Actually, that's a bad analogy. it's more like if you bought the dryer at Wal-Mart, then took it for the scheduled replacement of it's heater coil, which Wal-Mart's certified Wal-Mart techs replaced under proper Wal-Mart brand procedures on the Wal-Mart brand dryer, and when you got it home and plugged it in it turned into a flamethrower and you fry.
The question is whether it's a tech screwup, or if the design is such that a tech screwup that wouldn't destroy another vehicle is destroying this particular one. We've already established that it takes both factors to CAUSE the fires. The question is whether the design of the car is exacerbating a technician's mishap turning an ordinarily survivable mistake into something that destroys the car and threatens the lives of its occupants.
For instance, the design of the car COULD be (COULD be, mind you, not IS. I'm theorizing for the sake of discussion) COULD be designed in such a away that the gaskets are not visible for inspection during the oil change process. It could be desigined in such a way that an overstressed filter component can easily spray high-pressure sprays of oil onto ultra-hot components.
The question is going to be who had the most control over the issue. Is it possible a bad filter could rupture and cause the same fire? We don't know. Did Honda just put the thing too close to the cat? Maybe so, and if so, why? Are technicians being trained well enough? Probably not, but if not, why aren't other vehicles catching fire with the same frequency? What do other car manufacturers do in the designs of their engine bays that seems to cause this to happen less often? Do they use shielding? Is it a positioning thing? They can't look ONLY at CR-Vs; they have to compare with other similar vehicles, and not only find out why CR-Vs are flaming, but why OTHER vehicles are NOT. There's a lot to consider, and it's all going to be considered behind closed doors for a bit. Just have patience.
And no one's considering the third option. YES there is a THIRD option. The filters could be defective, like I mentioned earlier in this post. Anyone screaming for the blood of the filter manufacturers yet?
Of course, if some of the filters turn out to have been defective, it'll be bad for Honda. That means some fires were caused by tech mishap, and some by bad filters, but the only common factor is the design of the vehicle.
and owning most British cars qualifies you as an expert in do-it-yourself electronics...
You know what they say about Brits and warm beer...
(For those non-familiar, Lucas makes electronic systems on most British cars - the joke is "Why do Brits drink warm beer? ...Because Lucas makes refrigerators!)
as well. Even more credit. The strange thing is I once had a older Honda Prelude with twin carbs and the floats or something stuck. Leaked gas all over the engine and still made it two miles to the shop. I don't believe the tech is at fault here but like many have stated we don't have all the facts. But I have "never" put a filter on and not checked for leaks after it warmed up. When I had the Sprite I would have wished it was the filter leaking.
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.
Let's establish a few things here.
First, let us agree that when a CR-V spontaneously combusts, it is SOMEBODY'S fault.
Second, let us agree that it is not the driver's fault (unless he is the one to screw up the oil change) because normal driving activities shouldn't set fire to the engine.
That leaves only 2 parties left to be at fault. Honda or Jiffy Lube (by Jiffy Lube, I'm referring to all oil change places including Honda dealers).
Jiffy Lube is at fault for doing a faulty oil change, but is a faulty oil change the SOLE reason for CR-Vs torching? I don't see how that can be. Jiffy Lubes screw up thousands of oil changes on all different types of cars, and those screwups are NOT causing spontaneous combustion (except maybe for the PT Cruiser).
By elimination, Honda is at fault. There can be no one else. Honda is responsible for designing and manufacturing the CR-V. Honda has created a faulty design which causes bad oil changes to have MUCH worse effect than normal, much worse than they should be.
Honda defenders are taking the position that until the design flaw is EXPOSED, Honda's not at fault. IMO, this is not logical. The fact that the CR-V is blowing up is PROOF that it has a flawed design, it's just a matter of identifying it.
Stated another way, if CR-V's design were not flawed, then it would not be blowing up regardless of the faulty oil changes.
(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....}
Actually it's not like suing Wal-Mart...it is like suing the manufacturer of the dryer (let's say Conair). And that suit wouldn't be frivolous. If a electrical current from a hair dryer when in contact with water is strong enough to kill a human being instantly, I think you can have a case against Conair.
If your CR-V burns up, your first recourse would be against American Honda. The dealer can have liability however, if it sold you the car knowing the cars were prone to burning up. Basically dealers may be liable for any CR-Vs they sell that burn up after around 7/1 maybe a little earlier.
I just wanted bring clarification to your example.
People are saying that the lawsuit is unfair because we cannot be sure that Honda is at fault. We do not have enough information to make a conclusion. However there is enough circumstantial evidence to show that Honda is not being honest with their conclusion. Why are 2003 & 2004 Honda CR-Vs burning at a higher frequency than other cars? That's exactly what a civil lawsuit is all about, it's not about proving "beyond a reasonable doubt" (90% sure)...it's the "preponderance of the evidence" (51% sure).
This lawsuit will bring resolution to this issue. If the lawsuit is not dismissed, there will be a discovery phase where the plaintiff lawyers will have access to records and papers from Honda. They will interview fire victims and oil change techicians.
If the plaintiffs can provide evidence that shows a safety recall can prevent fires and that Honda was negligent in not doing so, Honda will lose. It is not a very high standard to prove.
I suspect eventually Honda will settle this before reaching that point, and will move to recall all 2003 and 2004 Honda CR-Vs to fix this problem.
"Actually it's not like suing Wal-Mart...it is like suing the manufacturer of the dryer (let's say Conair). And that suit wouldn't be frivolous. If a electrical current from a hair dryer when in contact with water is strong enough to kill a human being instantly, I think you can have a case against Conair."
I doubt that you'd have a case against Conair, since nearly all small electrical devices could similarly cause death under such circumstances. It's an inherent danger of this type of appliance that can't reasonably be designed out.
This example is so unlike the CR-V situation that it hardly merits discussion. But since we already are, to align it more closely with the topic of discussion, it would be more like Conair designing a dryer that Wal-Mart sold that could cause such a death, when every other dryer by every other manufacturer on the market was completely safe under the same circumstances. In that case, you'd probably have a strong case against Conair, and even Wal-Mart might share some of the burden of liability by virtue of the fact that they sold the item. I've always had a problem with the latter, but legal precedent seems to support it.
In real life, this Conair dryer presents no greater hazard than any of its competitors' products and dropping the plugged-in dryer into a bathtub is likely to result in death with any of the products.
"If the plaintiffs can provide evidence that shows a safety recall can prevent fires and that Honda was negligent in not doing so, Honda will lose. It is not a very high standard to prove."
Perhaps there's still hope for Honda. As someone pointed out uptopic, your average jury has a level of intelligence so low that they make Jessica Simpson look like an expert in quantum physics by comparison. So if the jury is comprised of Dumb, Dumber, Dumberer, Bullwinkle, the Three Stooges and their peers, perhaps Honda's lawyers can figure out a way to use that to their advantage. Heck, the lawyers might even be able to convince such a jury that the conspicuously weak smoke screen that we'll call the "it's all the mechanic's fault" defense has some merit. On second thought, probably not...
