"I related that if you consider a car with pretty good looks, good performance, almost no repair costs, and starts every time you ask it to boring, then so be it."
Those are not the things that make most Toyotas boring to people who think they're boring. There is no rule written anywhere that says that a car that is fun to drive is going to be unreliable. Also, "good looks" and "good performance" are awfully subjective.
As I stated, I'm in the automotive legal community, and have been for nearly 4 years - I haven't heard of this GM issue, and I consider myself well-read.
Of course, it wouldn't be in a Honda discussion, but I read more than this one thread on Edmunds.
Well, I'm not in the automotive "legal community" and I have heard about GM's plastic intake manifold issues and I'm pretty sure I read about it here on Edmunds.
Is this GM plastic intake manifold/fire issue news to everyone else too?
if we'll ever see a movie that spoofs a modern car, like a CR-V, Altima, GM 3.8 with the plastic intake, etc. I just remember that movie "Top Secret", where the Pinto got a gentle little tap by that [non-permissible content removed] war wagon, and burst into flames.
Somehow though, it's just not as "funny" with a CR-V or other modern car. Not that it's funny when ANY car catches fire in real life!
I never said they fell off the map. I said they have slipped slightly. I don't care why Nissan slipped behind Honda in Japan in 2000 2001. They just did. Now they have regained their position in their home market. Like it or not that is an accomplishment for Nissan and a Slipping for Honda. About the same time Accord was the number one selling car in the US. It no longer holds than position. It doesn't matter why it just matters than they have slipped there as well. I don't believe Honda is washed up by any means only that they no longer enjoy unrestricted favoritism in the minds of consumers. Great product or not the perception of perfection is no longer there.
Honda's highest selling SUV the CR-V only sells about 33 percent of the highest selling Ford Explorer but then it competes directly with the Escape. SO while the CR-v took a 1000 unit sales loss in May over the same time the year before the Escape managed to have a 18K Unit increase for the same period of time.
So it "seems" that they have slipped in the mainstream sedan market over the last three years, "Market share wise". And they have slipped in the SUV market, "market share wise". and they have lost a place in their home market, Sales wise. Some explanation needs to be thought of for this turn of events.
Car magazines have been full of nothing but praise for Honda for about as many years as I can remember. The last two years are the first ones I can remember reading that they are no longer considered the class leaders by Autoweek or C&D.
Even Edmunds has dampened their praise of the Accord in their review.
" The suspension provides a comfortable ride as well as commendable levels of road grip while cornering, though cars like the Nissan Altima or Mazda 6 beat out the Accord in terms of handling sharpness and driving enjoyment."
Tell me the truth, did you ever think that Edmunds would select a VW over the Accord as the most wanted sedan under 25K or beat out by Hyundai for most wanted under 15K?
Like it or not that is an accomplishment for Nissan and a Slipping for Honda.
If one has to “sell” a part of oneself to regain a position, I wouldn’t call it an accomplishment. Nissan could do it, for good reasons. Expecting Honda to beat the big guns in Japan, or around the world, is a little too much, IMO. I would rather compare Honda to BMW, than to likes of GM, Ford, Toyota or VW, and after all the mega-mergers, DCX and latest being the Renault-Nissan union.
About the same time Accord was the number one selling car in the US. It no longer holds than position. For how many years, in last 15, has Accord been the overall sales leader in its class? Toyota has been overly aggressive dumping its cars in the fleet and Accord still follows closely behind (and still commands best sales title individuals, that it has for much longer than just being an overall sales leader). In a market, that is as competitive, not easy to maintain. Why expect Honda to do it, when others can’t?
That said, I would rather see Honda cut down some quantity to favor quality.
So it "seems" that they have slipped in the mainstream sedan market over the last three years, "Market share wise". Mainstream sedan market includes two models, Accord and Civic, correct? In Jan-Jun 2004 timeframe, Honda has sold 354,589 units of Civic and Accord. For the same months in 2003, Honda had sold 346,885 units of the two cars. Sales slipping?
That said, it appears you want to pin-point any dip in a particular class but ignore any gain in another. Those fluctuations are expected, and you should consider them as well.
Car magazines have been full of nothing but praise for Honda for about as many years as I can remember. The last two years are the first ones I can remember reading that they are no longer considered the class leaders by Autoweek or C&D.
Even Edmunds has dampened their praise of the Accord in their review
And C&D continues to pick Accord as one of the ten best, year after year! From one of their recent family sedan comparisons “Superb integration, marvelous balance” “Sweeping utility and enjoyment” “What else can we say? If car design is a compromise, Honda has achieved a nearly perfect compromise with this Accord.”
A three car comparison from Motor Trend (Camry, Altima and Accord) “The new-generation Accord, on the other hand, takes the honors in this hotly contested three-way based on high-quality presentation, sharp road manners, and generous interior accommodations. This is a fine, dual-purpose car that can double as a family hauler and a sport sedan”
Are you saying that Honda has "not" slipped in position or market share? Are you saying that the Accord and Civic out sell the Camry and Corolla? While Nissan did get a bail out from Renault did that cause the Home market to buy more Nissans?
"TOKYO (Reuters) - Japan's Mazda Motor Corp (Tokyo:7261.T - News) said on Thursday it plans to recall more than 174,000 vehicles worldwide, including the hot-selling Atenza sedan, after reports of a defective fog lamp which in one case caused the bumper to catch fire."
So there was one fire, and the all affected vehicles have been recalled. At least we know it shouldn't happen again. The CR-V on the other hand....
I guess God needs to recall all of the idiots that screwed up CR-V oil changes...
If Honda started building cars in 1963, why was my 1978 Accord such a worthless car? That is my reason for being a Honda basher and I admit it. Out of 9 new Japanese vehicles bought between 1964 and 1994 the only one that was reliable transportation was the 1970 Datsun PU.
