A Jiffy Lube district manager posted on the CR-V thread and said that they had a fire related warranty claim on one of the CR-Vs that they serviced. He said that there was no double gasket.
...the fact that the fires indeed occur here when they don't in comparable situations in other cars.
... or 2002 CR-V (the same design unless something was changed going into 2003, but then, what was, since investigation has revealed, not a design issue but some kind of "work" issue).
"... or 2002 CR-V (the same design unless something was changed going into 2003, but then, what was, since investigation has revealed, not a design issue but some kind of "work" issue)."
That really doesn't make much sense. How would it be a "work" issue if nothing else changed? Does it mean that they assign all of the experienced mechanics who DON'T make mistakes to the 2002s, and reserve the bungling screwups for the 2003s and 2004s?
And again, the NHTSA report is clearly tentative based on the wording and disclaimers, the situation will continue to be monitored, they will take further action if circumstances warrant and they did NOT eliminate the possibility of a design issue. And also again, it only agrees that improper installation of an oil filter causes an oil leak. It completely ignores the question of why this leaking oil starts on fire, when it doesn't in the 2002 version of the same vehicle, and in so many other cars.
The report in its current state is hardly the solid and definitive foundation for claiming that the issue is under control that some people try to make it out to be.
the 2003 CRV has been out since August 2002 or before - thats' two years ago, and these fires have resulted from the "first" oil changes, it seems - why are we just now hearing about this?
Did it take Hyundai that long to build the conspiracy theory to help them with the launch of their new Tuscon model?
"the 2003 CRV has been out since August 2002 or before - thats' two years ago, and these fires have resulted from the "first" oil changes, it seems - why are we just now hearing about this?"
In all likelihood, the early occurrances were dismissed as isolated problems until more instances of it made it clear that the problem was more widespread than that.
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.
I totally agree. Of the 50+ vehicles I have owned in my life, there was maybe a dozen that were real good vehicles. I would not defend the manufacturers of any of them. They are all out for the bottom dollar. And the Japanese automakers lead the pack on profits. I say Honda is lying.
WASHINGTON -- American Honda Motor Co. said Friday it is notifying dealers about a possible defect that has caused at least 27 CR-V sport utility vehicles from the 2003 and 2004 model years to catch fire after getting their first oil changes.
How would it be a "work" issue if nothing else changed?
Let us assume nothing else changed, and it is a design issue. In that case: 2002 CR-V should have had same problem. None seem to have been reported. The problem should have occurred more frequently (0.007% is hardly “frequent”). The investigation should have revealed the cause to be more consistent. Based on an earlier post by varmint
“there was a total of 27 incidents investigated. 9 vehicles were found to have stacked gaskets (double gaskets). Another 5 were found to have pinched gaskets. No explanation has been offered for the other 13 vehicles. It is assumed that those investigations were inconclusive.”
Based on these issues, I don’t see a design issue. What is your basis? Now, here is an interesting point. Why “only after first oil change”? Could it be that these gaskets were installed incorrectly from the factory? That is possible, or it could be that whoever worked on the first oil change in these 27 cases messed up. That makes it a “work” issue, NOT a design issue.
Or, like driftracer suggested, potential conspiracy against Honda. ;-)
The report in its current state is hardly the solid and definitive foundation for claiming that the issue is under control that some people try to make it out to be.
Have you seen the report in its entirety?
In all likelihood, the early occurrances were dismissed as isolated problems until more instances of it made it clear that the problem was more widespread than that.
Likelihood? When this issue came up, I’m sure investigators (and worse, if this is act of lawyers) would have dug up the information.
Go to Google and type in "honda crv fires" I stopped counting at 150 articles on the subject. That does not make it a defective vehicle. It does mean a lot of people are reading and talking about the subject. Maybe that and the massive transmission failures & subsequent recall, will cut into Honda's huge profits. That will get their attention back in Japan.
"Based on these issues, I don’t see a design issue. What is your basis?"
As I've said so many times before, the NHTSA was NOT willing to make any definitive statement that a design defect was not present. Nor have they dismissed the possibility of further action if circumstances warrant. That report is NOT the done deal that you make it out to be. THAT'S my basis for contending that a design defect could still be involved.
Based on your description of the possible scenarios revolving around a design defect, and my description of the possible scenarios revolving around a work defect, there are clearly things that are difficult to explain in both situations, so the lack of problems with the 2002 doesn't clearly prove nor disprove either type of defect.
"Have you seen the report in its entirety?"