Geez, I've been treating this discussion so seriously up until now... it really is a LOT more fun being an irreverant smarta...... err, smartaleck!
folks could go to court with me and see how "taken apart" I get even when I have hard facts in hand - dealership repair orders that state something like "transmission failed at 16,535 miles, towing company dispatched to pick up scattered remains, manufacturer could not afford to install a new transmission, reman unit installed, no road test performed due to time constraints, customer related after vehicle pickup that transmission slippage exists, will look at it again in two weeks..."
When I'd testify in a case like this, I still get the third degree over whether there was a defect in the car and whether the manufacturer and their authorized warranty service center (the dealer) did their jobs to honor the warranty.
You guys watch WAY too much TV, mostly too much Court TV and Jerry Springer.
"We've got barracks lawyers already handing out settlements here because they KNOW who is at fault, without conclusion, evidence, or witnesses..."
Nobody is handing out settlements. Nobody knows who's at fault at this point. We all know that the fact that a lawsuit has been filed means just that, a lawsuit has been filed. There's a long way to go before this lawsuit provides any useful information or decisions. And certainly one possible outcome is that the lawsuit will be dismissed. Another possible outcome is the worst case scenario where Honda is found liable and is forced to pay expensive judgements. Nobody knows what these outcomes will be and nobody is claiming to know, so please spare us the condescending "barracks lawyers" rhetoric.
One thing is for sure... compliments of this class action lawsuit, it's likely that we will know the truth about what's at fault at some point. And that's all many of us are asking for... answers to unanswered questions, mainly the one of why the oil leaks were causing fires at all. If you're so confident that the NHTSA ruling is final and no other agent is at fault, why do you seem so have such a problem with the rest of us wanting a straight answer to that question? If it's not a problem, fine, I can accept that... but just tell us so, and tell us why, in clear, straightforward and unambiguous terms.
I would have preferred that these answers would have come voluntarily from Honda, and that no class action lawsuit would have been deemed necessary. But since they didn't see fit to address those questions, I guess the courts will have to force the issue.
My comments weren't directed at you, and I certainly won't retract the barracks lawyer comment, because it fits several people posting here.
Your statement, "Nobody knows who's at fault at this point. We all know that the fact that a lawsuit has been filed means just that, a lawsuit has been filed" is perfectly correct.
Class action suits mean very little in the sense that filing a CA suit is pretty worthless until it's "certified" by a judge, which will take a couple of years and lots of evidence. I've been involved in 4 class action suits so far (in the certification process), and the NEWEST suit is 4 years old.
ANYONE can file suit on ANYONE for just about ANYTHING. Filing suit is the same as accusing someone of something - the process certainly isn't finished just because paperwork is filed.
"My comments weren't directed at you, and I certainly won't retract the barracks lawyer comment, because it fits several people posting here."
Fair enough... thanks for the clarification... consider the "condescending" remark retracted.
"Class action suits mean very little in the sense that filing a CA suit is pretty worthless until it's "certified" by a judge, which will take a couple of years and lots of evidence. I've been involved in 4 class action suits so far (in the certification process), and the NEWEST suit is 4 years old."
Unfortunately for Honda, however, the fact that any such lawsuit has even been filed is a much larger problem, even if the suit never goes anywhere. Whether it's right or wrong, public opinion about news like this takes a LOT less than 4 years to form, and the "courtroom" of public opinion can be extremely harsh and very unfair. "Innocent until proven guilty" may be the norm for the real courtroom, but the public is much more inclined to assume guilt even if all the facts aren't known. For a company that relies so heavily on reputation, a highly publicized case like this could mean irreparable damage to that reputation.
And then we have the individual lawsuits. Honda has already lost the first round of one of these suits. Perhaps you're correct when you say that it really doesn't prove anything. Nonetheless, I'm pretty certain that once the news of the class action lawsuit gets the media spotlight, it won't take long for them to dig up the details of this individual lawsuit. That won't reflect well on Honda at all, and may lead the public to assume that they'd lose the class action suit as well. That may be a very premature and possibly incorrect conclusion, but that won't stop them from thinking it. And it won't stop the damage that such thinking could cause. Finally, the plaintiff's preliminary victory over Honda may encourage other CR-V owners to file their own individual lawsuits.
Overall, a major PR nightmare looks to be on the horizon for Honda over this CR-V issue. All I can say is that I wouldn't want to be responsible for the considerable task of damage control... it ain't gonna be pretty.
One more note... isn't it interesting that now that a sensational safety issue story like this one has captured the public's interest, nobody's talking about the Accord transmission recall anymore? Seems that the transmission recall has been pretty much reduced to "oh, that...".
You're right that the court of public opinion has already begun the slaughter. I will have some negative words, too, if I see where this was caused by a design issue that could have been prevented.
I'm just holding my opinion until the, and relying on what facts are already out.
"I'm just holding my opinion until the, and relying on what facts are already out."
I'm holding out as well until more information is available. Where we continue to differ is that, because of the key questions left unanswered by the facts that are already out, I don't consider them sufficiently reliable or complete to support any conclusion, tentative or otherwise, either for OR against Honda. Come out with a reasonable and satisfactory answer to the unanswered question that I've posted time and time again, and I'm ready to support Honda completely (for what that's worth... probably not much.) Until then, I'm not ready to assume either innocence or guilt.
that we already know - 14 of the 27 were caused by doing something that would cause pressurized oil to spray all over the engine compartment of any vehicle, and most vehicles have cats pretty close to the exhaust manifolds - in the case of my 1986 Mustang 5.0, in fact, the first set of cats were only 3.5 inches from the bottom of the stiock manifolds - had I doubled or pinched the gasket on that huge filter (Motorcraft FL-1 or Fram PH8A), it would have sprayed right onto the upper cat on the driver's side.
Anytime there is known error with a vehicle incident, these folks saying that the manufacturer is at fault lose credibility.
"in the case of my 1986 Mustang 5.0, in fact, the first set of cats were only 3.5 inches from the bottom of the stiock manifolds - had I doubled or pinched the gasket on that huge filter (Motorcraft FL-1 or Fram PH8A), it would have sprayed right onto the upper cat on the driver's side."
Maybe. 3.5 inches? Not 3.5 inches from the oil filter. I had basically the same car, a 1991 LX 5.0L coupe.
If that filter lost it's seal, there would have to be a lot of wind to blow it towards the cat, because otherwise, the oil would fall to the ground. There were no exhaust components underneath that filter, but the headers were right above it. I suppose it could happen if you were hammering on it going 100 mph or more and it blew out (not unusual for me with that car).
Have there been any fires with those cars? Maybe we just didn't hear about them?
As a 2004 Honda CR-V driver, I don't want to wait till all the facts are in. That may take years, and my car could be burned to ashes by then. I want a remedy. All the Honda defenders on this forum...how many of you actually drive an 03 or 04 Honda CR-V? It is easy for you to defend Honda if you are driving an Accord or Civic.
