By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
and it just got voted number one minivan again, after 5 years in production. Must be something to it. Now why it is that Accord is forever winning number one and top ten list honors is beyond me...there is not much between any of these midsize sedans if you ask me.
In the last few years, it seems to me like the first year of almost any model you pick is a "disaster", with "recall after recall". Of course, that can't be true, but there have sure been some highly publicized ones...
so, can the new RL coming in the fall keep Acura's run running? It is on its best roll in years, maybe ever...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Not trying to insult you, but I'm not going to take your word about a law review article that the conventional wisdom on the Pinto is all wrong.
I'd have to read the memo myself. If it's stored on a site somewhere, post a link.
Finally, the reason it assigned a monetary value to a human life was because federal regulators wanted Ford and other auto companies to use that concept, not because greedy executives wanted to find a way to justify not making product improvements. Federal regulators employed that very concept in their deliberations over the efficacy of proposed regulations.
I don't have a problem with tradeoffs in cost and safety in GENERAL, but I do disagree with some SPECIFIC decisions, like trying to save a few bucks by designing the car so that it blows up when rear-ended, or becomes a barbecue after a faulty oil change.
Auto makers could make a car that is completely safe in virtually every circumstance...and it would cost about $1 million a copy. Cost-benefit analysis is an integral part of the regulatory process, not a device employed by greedy, heartless executives to foist unsafe products on the public.
When did I ever say cost-benefit analysis is wrong? Did I ever say that automakers have to put in every safety feature regardless of cost?
Furthermore, there is always a judgment component to cost-benefit analysis and sometimes that judgment is wrong, as is the case with the Ford Pinto and Honda CR-V.
Moreover, there is a fine distinction between cost-benefit analysis in the design stage vs. after-the-fact cost-benefit analysis in the "Damage Control" stage.
I would bet your house that neither Ford Pinto engineers nor Honda CR-V engineers realized that these cars would blow up under certain circumstances. If they did, even the beancounters would have authorized the extra $ it would to take to fix the design. Pre-production design fixes are relatively cheap, the cost of bad publicity, declining sales, lawsuits are expensive.
"Damage Control" cost benefit analysis on the Pinto and CR-V is that, with so many cars already made and out there, it will cost a LOT to recall and fix them, so Ford and now Honda are stonewalling.
Your little lecture on cost benefit analysis doesn't make a distinction between "design" and "damage control." It seems to me that you're focusing on "design" cost-benefit analysis, and I'm wondering why? Everyone else on this thread has been talking about how much it would cost Honda to fix the problem NOW, not when the CR-V was designed.
This is why I approach this entire episode with a healthy dose of skepticism. (That, and the idea that companies, like individuals, are innocent until PROVEN guilty. And I do not consider an adverse verdict, a spate of news stories featuring hysterical CR-V owners, or a pronouncement by Ralph Nader or Joan Claybrook to be proof of guilt.)
Here's the difference between you and I.
You're such a big fan of Honda that you're willing to PAY for the opportunity to become Kentucky Fried Human if your CR-V ever spontaneously combusts.
I, OTOH, could care less whether it's Honda's or Jiffy Lube's fault, I just don't want to be burnt to a crisp. I'd rather buy another car, there are tons of good choices out there.
nvbanker -- A little reason and good sense can do wonders with these sensationalized issues. Remember - they're machines, all of them. It's a miracle they work at all, let alone as perfectly as they do.
I already explained why I thought grbeck's cost-benefit analysis was irrelevant.
It's easy to be reasonable when it's someone else being burnt to a crisp. NVbanker, if you were in the market for a compact SUV, would you buy a CR-V knowing what you know now?
Driftracer is the one accusing you of lying, not me.
I believe you.
I, OTOH, could care less whether it's Honda's or Jiffy Lube's fault, I just don't want to be burnt to a crisp. I'd rather buy another car, there are tons of good choices out there."