I've seen enough of it to know that they've left plenty of opportunity to change it in the future, and that they haven't dismissed a design defect as a possible cause.
"Likelihood? When this issue came up, I’m sure investigators (and worse, if this is act of lawyers) would have dug up the information."
Well, if you feel the need to tear down my idea, come up with a better answer for driftracer's question.
(1) Honda purists - "there could be nothing wrong with the car".
I don't agree with this, because in my job, I've found there could be mechanical defects or design issues with ANY vehicle.
(2) Honda bashers - "it has to be a design issue, because I just KNOW that Honda's not perfect" (and this is my chance to say "at least my Elantra doesn't catch fire after an oil change, nah, nah, na nahhh...)
I can't agree with this, either, since so many of these have been proven to be caused by negligence.
(3) Me, sitting on the "common sense fence" watching folks tear at each other because their passion or hatred leaves them blind to facts and evidence.
I read evidence and form opinions, based on that evidence, for a living. Show me where Honda's design made technicians careless, and I'll jump on the bandwagon wih you.
"Possible defect", interesting choice of words from Honda. Some folks here aren't as open to that possibility. I guess you could put them in group 1, driftracer.
Group 2 is not able to pin it down to anything specific, which is how Group 1 counters every argument.
So, welcome to Group 3, I happen to believe it is a series of circumstances that might have led to this situation. Filter of questionable quality (FRAM did poorly in that oil filter study that circulated a while back), inexperienced techies, rushed schedules to get service done, and hot spots in the exhaust that are perhaps closer to the filter than is the norm for the industry.
That's dandy my insurance rates go up because of Honda's inability to train it's oil change technicians. I will ask you what several of the articles writer's have asked. Why just the 2003 & 2004? If in fact it is the same design as 2002.
Also, I'm sure some private people (owners), as well as quickie lube places have made these things into torches - I don't think it's just a Honda tech issue - I think any tech, or owner, can screw up an oil change.
In fact, the issue of double gasketing or pinching a gasket has absolutely nothing to do with car design, training, or filter design - it has to do with negligence and stupidity - nothing more.
I was going to bow out of this debate, but I'm really enjoying how many people can develop theories and excuses as to how Honda's design, the same design for 4-5 years, has suddenly made people stupid and it's all Honda's fault that people can't perform a simple function that's performed thousands of times per day in oil change places and home garages all over the country.
I say some people screwed up, some cars caught fire, thank God it wasn't any worse, and the people who screwed up should have someone else change oil for them!
I was driving just over the Fairfax County Line in Northern Virginia, stopped at a traffic light. Coming towards me and turning to my right from the other direction was what looked to be a new CR-V. As it passed me I noticed flames shooting out the side of it. A Nissan Z next to me did too. We both took off after it, the Z pulled in front of it and the driver got out and starting screaming.
At that point the driver realized her car was on fire. I ran up and grabbed her but she was in shock, she wouldn't leave without her purse. We pulled her away anyway as the dashboard was melting. At this point 911 had already been called.
The car's entire front section was totally burnt up, and the fire had spread underneath but the passenger compartment appeared to be intact.
When the woman calmed down, she told me her car was only a few months old and she was coming from having the oil changed.
At the time I assumed somebody screwed up very badly. Now I know that the somebody who screwed up was Honda.
The Flaming CRV topic is being discussed in Edmunds in at least 3 different areas: Maint.& Repair, SUV's, and News & Views. Shouldn't this topic be combined in one area!?!?
That report is NOT the done deal that you make it out to be. THAT'S my basis for contending that a design defect could still be involved I've seen enough of it to know that they've left plenty of opportunity to change it in the future, and that they haven't dismissed a design defect as a possible cause.
No they haven’t. BUT, they haven't found issues with the design either (something you don't want to believe). "Inconclusive" because of variety of reasons came up as the cause. Design can potentially be blamed (making it difficult for "experts" to handle it), but it has not been blamed as the cause, or has it?
There are times when enough isn’t enough, especially when you want to dig down this deep. If “enough” reading is all you can contend upon, you haven’t done your analysis. But, if you have, let us hear it, and how it IS a design issue.
Well, if you feel the need to tear down my idea, come up with a better answer for driftracer's question.
Well, see this as clashing of ideas. You assumed 2002 models may have had fires but “ignored”, and now they are not? If I were a lawyer, or an investigator, I would be looking it ALL reports/insurance claims related to the vehicle. Wouldn’t you?
conspiracy theory, hating, whatever. Please get the facts straight.