I want to hear from Honda "We agree that 2003 & 2004 Honda CR-V are more likely to catch fire than other cars and we're working hard on a fix at his moment". Had Honda said that, we wouldn't have this outrage.
But instead Honda said "Our own Honda trained techinicans were idiots and couldn't even do something simple as an oil change properly. They happened to screw up only on 03 & 04 CR-Vs by coincidence and there is ABSOLUTELY no design defect."
I hope this becomes a PR problem for Honda. I hope this causes slow sales of CR-Vs and constant questioning by owners and prospective owners. It was unfortunate that it had to come to this, but it will take the power of the marketplace and lawsuits to get Honda to act ethically in this matter.
Read my post - "3.5 inches from the bottom of the stock manifolds" - I never indicated that the oil filter was 3.5" from the cat.
Also, you allege "If that filter lost it's seal, there would have to be a lot of wind to blow it towards the cat, because otherwise, the oil would fall to the ground"
Obviously, you've never seen this happen before, and that's a good thing in my mind, but the oil doesn't run out or just drip lazily to the ground, it BLOWS out like a firehose, only spraying 360 degrees with aerated oil.
In an operating engine, with a normal oil pump, the oil is pushed through the motor at a fairly high pressure, usually 50-60 psi when not idling - 50-60 psi blowing through a 1/8" gap in a filter gasket blows out at a level able to empty your 5 quart pan in about 20 seconds. Or less.
Seen it, been there, luckily didn't do it, but got the t-shirt...
So you, a non-lawyer, calling me a "barracks lawyer" is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Last time I checked, Edmunds was not a court of law, so if you have a problem with what I said, point it out specifically instead of saying "Well a lawyer would pick it apart."
Also, given the dubious quality of your hair-dryer analogies, the flaws of which have been pointed out by several Edmunds posters . . . perhaps a dose of self-criticism would be more appropriate.
So you, a non-lawyer, calling me a "barracks lawyer" is like the pot calling the kettle black.
I wasn't talking about you, either, but if you're feeling guilty.....
I'm the farthest thing from a lawyer, or a barracks lawyer, you can get. I'm the guy who was once a dumb, naive, brand new Air Force member and nearly lost my career over advice given from one of these geniuses. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, but I have done TV and paper interviews as an automotive specialist.
I'll never give legal advice, except to say "contact a lawyer" when that's the best idea. I'm a court expert - I'm the guy the lawyers and judges rely on to give them the information so they can present, try, defend, and rule on a case.
My barracks lawyer comment seems to have stirred the pot - not what I was looking for, but great anyway. I have a serious problem with anyone placing blame in ANY situation without all the information. As to the subject at hand, I know we can blame 14 technicians for screwing up the most basic of learned mechanical functions/procedures - changing oil and filter.
Other than that, we have no way to point any further blame, so I find it humorous, even pathetic, that so many are trying to do their best imitation of Perry Mason or Judge Judy.
You'll note that I haven't said this is anyone's fault, except in the 14 cases where we know human error is to blame - and in a similar situation on pretty much any car model out there, would result in the same issue/incident.
Oh, and by the way, that brings to mind another factor - the owners of these vehicles, I suppose, were never studious enough to notice a smell, a little smoke, a liquid spraying sound? I guess these folks needed flames shooting 10 feet out of their vehicles before they dropped their cell phones, quit screaming at their kids, dropped the Krispy Kremes, the lattes, or the newspaper, and realized something may be wrong with their cars...
"I have a serious problem with anyone placing blame in ANY situation without all the information."
And I'm not placing blame. By the same token, I'm FAR from convinced that all the information has been revealed, especially since my most important question remains unanswered. The mechanics screwed up, but we don't know enough if they were THE cause of the fire, or if they were only one of several factors contributing to it. Placing blame on the mechanics at this point is premature based on the sketchy information that's been revealed. So in my mind, people who think they can rely on or come to any kind of conclusion, tentative, final or whatever, based on the weak and incomplete information in the NHTSA report are just deluding themselves.
"As to the subject at hand, I know we can blame 14 technicians for screwing up the most basic of learned mechanical functions/procedures - changing oil and filter."
A known fact that gives a very incomplete picture of what's really happening. You insist on drawing conclusions from facts that so obviously look at only a portion of the factors that could have an impact on the fires, and so obviously equally ignore other key factors.
Show me the same 14 technicians screwing up in exactly the same way on another vehicle, say, a RAV4, and then let's see if those RAV4s catch fire. Based on all available information, I seriously doubt that they will. Then we'll compare the CR-V situation with the RAV4 situation to see why the same mistake results in such radically different consequences. Explain why the RAV4 continues to be an SUV, while the CR-V turns into an SUB (Sport Utility Briquette). Then we'll really have something of enough substance to warrant talking about.
That question (or one very similar to it) is the one that needs to be answered... 14 mechanics screwing up tells us little more at this point than the fact that 14 mechanics screwed up, and the consequences were dire. There's a big gap between cause and effect.
"Oh, and by the way, that brings to mind another factor - the owners of these vehicles, I suppose, were never studious enough to notice a smell, a little smoke, a liquid spraying sound? I guess these folks needed flames shooting 10 feet out of their vehicles before they dropped their cell phones, quit screaming at their kids, dropped the Krispy Kremes, the lattes, or the newspaper, and realized something may be wrong with their cars..."
Ya know, I said a few posts up that it was fun to be a smartaleck, but excessive use of cynicism can begin to dilute the credibility of your opinions. Especially when the point you're making borders on the desperate.
So now we start pointing fingers at the owners. Yes, let's put the responsibility in their hands of saving themselves from the folly of Honda, or Jiffy Lube, or whoever or whatever is really to blame. Yet the possibility that Honda may (and note that I said MAY, not DOES) have any culpability in this is something that is simply inconceiveable to you.
Frankly, I find this particular suggestion to be cynical to the point of being offensive.
"By the same token, I'm FAR from convinced that all the information has been revealed, especially since my most important question remains unanswered."
I CAN safely assume, however, that if there were this major design flaw, knowing the frequency of oil change screw-ups in dealerships and private shops, adding in the huge number of CRVs sold, I'd think there would be a far greater number of incidents than 20 or 30.
IF Honda has such a bad design, these things would be lighting up like bottle rockets on the Fourth of July, but we have 30 cases out of 140,000 current models sold, plus thousands of the previous style, and there were no engine configuration changes.
I challenge anyone to look a few other models up, and not see several fiery incidents just like the CRV events - it happens every day, at a Jiffy Lube near you...
"I challenge anyone to look a few other models up, and not see several fiery incidents just like the CRV events - it happens every day, at a Jiffy Lube near you..."
Oh, so all of these other alleged incidents with other cars conveniently slipped under the radar, but the CR-Vs came into the spotlight because this is National Pick on Honda Month? Uh huh.