Looks like a case of planned obsolescence. I didn't know anything had less than a 36K mile warranty. Maybe I slept through that period. I hate plastic body parts but engine manifolds is a bit much. What will they come up with next?
market share, as reported in MT this month, is 6.9% in the U.S., which is 0.4% lower than last year. So, yes, its sales are slipping relative to the market which is really what counts. It means that other products are out-competing it. But OTOH, 0.4% isn't that much. Ford dropped 1.2% in the same time frame, and now holds 16.8% of the market (for 1/04-4/04, versus 1/03-4/03). That market share puts the Honda brand fifth in sales in the U.S. after Ford, Chevy, Toyota, and Dodge (in that order). Not bad for a little company like Honda.
To put that a different way, Honda still outsells Nissan, a full-line carmaker (which Honda is not) by 2% of market share. And it is only 3% behind "mighty" Toyota (also a full-line manufacturer), whose operating profits of $10.24 billion last year meant that it outprofited all three of Ford, GM, and Daimler Chrysler COMBINED.
So, not too bad for little ol' Honda.
and for boaz' sake, let me add that a 6.9% market share means that about one in every 14 vehicle buyers in the U.S. is not only considering a Honda when it is time to buy, but is actually buying one. So saying that no-one thinks of Honda at car-buying time (did you say that??!!) may be putting it a bit too strongly... :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Ford used plastic intake manifolds on many of their engines, and still uses "composite" components - they don't like to say "plastic". Of course, I've never heard of a Taurus catching fire because of an intake manifold, though.
Don't worry, GM could screw up a cast iron manifold too if they tried hard enough (or barely at all).
I frankly don't understand why all car's don't catch on fire, sonsidering all the gas and high temperatures involved. That, and why ocean liner's don't sink.
What Mazdas have been "bursting into flames"? Were there any reported fires related to the fog lamp recall?
You're asking me to repeat. Anyway, will do it. There have been two different recalls related to Mazdas catching fire. One involved fuel leak (O-ring seal) in Mazda6 and Tribute (and Ford Escape). The other involved fog lamp issue (involving Mazda6, MPV and Miata).
NHTSA recall doesn't list how many fires were reported, just that they have "potential". If CR-V is recalled, the same will apply. If you want to find out how many fires happened, web search is there for you.
read carefully. I said they have slipped, not fallen. I said they aren't the first choice as often. I said they have slipped in the home market. Any hint at Honda not doing quite as well as they once did does not mean I am bashing them.
It doesn't matter in this forum why Honda is no longer the best selling Sedan in the US. There are reasons for everything I am sure and if I said GM has lost market share that would be just as true. I could also say GM is Still the Number one company in the automotive world and that would still be true. All I have said is that only in the last few years have the Auto magazines started to question the Civics build quality. It doesn't matter if every other car has a problem or not only that Civics have a problem as well. When I said many consider Toyota boring it doesn't matter if they do sell a lot of cars. Toyota themselves created Scion why? You explained it to me a while ago so I know you agree on what Toyota was thinking.
So let me make this clear. I didn't say Honda's run was over. I said it has slowed because they are getting bigger and just a bit more conservitive. I never said they won't recover but the Si didn't do what it was supposed to do. Revive the Hatch back market. There is a chink in the Honda armor and it can be ignored or something can be done about it. When I had my first SI it was not an also ran with the Sentra and Mazda and Focus. That is all I was trying to say.
I was sure you couldn't have said that the way I remembered it! :-)
You are right that the current SI was underwhelming, although people always said that if the sticker read $17K instead of $19,5, it would have sold much better. With its looks, I remain unconvinced. Of course, I almost bought one, but then people say I'm weird! :-)
As for Toyota, the boring 90% is selling well for now, and "bland and reliable" will probably always provide a good foundation for sales. But Scion appears to be a timely debut on their part, to judge by sales. With the number of awards Honda continues to win for various models (notably NOT including the Civic of late), they are maybe not as far gone as the Toyota line is/was, so they just need to slam dunk the next gen of Civic, evolving it a lot more than they did with the last update. Even given that, they could also use a few niche models that keep the "sport" in the Honda blood. And of course, given the competition, that next Civic must have a whole lot more "sport" of its own than the current one.
Say what you will, I think the Fit can aid in this overall scheme.
oh yeah, PS, I never thought you were bashing Honda. In fact, what you said was right on the money. Honda's most important market has always been the U.S., in sharp contrast to Toyota and Nissan, who depend as much on the home market as they do on ours. Not sure what that signifies, but it doesn't seem to be positive.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
"And of course, given the competition, that next Civic must have a whole lot more "sport" of its own than the current one."
You know, when you think about it, The Civic has always been about combining economy with fun-to-drive factor. So much so that it drove Ford to create the Focus, Dodge to create the Neon, Hyundai to sportify the Elantra a bit with a GT trim (the hatch helps) and Mazda to create the Protege and then the 3. And now Chevrolet is even getting a little sportier with the Cobalt (although ANYTHING would be an improvement over the Cavalier). Just when all these manufacturers are coming out with these small eco-cars that are also fun to drive (very much so in the case of the Focus, Protege and 3, the Neon USED to be fun until time passed it by), Honda designs a Civic that tilts more towards the "yawn" economy end where the Corolla and Cavalier sit.
Honda probaly figured the market would just follow them because "we're Honda." Unfortunately, it didn't work that way this time. Oops. Now if they try to make the Civic a little more sporty and "fun" they may end up a bit behind Ford and Mazda (and Chevy, with their new Cobalt, though that IS difficult to imagine).
I ask you to repeat because you keep saying "Mazdas are bursting into flames" too. Mazdas. As in plural. Like it's happening all the time and there are many reported cases of vehicles actually burning to the ground.
When I did do a web search, I found that there was one reported case of the bumper catching fire and the recall was a year ago. Whatever.
Just keep excusing Honda by pointing to other vehicles that start on fire....or don't.
"look! this car and this car and this car all start on fire too!! See? It's not that big of a deal"
Yup, that'd make me feel better if I had a CR-V.
You can't excuse something bad by pointing to something else that is bad. Doesn't work that way.
Wouldn't most cars nowadays use plastic -er, excuse me, "composite" intake manifolds? Those old cast iron intakes were incredibly heavy, bulky things. I have a couple of old 318-4bbl intake manifolds and a 400-2bbl packed away somewhere, and those suckers are HEAVY. Not something you're just going to pick up and tote around with one hand! And Lord help you if you drop one on your foot!