The fires are starting after the first oil change. They are not all Honda techs. Other oil change facilities are also affected.
It has been determined through the various articles that it is not spillage leaking on the manifold. The oil seems to be spraying under pressure.
There have been two investigations that came to the conclusion that the filters are at fault in one way or another.
Fires after an oil change can happen. I depends on the car and how the oil gets on the engine. There are several links to fires that happened after someone left the oil cap off of cars too. http://www.roberts.ezpublishing.com/croberts/oil.htm Clearly the fault of the technician.
Posts like #1345 make no sense. How can you blame Honda when the car was being driven from an oil change? Assinine.
I'm sorry, but these characterizations are really incorrect, at least in my case. I'm NOT a Honda basher. Nor am I a Honda purist. I'm a big Honda fan (as saugatek has confirmed) who is not satisfied with the way this issue has been handled so far, and who finds the quality and completeness of the reports that others are hanging their hats on to be very questionable.
Few things are as black and white as you're trying to make them out to be.
doesn't oil still need an open flame to actually ignite? Even if it's a pressurized spray, once it hits the manifold or some other hot part, shouldn't it just cook off, basically, without igniting?
I understand your posts just fine. I just happen to disagree with your assumptions. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me stupid. For the record, some hosts find such a question to constitute a personal attack.
", they haven't found issues with the design either (something you don't want to believe)."
I've seen the report (the report listed on the NHTSA site... if that's the complete report or not, I don't really know), and on the contrary, I absolutely believe that they haven't found issues with the design so far. However, they have specifically stated that their report does not constitute a finding that no safety-related design defect exists. If they were certain beyond any doubt that no design defect was involved, they would not have made the disclaimer about it that they did. Yet you continue to insist that the question of a design defect is closed, when the NHTSA said very specifically that it is not.
To you, the fact that they haven't yet found a defect is the key statement. To me, the fact that they were not willing to rule out a design defect is another very key statement, every bit as important as your key statement. Two different interpretations, two different opinions, and we're both fully within our rights to have them.
"There are times when enough isn’t enough, especially when you want to dig down this deep. If “enough” reading is all you can contend upon, you haven’t done your analysis. But, if you have, let us hear it, and how it IS a design issue."
I never claimed to be able to make such an analysis, and I don't need to be to support my position. Based on the information available and the disclaimers made in the NHTSA report, all I'm saying is the possibility of a design defect has NOT BEEN RULED OUT BY THE NHTSA. This can mean one of two things. Either there is no defect, or there is a defect, but it hasn't been identified yet. Either way, we can't definitively rule out a design defect as a possibility. And I don't have to personally identify a defect to make that statement.
"Well, see this as clashing of ideas. You assumed 2002 models may have had fires but “ignored”, and now they are not? If I were a lawyer, or an investigator, I would be looking it ALL reports/insurance claims related to the vehicle. Wouldn’t you?"
I never said anything of the sort, nor did I make those assumptions. The statement I made that you quoted was in reference to driftracer's question about 2003 models, and didn't address 2002 models at all. So I have no idea what your point is here.
Clearly the point here is that you choose to view the NHTSA report as a final, definitive statement that puts this issue to rest once and for all. Based on the various disclaimers included with the report, I choose to view it as a tentative statement that could very well change completely tomorrow, that leaves open the possibility of a design defect existing and also the possibility of further action. We're not going to come to a meeting of the minds here. We could continue to go back and forth for the rest of our lives on this issue, and neither of us would budge one inch. IMO, we're clearly at the point of agreeing to disagree.
It has long been my contention that, while all auto manufacturers are reluctant to admit any liability publicly, the approach differs between the American companies and the foreign companies. American companies tend to stonewall and deny they may have a problem. But the Japanese really don't BELIEVE they have a problem for a long time, so their denial is a little more genuine probably. Nevertheless, occasionally, they really do have a problem.
Just contact a surface above its ignition point and it will burn. All you need is heat and oxygen.
There may yet be some undiscovered issues. For example, perhaps some spray leaks occurred due to a faulty oil pressure regulator, causing the filter gasket to extrude. Perhaps the machined surface of the sealing surface on the block was faulty, resulting in a rough or out of square surface. Perhaps the design of the factory installed filter or the formulation of the filter gasket changed. Perhaps the filter from the factory was installed too tight or with no initial oil film. Perhaps some or all of the above are contributing factors. We will probably hear more on this issue out of Honda, especially if people keep flaming up the internet (pun intended) on this issue.
