Just like they were for Sabrina's. They showed up with arrogance and not much else. Lets see how far that gets them. Someone's head should roll. Lets see , they could have settled a few cases for likley less than 20K plus the cost of implementing whatever redesign is necesary. Instead they will now be playing thru the nose and eventually implementing whatever redesign is necesary. Who wins here, the lawyers. Who loses? Honda and anyone else whose car catches fire. On top of this I just heard something about Odessey tranny's again. I'll have to go to that forum to see what that one is about.
Sabrina, Whne your next court date. I am curious to see if they decode to settle.
I'm thrilled that there is a class action lawsuit against Honda in regards to the CR-V fire problem.
At the minimum this lawsuit will force Honda to defend themselves and investigate this issue further, while attention is kept on them (this is not a problem that will just go away). For a resolution, I'd hope to receive a coupon for a free oil change and a safety recall for an installation of a barrier to protect the exhaust from a possible squirting gasket.
I remember such a lawsuit was won against Ford Motor awhile back forcing a recall to fix ignition switches. Hopefully, in this case Honda will settle before going through a lengthy trial.
My next court date is late August. But, because it is an appeal, I think it is actually a pretrial conference, not an actual trial. So I have to go back AGAIN. I reviewed some of the many registered letters I sent Honda. One of them in November asks for compensation "for goodwill, without admitting fault" Is that funny?
Wonder why I don't feel bad about the class action suit? They got money to spend on lawyers bothering me, they must have plenty of free cash around. As you say, though, the only winners are the lawyers. On this forum we followed this from the beginning and more info is here than any lawyer could find. If it were not for people on this forum NOTHING would have happened. We should all be compensated (except the ones that defend honda of course - LOL).
On the NHTSa website it looks like the first incident reported to Honda on the 03's was in February/March 03, about 6 months after the 03's went on sale (makes sense). It is now 18 months later and they are just getting around to "warning" their dealers. Sorry, doesn't cut it.
Doesn't matter fault, IMO. Honda had an obligation AT LEAST to warn dealers they were seeing an across the board pattern which would be impossible to see at any dealer level. That is where they failed. Had they done that, I doubt a class action suit would result.
Shame - I've owned Hondas for 20 years (3 new ones bought in one 18 month period). Something possessed these people to abandon all customer service and common sense on this issue. Thank god Al Gore invented the internet
2002 CR-V EX Auto, 65724 kilometres, purchased December 21, 2001. No fires here (crossing fingers and touching wood!), but I have a problem with my brakes. This week I took my CR-V in to get the 64000km service. This is a type C service, that cost me $198CAD. When I went to pick up the vehicle, the service advisor said my brakes needed work, and he handed me an estimate for $600.85CAD. The work required was (is) as follows: "Replace rear brake pads & brake rotors to correct for worn condition $504.25. "Resurface front brake rotors to correct for abnormal warp & rust edge condition $96.60"
The warranty expired at 3 years/60,000 km., but at 16000 km, on a routine service, the dealership "resurfaced" the left rear rotor, and replaced the pads, after I complained that I could smell burning, and that the rotor was too hot to touch (see message #8881 on this forum).
What should I do now? Do I have grounds for complaint? Isn't 65000 km (40000 miles) rather early to be replacing rotors? I'm not a boy-racer, BTW.
The job to resurface (turn) rotors is required (on most cars) when you changing the brake pads and rotors are still thick enough. If you would not turn the rotors - new pads might wear of more quickly. FYI:To "turn" one rotor cost USD $5.00 in Pennsylvania (USA) (at least it was true several years ago - if they do it during the brake job OR if you bring your rotors to the shop yourself and ask them to do it for you). 40K miles for replacing front rotors are about right for mixed city/highway driving. It all depends on your driving habits. BTW, to my surprise, I found that VOLVO do not turn rotors - they just changing pads. During second front pads change they usually replacing rotors also.
That does seem kinda early to replace rotors. I've had two front brakes jobs on my '99 CRV with 96K miles and they're still within specs. Rear brakes are drum on my gen. and they're still good. Especially your rear brakes shouldn't need new rotors and I'd question why the rear pads need changing so soon. I'd get a 2nd opinion.
Dave- That seems too early to need new rotors. Take it to another dealership or a brake place or two that offers free inspections and see what they have to say. Saying vehicles need new rotors when they don't, during a brake job, is a common scam. The temptation is there because the rotors are already off for resurfacing anyway, (shop time on labour will already be covered by the customer and as you can see the price charged for rotors is significant). Do you feel the steering wheel shimmy back and forth a little when you apply the brakes? That would indicate warped rotors. Let us know how it goes.