I think they started going to aluminum intakes on some cars in the 70's (and had problems with them, as well...I know Slant Six intakes were famous for splitting right in the middle), but I can't imagine any manufacturer using anything so heavy today!
Just keep excusing Honda by pointing to other vehicles that start on fire....or don't Two points here.
1. Excusing Honda... I don't want to go by gut feel. You may be blaming Honda and choosing to ignore other possibilities. And since I disagree with you, it has to be seen as "Excusing Honda"? Whether it is a design issue (you think so, at this point; NHTSA and Honda don't think so at this point); Technician issue (you don't want to think so; Honda thinks so, and NHTSA may be agreeing with Honda) or Assembly line issue (something I added to the discussion), we won't know until investigators reveal their secrets. Guess work isn't the smartest way to handle serious issues, and you should know that.
2. Pointing to other vehicles... since it came up. You're now being defensive (not surprisingly for Mazda) but couldn't care less when Pinto was thrown into the mix. Altima issue never bothered you, and out of the fire issues I provided link to and some of my comments on, it was Mazda that somehow stood out to you. Well, can't help it. If there was a recall, the issue had to be serious enough regardless of how you want to look at it.
I did a little research regarding the GM and Camry fire story, and found the details to be dramatically different than the CR-V situation.
As has already been discussed, the GM situation involved an identified component that was the source of a gasoline-fueled engine fire. The NHTSA knew exactly what was igniting and why before they published their findings. And the investigation resulted in a recall.
In the case of the Camry, the fires that were reported spanned 6 model years and multiple engine configurations. The NHTSA investigation identified a variety of components that were involved in one or the other in those different configurations, and no individual cause exhibited any type of trend that would indicate a design defect. And the fires were evenly spread out over model years, with the result being that all model years exhibited a statistically low likelihood of fire when compared to other cars. So they determined that no action was necessary.
Again, in the Camry case, the NHTSA knew exactly what was igniting and why before they published their findings.
The important distinction is that in both of the above cases, the NHTSA identified the specific causes of the fires themselves (IOW, what was igniting and why), not simply the circumstances that introduced a potentially flammable agent into the engine/exhaust system environment (known in the CR-V case as the "it's all the fault of the moron mechanics" theory).
And they were able to convey this very complete and clear explanation in a single paragraph summary... no 100 page technical reports were required.
Since the NHTSA went to the effort of discovering and revealing the answer to the specific question of "what was igniting and why", they clearly recognize that this is a critical question. One that they've left unanswered in the CR-V case. Why is this considered critical information in the case of the GM and Camry fires, when the same information is being treated as "not important" in the CR-V case?
When the NHTSA similarly provides a comparable level of explanation as they did in the above two investigations (in this case, the answer to the "how does the leaked oil ignite" question), I'll consider the investigation to have revealed enough information on which to base a conclusion. Until then, people who are convicting "moron" mechanics are jumping to conclusions.
Since the NHTSA went to the effort of discovering and revealing the answer to the specific question of "what actually caught fire", they clearly recognize that this is a critical question. One that they've left unanswered in the CR-V case. Why is this considered critical information in the case of the GM and Camry fires, when the same information is being treated as "not important" in the CR-V case?
In your words... "The NHTSA investigation identified a variety of components that were involved in one or the other in those different configurations, and no individual cause exhibited any type of trend that would indicate a design defect."
As in case of Altima, there were two trends, included in one recall. The problem may be that NHTSA hasn't found credible evidence to "identify" components (one of more) at this point.
"The problem may be that NHTSA hasn't found credible evidence to "identify" components (one of more) at this point."
Then they've jumped the gun with publishing "findings" that some people are treating (prematurely, IMO) as conclusive. They waited until they had all of the necessary information before they did so with the GM cars and the Camry, and they included this information so that the public could understand the basis for either the recall or the lack of one. Why was a full explanation considered necessary in those cases, yet the "findings" in the CR-V case fail to reveal the same level of detail?
And if your answer is "they don't know yet", then they shouldn't have published findings at all until they do know. Or else their findings should have been clearly identified as tentative and incomplete, with the promise of more information as it became available. And the case should NOT have been closed.
As I said before, IMO it was irresponsible for the NHTSA to close the case and publish "findings" without applying the same standards of discovery and disclosure to the CR-V case as they did to the GM and Camry cases.
A few more instances of recent recalls related to vehicle fire (below) show good details of identifying the root cause, without which a recall makes no sense.
DaimlerChrysler Corporation Jeep Wrangler Years: 2000-2002 Jeep Cherokee Years: 2000-2001 Jeep Grand Cherokee Years: 1999-2002 Number Involved: 1,115,322 Dates of Manufacture: June 1998 – March 2002 Defect: On certain sport utility vehicles equipped with 4.0L engines, the design of the intake and exhaust manifolds could allow debris to accumulate at the #3 cylinder location, possibly resulting in a vehicle fire. [NHTSA Recall No. 02V104/DaimlerChrysler Recall No. B06]
General Motors Corporation Chevrolet TrailBlazer Year: 2002 GMC Envoy Year: 2002 Oldsmobile Bravada Year: 2002 Number Involved: 60,044 Dates of Manufacture: September – November 2001 Defect: On certain sport utility vehicles, a fuel filter fitting can become disconnected. If this were to occur while attempting to start the engine, a no-start condition would result and fuel would be pumped out onto the ground. If the fitting becomes disconnected while the vehicle is in motion, the engine would stop due to inadequate fuel supply and cause a loss of power steering assist. If an ignition source were present, fuel leakage from a disconnected fuel filter fitting could result in a fire. [NHTSA Recall No. 02V121/GM Recall No. 02016
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc. Volvo S80 Year: 1999 Number Involved: 25,876 Dates of Manufacture: April 1998 – May 1999 Defect: On some passenger vehicles, the electric cooling fans could be inadequate in a hot climate. Under certain circumstances, excessive heat could be generated. Should this occur, the engine cooling fan components could overheat and cause the melting of electrical connections and adjacent components, increasing the likelihood of a fire. [NHTSA Recall No. 02V096/Volvo Recall No. 110]
February 25, 2002 The NHTSA began investigations on several different car manufacturers in January, including the 1995-1997 Chevrolet Cavaliers and Pontiac Sunfire cars after reports of 18 fires in or near the steering column. Ten of the reports, according to the NHTSA, found the ignition to be completely off at the time of the fire.