Give this man a prize for the most concise, yet complete statement of the TRUE issue at hand that's been presented yet.
(Not to mention hilarious... "Kentucky Fried Human"????)
As I've said, I'd blame Honda in a heartbeat if you could show how it's Honda's fault, and not the fault of an inept technician. We have overwhelming evidence of the latter, however.
ANY vehicle? What other vehicles have the oil filter near the catalytic converter?
Like I posted on the CR-V thread, why haven't we heard about any fires with the Toyota Highlander V6 / Lexus RX300? The oil filter is surrounded by exhaust manifold on those. Why no fires? No mistakes on those vehicles? Or is it that the CR-V's filter is near the catalytic converter?
Point me to a vehicle that is starting on fire at the same rate as the new CR-V because of a bad oil change and I'll believe that it ISN'T a design issue.
Two parts to this equation, not one. The CR-V's oil filter location is one part of the equation.
Then don't listen. You seem to have made it your personal crusade to malign Honda vehicles. Kind of sad IMHO.
I think, if I wanted to attack any vehicle out there, I could search newspapers and the internet and prove, for instance (made up stat), that Subaru Imprezas were involved in 433 accidents in the last 3 months. That claim really means nothing, just that out of all the accidents in a particular region, 433 of them involved Subaru Imprezas. Many hand wringers could get out the signs and fire up their websites to have the Impreza outlawed in the states based on that made up statistic.
I select the common sense route of "show me the money" before jumping to a conclusion with absolutely no basis.
I'll do the same with this Honda situation, just like I would if someone presented me with that Subaru statistic.
By the way, since I'm not in a position of changing my own oil at this point, where should I bring my car? You guys are scaring me with these oil shop horror stories? Is a GM dealer safe (I own GM products)?
I'm in the camp with the user error crowd, but it still seems like Honda could do soemthing (small or large change), if they wanted to, to minimize the chance that an oil leak will start a fire.
Of course, than people will be yelling and screaming about the siezed engine in their new car, but hey, you can't have everything.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
But as I stated several times earlier, assuming that nothing changed, the lack of problems in earlier models is difficult to explain with the negligence theory as well. Did mechanics suddenly get far more careless starting with the 2003 model year? Or do they assign the reliable mechanics to the 2002 models, and the negligent screwups to the 2003 and later models?
"Unless you want to take the Democratic approach of "don't confuse me with the facts, I have an opinion"."
When the report containing these "facts" is as inconclusive, open-ended, blithely mute concerning answers to significant questions and packed with disclaimers, they leave LOTS of room for interpretation.
The same techs do the same service on cars from the same manufacturer and they do not burn. What is unique here? The vehicle.
Prove it isn't a design issue. That's a lot harder.
They designed the catalyst in a manner that it is too close to an area where it is common for oil to spill (very common).
But this is just one of several contributing factors.
By the way, NHTSA has a lot more data now, several more 2004 fires have been reported, the total number is now well into the 30s and counting...
And that's just the ones we know about.
-juice
Is it a "fact" that there were no 2002s that have been affected or are we jumping to conclusions again?
You'd have to try to mess up an oil change, but believe me, it happens often. That still doesn't excuse Honda's design flaw because everyone else's car isn't bursting into flames.
The very first report that started this discussion says this
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) - At least 27 Honda CR-V sport-utility vehicles from the 2003 and 2004 model years burst into flames shortly after getting their first oil changes, The Washington Post reported on Friday.”
Why didn’t it just say, “after getting an oil change”?
#2. These cars are relatively new and many are only on their first oil change.
Do you think over a million oil changes have been performed on CR-Vs since the redesigned version arrived as 2002 model?
As far as the 2002s are concerned, like someone already mentioned in here, those were probably considered isolated incidents and are already junked.
You (and the other person) are suggesting that there is no record of these “other vehicles”? I’m sure agencies like NHTSA and insurance companies will have something to say about it. This is quite a statement to make. Since you believe in it, what are the chances that there are such isolated incidents from other makes as well?