Driftracer -- I don't agree with your 3 part categorization, especially where you put yourself only in category 3. IMO, you're in the Honda defender camp.
Robertsx -- It's pretty obvious that the NHTSA report is not making ANY conclusions as to whether the fires are caused by defect or negligence of oil changers. The report is saying more investigation is needed.
What could I possibly gain from defending Honda? I don't own one, I don't work for them, I simply respect the reputation they've earned through MILLIONS of dependable vehicles on the road - most other manufacturers use Honda as a benchmark - known fact.
I'm defending common sense, and nothing more.
Here's another variable to throw in - since several of these incidents happened after oil changes at private or chain shops, I can guarantee those filters weren't made by Honda.
Again, if it's a gasket issue, there's absolutely no way that the manufacturer of the oil filter, or the manufacturer of the car, is to blame because the technician skipped the step of looking to see if the old gasket stayed on the engine - oil filter gaskets have occasionally stuck to engines as far back as they started using rubber seals on spin-in filters!
That's why, for the last 50 or so years, the next step after removing the filter is always to check for the old gasket and wipe off the threads!
Watching the back and forth here, I was thinking about oil having leaked in cars I've owned onto very hot exhaust components and the ensuing "hot oil" smoldering that took place. A lot of smoke, an awful stink, but no flames. Now if, as someone posted, the oil is being sprayed out under pressure, that's another matter. Mix a lot of air with some oil and I'd wager it's much easier to light that torch.
I have no dog in this fight... just interesting to watch everyone try to get to the final answer when the investigation is just underway!
That's why I'm still sitting on the common sense fence - no one in authority knows all the answers, but many here are guessing based on no information.
I don't recall the exact flash point of oil, but it's high - I doubt it's as high as the 1500-2000 degrees an operational catalytic converter can hit, though....
Is the fact that it seems to always be the FIRST oil change. If it is tech error, why not the 2nd, 3rd, or so on? So, that makes me suspect that something is funky with the car as it comes from the factory, that somehow casues problems the first time the filter is replaced.
What, I have no idea, but this whole story just seems strange.
For automotive motor oils is about 380-450 degrees F, certainly low enough to ignite when contacting hot exhaust surfaces. And true, a nice fine spray of oil surrounded by air will ignite much more easily than a puddle or even a drip.
We can all agree Honda has a definite public relations problem here, no matter what the outcome. Pictures of flaming CRV's are not good publicity.
"That's why I'm still sitting on the common sense fence - no one in authority knows all the answers, but many here are guessing based on no information."
If this is true, then why have you been so emphatic about what are very clearly your final conclusions on this issue (as demonstrated in your post #1344)? And why have you taken to deriding others who are actually waiting to see more investigation and more complete results?
Is the fact that it seems to always be the FIRST oil change. If it is tech error, why not the 2nd, 3rd, or so on? So, that makes me suspect that something is funky with the car as it comes from the factory, that somehow casues problems the first time the filter is replaced.
THAT is an excellent point.
Also, if it's just faulty oil changes, how come only CR-V's (and I guess a few PT Cruisers) are blowing up?
based on the information I have on the 27 fires, 14 of them were caused by negligence - proven by NHTSA. Since Honda hasn't been slammed by the NHTSA or any other group, it's a safe assumption that the others were caused by the same issue.
If it's proven otherwise, I'll gladly retract my assumption - the old saying is that "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck"...
Frankly, if I were a shop manager looking at very bad press and the replacement of a customer's $25,000 brand new Honda CRV, I'd point fingers away from my shop, too....
based on the information I have on the 27 fires, 14 of them were caused by negligence - proven by NHTSA. Since Honda hasn't been slammed by the NHTSA or any other group, it's a safe assumption that the others were caused by the same issue.
I think you're ignoring the possibility that the CR-V fires can be caused by BOTH negligence and design flaw.
For example, if the CR-V engine is designed such that it's harder to change the oil filter, then both the tech (for not changing the filter properly) and Honda (for making a common task harder than it should have been) are at fault.
"If it's proven otherwise, I'll gladly retract my assumption - the old saying is that "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck"..."
Well, all I'll say is that my biggest concern is that my ducks are bursting into flames, and the "explanations" provided so far leave way too many legitimate questions unanswered.
has those mini-cats on either side, right after the exhaust manifold. Then it has the regular one, after the two pipes come together, that's partly under the passenger seat and the passenger footwell.