"but we have 30 cases out of 140,000 current models sold, plus thousands of the previous style, and there were no engine configuration changes."
Again, you incorrectly assume complete facts... the rumors on the streets are that more cases are beginning to surface. Why do you preach waiting for all of the facts out of one side of your mouth, and then very obviously suggest firm conclusions out of the other before all of the information is revealed? Remember that you yourself agreed that this was the case a whole bunch of posts ago.
talon95 -- Show me the same 14 technicians screwing up in exactly the same way on another vehicle, say, a RAV4, and then let's see if those RAV4s catch fire. Based on all available information, I seriously doubt that they will. Then we'll compare the CR-V situation with the RAV4 situation to see why the same mistake results in such radically different consequences. Explain why the RAV4 continues to be an SUV, while the CR-V turns into an SUB (Sport Utility Briquette). Then we'll really have something of enough substance to warrant talking about.
We've both been making this point in one form or another for many posts, but this is the best summation I've seen so far. Well done.
BTW, I'll take have a SUB to go with my KFH
driftracer -- I wasn't talking about you, either, but if you're feeling guilty.....
Then who were you talking about in your post #1488? You say you're not singling me out, but you are.
We've got barracks lawyers already handing out settlements here because they KNOW who is at fault, without conclusion, evidence, or witnesses...
"Why do you preach waiting for all of the facts out of one side of your mouth, and then very obviously suggest firm conclusions out of the other before all of the information is revealed?"
Now, you're either reading into what I'm writing, or trying to put words in my mouth.
There's no preaching, just not enough information to convict Honda (yet), as many have already done. What we DO know is that at least 14 technicians couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time and damaged some nice, new vehicles.
I've said several times that if this does turn out to be a Honda defect or design issue, I'll be very disappointed in a great car manufacturer, but I'l be glad to lay blame where it belongs.
"There's no preaching, just not enough information to convict Honda (yet), as many have already done. What we DO know is that at least 14 technicians couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time and damaged some nice, new vehicles."
What leads me in the direction of "practice what you preach" is that you say that we should all wait until all of the information is revealed to draw any conclusions, yet you're so quick to convict these technicians in such a way to make it sound like you're saying "they're the culprit, no question, case closed". People screw up all the time, and the thing they're working on doesn't burst into flames. If every car that had an oil leak as the result of an improperly installed filter burst into flames, we'd probably see 4 or 5 burnt out hulks on the side of the road for every mile we drive, and the US would become even more of the "Land of the Lawyers" than it already is. If you really follow your own advice, you'd consider the possibility that further investigation might reveal a more direct cause of the fires (something that would hardly surprise me, but I'm not drawing any conclusions), exonerating the mechanics, or at least making them nothing more than a minor contributor to the issue. Given what we know and DON'T know now, anything is possible.
Perhaps if you'd really reserve judgment about ALL factors, and that includes the mechanics, until all of the facts are revealed, your claims of being so much on the fence and so objective wouldn't ring so hollow.
You'll note that I haven't said this is anyone's fault, except in the 14 cases where we know human error is to blame
Has it been established in court that it was the mechanics fault? Or maybe it was a defective filter. It seems to me that it was Honda that blamed the mechanics. I don't consider their conclusion valid as they are a party to the case.
Send each owner a sticker that warns the Jiffy Lube Dude to look for the stuck filter gasket, and remove it prior to installing the new filter, and instructing the owner to put it on the nearest part (whatever that is) to the filter so it will be seen. 3 languages would be best.
Oh, and by the way, that brings to mind another factor - the owners of these vehicles, I suppose, were never studious enough to notice a smell, a little smoke, a liquid spraying sound? I guess these folks needed flames shooting 10 feet out of their vehicles before they dropped their cell phones, quit screaming at their kids, dropped the Krispy Kremes, the lattes, or the newspaper, and realized something may be wrong with their cars...
Drift, you're being too harsh on CR-V owners. I'm sure some CR-V owners yap on the cell phone while eating donuts and coffee, but so do drivers of other makes, and it's not a good enough reason to get burned alive.
CR-V owners shouldn't be placed in a position where they have to constantly monitor the car for signs of oil leak for fear of becoming toast.
Man, I hear you there pal!! I have done the same for my son on a few classic POSsss. I have finally convinced him that some cars, cool as they may be, are just not worth the effort. Sadly, he's now driving my Infiniti, which has a pretty bad oil leak. However, the beauty of it is, it doesn't catch fire or even smoke when leaking! I just have to clean the driveway once in a while.
"Obviously, you've never seen this happen before, and that's a good thing in my mind, but the oil doesn't run out or just drip lazily to the ground, it BLOWS out like a firehose, only spraying 360 degrees with aerated oil."
Actually, I'll bet I've seen more than you have. I worked at a quicky lube, remember? I know when it happens by the sound, you can hear it happen. These things usually happen in the service bay before any damage is done. As soon as you hear it, you'll hear "shut it down! shut it down!" It can happen if the filter is too tight or too loose also. I did it on my Mazda6i with an internal filter because the gasket must not have been exactly right when I screwed the cap back on. It happened in the garage, made a mess, but didn't come out like a fire hose and it happened after I revved it up. Lost about a half a quart.
Get industrial size bags of Kitty Litter. It worked on that #^$^% Fiat Spyder. If I could just get him to sweep the driveway. He's on his own now and learning that being a Dad is not all that easy...
What we DO know is that at least 14 technicians couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time and damaged some nice, new vehicles.
You have convicted those mechanics without their day in court. That is just as bad as blaming Honda without their day in court. And I imagine they will have it. Do you cast as much blame on the person that hands you cold french fries at McDonald's. They are at the same level of pay. It seems you posted a gleeful account of all the engines your shop got to rebuild as a result of poor oil changes. Those cars must not have caught fire from a bad oil change. Probably not any Honda's.
I'm with you all the way. My daughter's Third new Honda was a 2003 CR-V. She had several little things go wrong with it. She traded it before the Fire problems surfaced and got a decent price for it. She now has a Saturn and is very happy. Honda lost a loyal customer. I'm glad they did before her and my grandson might have gotten maimed or killed.
honda is playing the same denial game like they did with the transmission issue. It only took honda what 4 years before they finally came clean and admitted they had a design flaw that caused some honda/acura owners to experience early premature transmission failure. Honda ended up recalling close to 1 million honda/acura to fix the potential transmission failure.
Talon95 and gagrice--agree. driftracer is defending honda and being a hypocrite blaming the honda techs already tried and convicted. I guess the same techs must have gotten together one weekend to conspire some big conspiracy to screw up the oil change to just to 03-04 models. Since these honda techs are so incompetent why are there no fires to accord, civics, odyssey, and the pilots?
It's amazing some of the lame execuses these blind honda followers come up with . Oh noooo honda is sooo perfect they can't do no wrong. Blame the customers. Blame the techs. Blame the guy at jiffy lube yada yada yada.