Like others, I believe this problem isn't caused by one factor alone. It's design + error = fires. If you don't have one part of the equation, you don't get the fires.
The difference between your statement here, and mine (from earlier posts) is that I see fires as a result of multiple issues, and that inconsistency raises question about which aspect of design is to be blamed? Here is another perspective to consider.
Should an engine be designed to adapt to the procedure “all” people working on it use?
Or, should people working on those engines adapt to the specific design?
Here is analogy to consider: Alkaline batteries come with a warning label about potential explosion if recharge is attempted. Warning is good. But somebody couldn’t care less about the warning label, and picks up a NiHy recharger to charge some alkaline batteries and ends up having a fireworks display at home.
I could see this from three perspectives. One, the person is a dummy/ignorant. Two, the manufacturer of the recharger should incorporate a system to differentiate NiHy batteries from alkaline as the charger is turned on. Three, the person is to be blamed for it for not adhering to safe practice, as is the manufacturer who didn’t make the equipment “fool proof” (enough probably another keyword we must throw in).
I think it will happen. A fix implemented will have to guarantee coverage of the issue. And if the cause is inconsistent, that guarantee may be harder to offer.
And if it were a design issue, the problem should be more frequent, also going back to 2002, and easier for engineers (from Honda and NHTSA) to figure out.
Simply jumping into conclusions in a way it supports one’s opinion isn’t going to work. Given the extent of understanding of the issue we have, I would leave it up to the engineers who are dealing with the issue rather than a shoot in the dark proposal. They must know better.
-juice
“WASHINGTON (Reuters) - At least 27 Honda CR-V sport-utility vehicles from the 2003 and 2004 model years burst into flames shortly after getting their first oil changes, The Washington Post reported on Friday"
I don't see the word "always" in there, do you? Why'd you put the word "always" in quotes? Who are you quoting?
"Should an engine be designed to adapt to the procedure people working on it use?
Or, should people working on those engines adapt to the specific design?"
The vehicle should not start on fire if the oil filter leaks for whatever reason. That's my opinion. I don't care what the reason is, this issue would keep me from buying a CR-V. If one of my relatives or freinds were injured because of something like this, blaming it on a Jiffy lube tech instead of Honda isn't going to make me feel better. There are plenty of other comparable mini-utes out there that DON'T have this issue. The RAV4 and Forester seem like safe bets.
Simply jumping into conclusions in a way it supports one’s opinion isn’t going to work. Given the extent of understanding of the issue we have, I would leave it up to the engineers who are dealing with the issue rather than a shoot in the dark proposal. They must know better."
Contrary to your assertions, I'm not suggesting that there is definitely a design defect. But at the same time, there's insufficient evidence to conclusively rule one out. Obviously the NHTSA agrees, since they specifically stated that their report did NOT represent a finding that there were no safety-related design defects.
And again, the "no problems with 2002 models" question can be used to in an attempt to disprove either the negligence theory or the defect theory. Coming back with yet another reason why the 2002 question doesn't mesh well with the defect theory doesn't address the fact that there are also significant disconnects with the negligence theory that can't be explained. It's ironic that you chastise me for supposedly "jumping to conclusions in a way that supports one's opinion" when it's so glaringly obvious that you're doing exactly the same thing.
My main point is still that the explanation/resolution offered so far is woefully inadequate and obviously very tentative. It only attempts to explain why the oil leak is present... it ignores the key question of why the oil leak is causing a fire in CR-Vs at all, most particularly when so many other cars with similar oil leaks don't start on fire.
I agree that we should wait for the engineers to sort this out. And I would stress that this applies not only to those who leave open the possibility of a design defect, but also to those who hold the position that negligence is the sole factor here. It's virtually guaranteed that much more information will be forthcoming about this, and the current tentative position could prove out, but by the same token, the final findings could be dramatically different.