My Intrepid is even worse. It has those mini-cats, a catalytic convertor, a muffler, and then two other things after the muffler that look like additional mufflers. I guess resonators or something? Hell, with all that crap no wonder the damn thing only puts out 150 hp at the wheels!
Is there any real need for those last two things to be on there? I think they want to come off. They told me last nite, in a dream! ;-)
...in my 2002 Seville STS, but the one on the 1989 Brougham is a good distance away from the engine. I recall somebody who had a plugged catalytic converter on his Aerostar minivan. That baby was glowing white hot!
I understand your posts just fine. I just happen to disagree with your assumptions. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me stupid. For the record, some hosts find such a question to constitute a personal attack.
Let us not go there. It is so unnecessary to bring up here. Asking for reasons behind “assumptions” (I doubt you have concrete facts either) isn’t and shouldn’t be considered personal attack.
I absolutely believe that they haven't found issues with the design so far. However, they have specifically stated that their report does not constitute a finding that no safety-related design defect exists.
And I don’t disagree here. In fact, I have already thrown something into the mix (without emphasizing on it) related to my “work” argument. Could this be workmanship in question, not necessarily at a lube place, but also at the assembly plant? There are just too many unknowns to foresee this as a design issue. When investigation is mostly inconclusive, and cause is varied with only consistency being “after oil change”, it would be hard for any agency to come up with a concrete statement.
This scenario is quite different from hose coming off in PT Cruiser or pin catching a debris in Altima causing fire. A design defect should typically allow re-creation of a scenario.
Clearly the point here is that you choose to view the NHTSA report as a final, definitive statement that puts this issue to rest once and for all.
I can only believe in what the report says, and analyzed it within my capacity. I have provided a few scenarios that raise questions (but don’t provide answers). Clearly, you missed them and assumed my points to be a conclusion.
Perhaps, there is some truth to the conspiracy theory. Need to find out if those CR-Vs were sold from a dealership sitting next to a Hyundai’s, Toyota’s or a Nissan’s. ;-)
Doesn't support the theory that they are hiding a known defect. Recently, Honda has voluntarily recalled nearly every V6 transmission they make, they have voutarily recalled several models due to defect with steering columns, and even recalled the Civic for gas tank bolt that might corrode. When you accuse Honda of being the typical carmaker that tries to brush problems away, could you show a instance where this has happened with a safety related defect that was proven to be valid.
Comments
... or 2002 CR-V (the same design unless something was changed going into 2003, but then, what was, since investigation has revealed, not a design issue but some kind of "work" issue).
That really doesn't make much sense. How would it be a "work" issue if nothing else changed? Does it mean that they assign all of the experienced mechanics who DON'T make mistakes to the 2002s, and reserve the bungling screwups for the 2003s and 2004s?
And again, the NHTSA report is clearly tentative based on the wording and disclaimers, the situation will continue to be monitored, they will take further action if circumstances warrant and they did NOT eliminate the possibility of a design issue. And also again, it only agrees that improper installation of an oil filter causes an oil leak. It completely ignores the question of why this leaking oil starts on fire, when it doesn't in the 2002 version of the same vehicle, and in so many other cars.
The report in its current state is hardly the solid and definitive foundation for claiming that the issue is under control that some people try to make it out to be.
Did it take Hyundai that long to build the conspiracy theory to help them with the launch of their new Tuscon model?
In all likelihood, the early occurrances were dismissed as isolated problems until more instances of it made it clear that the problem was more widespread than that.
I totally agree. Of the 50+ vehicles I have owned in my life, there was maybe a dozen that were real good vehicles. I would not defend the manufacturers of any of them. They are all out for the bottom dollar. And the Japanese automakers lead the pack on profits. I say Honda is lying.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/crv_fires.html
It looks like it cut into CR-V sales
http://autonet.ca/Safety/story.cfm?story=/Safety/2004/07/12/53712- - 9.html
"Pines said Honda doesn't know why this has been a problem on new CR-Vs, since there have been no design changes from earlier model years"
"However, Pines said the company is considering rewriting the instructions on replacement filters"
To make up for technician error - there have been no changes!
Let us assume nothing else changed, and it is a design issue. In that case:
2002 CR-V should have had same problem. None seem to have been reported.
The problem should have occurred more frequently (0.007% is hardly “frequent”).
The investigation should have revealed the cause to be more consistent. Based on an earlier post by varmint
“there was a total of 27 incidents investigated. 9 vehicles were found to have stacked gaskets (double gaskets). Another 5 were found to have pinched gaskets. No explanation has been offered for the other 13 vehicles. It is assumed that those investigations were inconclusive.”