Hard to compare a transmission issue with a possible catastrophic engine fire. Much more legal liability there.
"It's amazing some of the lame execuses these blind honda followers come up with . Oh noooo honda is sooo perfect they can't do no wrong. Blame the customers. Blame the techs. Blame the guy at jiffy lube yada yada yada."
What's amazing is that someone with no real information as to where the fires started, how long the vehicle was driven after the oil change, nor information on all fires to date can second guess Honda AND NHTSA. Remember, it;s not only Honda that says they don't need a recall at this time, NHTSA also signed off on the investigation.
So not only are the "blind Honda followers" behind Honda, so is the overseeing governmental safety czar.
dought we all have our thoughts on the fire issue. And all are correct in saying that this issue has yet to be concluded. But the fact remains that in the face of increased competition news such as this is bad for business. It almost seems that Honda needs to take a look at their operations before they cause the run at the top to end. Make no mistake they are still at the top, but it seems the leader is starting to loose steps.
Mazda selling less cars as a company than Honda sells of certain models. Arguably, Toyota is the only company that can give Honda a run for their money quality-wise and even Toyota has had a few blips on the radar but they are still taking over the US market. Hyundai is more of an iminent threat than Mazda right now. Mazda does make a couple of nice cars but they havenever quite been able to get it "right" enough for people to notice in the US. Other countries seem to appreciate their efforts with the 6 and 3 more than the US market.
just for kicks, I went and looked under the hood of my '89 Gran Fury. Sure enough, even here, the base of the oil filter, where it would spray out if mounted incorrectly, is only about TWO inches from the passenger-side mini-cat.
However, in this case, there is a difference. First, the mini-cat is in front of the oil filter, not behind, so the air flow should carry any leaking oil away from it. And even if it sprayed out under pressure, the filter faces front-to-back on the car, not sideways, so the oil should spray off to the sides, and not toward the mini-cat.
The only other car I've ever owned that was new enough to have mini-cats (I dunno, would my '86 Monte Carlo have had them?) is my 2000 Intrepid. But here, the oil filter is at the very bottom of the engine, and up front, nowhere near the cats. So how close is the filter on the CR-V?
I've been staying out of this since I've already stated my opinion for whatever it's worth.
This post, however, is just a bit over the top...sorry.
I think if you compare the crash test results between a Saturn and a CRV you'll see that your daughter didn't improve her safety. a lot greater chance I would think of getting in an accident than the rare occurance of a fire. In the extremely rare case of a fire,the chances are the occupants will safely get out of harms way before the fire got out of hand. In a sudden crash that wouldn't be the case.
I still believe in personal responsibility and in doing a job right instead of automatically saying "it's not my fault".
I see where the Saturn LW300 got 5 stars and the EPA has not rated the CR-V. Where did you get your test results for the Honda. From my EPA website the Saturn is better on emissions and fuel mileage. Just a better vehicle all around.
They're all okay in the frontal test, with the CR-V and VUE both rated as best pics, and the L-series still rated as acceptable.
In side testing, things aren't nearly so pretty: the CR-V is marginal, the VUE is poor, and the S-series, even WITH side airbags, is also poor.
About the only advantage I could see to an L-series, with regards to a crash, is that maybe the seating position is a bit further back than on something stubbier like a CR-V? I don't know if any real studies have been done to prove or disprove this, but I've always been of the belief that, in general, the further back from the front of the vehicle you sit, the safer you are.
Not sure who your testing facility is. The NHTSA rates the CR-V and VUE identical. I like the fact that her Saturn LW300 is lower and less likely to roll over. The mini-SUV's are roll-over prone from what I have witnessed. I would not own one.
Comments
The question is whether it's a tech screwup, or if the design is such that a tech screwup that wouldn't destroy another vehicle is destroying this particular one. We've already established that it takes both factors to CAUSE the fires. The question is whether the design of the car is exacerbating a technician's mishap turning an ordinarily survivable mistake into something that destroys the car and threatens the lives of its occupants.
For instance, the design of the car COULD be (COULD be, mind you, not IS. I'm theorizing for the sake of discussion) COULD be designed in such a away that the gaskets are not visible for inspection during the oil change process. It could be desigined in such a way that an overstressed filter component can easily spray high-pressure sprays of oil onto ultra-hot components.
The question is going to be who had the most control over the issue. Is it possible a bad filter could rupture and cause the same fire? We don't know. Did Honda just put the thing too close to the cat? Maybe so, and if so, why? Are technicians being trained well enough? Probably not, but if not, why aren't other vehicles catching fire with the same frequency? What do other car manufacturers do in the designs of their engine bays that seems to cause this to happen less often? Do they use shielding? Is it a positioning thing? They can't look ONLY at CR-Vs; they have to compare with other similar vehicles, and not only find out why CR-Vs are flaming, but why OTHER vehicles are NOT. There's a lot to consider, and it's all going to be considered behind closed doors for a bit. Just have patience.
And no one's considering the third option. YES there is a THIRD option. The filters could be defective, like I mentioned earlier in this post. Anyone screaming for the blood of the filter manufacturers yet?
Of course, if some of the filters turn out to have been defective, it'll be bad for Honda. That means some fires were caused by tech mishap, and some by bad filters, but the only common factor is the design of the vehicle.
You know what they say about Brits and warm beer...
(For those non-familiar, Lucas makes electronic systems on most British cars - the joke is "Why do Brits drink warm beer? ...Because Lucas makes refrigerators!)
Back to the Honda debate...
I don't believe the tech is at fault here but like many have stated we don't have all the facts. But I have "never" put a filter on and not checked for leaks after it warmed up. When I had the Sprite I would have wished it was the filter leaking.
I remember Lucas well. The prince of darkness.
Let's establish a few things here.
First, let us agree that when a CR-V spontaneously combusts, it is SOMEBODY'S fault.
Second, let us agree that it is not the driver's fault (unless he is the one to screw up the oil change) because normal driving activities shouldn't set fire to the engine.
That leaves only 2 parties left to be at fault. Honda or Jiffy Lube (by Jiffy Lube, I'm referring to all oil change places including Honda dealers).
Jiffy Lube is at fault for doing a faulty oil change, but is a faulty oil change the SOLE reason for CR-Vs torching? I don't see how that can be. Jiffy Lubes screw up thousands of oil changes on all different types of cars, and those screwups are NOT causing spontaneous combustion (except maybe for the PT Cruiser).
By elimination, Honda is at fault. There can be no one else. Honda is responsible for designing and manufacturing the CR-V. Honda has created a faulty design which causes bad oil changes to have MUCH worse effect than normal, much worse than they should be.
Honda defenders are taking the position that until the design flaw is EXPOSED, Honda's not at fault. IMO, this is not logical. The fact that the CR-V is blowing up is PROOF that it has a flawed design, it's just a matter of identifying it.
Stated another way, if CR-V's design were not flawed, then it would not be blowing up regardless of the faulty oil changes.