The cases you cite are all closed cases that identify the "root" cause, or what I've been calling "what ignited and why". All of which makes their "it's the fault of the mechanics" conclusion in the case of the CR-V look implausible and premature as a final conclusion.
Then they've jumped the gun with publishing "findings" that some people are treating (prematurely, IMO) as conclusive. An investigation is started, no evidence of design defect is found, investigation is closed. That closure provides a conclusion. It doesn’t matter if it fits everybody’s whim or not. “Pre-mature” is true, only if the investigation is open, and people (from both sides) try to jump to conclusions as something carved on the stone.
They waited until they had all of the necessary information before they did so with the GM cars and the Camry
I believe it took six months to arrive at “no conclusive evidence of design defect”, didn’t it? You’re trying to somehow prove that this was an open and shut case. Do you have evidence for that? I’m sure NHTSA goes by its rules, and if the problem persists, the case may be re-opened. In cases where recalls are issued, the evidence may be on the plate. In this case, they haven’t found one.
Why was a full explanation considered necessary in those cases, yet the "findings" in the CR-V case fail to reveal the same level of detail?
Because you can only explain what you understand (after investigation).
And if your answer is "they don't know yet", then they shouldn't have published findings at all until they do know.
I’m sure publishing findings is one of the steps involved with closure of investigation, whether a defect is found, or not.
Why published ANY conclusion and close the case if the root cause has not been identified?
See above.
The cases you cite are all closed cases that identify the "root" cause
Do you think this is the only case where an investigation was started, no defect found and report was published? If yes, you've a point. If no, what are you trying to prove?
"I’m sure publishing findings is one of the steps involved with closure of investigation, whether a defect is found, or not."
I'll hold you to the same standard of knowledge to which you always hold me... where is your evidence of that?
If the results are tentative and inconclusive, say so. When they close the investigation and agree with a suggested cause that ignores the root cause, it sends the message that "that's all she wrote, folks".
"Right here! Didn't you just tell us that report has been published in this case?"
A report that fails to live up to the level of disclosure of all of the other cited reports, which include reports both with a conclusion of a defect and with a conclusion of no defect. But even in the case of "no defect", they knew the root cause and used that to justify their findings and reassure a concerned public. Neither characteristic applies to the CR-V report.
Your statement implies that this is standard operating procedure. How do we know that the CR-V case reflects standard operating procedure? One report with levels of disclosure inconsistent with the findings of other comparable reports doesn't establish evidence of a pattern or a standard approach. After all, we don't KNOW if they plan to publish any further findings, unless your crystal ball is in exceptionally fine form today.
"If you take offense to NHTSA findings, I suggest you challenge them. I haven't been a part of the investigation."
Which is exactly what I've been doing. You took on the role of their champion of your own volition.
If you don't want to take flak about the NHTSA findings, then stop defending them as if we're criticizing your life's work.
"Do you think this is the only case where an investigation was started, no defect found and report was published? If yes, you've a point. If no, what are you trying to prove?"
Well, at least in the case of Camry, they identified the root causes and explained why they weren't considered defects. Without identifying the root cause with the CR-V, how can they conclude that there isn't a defect?
And in fact, they haven't, as I've shown so many times, I lose count. They just haven't found one... yet.
"You're now being defensive (not surprisingly for Mazda) but couldn't care less when Pinto was thrown into the mix. Altima issue never bothered you, and out of the fire issues I provided link to and some of my comments on, it was Mazda that somehow stood out to you. Well, can't help it. If there was a recall, the issue had to be serious enough regardless of how you want to look at it."
Defensive? Does Mazda need to be defended in this situation?
You were saying that Mazdas were bursting into flames when they're not and they never have (at least recently).
One bumper catching on fire does not equal "Mazdas bursting into flames". Old recalls for the possibility of fires does not equal "Mazdas bursting into flames".
Besides, what do any of these other vehicles (GMs, Altimas, etc.) have to do with the CR-V issue?
just a point of clarification though: I would say that rather than INTENTIONALLY moving towards "yawn" with the '01 Civic, Honda merely failed to update it enough to keep up with the market. They did the cost-cutting, interior-volume-improving front suspension change (sport enthusiasts all cried foul), and stuck with all the same engines without boosting output at all. Their top of the line EX still had plastic wheel covers until last year, and all models but the EX have no ABS, standard or optional.
THAT is what I mean when I say the next Civic (expected to be new for '06 MY) must be leaps and bounds ahead to make up for the 1/2 step (1/4 step even?) that Honda made for '01 with this model.
Now, back to the firemen currently dominating this topic...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The reports of Mazdas bursting into flames are not directly caused by a mechanical failure. They are caused by owners torching their rides to get out of cars that are either rusting, have incorrect HP claims, or are rebadged Fords.
Interesting the defensiveness of Honda supporters here. Really I think it is a minor defect that might rarely raise its head (ie what recalls are for) but it is receiving the "Ford/GM" media treatment which is more unusual.
As far as Honda "slipping", I think they are somewhat and I think the true indicator for Honda will be the next Civic. The current Civic was personally a big dissapointment, and I think is off the pace of past Civics in the market. Companies sometimes just turn out a so-so product, so I can write off the current Civic as a slipup (in my opinion again), but the next one needs to be the pace setter again that it once was.