Based on these issues, I don’t see a design issue. What is your basis? Now, here is an interesting point. Why “only after first oil change”? Could it be that these gaskets were installed incorrectly from the factory? That is possible, or it could be that whoever worked on the first oil change in these 27 cases messed up. That makes it a “work” issue, NOT a design issue.
Or, like driftracer suggested, potential conspiracy against Honda. ;-)
The report in its current state is hardly the solid and definitive foundation for claiming that the issue is under control that some people try to make it out to be.
Have you seen the report in its entirety?
In all likelihood, the early occurrances were dismissed as isolated problems until more instances of it made it clear that the problem was more widespread than that.
Likelihood? When this issue came up, I’m sure investigators (and worse, if this is act of lawyers) would have dug up the information.
"However, Pines said the company is considering rewriting the instructions on replacement filters."
And, no, not a "die hard" anything, except a race fan (IRL and SCCA), just a huge fan of the University of Common Sense.
As I've said so many times before, the NHTSA was NOT willing to make any definitive statement that a design defect was not present. Nor have they dismissed the possibility of further action if circumstances warrant. That report is NOT the done deal that you make it out to be. THAT'S my basis for contending that a design defect could still be involved.
Based on your description of the possible scenarios revolving around a design defect, and my description of the possible scenarios revolving around a work defect, there are clearly things that are difficult to explain in both situations, so the lack of problems with the 2002 doesn't clearly prove nor disprove either type of defect.
"Have you seen the report in its entirety?"
I've seen enough of it to know that they've left plenty of opportunity to change it in the future, and that they haven't dismissed a design defect as a possible cause.
"Likelihood? When this issue came up, I’m sure investigators (and worse, if this is act of lawyers) would have dug up the information."
Well, if you feel the need to tear down my idea, come up with a better answer for driftracer's question.
(1) Honda purists - "there could be nothing wrong with the car".
I don't agree with this, because in my job, I've found there could be mechanical defects or design issues with ANY vehicle.
(2) Honda bashers - "it has to be a design issue, because I just KNOW that Honda's not perfect" (and this is my chance to say "at least my Elantra doesn't catch fire after an oil change, nah, nah, na nahhh...)
I can't agree with this, either, since so many of these have been proven to be caused by negligence.
(3) Me, sitting on the "common sense fence" watching folks tear at each other because their passion or hatred leaves them blind to facts and evidence.
I read evidence and form opinions, based on that evidence, for a living. Show me where Honda's design made technicians careless, and I'll jump on the bandwagon wih you.
Group 2 is not able to pin it down to anything specific, which is how Group 1 counters every argument.
So, welcome to Group 3, I happen to believe it is a series of circumstances that might have led to this situation. Filter of questionable quality (FRAM did poorly in that oil filter study that circulated a while back), inexperienced techies, rushed schedules to get service done, and hot spots in the exhaust that are perhaps closer to the filter than is the norm for the industry.
-juice
That's dandy my insurance rates go up because of Honda's inability to train it's oil change technicians. I will ask you what several of the articles writer's have asked. Why just the 2003 & 2004? If in fact it is the same design as 2002.
In fact, the issue of double gasketing or pinching a gasket has absolutely nothing to do with car design, training, or filter design - it has to do with negligence and stupidity - nothing more.
I was going to bow out of this debate, but I'm really enjoying how many people can develop theories and excuses as to how Honda's design, the same design for 4-5 years, has suddenly made people stupid and it's all Honda's fault that people can't perform a simple function that's performed thousands of times per day in oil change places and home garages all over the country.
I say some people screwed up, some cars caught fire, thank God it wasn't any worse, and the people who screwed up should have someone else change oil for them!
At that point the driver realized her car was on fire. I ran up and grabbed her but she was in shock, she wouldn't leave without her purse. We pulled her away anyway as the dashboard was melting. At this point 911 had already been called.
The car's entire front section was totally burnt up, and the fire had spread underneath but the passenger compartment appeared to be intact.
When the woman calmed down, she told me her car was only a few months old and she was coming from having the oil changed.
At the time I assumed somebody screwed up very badly. Now I know that the somebody who screwed up was Honda.
That report is NOT the done deal that you make it out to be. THAT'S my basis for contending that a design defect could still be involved I've seen enough of it to know that they've left plenty of opportunity to change it in the future, and that they haven't dismissed a design defect as a possible cause.