Actually it's not like suing Wal-Mart...it is like suing the manufacturer of the dryer (let's say Conair). And that suit wouldn't be frivolous. If a electrical current from a hair dryer when in contact with water is strong enough to kill a human being instantly, I think you can have a case against Conair.
If your CR-V burns up, your first recourse would be against American Honda. The dealer can have liability however, if it sold you the car knowing the cars were prone to burning up. Basically dealers may be liable for any CR-Vs they sell that burn up after around 7/1 maybe a little earlier.
I just wanted bring clarification to your example.
This lawsuit will bring resolution to this issue. If the lawsuit is not dismissed, there will be a discovery phase where the plaintiff lawyers will have access to records and papers from Honda. They will interview fire victims and oil change techicians.
If the plaintiffs can provide evidence that shows a safety recall can prevent fires and that Honda was negligent in not doing so, Honda will lose. It is not a very high standard to prove.
I suspect eventually Honda will settle this before reaching that point, and will move to recall all 2003 and 2004 Honda CR-Vs to fix this problem.
I doubt that you'd have a case against Conair, since nearly all small electrical devices could similarly cause death under such circumstances. It's an inherent danger of this type of appliance that can't reasonably be designed out.
This example is so unlike the CR-V situation that it hardly merits discussion. But since we already are, to align it more closely with the topic of discussion, it would be more like Conair designing a dryer that Wal-Mart sold that could cause such a death, when every other dryer by every other manufacturer on the market was completely safe under the same circumstances. In that case, you'd probably have a strong case against Conair, and even Wal-Mart might share some of the burden of liability by virtue of the fact that they sold the item. I've always had a problem with the latter, but legal precedent seems to support it.
In real life, this Conair dryer presents no greater hazard than any of its competitors' products and dropping the plugged-in dryer into a bathtub is likely to result in death with any of the products.
Anyway, back to the debacle of discussion.
Perhaps there's still hope for Honda. As someone pointed out uptopic, your average jury has a level of intelligence so low that they make Jessica Simpson look like an expert in quantum physics by comparison. So if the jury is comprised of Dumb, Dumber, Dumberer, Bullwinkle, the Three Stooges and their peers, perhaps Honda's lawyers can figure out a way to use that to their advantage. Heck, the lawyers might even be able to convince such a jury that the conspicuously weak smoke screen that we'll call the "it's all the mechanic's fault" defense has some merit. On second thought, probably not...
Geez, I've been treating this discussion so seriously up until now... it really is a LOT more fun being an irreverant smarta...... err, smartaleck!
saugatak -
"By elimination, Honda is at fault."
I'm sorry, but when assigning millions of dollars in compensation, you don't get to assign it by default - you have to PROVE something.
When I'd testify in a case like this, I still get the third degree over whether there was a defect in the car and whether the manufacturer and their authorized warranty service center (the dealer) did their jobs to honor the warranty.
You guys watch WAY too much TV, mostly too much Court TV and Jerry Springer.
Nobody is handing out settlements. Nobody knows who's at fault at this point. We all know that the fact that a lawsuit has been filed means just that, a lawsuit has been filed. There's a long way to go before this lawsuit provides any useful information or decisions. And certainly one possible outcome is that the lawsuit will be dismissed. Another possible outcome is the worst case scenario where Honda is found liable and is forced to pay expensive judgements. Nobody knows what these outcomes will be and nobody is claiming to know, so please spare us the condescending "barracks lawyers" rhetoric.
One thing is for sure... compliments of this class action lawsuit, it's likely that we will know the truth about what's at fault at some point. And that's all many of us are asking for... answers to unanswered questions, mainly the one of why the oil leaks were causing fires at all. If you're so confident that the NHTSA ruling is final and no other agent is at fault, why do you seem so have such a problem with the rest of us wanting a straight answer to that question? If it's not a problem, fine, I can accept that... but just tell us so, and tell us why, in clear, straightforward and unambiguous terms.
I would have preferred that these answers would have come voluntarily from Honda, and that no class action lawsuit would have been deemed necessary. But since they didn't see fit to address those questions, I guess the courts will have to force the issue.
Your statement, "Nobody knows who's at fault at this point. We all know that the fact that a lawsuit has been filed means just that, a lawsuit has been filed" is perfectly correct.
Class action suits mean very little in the sense that filing a CA suit is pretty worthless until it's "certified" by a judge, which will take a couple of years and lots of evidence. I've been involved in 4 class action suits so far (in the certification process), and the NEWEST suit is 4 years old.
ANYONE can file suit on ANYONE for just about ANYTHING. Filing suit is the same as accusing someone of something - the process certainly isn't finished just because paperwork is filed.
Fair enough... thanks for the clarification... consider the "condescending" remark retracted.
"Class action suits mean very little in the sense that filing a CA suit is pretty worthless until it's "certified" by a judge, which will take a couple of years and lots of evidence. I've been involved in 4 class action suits so far (in the certification process), and the NEWEST suit is 4 years old."
Unfortunately for Honda, however, the fact that any such lawsuit has even been filed is a much larger problem, even if the suit never goes anywhere. Whether it's right or wrong, public opinion about news like this takes a LOT less than 4 years to form, and the "courtroom" of public opinion can be extremely harsh and very unfair. "Innocent until proven guilty" may be the norm for the real courtroom, but the public is much more inclined to assume guilt even if all the facts aren't known. For a company that relies so heavily on reputation, a highly publicized case like this could mean irreparable damage to that reputation.
And then we have the individual lawsuits. Honda has already lost the first round of one of these suits. Perhaps you're correct when you say that it really doesn't prove anything. Nonetheless, I'm pretty certain that once the news of the class action lawsuit gets the media spotlight, it won't take long for them to dig up the details of this individual lawsuit. That won't reflect well on Honda at all, and may lead the public to assume that they'd lose the class action suit as well. That may be a very premature and possibly incorrect conclusion, but that won't stop them from thinking it. And it won't stop the damage that such thinking could cause. Finally, the plaintiff's preliminary victory over Honda may encourage other CR-V owners to file their own individual lawsuits.
Overall, a major PR nightmare looks to be on the horizon for Honda over this CR-V issue. All I can say is that I wouldn't want to be responsible for the considerable task of damage control... it ain't gonna be pretty.
One more note... isn't it interesting that now that a sensational safety issue story like this one has captured the public's interest, nobody's talking about the Accord transmission recall anymore? Seems that the transmission recall has been pretty much reduced to "oh, that...".
I'm just holding my opinion until the, and relying on what facts are already out.
I'm holding out as well until more information is available. Where we continue to differ is that, because of the key questions left unanswered by the facts that are already out, I don't consider them sufficiently reliable or complete to support any conclusion, tentative or otherwise, either for OR against Honda. Come out with a reasonable and satisfactory answer to the unanswered question that I've posted time and time again, and I'm ready to support Honda completely (for what that's worth... probably not much.) Until then, I'm not ready to assume either innocence or guilt.