New pads take a while to break in to old rotors, and customers complain and come back to the shop when their new brakes squeal or pull.
So lots of mechanics just turn or replace the rotors whenever they change the brake pads, instead of letting the new pads wear into the grooves in the old rotors.
I need to be convinced that the CR-V needs new rear rotors every 40000 miles. If you agree that this is OK, please tell me what happened to the left rear rotor on my vehicle at 10000 miles (it was "machined" and the pads were replaced under warranty.)
Thanks to everyone who responded to my message. I have no problem replacing pads at 40000 miles, but I think it's nuts to accept that rotors are also replaceable at this mileage. The only other times in my life that I have had rotors turned, or replaced, it has been my fault, because I did my own oil/filter changes, but neglected the brakes. This time, though, I have given the car (CR-V) to my dealer at the recommended service intervals, and now I'm told I need new rotors. Does this mean that every 2002 CR-V needs new rotors at 40000 miles?
Defielding, I'm in Barrie, Ontario, 50 miles north of Toronto, and I will check out those franchises to get a second/third opinion.
In my experience, turning the rotors (also called machining or resurfacing) has been a standard practice. Granted, it takes a very small amount of material off the rotor, but they should be able to be turned a couple times before they get too thin and are out of specs.
<"Replace rear brake pads & brake rotors to correct for worn condition $504.25.>
That's very high. Now I know you're quoting CAN dollars and I don't know the currency exchange, but my mechanic charged me $165 USD for replacing front brake pads (using the new ceramic ones), turn the rotors and bleed the brakes.
<"Resurface front brake rotors to correct for abnormal warp & rust edge condition $96.60">
You would know yourself if your front rotors are warped. The steering wheel would vibrate when braking. And I believe you'll see a small amount of surface rust on them everywhere but where the pads touch them.
I have only had one car that needed new or turned rotors - my '93 civic at 100K miles! That was only after several upstate NY winters where they rusted terribly. My husband's truck (Dodge) needed rotors turned at 40K (about $50 if I remember correctly??) - I noticed the truck vibrating when braking. Apparently the Dakotas are known for crappy brakes though. 15K later it started shaking again when braking. Rather than having them turned again I bought new pads and rotors and installed them myself that cost $160 in parts. Brand new rotors should only cost you about $60 each. Turning them shouldn't cost $100 that sounds way too high - although that's $100 Canadian Dollars? So maybe that's more like $69 USD? Still sounds a tad high to me - you might call around for other prices. Elissa
I don't know if that is good or bad. But I'm not really complaining since I used to have a Nissan Pathfinder that would get 17 MPG when staying under 70 all the way. It couldn't hold as much as the CR-V either.
I just took my first "road trip" with my CR-V last weekend. 300 miles roundtrip, so not that far, but almost all highway driving. My average speed was 70-80 mph, carrying two adults, with A/C running on and off. I got almost 27 mpg... my CR-V has 700 miles on it now. At the beginning of the trip, it only had about 300 (came back with close to 600). Your mileage was probably most affected by the A/C and the heat. I'm in NY, so it's not as hot up here. My first tank of gas was mostly city driving, some expressway... and I got close to 23 mpg with that. Working on the third tank of gas now...
95% highway driving average speed 75-85 mph A/C running constantly! 23 MPG both directions.
Not too bad for those speeds and having to run the A/C all the time. My best ever in my '99 EX 5 speed was 31 MPG covering about 200 miles at 55-60 MPH using the cruise control and no A/C.
One of the big ways to improve fuel mileage is to slow down. The US EPA has a website dedicated to fuel economy: Fuel Economy
Gas mileage decreases rapidly at speeds above 60 mph.
Half of your gas is used to counter wind resistance once you get over 50 mph. Obviously that will vary a bit depending on the aerodynamics of the vehicle. But the point is clear enough. Speed kills economy.
I've been averaging 26.3 mpg with the past 5 tanks in my '99 5 speed. I almost never venture into the city. Most of my driving is on town roads and the highway. Though I do spend plenty of time in stop and go traffic.