And that's all I'm saying... I'm not ready to rule out anything based on the obviously incomplete information available at this time. I don't rule out your theory, but there are a lot more questions that need to be answered before your theory can be called proven. As I said before, let's agree to disagree, and see what happens when the dust settles.
Definitely not, saug. I'm just saying that's all I would do is not buy the car, if I owned one, I'd trade it today for something else. But they are machines, and they're pretty amazing. I'm thinking Honda ought to change this design toot sweet, and recall the bad ones out there now, and we all could move on.
Additionally it has happened to less than 50 out of over 200,000 vehicles sold. Hardly enough to keep people from buying a CRV. As much as the naysayers would love to blame Honda, they are alone here. We can't even get anyone to post a picture of the engine bay of the CRV. How can we debate anything.
At least in the Toyota sludge fiasco, someone went and actually looked at what was going on and cuold vouch for those afflicted.
Honda is being sued for this.
Now that I must spell it out all 27 incidents being quoted in the report caught fire “after getting their first oil change”. I have proven my case. Now prove yours. Otherwise, get over it.
The vehicle should not start on fire if the oil filter leaks for whatever reason.
Is oil supposed to leak out? The rest is mystery to me. You must know something that I don’t, and NHTSA and Honda engineers are clueless about.
If one of my relatives or freinds were injured because of something like this, blaming it on a Jiffy lube tech instead of Honda isn't going to make me feel better.
Blaming on Honda would? You have to have basis to blame anybody for anything. Can’t go by gut feel.
Once again, this was the conclusion so far. Even Honda admitted that some aspects of the issue were not clear and still were under investigation. And as I've stated seemingly 1000 times before, the NHTSA report made the specific disclaimer that the report did NOT represent a finding that no safety-related defect existed.
They also said that they were going to continue to monitor the situation and would take further action if circumstances warranted.
So the rulings may or may not change in the future. But they left plenty of openings for change, and despite the repeated insistence to the contrary, a design defect has NOT been ruled out.
When a problem isn’t found, is it really there? And you seem to have missed my “assertions”. Did I blame technicians alone? Honda alone? Heck, I threw in another point I doubt anybody has touched yet assembly line issue (which will go back to Honda, but not necessarily as a design issue). The “first oil change” phrase seems to suggest something (to me) in that direction.
We have nothing but a few news articles implicating the tchnicians. Now if we have no real data to come to any other conclusion, what are we debating? The automaker and the government have come to a conclusion. There's not much more that we can do.
My point is that what we have at this point is a tentative conclusion, not a final one. Based on the wording of the NHTSA report, their disclaimers, the fact that they're continuing to monitor the situation, the fact that they've committed to take further action if circumstances warrant, the fact that they EXPRESSLY stated that they were NOT eliminating the possibility of a safety-related design defect, and the fact that Honda is still investigating aspects of this, it's clear to me that they have NOT come to a final conclusion. And with the key questions left not only unanswered but completely unaddressed, we don't have enough facts to come to ANY final conclusion. And we don't until all ongoing investigation is complete.
And you continue to ignore the most key open question... nobody has bothered to say even word one about why the oil is catching fire. Since inherent human fallibility precludes any possibility of totally eliminating mechanic error, the only way that they can bring this situation to a real conclusion is to figure out why the oil is catching fire, and address that issue.
Until that question is answered conclusively, this issue will not be closed. And if they don't do so of their own volition, the court system will force Honda and the NHTSA to address this question when the lawsuits inevitably surface. They're better off doing it now, but they'll end up doing it one way or the other.
That's where we differ. It's a matter of how you interpret the report and the statements. You consider them final. I don't. We exercise our God given right to have different interpretations and different opinions. End of story.
I'm sure they are, and no one has proven it's their fault. Typical.
Untrue... an Edmunds member has taken Honda to court for the fire that destroyed her CR-V and they ruled in her favor. Honda is appealing, naturally, but as it stands, the courts ruled against them. Apparently they found enough to convince them that Honda was at fault.