Anytime there is known error with a vehicle incident, these folks saying that the manufacturer is at fault lose credibility.
Maybe. 3.5 inches? Not 3.5 inches from the oil filter. I had basically the same car, a 1991 LX 5.0L coupe.
If that filter lost it's seal, there would have to be a lot of wind to blow it towards the cat, because otherwise, the oil would fall to the ground. There were no exhaust components underneath that filter, but the headers were right above it. I suppose it could happen if you were hammering on it going 100 mph or more and it blew out (not unusual for me with that car).
Have there been any fires with those cars? Maybe we just didn't hear about them?
I want to hear from Honda "We agree that 2003 & 2004 Honda CR-V are more likely to catch fire than other cars and we're working hard on a fix at his moment". Had Honda said that, we wouldn't have this outrage.
But instead Honda said "Our own Honda trained techinicans were idiots and couldn't even do something simple as an oil change properly. They happened to screw up only on 03 & 04 CR-Vs by coincidence and there is ABSOLUTELY no design defect."
I hope this becomes a PR problem for Honda. I hope this causes slow sales of CR-Vs and constant questioning by owners and prospective owners. It was unfortunate that it had to come to this, but it will take the power of the marketplace and lawsuits to get Honda to act ethically in this matter.
Read my post - "3.5 inches from the bottom of the stock manifolds" - I never indicated that the oil filter was 3.5" from the cat.
Also, you allege "If that filter lost it's seal, there would have to be a lot of wind to blow it towards the cat, because otherwise, the oil would fall to the ground"
Obviously, you've never seen this happen before, and that's a good thing in my mind, but the oil doesn't run out or just drip lazily to the ground, it BLOWS out like a firehose, only spraying 360 degrees with aerated oil.
In an operating engine, with a normal oil pump, the oil is pushed through the motor at a fairly high pressure, usually 50-60 psi when not idling - 50-60 psi blowing through a 1/8" gap in a filter gasket blows out at a level able to empty your 5 quart pan in about 20 seconds. Or less.
Seen it, been there, luckily didn't do it, but got the t-shirt...
So you, a non-lawyer, calling me a "barracks lawyer" is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Last time I checked, Edmunds was not a court of law, so if you have a problem with what I said, point it out specifically instead of saying "Well a lawyer would pick it apart."
Also, given the dubious quality of your hair-dryer analogies, the flaws of which have been pointed out by several Edmunds posters . . . perhaps a dose of self-criticism would be more appropriate.
I wasn't talking about you, either, but if you're feeling guilty.....
I'm the farthest thing from a lawyer, or a barracks lawyer, you can get. I'm the guy who was once a dumb, naive, brand new Air Force member and nearly lost my career over advice given from one of these geniuses. I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, but I have done TV and paper interviews as an automotive specialist.
I'll never give legal advice, except to say "contact a lawyer" when that's the best idea. I'm a court expert - I'm the guy the lawyers and judges rely on to give them the information so they can present, try, defend, and rule on a case.
My barracks lawyer comment seems to have stirred the pot - not what I was looking for, but great anyway. I have a serious problem with anyone placing blame in ANY situation without all the information. As to the subject at hand, I know we can blame 14 technicians for screwing up the most basic of learned mechanical functions/procedures - changing oil and filter.
Other than that, we have no way to point any further blame, so I find it humorous, even pathetic, that so many are trying to do their best imitation of Perry Mason or Judge Judy.
You'll note that I haven't said this is anyone's fault, except in the 14 cases where we know human error is to blame - and in a similar situation on pretty much any car model out there, would result in the same issue/incident.
Oh, and by the way, that brings to mind another factor - the owners of these vehicles, I suppose, were never studious enough to notice a smell, a little smoke, a liquid spraying sound? I guess these folks needed flames shooting 10 feet out of their vehicles before they dropped their cell phones, quit screaming at their kids, dropped the Krispy Kremes, the lattes, or the newspaper, and realized something may be wrong with their cars...
And I'm not placing blame. By the same token, I'm FAR from convinced that all the information has been revealed, especially since my most important question remains unanswered. The mechanics screwed up, but we don't know enough if they were THE cause of the fire, or if they were only one of several factors contributing to it. Placing blame on the mechanics at this point is premature based on the sketchy information that's been revealed. So in my mind, people who think they can rely on or come to any kind of conclusion, tentative, final or whatever, based on the weak and incomplete information in the NHTSA report are just deluding themselves.
"As to the subject at hand, I know we can blame 14 technicians for screwing up the most basic of learned mechanical functions/procedures - changing oil and filter."
A known fact that gives a very incomplete picture of what's really happening. You insist on drawing conclusions from facts that so obviously look at only a portion of the factors that could have an impact on the fires, and so obviously equally ignore other key factors.
Show me the same 14 technicians screwing up in exactly the same way on another vehicle, say, a RAV4, and then let's see if those RAV4s catch fire. Based on all available information, I seriously doubt that they will. Then we'll compare the CR-V situation with the RAV4 situation to see why the same mistake results in such radically different consequences. Explain why the RAV4 continues to be an SUV, while the CR-V turns into an SUB (Sport Utility Briquette). Then we'll really have something of enough substance to warrant talking about.
That question (or one very similar to it) is the one that needs to be answered... 14 mechanics screwing up tells us little more at this point than the fact that 14 mechanics screwed up, and the consequences were dire. There's a big gap between cause and effect.
"Oh, and by the way, that brings to mind another factor - the owners of these vehicles, I suppose, were never studious enough to notice a smell, a little smoke, a liquid spraying sound? I guess these folks needed flames shooting 10 feet out of their vehicles before they dropped their cell phones, quit screaming at their kids, dropped the Krispy Kremes, the lattes, or the newspaper, and realized something may be wrong with their cars..."
Ya know, I said a few posts up that it was fun to be a smartaleck, but excessive use of cynicism can begin to dilute the credibility of your opinions. Especially when the point you're making borders on the desperate.
So now we start pointing fingers at the owners. Yes, let's put the responsibility in their hands of saving themselves from the folly of Honda, or Jiffy Lube, or whoever or whatever is really to blame. Yet the possibility that Honda may (and note that I said MAY, not DOES) have any culpability in this is something that is simply inconceiveable to you.
Frankly, I find this particular suggestion to be cynical to the point of being offensive.
I CAN safely assume, however, that if there were this major design flaw, knowing the frequency of oil change screw-ups in dealerships and private shops, adding in the huge number of CRVs sold, I'd think there would be a far greater number of incidents than 20 or 30.
IF Honda has such a bad design, these things would be lighting up like bottle rockets on the Fourth of July, but we have 30 cases out of 140,000 current models sold, plus thousands of the previous style, and there were no engine configuration changes.
I challenge anyone to look a few other models up, and not see several fiery incidents just like the CRV events - it happens every day, at a Jiffy Lube near you...