I'm looking for a little advice here. I followed the link to the class action lawsuit information, and emailed the contact person. She emailed back, and said:
As part of our investigation, I was wondering if you might be able to provide us with the following information:
the VIN number of your car the bill of sale a phone number where I may contact you
My question is, how wary should I be of providing this information? My thought in contacting the firm handling the lawsuit was to find out more about the suit, and not necessarily to tell others more about me and our CR-V! What do you think?
Reply to her email with your worries. Maybe she's just covering her butt making sure you actually own a CR-V and aren't a journalist or even a Honda employee?
Please post the response you receive! I too am leary about giving up all this info! I will do it to be included, I suppose, but I will wait for your/her response!
40K miles for replacing front rotors are about right for mixed city/highway driving . I apologized for mistake, I rather meant (which was pretty obvious): 40K miles for replacing front pads are about right for mixed city/highway driving . Your rotors might have been damaged by over heating: Turning the warped rotors is NOT a good idea. Rotors are made of SOFT steel/metal, and during over heating and warping, steel might have been forged - STRUCTURE of metal changed and nothing you can do about it but to replace the rotor and fix (adjust/tune) the brakes. One of good indication that metal get forged is "rainbow" colors on the "turned" rotor (you can easily see them on polished rotor). Why "turning" warped rotor not always help? It all depends of what area was affected. You basically will have area of soft metal and area of hard metal. Rotor start wearing-of unevenly and eventually (what might happened to you) you will have "pulsating" brakes again.
Personally, I hate the thought of turning rotors or drums. Your brakes are THE most important safety item on your car and you need them to perform flawlessly. I tow a 15ft fishing boat with my 1998 CR-V EX (no, the engine isn’t stock) and before it was time for brakes, I replaced the rotors with Powerstop premium cross-drilled rotors and Akebono ProACT ceramic pads. This is the second vehicle that I’ve done this to (the first was a 2001 Chevy Impala, known issue with this model) and I’ve been extremely happy with them both. BTW, 22mpg highway at 60 mph while towing the boat, Thule Frontier roof rack mounted storage box, fishing and camping gear, three adults and the family dog. It does 28 mpg without all the weight.
You know, that's an interesting idea ... but why do you belittle the concerns of some of us by referring to us as "sky-is-falling" posters? And why do our moderators continue to let you post in this manner?
Here's the response I received from the firm handling the class action lawsuit:
I do understand your reservations about sending us your information.
As part of the investigation that we are conducting we are looking to see if there are any patterns here. For example, if the vast majority of fires occurred in cars purchased in Woodbridge, VA, then maybe that piece of information would aid us in narrowing down the nature of the defects. The bill of sale would provide us with that type of infomation. In addition, the bill of sale would be necessary to demonstrate privity of contract, should you or your wife decide to take a more active role in the litigation. Finally, the bill of sale helps us to determine the precise amount of damages involved. The VIN number is required to demonstrate that you do, indeed, own a CRV.
I am going to respond with my VIN and the price I paid for the CR-V rather than the bill of sale. I just don't think at this stage that I want to give them too much in the way of personal information. They also asked for a phone number ... we have an unlisted home phone number for a reason, and I don't think I should give them a work phone. Besides, I haven't had a problem yet with the CR-V catching fire - 800 miles to go to our first oil change.
Why would you think it okay to brush off those of us that think you're way over the top with the moniker of Honda supporters? Yet it's not okay for me to label you as a sky-is-falling poster?
Sorry, it's just a little annoying that my resistance to blame Honda gets me the label of supporting them. When, I know for an absolute fact, the problem wouldn't exist if people did their jobs correctly.
"When, I know for an absolute fact, the problem wouldn't exist if people did their jobs correctly."
Well now, I wouldn't go that far.
Technician error seems to be the most likely cause for the problem, but we don't know that for certain. I suggest waiting for more information before making any guilty or innocent claims.
What we know so far is that Technician error seems to be the likely cause. I think we can assume that the issue now is a matter of risk. There is always a risk of fire resulting from an oil leak. The question is whether or not the CR-V is at a significantly greater risk even after Honda has taken action via instruction. So far, the NHTSA thinks the risk is not significant.