No they haven’t. BUT, they haven't found issues with the design either (something you don't want to believe). "Inconclusive" because of variety of reasons came up as the cause. Design can potentially be blamed (making it difficult for "experts" to handle it), but it has not been blamed as the cause, or has it?
There are times when enough isn’t enough, especially when you want to dig down this deep. If “enough” reading is all you can contend upon, you haven’t done your analysis. But, if you have, let us hear it, and how it IS a design issue.
Well, if you feel the need to tear down my idea, come up with a better answer for driftracer's question.
Well, see this as clashing of ideas. You assumed 2002 models may have had fires but “ignored”, and now they are not? If I were a lawyer, or an investigator, I would be looking it ALL reports/insurance claims related to the vehicle. Wouldn’t you?
The fires are starting after the first oil change. They are not all Honda techs. Other oil change facilities are also affected.
It has been determined through the various articles that it is not spillage leaking on the manifold. The oil seems to be spraying under pressure.
There have been two investigations that came to the conclusion that the filters are at fault in one way or another.
Fires after an oil change can happen. I depends on the car and how the oil gets on the engine. There are several links to fires that happened after someone left the oil cap off of cars too.
http://www.roberts.ezpublishing.com/croberts/oil.htm
Clearly the fault of the technician.
Posts like #1345 make no sense. How can you blame Honda when the car was being driven from an oil change? Assinine.
Few things are as black and white as you're trying to make them out to be.
I understand your posts just fine. I just happen to disagree with your assumptions. Just because I disagree with you doesn't make me stupid. For the record, some hosts find such a question to constitute a personal attack.
", they haven't found issues with the design either (something you don't want to believe)."
I've seen the report (the report listed on the NHTSA site... if that's the complete report or not, I don't really know), and on the contrary, I absolutely believe that they haven't found issues with the design so far. However, they have specifically stated that their report does not constitute a finding that no safety-related design defect exists. If they were certain beyond any doubt that no design defect was involved, they would not have made the disclaimer about it that they did. Yet you continue to insist that the question of a design defect is closed, when the NHTSA said very specifically that it is not.
To you, the fact that they haven't yet found a defect is the key statement. To me, the fact that they were not willing to rule out a design defect is another very key statement, every bit as important as your key statement. Two different interpretations, two different opinions, and we're both fully within our rights to have them.
"There are times when enough isn’t enough, especially when you want to dig down this deep. If “enough” reading is all you can contend upon, you haven’t done your analysis. But, if you have, let us hear it, and how it IS a design issue."
I never claimed to be able to make such an analysis, and I don't need to be to support my position. Based on the information available and the disclaimers made in the NHTSA report, all I'm saying is the possibility of a design defect has NOT BEEN RULED OUT BY THE NHTSA. This can mean one of two things. Either there is no defect, or there is a defect, but it hasn't been identified yet. Either way, we can't definitively rule out a design defect as a possibility. And I don't have to personally identify a defect to make that statement.
"Well, see this as clashing of ideas. You assumed 2002 models may have had fires but “ignored”, and now they are not? If I were a lawyer, or an investigator, I would be looking it ALL reports/insurance claims related to the vehicle. Wouldn’t you?"
I never said anything of the sort, nor did I make those assumptions. The statement I made that you quoted was in reference to driftracer's question about 2003 models, and didn't address 2002 models at all. So I have no idea what your point is here.
Clearly the point here is that you choose to view the NHTSA report as a final, definitive statement that puts this issue to rest once and for all. Based on the various disclaimers included with the report, I choose to view it as a tentative statement that could very well change completely tomorrow, that leaves open the possibility of a design defect existing and also the possibility of further action. We're not going to come to a meeting of the minds here. We could continue to go back and forth for the rest of our lives on this issue, and neither of us would budge one inch. IMO, we're clearly at the point of agreeing to disagree.
There may yet be some undiscovered issues. For example, perhaps some spray leaks occurred due to a faulty oil pressure regulator, causing the filter gasket to extrude. Perhaps the machined surface of the sealing surface on the block was faulty, resulting in a rough or out of square surface. Perhaps the design of the factory installed filter or the formulation of the filter gasket changed. Perhaps the filter from the factory was installed too tight or with no initial oil film. Perhaps some or all of the above are contributing factors. We will probably hear more on this issue out of Honda, especially if people keep flaming up the internet (pun intended) on this issue.
Robertsx -- It's pretty obvious that the NHTSA report is not making ANY conclusions as to whether the fires are caused by defect or negligence of oil changers. The report is saying more investigation is needed.