Do you expect an investigation to be closed without publication of the findings? I hope not. BTW, Toyota Camry fire didn’t seem to have resulted in a recall. Investigation was opened, and closed with published results. Here we go:
Make: TOYOTA Model: CAMRY Year: 2002 NHTSA Action Number: PE02079 Summary: ODI'S DATA ANALYSIS FOUND THE FIRES RATES TO BE CONSISTENTLY LOW AND EVENLY DISTRIBUTED AMONG SIX MODEL YEARS AND SIX DIFFERENT ENGINE CONFIGURATIONS. ODI EXAMINED A VARIETY OF ROOT CAUSES, THOSE BEING DETONATION (RESULTING IN OIL PAN PUNCTURE FROM CONNECTING ROD), STARTER FIRES, VARIOUS FUEL RELATED FIRES, LEAKING OIL FILTERS, WIRING ISSUES, IMPROPER REPAIRS AND BRAKE FLUID LEAKS. NONE OF THE ISSUES EXAMINED HAD REPORTS THAT INDICATED A TREND WHEN NORMALIZED FOR POPULATON AND EXPOSURE. SEE ATTACHED REPORT FOR FULL DETAILS.
Note that, this is just a “summary” (in case you happen to mistake it for a 100-page report).
Your statement implies that this is standard operating procedure.
See above. It appears to me.
How do we know that the CR-V case reflects standard operating procedure?
How do we know it is not? We know how it was handled. If NHTSA deviated from its typical process, we should be able to prove that.
Which is exactly what I've been doing. You took on the role of their champion of your own volition.
I’m not NHTSA, or a representative of. I’m quoting my observations, and am willing to let authorities and engineers involved do their work and accept their findings. What about you?
Please refrain from using the same words on Mazda (or anything non-Honda) that some (can) choose to use in a Honda. Haven’t you learnt that already? :-)
A drop in market share even with an increase in sales indicates that the growth wasn’t as fast as the overall market. So, Honda's growth is being outpaced by the growth of the market, not that people aren't buying more Hondas (otherwise the sales numbers will be down compared to the past).
Now, regarding Corolla plus Camry sales, it is funny how that works out. Honda refraining from fleet sales (keeping under 2%) and Toyota keen on it (hovering around 14% for Camry, and potentially similar number for Corolla) is going to take quite an effort to match in terms of “overall sales”. Sometimes, fewer sales may be considered better than dumping products in the market.
Another interesting fact that surrounds Toyota’s fascination with sales count is merger of Matrix into Corolla (beginning 2003, not before that). But that is working in “selective mode”. I recently watched a Toyota commercial claiming “9 different models achieve 30+ mpg”. Did they count Matrix and Corolla as one model for that thing, or two?
I believe Accord has been the best seller in its class only 2-3 times (may be 4) over last 15 years. So, what was your point again?
"The reports of Mazdas bursting into flames are not directly caused by a mechanical failure. They are caused by owners torching their rides to get out of cars that are either rusting, have incorrect HP claims, or are rebadged Fords."
Comments
Those are not the things that make most Toyotas boring to people who think they're boring. There is no rule written anywhere that says that a car that is fun to drive is going to be unreliable. Also, "good looks" and "good performance" are awfully subjective.
Of course, it wouldn't be in a Honda discussion, but I read more than this one thread on Edmunds.
Is this GM plastic intake manifold/fire issue news to everyone else too?
Oh well, I thought we had given this "hot topic" to rest, when we started talking about Fit.
Somehow though, it's just not as "funny" with a CR-V or other modern car. Not that it's funny when ANY car catches fire in real life!
Honda's highest selling SUV the CR-V only sells about 33 percent of the highest selling Ford Explorer but then it competes directly with the Escape. SO while the CR-v took a 1000 unit sales loss in May over the same time the year before the Escape managed to have a 18K Unit increase for the same period of time.
http://www.autosite.com/editoria/asmr/svsuv.asp
So it "seems" that they have slipped in the mainstream sedan market over the last three years, "Market share wise". And they have slipped in the SUV market, "market share wise". and they have lost a place in their home market, Sales wise. Some explanation needs to be thought of for this turn of events.
Car magazines have been full of nothing but praise for Honda for about as many years as I can remember. The last two years are the first ones I can remember reading that they are no longer considered the class leaders by Autoweek or C&D.
Even Edmunds has dampened their praise of the Accord in their review.
" The suspension provides a comfortable ride as well as commendable levels of road grip while cornering, though cars like the Nissan Altima or Mazda 6 beat out the Accord in terms of handling sharpness and driving enjoyment."
Tell me the truth, did you ever think that Edmunds would select a VW over the Accord as the most wanted sedan under 25K or beat out by Hyundai for most wanted under 15K?
If one has to “sell” a part of oneself to regain a position, I wouldn’t call it an accomplishment. Nissan could do it, for good reasons. Expecting Honda to beat the big guns in Japan, or around the world, is a little too much, IMO. I would rather compare Honda to BMW, than to likes of GM, Ford, Toyota or VW, and after all the mega-mergers, DCX and latest being the Renault-Nissan union.
About the same time Accord was the number one selling car in the US. It no longer holds than position.
For how many years, in last 15, has Accord been the overall sales leader in its class? Toyota has been overly aggressive dumping its cars in the fleet and Accord still follows closely behind (and still commands best sales title individuals, that it has for much longer than just being an overall sales leader). In a market, that is as competitive, not easy to maintain. Why expect Honda to do it, when others can’t?
That said, I would rather see Honda cut down some quantity to favor quality.
So it "seems" that they have slipped in the mainstream sedan market over the last three years, "Market share wise".
Mainstream sedan market includes two models, Accord and Civic, correct? In Jan-Jun 2004 timeframe, Honda has sold 354,589 units of Civic and Accord. For the same months in 2003, Honda had sold 346,885 units of the two cars. Sales slipping?
That said, it appears you want to pin-point any dip in a particular class but ignore any gain in another. Those fluctuations are expected, and you should consider them as well.
Car magazines have been full of nothing but praise for Honda for about as many years as I can remember. The last two years are the first ones I can remember reading that they are no longer considered the class leaders by Autoweek or C&D.
Even Edmunds has dampened their praise of the Accord in their review
And C&D continues to pick Accord as one of the ten best, year after year! From one of their recent family sedan comparisons
“Superb integration, marvelous balance”
“Sweeping utility and enjoyment”
“What else can we say? If car design is a compromise, Honda has achieved a nearly perfect compromise with this Accord.”
