marginally useful laundry list of Honda's findings that the current report is comprised of), along with the complete rationale behind their failure to even mention the actual fires one way or the other in their current report. And I'll continue to encourage Honda to take the steps necessary to protect their hard earned reputation and the peace of mind of their customers.

driftracer

that's VERY ironic - my son works at our local Pep Boys - one of the techs there has a black Viper GTS. Makes you wonder...

saugatak

Shortly thereafter, one of the Techs was busted for dealing H from the Jiffy Lube.

I think we've found the cause of the CR-V fires.

How, in the name of all that is holy, can you expect a Jiffy Lube tech to do a perfect oil change while scoring some H?

It's not Honda engineers I tell you, it's drugs!

BTW, where is that Jiffy Lube you use? I think my car could use an oil change.

lil302000

Your last sentence makes great sense. I don't think those on this board are Honda bashing nor do they think Hondas are bad. My feeling on this is no matter what investigations determine installing the fix such as the shield Andy Boyd mentioned is well worth the investment. Honda has worked long and hard to gain a good reputation and it can take far less time to tear it down than it did to build it up. Once a good reputation is tarnished it becomes a very difficult stain to clean. Not to mention the consuming public will be safer. This situation invokes high emotion due to the fact that fire is one of the more feared forces we face, this is not sludge, lug nuts or any number of vehicle problems we face. This brings up images of being roasted in your car. This is why even Honda loyalist step back and say wow.

saugatak

The real-world accident statistics clearly show that there wasn't a problem with the Pinto in the first place - at least not compared to other small cars of the time. As I said above, Pinto critics clearly painted the car as being more dangerous than its competition, particularly the cars from Germany (VW Beetle) and Japan. This has not proven to be the case.

Not doubting your statistics. However, Ford's problem was that somebody got their hands on a Ford memo which essentially said "It's more expensive to do the fix than to pay damages on people who fried in their cars, so let 'em burn."

I'm sure similar memos have been written at every company.

It amuses me to see diehard defenders of their favorite car company. People, the love ain't mutual. I don't care what your favorite brand is. If a car company can save money by compromising on safety and get away with it, they will.

npaladin2000

"I'm sure similar memos have been written at every company."

Hey, watch it. That might be interpreted as Honda bashing, which we all know is not allowed in the politically correct environment here.

After all, we KNOW Honda would NEVER do that. Neither would Mazda. Only those evil, money grubbing American car manufacturers would do such a thing.

And if you believe that, have I got a great real-estate deal for you...bwa ha ha

gee35coupe

feet of the techs. Honda and NHTSA have shown in the past to have no problem calling for recalls when deemed necessary. So we have...

Conspiracy theorists and doomsayers that have nothing to stand on but can't admit the car performs as designed unless an outside influence causes a fire.

It's like those that STILL think Bush stole the election even though the ballots have been counted several times since.

merc1

Complete denial. Aren't these Honda techs? One minute a key advantage of Japanese car ownership is service and that makes owning a Honda great, but the next it becomes the techs and has nothing to do with Honda. What a hypocrital crock.

If this were any one of the domestics the fault would be with their engineers, but not Honda.

M

talon95

"Conspiracy theorists and doomsayers that have nothing to stand on but can't admit the car performs as designed unless an outside influence causes a fire."

No conspiracy theory, just questioning why the NHTSA is completely mute on the most key aspect of this whole situation, the fact that the fires indeed occur here when they don't in comparable situations in other cars.

If it's really no big deal, fine... state that explicitly and tell us why. But stop dancing around the "it's the tech's fault" mantra when that's not addressing the question that many of us REALLY want answered. I don't care that a tech can prevent the fires... I care about why the fires are happening at all. And believe me... in the crucible of public opinion, the same public opinion that has shaped Honda's reputation for quality and reliability, that's the question for which an answer will be demanded. Why ignore this key question if there's nothing to hide?

"So far, the facts we have" are woefully inadequate and leave many questions unanswered. If you're comfortable settling for what's obviously an incomplete answer, go for it... but don't expect everyone else to be so complacent. Hopefully, "so far" is the operative phrase in that statement.