With all of the incredibly frivolous lawsuits that are filed in this day and age, I wouldn't scoff at a person suing an auto manufacturer when her new car burned to a crisp through no fault of her own. Compared to suing over McDonald's coffee or fast food restaurants making you fat, this one has case of the century written all over it.
No, a group of 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty ruled against them. That third juror, the 7-11 clerk, knows as much about the law as I know about geothermal physics.
"When people can win the coffee spill case, does it really place "fault" on the losing party?"
No, just the party they like the most, usually the consumer, whether right or wrong - it's not about "the law", it's about a popularity contest and which lawyer can put on the best K-9 and Equestrian Demonstration (dog and pony show)...
The Edmunds member not only sued Honda and won, she was actually awarded double the damages.
That coffee example keeps coming up. I believe in that case the coffee was unusually hot, WAY too hot for human consumption, and it caused scathing burns that it wouldn't have had the temperatures been within reason.
Boy does that sound familiar, or what?
If the temperature of the surface where the oil hits were within normal tolerances (otherwise we'd see millions of engine fires on all cars), then this would never happen.
-juice
I need to be cautious next time. Whenever I prepare tea (or coffee) at home, I always boil it. Any more, and the water would evaporate. :-)
-juice
In fact I like my soup luke warm.
Maybe that jury was full of people like me.
-juice
Actually, that's what I do for a living, and just for the record, there's no way I could speak on either side of this issue - if it's a Honda defect, then by all means, they should be hammered. If it's not, everyone should back off and tar and feather those oil change guys who screwed things up.
ROFLOL boaz!! You crack me up! Best credentials I've ever seen!! You are indeed an expert (or an ex-spurt).
I imagine Honda may as well sit tight now, since they've lost any measure of PR control that they might have had over the situation. Any proactive measures that they could have taken will now look like desperate damage control in reaction to the lawsuit.
Would this have happened had Honda immediately offered some sort of real solution that actually addressed the reason that the oil leaks resulted in fires, rather than the transparently weak band-aid solution of "use only perfect mechanics and your car that we claim has no defects won't burst into flames"? I guess we'll never know.
But believe me... now everyone is going to be asking the very hard questions that both Honda and the NHTSA avoided. They'd better have one hell of an answer ready.
Here's a link to an article on the lawsuit, if you're interested:
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/040716/nyf057_1.html
Suing Honda after your brand new CR-V becomes a wok on wheels is "overly litigious"?
Come on. That is not a frivolous lawsuit.
The "vehicle" doesn't have the o-rings. They are on the oil filters right? Unless there's an o-ring somewhere else.
Sounds like a lawyer with no mechanical ability whatsoever is trying to get his name in there first.
Blaming on Honda would? You have to have basis to blame anybody for anything. Can’t go by gut feel.
Um, I think Newcar's point is, having a deep pocket to blame and sue, whether it's Honda or Jiffy Lube, won't console him if one of his relatives or friends became tinder for the CR-V torch.
Regardless of who's to blame, CR-Vs are blowing up and I wouldn't want to be in one, nor would I recommend my friends or family be in one.
If I had one, I'd trade it in right now regardless of the hit I'd take. And then I'd sue Honda for the money I lost.
When a problem isn’t found, is it really there?
I'd say when a car explodes, there is definitely a problem, and the person with the biggest problem is the person in the car.
Whoever is responsible for that problem has the second biggest problem.
No, it's not frivolous if it's truly Honda's fault - still, no one can convince me (yet) that it IS Honda's fault, so suing Honda makes no sense to me. Show me some facts - tie it all together, and I'll admit that Honda is the big bad guy here and should be slapped.
To me, it's like suing Wal-Mart because that's where you bought the blow dryer that was plugged in and fell in your wife's bath water - horrible accident, lost the spouse, but no way in heck the retailer is to blame....