A three car comparison from Motor Trend (Camry, Altima and Accord)
“The new-generation Accord, on the other hand, takes the honors in this hotly contested three-way based on high-quality presentation, sharp road manners, and generous interior accommodations. This is a fine, dual-purpose car that can double as a family hauler and a sport sedan”
Oh well. Pick and choose, right?
What Mazdas have been "bursting into flames"? Were there any reported fires related to the fog lamp recall?
So there was one fire, and the all affected vehicles have been recalled. At least we know it shouldn't happen again. The CR-V on the other hand....
I guess God needs to recall all of the idiots that screwed up CR-V oil changes...
LOL
If Honda started building cars in 1963, why was my 1978 Accord such a worthless car? That is my reason for being a Honda basher and I admit it. Out of 9 new Japanese vehicles bought between 1964 and 1994 the only one that was reliable transportation was the 1970 Datsun PU.
http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/gm_intake_manifold.html
To put that a different way, Honda still outsells Nissan, a full-line carmaker (which Honda is not) by 2% of market share. And it is only 3% behind "mighty" Toyota (also a full-line manufacturer), whose operating profits of $10.24 billion last year meant that it outprofited all three of Ford, GM, and Daimler Chrysler COMBINED.
So, not too bad for little ol' Honda.
and for boaz' sake, let me add that a 6.9% market share means that about one in every 14 vehicle buyers in the U.S. is not only considering a Honda when it is time to buy, but is actually buying one. So saying that no-one thinks of Honda at car-buying time (did you say that??!!) may be putting it a bit too strongly... :-)
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Let's not fall into this pattern again so soon after being asked to stop this type of post. Or do we WANT to force this forum to be shut down?
I frankly don't understand why all car's don't catch on fire, sonsidering all the gas and high temperatures involved. That, and why ocean liner's don't sink.
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
You're asking me to repeat. Anyway, will do it. There have been two different recalls related to Mazdas catching fire. One involved fuel leak (O-ring seal) in Mazda6 and Tribute (and Ford Escape). The other involved fog lamp issue (involving Mazda6, MPV and Miata).
NHTSA recall doesn't list how many fires were reported, just that they have "potential". If CR-V is recalled, the same will apply. If you want to find out how many fires happened, web search is there for you.
It doesn't matter in this forum why Honda is no longer the best selling Sedan in the US. There are reasons for everything I am sure and if I said GM has lost market share that would be just as true. I could also say GM is Still the Number one company in the automotive world and that would still be true. All I have said is that only in the last few years have the Auto magazines started to question the Civics build quality. It doesn't matter if every other car has a problem or not only that Civics have a problem as well. When I said many consider Toyota boring it doesn't matter if they do sell a lot of cars. Toyota themselves created Scion why? You explained it to me a while ago so I know you agree on what Toyota was thinking.
So let me make this clear. I didn't say Honda's run was over. I said it has slowed because they are getting bigger and just a bit more conservitive. I never said they won't recover but the Si didn't do what it was supposed to do. Revive the Hatch back market. There is a chink in the Honda armor and it can be ignored or something can be done about it. When I had my first SI it was not an also ran with the Sentra and Mazda and Focus. That is all I was trying to say.
You are right that the current SI was underwhelming, although people always said that if the sticker read $17K instead of $19,5, it would have sold much better. With its looks, I remain unconvinced. Of course, I almost bought one, but then people say I'm weird! :-)
As for Toyota, the boring 90% is selling well for now, and "bland and reliable" will probably always provide a good foundation for sales. But Scion appears to be a timely debut on their part, to judge by sales. With the number of awards Honda continues to win for various models (notably NOT including the Civic of late), they are maybe not as far gone as the Toyota line is/was, so they just need to slam dunk the next gen of Civic, evolving it a lot more than they did with the last update. Even given that, they could also use a few niche models that keep the "sport" in the Honda blood. And of course, given the competition, that next Civic must have a whole lot more "sport" of its own than the current one.
Say what you will, I think the Fit can aid in this overall scheme.
oh yeah, PS, I never thought you were bashing Honda. In fact, what you said was right on the money. Honda's most important market has always been the U.S., in sharp contrast to Toyota and Nissan, who depend as much on the home market as they do on ours. Not sure what that signifies, but it doesn't seem to be positive.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You know, when you think about it, The Civic has always been about combining economy with fun-to-drive factor. So much so that it drove Ford to create the Focus, Dodge to create the Neon, Hyundai to sportify the Elantra a bit with a GT trim (the hatch helps) and Mazda to create the Protege and then the 3. And now Chevrolet is even getting a little sportier with the Cobalt (although ANYTHING would be an improvement over the Cavalier). Just when all these manufacturers are coming out with these small eco-cars that are also fun to drive (very much so in the case of the Focus, Protege and 3, the Neon USED to be fun until time passed it by), Honda designs a Civic that tilts more towards the "yawn" economy end where the Corolla and Cavalier sit.
Honda probaly figured the market would just follow them because "we're Honda." Unfortunately, it didn't work that way this time. Oops. Now if they try to make the Civic a little more sporty and "fun" they may end up a bit behind Ford and Mazda (and Chevy, with their new Cobalt, though that IS difficult to imagine).
When I did do a web search, I found that there was one reported case of the bumper catching fire and the recall was a year ago. Whatever.
Just keep excusing Honda by pointing to other vehicles that start on fire....or don't.
"look! this car and this car and this car all start on fire too!! See? It's not that big of a deal"
Yup, that'd make me feel better if I had a CR-V.
You can't excuse something bad by pointing to something else that is bad. Doesn't work that way.
I think they started going to aluminum intakes on some cars in the 70's (and had problems with them, as well...I know Slant Six intakes were famous for splitting right in the middle), but I can't imagine any manufacturer using anything so heavy today!
Two points here.