I'm defending common sense, and nothing more.
Here's another variable to throw in - since several of these incidents happened after oil changes at private or chain shops, I can guarantee those filters weren't made by Honda.
Again, if it's a gasket issue, there's absolutely no way that the manufacturer of the oil filter, or the manufacturer of the car, is to blame because the technician skipped the step of looking to see if the old gasket stayed on the engine - oil filter gaskets have occasionally stuck to engines as far back as they started using rubber seals on spin-in filters!
That's why, for the last 50 or so years, the next step after removing the filter is always to check for the old gasket and wipe off the threads!
This is NOT a 2003-2004 newfound issue.
I have no dog in this fight... just interesting to watch everyone try to get to the final answer when the investigation is just underway!
PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards
I don't recall the exact flash point of oil, but it's high - I doubt it's as high as the 1500-2000 degrees an operational catalytic converter can hit, though....
What, I have no idea, but this whole story just seems strange.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
We can all agree Honda has a definite public relations problem here, no matter what the outcome. Pictures of flaming CRV's are not good publicity.
If this is true, then why have you been so emphatic about what are very clearly your final conclusions on this issue (as demonstrated in your post #1344)? And why have you taken to deriding others who are actually waiting to see more investigation and more complete results?
THAT is an excellent point.
Also, if it's just faulty oil changes, how come only CR-V's (and I guess a few PT Cruisers) are blowing up?
Sounds like a design defect to me.
Where did he say it happened this morning?
If it's proven otherwise, I'll gladly retract my assumption - the old saying is that "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck"...
Frankly, if I were a shop manager looking at very bad press and the replacement of a customer's $25,000 brand new Honda CRV, I'd point fingers away from my shop, too....
Cats used to be farther down stream, you had the headers, a pipe, then a cat, usually half way back by the time you got there.
Now cats are being moved forward, closer to the engine, so they heat up more quickly, for cleaner emissions. Some cars have several, even.
I know that the Subaru WRX has 3, just as an example, including one pre-cat that I think is upstream from their turbo charger.
The catalysts some times even have heat shields to help them warm up quicker.
Someone got pics of that area in a CR-V? I'd be curious to see exactly where the catalysts are positioned.
-juice
Where did he say it happened this morning?"
Let me change that, then to "You just made that up this morning, just in time to post the story here?"
In a corrected fashion, you're right, because my initial statement almost acknowledged that it actually happened.
I think you're ignoring the possibility that the CR-V fires can be caused by BOTH negligence and design flaw.
For example, if the CR-V engine is designed such that it's harder to change the oil filter, then both the tech (for not changing the filter properly) and Honda (for making a common task harder than it should have been) are at fault.
Well, all I'll say is that my biggest concern is that my ducks are bursting into flames, and the "explanations" provided so far leave way too many legitimate questions unanswered.
My Intrepid is even worse. It has those mini-cats, a catalytic convertor, a muffler, and then two other things after the muffler that look like additional mufflers. I guess resonators or something? Hell, with all that crap no wonder the damn thing only puts out 150 hp at the wheels!
Is there any real need for those last two things to be on there? I think they want to come off. They told me last nite, in a dream! ;-)
Any how catalysts are all over the place on modern engines, and I imagine with Honda's ULEV and SULEV ratings they use as many or more then others.
-juice
Let us not go there. It is so unnecessary to bring up here. Asking for reasons behind “assumptions” (I doubt you have concrete facts either) isn’t and shouldn’t be considered personal attack.
I absolutely believe that they haven't found issues with the design so far. However, they have specifically stated that their report does not constitute a finding that no safety-related design defect exists.
And I don’t disagree here. In fact, I have already thrown something into the mix (without emphasizing on it) related to my “work” argument. Could this be workmanship in question, not necessarily at a lube place, but also at the assembly plant? There are just too many unknowns to foresee this as a design issue. When investigation is mostly inconclusive, and cause is varied with only consistency being “after oil change”, it would be hard for any agency to come up with a concrete statement.
This scenario is quite different from hose coming off in PT Cruiser or pin catching a debris in Altima causing fire. A design defect should typically allow re-creation of a scenario.
Clearly the point here is that you choose to view the NHTSA report as a final, definitive statement that puts this issue to rest once and for all.
I can only believe in what the report says, and analyzed it within my capacity. I have provided a few scenarios that raise questions (but don’t provide answers). Clearly, you missed them and assumed my points to be a conclusion.