...22 RESULTING IN VEHICLE FIRES. ALL OF THE INCIDENTS OCCURRED FOLLOWING OIL CHANGES. HONDA'S INVESTIGATION OF 14 OF THE FIRE INCIDENTS DETERMINED THAT "FIVE OIL FILTERS HAD STACKED SEALS (DOUBLE-GASKETING), AND NINE OIL FILTERS HAD DISTORTED OR PINCHED SEALS." ACCORDING TO HONDA, BOTH CONDITIONS RESULT FROM FAILURE TO FOLLOW NECESSARY REPAIR PROCEDURES. STACKED SEALS RESULT FROM FAILURE OF THE SERVICE TECHNICIAN TO REMOVE THE OLD SEAL PRIOR TO INSTALLING THE NEW FILTER AND SEAL. DISTORTED OR PINCHED SEALS RESULT FROM FAILURE TO PROPERLY LUBRICATE THE NEW SEAL PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. OIL LEAKAGE FROM A STACKED, DISTORTED, OR PINCHED SEAL CAN BE IGNITED...
22 fires, but something like 32 or 35 reports of oil leaking. The 14 confirmed technician errors account for about half of the oil leaks. But that's a pretty small sample.
I agree that so far the data supports the theory that is issue is the result of Technician error. But I haven't heard any fat ladies warming up. I'm not willing to say that the case is closed until the case is actually closed.
Actually King Varmint, "HONDA'S INVESTIGATION OF 14 OF THE FIRE INCIDENTS" <-(taken from the NHTSA summary) produced the numbers I posted above. The cause of leaks that did not lead to fire, wasn't reported.
Honda investigated 14 of the fires. Every single one of those investigated resulted from technician error.
HONDA'S INVESTIGATION OF 14 OF THE FIRE INCIDENTS DETERMINED THAT "FIVE OIL FILTERS HAD STACKED SEALS (DOUBLE-GASKETING), AND NINE OIL FILTERS HAD DISTORTED OR PINCHED SEALS."
The way I read it, not all 22 were investigated by Honda.
I think it's a little more than your resistance to blame Honda. It's the fact that you adamantly say this is technician error. You aren't even open to the idea there may be something more.
Technicians make errors every minute of every day yet we don't hear reports about specific vehicles bursting into flames. No one has been able to explain that one away. There is a reason this is happening to the CR-V. It may be an error in the way the filter was installed at the factory, or the "technician error" you refer to when the filter is replaced. But no one knows for sure. Not even you, unless you've personally inspected every vehicle that has burned.
If they have your VIN they can get your name and address. Their explanation is reasonable, but probably the real reason they want your info is so they can get some plaintiffs together. But I'm cynical :-).
drive66: "I found your suggestion flippant and I think the moderators should remove it." I always believed that we had a "freedom of speech" in this country :-).
Freedom of speech doesn't apply here since we aren't the government. But the members usually do a good job of policing each other so that the hosts don't have to step in and remind folks to keep it civil.
If they have your VIN they can get your name and address. Their explanation is reasonable, but probably the real reason they want your info is so they can get some plaintiffs together. But I'm cynical :-).
Thanks, Steve. I'm not usually cynical (despite my posts about the CR-V fires) but in this case I think I'll let this "opportunity" slide. If our CR-V was among those that caught fire, I would be sending the law firm as much information as I could ... but that's not the case.
Correct if I'm wrong, but in a class action suit don't they combine the plaintiffs into one case in order to save time and money on all parts. The lawyers sue on the behalf of the specific plaintiffs and try to get a settlement for all parties that may have bought or used the product even if they have not actively pursued a position in the class action suit.
Basically if the suit prevails, all possibly affected CRV owners will get the settlement which most likely will be a somewhat useless token gesture. For instance, I received a credit on a credit card for less than $1 as "compensation" and a 10% discount certificate for contact lenses since I was an affected party in 2 class action suits.
Yeah, but the lawyers need some initial plaintiffs in order to get the class certified, and 27 may not be enough in this case. So there may be some firms on a fishing expedition.
Ivcvi - I guess we just have different interpretations.
I took the NHTSA release to mean that Honda fully investigated 32 events. 22 of these investigations involved a fire. 14 of those were found to be the fault of the technician, but the others were either undetermined or some other problem. The point being that all reports were investigated, but only the results of 14 were made public.
While I understand that the CR-V is NOT a Jeep Wrangler or a Hummer H2, I am curious to the limited off-road capabilities of the CR-V. I am considering buying one to be a 50% street dweller and a 50% off-road vehicle to get to bike trails and other recreational activities that would entail muddy/gravel/sandy/wet surfaces that would be considered "light to moderately" challenging.
What has been your experiences with the CR-V once it leaves pavement...if at all?
I've played in the mud, shallow streams, and through various off road trails, including snowmobile trails in winter in my '99 EX. I know of people who regularly take their CR-Vs onto the beach (after airing down their tires). So I know from experience that "light" offroading is definitely within the capabilities of the CR-V, but it depends on what you consider to be "moderate" whether the CR-V will handle it.