1. Excusing Honda... I don't want to go by gut feel. You may be blaming Honda and choosing to ignore other possibilities. And since I disagree with you, it has to be seen as "Excusing Honda"? Whether it is a design issue (you think so, at this point; NHTSA and Honda don't think so at this point); Technician issue (you don't want to think so; Honda thinks so, and NHTSA may be agreeing with Honda) or Assembly line issue (something I added to the discussion), we won't know until investigators reveal their secrets. Guess work isn't the smartest way to handle serious issues, and you should know that.
2. Pointing to other vehicles... since it came up. You're now being defensive (not surprisingly for Mazda) but couldn't care less when Pinto was thrown into the mix. Altima issue never bothered you, and out of the fire issues I provided link to and some of my comments on, it was Mazda that somehow stood out to you. Well, can't help it. If there was a recall, the issue had to be serious enough regardless of how you want to look at it.
As has already been discussed, the GM situation involved an identified component that was the source of a gasoline-fueled engine fire. The NHTSA knew exactly what was igniting and why before they published their findings. And the investigation resulted in a recall.
In the case of the Camry, the fires that were reported spanned 6 model years and multiple engine configurations. The NHTSA investigation identified a variety of components that were involved in one or the other in those different configurations, and no individual cause exhibited any type of trend that would indicate a design defect. And the fires were evenly spread out over model years, with the result being that all model years exhibited a statistically low likelihood of fire when compared to other cars. So they determined that no action was necessary.
Again, in the Camry case, the NHTSA knew exactly what was igniting and why before they published their findings.
The important distinction is that in both of the above cases, the NHTSA identified the specific causes of the fires themselves (IOW, what was igniting and why), not simply the circumstances that introduced a potentially flammable agent into the engine/exhaust system environment (known in the CR-V case as the "it's all the fault of the moron mechanics" theory).
And they were able to convey this very complete and clear explanation in a single paragraph summary... no 100 page technical reports were required.
Since the NHTSA went to the effort of discovering and revealing the answer to the specific question of "what was igniting and why", they clearly recognize that this is a critical question. One that they've left unanswered in the CR-V case. Why is this considered critical information in the case of the GM and Camry fires, when the same information is being treated as "not important" in the CR-V case?
When the NHTSA similarly provides a comparable level of explanation as they did in the above two investigations (in this case, the answer to the "how does the leaked oil ignite" question), I'll consider the investigation to have revealed enough information on which to base a conclusion. Until then, people who are convicting "moron" mechanics are jumping to conclusions.
In your words...
"The NHTSA investigation identified a variety of components that were involved in one or the other in those different configurations, and no individual cause exhibited any type of trend that would indicate a design defect."
As in case of Altima, there were two trends, included in one recall. The problem may be that NHTSA hasn't found credible evidence to "identify" components (one of more) at this point.
Then they've jumped the gun with publishing "findings" that some people are treating (prematurely, IMO) as conclusive. They waited until they had all of the necessary information before they did so with the GM cars and the Camry, and they included this information so that the public could understand the basis for either the recall or the lack of one. Why was a full explanation considered necessary in those cases, yet the "findings" in the CR-V case fail to reveal the same level of detail?
And if your answer is "they don't know yet", then they shouldn't have published findings at all until they do know. Or else their findings should have been clearly identified as tentative and incomplete, with the promise of more information as it became available. And the case should NOT have been closed.
As I said before, IMO it was irresponsible for the NHTSA to close the case and publish "findings" without applying the same standards of discovery and disclosure to the CR-V case as they did to the GM and Camry cases.
DaimlerChrysler Corporation
Jeep Wrangler Years: 2000-2002
Jeep Cherokee Years: 2000-2001
Jeep Grand Cherokee Years: 1999-2002
Number Involved: 1,115,322
Dates of Manufacture: June 1998 – March 2002
Defect: On certain sport utility vehicles equipped with 4.0L engines, the design of the intake and exhaust manifolds could allow debris to accumulate at the #3 cylinder location, possibly resulting in a vehicle fire.
[NHTSA Recall No. 02V104/DaimlerChrysler Recall No. B06]
General Motors Corporation
Chevrolet TrailBlazer Year: 2002
GMC Envoy Year: 2002
Oldsmobile Bravada Year: 2002
Number Involved: 60,044
Dates of Manufacture: September – November 2001
Defect: On certain sport utility vehicles, a fuel filter fitting can become disconnected. If this were to occur while attempting to start the engine, a no-start condition would result and fuel would be pumped out onto the ground. If the fitting becomes disconnected while the vehicle is in motion, the engine would stop due to inadequate fuel supply and cause a loss of power steering assist. If an ignition source were present, fuel leakage from a disconnected fuel filter fitting could result in a fire.
[NHTSA Recall No. 02V121/GM Recall No. 02016
Volvo Cars of North America, Inc.
Volvo S80 Year: 1999
Number Involved: 25,876
Dates of Manufacture: April 1998 – May 1999
Defect: On some passenger vehicles, the electric cooling fans could be inadequate in a hot climate. Under certain circumstances, excessive heat could be generated. Should this occur, the engine cooling fan components could overheat and cause the melting of electrical connections and adjacent components, increasing the likelihood of a fire.
[NHTSA Recall No. 02V096/Volvo Recall No. 110]
February 25, 2002
The NHTSA began investigations on several different car manufacturers in January, including the 1995-1997 Chevrolet Cavaliers and Pontiac Sunfire cars after reports of 18 fires in or near the steering column. Ten of the reports, according to the NHTSA, found the ignition to be completely off at the time of the fire.
An investigation is started, no evidence of design defect is found, investigation is closed. That closure provides a conclusion. It doesn’t matter if it fits everybody’s whim or not. “Pre-mature” is true, only if the investigation is open, and people (from both sides) try to jump to conclusions as something carved on the stone.
They waited until they had all of the necessary information before they did so with the GM cars and the Camry
I believe it took six months to arrive at “no conclusive evidence of design defect”, didn’t it? You’re trying to somehow prove that this was an open and shut case. Do you have evidence for that? I’m sure NHTSA goes by its rules, and if the problem persists, the case may be re-opened. In cases where recalls are issued, the evidence may be on the plate. In this case, they haven’t found one.
Why was a full explanation considered necessary in those cases, yet the "findings" in the CR-V case fail to reveal the same level of detail?