Oh, so all of these other alleged incidents with other cars conveniently slipped under the radar, but the CR-Vs came into the spotlight because this is National Pick on Honda Month? Uh huh.
"but we have 30 cases out of 140,000 current models sold, plus thousands of the previous style, and there were no engine configuration changes."
Again, you incorrectly assume complete facts... the rumors on the streets are that more cases are beginning to surface. Why do you preach waiting for all of the facts out of one side of your mouth, and then very obviously suggest firm conclusions out of the other before all of the information is revealed? Remember that you yourself agreed that this was the case a whole bunch of posts ago.
We've both been making this point in one form or another for many posts, but this is the best summation I've seen so far. Well done.
BTW, I'll take have a SUB to go with my KFH
driftracer -- I wasn't talking about you, either, but if you're feeling guilty.....
Then who were you talking about in your post #1488? You say you're not singling me out, but you are.
We've got barracks lawyers already handing out settlements here because they KNOW who is at fault, without conclusion, evidence, or witnesses...
saugatak -
"By elimination, Honda is at fault."
Hey, I couldn't let you have ALL the fun in creating clever euphemisms!!!
Now, you're either reading into what I'm writing, or trying to put words in my mouth.
There's no preaching, just not enough information to convict Honda (yet), as many have already done. What we DO know is that at least 14 technicians couldn't walk and chew gum at the same time and damaged some nice, new vehicles.
I've said several times that if this does turn out to be a Honda defect or design issue, I'll be very disappointed in a great car manufacturer, but I'l be glad to lay blame where it belongs.
What leads me in the direction of "practice what you preach" is that you say that we should all wait until all of the information is revealed to draw any conclusions, yet you're so quick to convict these technicians in such a way to make it sound like you're saying "they're the culprit, no question, case closed". People screw up all the time, and the thing they're working on doesn't burst into flames. If every car that had an oil leak as the result of an improperly installed filter burst into flames, we'd probably see 4 or 5 burnt out hulks on the side of the road for every mile we drive, and the US would become even more of the "Land of the Lawyers" than it already is. If you really follow your own advice, you'd consider the possibility that further investigation might reveal a more direct cause of the fires (something that would hardly surprise me, but I'm not drawing any conclusions), exonerating the mechanics, or at least making them nothing more than a minor contributor to the issue. Given what we know and DON'T know now, anything is possible.
Perhaps if you'd really reserve judgment about ALL factors, and that includes the mechanics, until all of the facts are revealed, your claims of being so much on the fence and so objective wouldn't ring so hollow.
Has it been established in court that it was the mechanics fault? Or maybe it was a defective filter. It seems to me that it was Honda that blamed the mechanics. I don't consider their conclusion valid as they are a party to the case.
Drift, you're being too harsh on CR-V owners. I'm sure some CR-V owners yap on the cell phone while eating donuts and coffee, but so do drivers of other makes, and it's not a good enough reason to get burned alive.
CR-V owners shouldn't be placed in a position where they have to constantly monitor the car for signs of oil leak for fear of becoming toast.
Actually, I'll bet I've seen more than you have. I worked at a quicky lube, remember? I know when it happens by the sound, you can hear it happen. These things usually happen in the service bay before any damage is done. As soon as you hear it, you'll hear "shut it down! shut it down!" It can happen if the filter is too tight or too loose also. I did it on my Mazda6i with an internal filter because the gasket must not have been exactly right when I screwed the cap back on. It happened in the garage, made a mess, but didn't come out like a fire hose and it happened after I revved it up. Lost about a half a quart.
You have convicted those mechanics without their day in court. That is just as bad as blaming Honda without their day in court. And I imagine they will have it. Do you cast as much blame on the person that hands you cold french fries at McDonald's. They are at the same level of pay. It seems you posted a gleeful account of all the engines your shop got to rebuild as a result of poor oil changes. Those cars must not have caught fire from a bad oil change. Probably not any Honda's.
Talon95 and gagrice--agree. driftracer is defending honda and being a hypocrite blaming the honda techs already tried and convicted. I guess the same techs must have gotten together one weekend to conspire some big conspiracy to screw up the oil change to just to 03-04 models. Since these honda techs are so incompetent why are there no fires to accord, civics, odyssey, and the pilots?
It's amazing some of the lame execuses these blind honda followers come up with . Oh noooo honda is sooo perfect they can't do no wrong. Blame the customers. Blame the techs. Blame the guy at jiffy lube yada yada yada.
"It's amazing some of the lame execuses these blind honda followers come up with . Oh noooo honda is sooo perfect they can't do no wrong. Blame the customers. Blame the techs. Blame the guy at jiffy lube yada yada yada."
What's amazing is that someone with no real information as to where the fires started, how long the vehicle was driven after the oil change, nor information on all fires to date can second guess Honda AND NHTSA. Remember, it;s not only Honda that says they don't need a recall at this time, NHTSA also signed off on the investigation.
So not only are the "blind Honda followers" behind Honda, so is the overseeing governmental safety czar.
http://news9sanantonio.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=1- - 3647
Don't worry. There's always Mazda. Their cars are better looking and more fun to drive anyway. And THEY sell useful hatchbacks, unlike stuffy Honda
However, in this case, there is a difference. First, the mini-cat is in front of the oil filter, not behind, so the air flow should carry any leaking oil away from it. And even if it sprayed out under pressure, the filter faces front-to-back on the car, not sideways, so the oil should spray off to the sides, and not toward the mini-cat.
The only other car I've ever owned that was new enough to have mini-cats (I dunno, would my '86 Monte Carlo have had them?) is my 2000 Intrepid. But here, the oil filter is at the very bottom of the engine, and up front, nowhere near the cats. So how close is the filter on the CR-V?
This post, however, is just a bit over the top...sorry.
I think if you compare the crash test results between a Saturn and a CRV you'll see that your daughter didn't improve her safety. a lot greater chance I would think of getting in an accident than the rare occurance of a fire. In the extremely rare case of a fire,the chances are the occupants will safely get out of harms way before the fire got out of hand. In a sudden crash that wouldn't be the case.
I still believe in personal responsibility and in doing a job right instead of automatically saying "it's not my fault".
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/findacar.htm
Saturn L-series: http://www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/99022.htm
And just for kicks, the Saturn VUE, which is really more a competitor for the CR-V than the L-series:
http://www.highwaysafety.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/0212.htm
They're all okay in the frontal test, with the CR-V and VUE both rated as best pics, and the L-series still rated as acceptable.
In side testing, things aren't nearly so pretty: the CR-V is marginal, the VUE is poor, and the S-series, even WITH side airbags, is also poor.
About the only advantage I could see to an L-series, with regards to a crash, is that maybe the seating position is a bit further back than on something stubbier like a CR-V? I don't know if any real studies have been done to prove or disprove this, but I've always been of the belief that, in general, the further back from the front of the vehicle you sit, the safer you are.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/NCAP/Cars/2004SUVs.html
That SURE won't be the case when it's time to move the Saturn!