Because you can only explain what you understand (after investigation).
And if your answer is "they don't know yet", then they shouldn't have published findings at all until they do know.
I’m sure publishing findings is one of the steps involved with closure of investigation, whether a defect is found, or not.
Why published ANY conclusion and close the case if the root cause has not been identified?
See above.
The cases you cite are all closed cases that identify the "root" cause
Do you think this is the only case where an investigation was started, no defect found and report was published? If yes, you've a point. If no, what are you trying to prove?
I'll hold you to the same standard of knowledge to which you always hold me... where is your evidence of that?
If the results are tentative and inconclusive, say so. When they close the investigation and agree with a suggested cause that ignores the root cause, it sends the message that "that's all she wrote, folks".
Right here! Didn't you just tell us that report has been published in this case?
If you take offense to NHTSA findings, I suggest you challenge them. I haven't been a part of the investigation.
A report that fails to live up to the level of disclosure of all of the other cited reports, which include reports both with a conclusion of a defect and with a conclusion of no defect. But even in the case of "no defect", they knew the root cause and used that to justify their findings and reassure a concerned public. Neither characteristic applies to the CR-V report.
Your statement implies that this is standard operating procedure. How do we know that the CR-V case reflects standard operating procedure? One report with levels of disclosure inconsistent with the findings of other comparable reports doesn't establish evidence of a pattern or a standard approach. After all, we don't KNOW if they plan to publish any further findings, unless your crystal ball is in exceptionally fine form today.
Which is exactly what I've been doing. You took on the role of their champion of your own volition.
If you don't want to take flak about the NHTSA findings, then stop defending them as if we're criticizing your life's work.
"Do you think this is the only case where an investigation was started, no defect found and report was published? If yes, you've a point. If no, what are you trying to prove?"
Well, at least in the case of Camry, they identified the root causes and explained why they weren't considered defects. Without identifying the root cause with the CR-V, how can they conclude that there isn't a defect?
And in fact, they haven't, as I've shown so many times, I lose count. They just haven't found one... yet.
Defensive? Does Mazda need to be defended in this situation?
You were saying that Mazdas were bursting into flames when they're not and they never have (at least recently).
One bumper catching on fire does not equal "Mazdas bursting into flames". Old recalls for the possibility of fires does not equal "Mazdas bursting into flames".
Besides, what do any of these other vehicles (GMs, Altimas, etc.) have to do with the CR-V issue?
just a point of clarification though: I would say that rather than INTENTIONALLY moving towards "yawn" with the '01 Civic, Honda merely failed to update it enough to keep up with the market. They did the cost-cutting, interior-volume-improving front suspension change (sport enthusiasts all cried foul), and stuck with all the same engines without boosting output at all. Their top of the line EX still had plastic wheel covers until last year, and all models but the EX have no ABS, standard or optional.
THAT is what I mean when I say the next Civic (expected to be new for '06 MY) must be leaps and bounds ahead to make up for the 1/2 step (1/4 step even?) that Honda made for '01 with this model.
Now, back to the firemen currently dominating this topic...
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
As far as Honda "slipping", I think they are somewhat and I think the true indicator for Honda will be the next Civic. The current Civic was personally a big dissapointment, and I think is off the pace of past Civics in the market. Companies sometimes just turn out a so-so product, so I can write off the current Civic as a slipup (in my opinion again), but the next one needs to be the pace setter again that it once was.
Make: TOYOTA
Model: CAMRY
Year: 2002
NHTSA Action Number: PE02079
Summary:
ODI'S DATA ANALYSIS FOUND THE FIRES RATES TO BE CONSISTENTLY LOW AND EVENLY DISTRIBUTED AMONG SIX MODEL YEARS AND SIX DIFFERENT ENGINE CONFIGURATIONS. ODI EXAMINED A VARIETY OF ROOT CAUSES, THOSE BEING DETONATION (RESULTING IN OIL PAN PUNCTURE FROM CONNECTING ROD), STARTER FIRES, VARIOUS FUEL RELATED FIRES, LEAKING OIL FILTERS, WIRING ISSUES, IMPROPER REPAIRS AND BRAKE FLUID LEAKS. NONE OF THE ISSUES EXAMINED HAD REPORTS THAT INDICATED A TREND WHEN NORMALIZED FOR POPULATON AND EXPOSURE. SEE ATTACHED REPORT FOR FULL DETAILS.
Note that, this is just a “summary” (in case you happen to mistake it for a 100-page report).
Your statement implies that this is standard operating procedure.
See above. It appears to me.
How do we know that the CR-V case reflects standard operating procedure?
How do we know it is not? We know how it was handled. If NHTSA deviated from its typical process, we should be able to prove that.
Which is exactly what I've been doing. You took on the role of their champion of your own volition.
I’m not NHTSA, or a representative of. I’m quoting my observations, and am willing to let authorities and engineers involved do their work and accept their findings. What about you?
Commonality: “Bursting into flames”
Commonality: NHTSA investigates, and either issues a recall, or closes the case.
Defensive? Does Mazda need to be defended in this situation?
Apparently.
Disclaimer: I haven't.
Now, regarding Corolla plus Camry sales, it is funny how that works out. Honda refraining from fleet sales (keeping under 2%) and Toyota keen on it (hovering around 14% for Camry, and potentially similar number for Corolla) is going to take quite an effort to match in terms of “overall sales”. Sometimes, fewer sales may be considered better than dumping products in the market.
Another interesting fact that surrounds Toyota’s fascination with sales count is merger of Matrix into Corolla (beginning 2003, not before that). But that is working in “selective mode”. I recently watched a Toyota commercial claiming “9 different models achieve 30+ mpg”. Did they count Matrix and Corolla as one model for that thing, or two?
I believe Accord has been the best seller in its class only 2-3 times (may be 4) over last 15 years. So, what was your point again?
Textbook anonymousposts/gee35coupe reply. Ouch. Hurts. Really bad.
"Defensive? Does Mazda need to be defended in this situation?
Apparently."
Apparently not. One bumper starting on fire and subsequent recall is hardly comparable to the CR-V issue.