The things to be most careful of is rocks and deep mud.
The CR-V does have decent ground clearance (8.1") and will scamper over most small rocks, but the control arms and gas tank (on the new models) are at risk. You have to take care to scoot in between the big rocks or make sure your tires go over them.
Mud is a challenge because the CR-V has open differentials at both ends. If one tire starts spinning, the other tire on that axle will come to a complete stop. Most slippery surfaces are no big deal, but deep mud can bog you down fast.
Gravel, loose stone, tight turns, and other situations are not really a big deal.
Don't try water any deeper than this. (Quicktime required)
I guess if someone else had the information they could probably report. But if you read the descriptions that go along with the reports they tend to be in the first person "My car..." "When I was driving", etc. so I would guess it is the owners.
I think I have read all of them. None of them seemed like they were written by insurance company and definitely none by Honda.
I do not know if there is some obligation of Honda to report if there is a fire.
I believe that lots of people did not even know about NHTS'a, some did not have Internet access or did not care. But I am pretty sure that ALL of them made a claim their Insurance Co's and/or informed Honda. Is Insurance Co's transfer fire info to Honda? So, IMHO, Insurance Co's should have most complete picture of CR-V fires not NHTS'a.
Insurance companies to alert NHTSA of any suspicious vehicle fires. Insurance companies are not known to toss money around freely, and any way to pass the liability to another entity would make them smile.
Additionally, if Honda is found to be "hiding" any such reports from NHTSA, I'm sure there would be harsh penalties to be suffered.
Not to mention the backlash from the media. Honda would be eaten alive for hiding information that important.
Comments
From the diagrams in the Honda Parts Catalog there's only one catalytic converter. You can find a diagram of the 2002-2004 exhaust system online here:
http://www.slhondaparts.com/images/PCI/14S9A0/003/3.jpg
Sabrina,
Whne your next court date. I am curious to see if they decode to settle.
At the minimum this lawsuit will force Honda to defend themselves and investigate this issue further, while attention is kept on them (this is not a problem that will just go away). For a resolution, I'd hope to receive a coupon for a free oil change and a safety recall for an installation of a barrier to protect the exhaust from a possible squirting gasket.
I remember such a lawsuit was won against Ford Motor awhile back forcing a recall to fix ignition switches. Hopefully, in this case Honda will settle before going through a lengthy trial.
Wonder why I don't feel bad about the class action suit? They got money to spend on lawyers bothering me, they must have plenty of free cash around. As you say, though, the only winners are the lawyers. On this forum we followed this from the beginning and more info is here than any lawyer could find. If it were not for people on this forum NOTHING would have happened. We should all be compensated (except the ones that defend honda of course - LOL).
On the NHTSa website it looks like the first incident reported to Honda on the 03's was in February/March 03, about 6 months after the 03's went on sale (makes sense). It is now 18 months later and they are just getting around to "warning" their dealers. Sorry, doesn't cut it.
Doesn't matter fault, IMO. Honda had an obligation AT LEAST to warn dealers they were seeing an across the board pattern which would be impossible to see at any dealer level. That is where they failed. Had they done that, I doubt a class action suit would result.
Shame - I've owned Hondas for 20 years (3 new ones bought in one 18 month period). Something possessed these people to abandon all customer service and common sense on this issue.
Thank god Al Gore invented the internet
No fires here (crossing fingers and touching wood!), but I have a problem with my brakes.
This week I took my CR-V in to get the 64000km service. This is a type C service, that cost me $198CAD. When I went to pick up the vehicle, the service advisor said my brakes needed work, and he handed me an estimate for $600.85CAD. The work required was (is) as follows:
"Replace rear brake pads & brake rotors to correct for worn condition $504.25.
"Resurface front brake rotors to correct for abnormal warp & rust edge condition $96.60"
The warranty expired at 3 years/60,000 km., but at 16000 km, on a routine service, the dealership "resurfaced" the left rear rotor, and replaced the pads, after I complained that I could smell burning, and that the rotor was too hot to touch (see message #8881 on this forum).
What should I do now? Do I have grounds for complaint? Isn't 65000 km (40000 miles) rather early to be replacing rotors? I'm not a boy-racer, BTW.
Thanks
FYI:To "turn" one rotor cost USD $5.00 in Pennsylvania (USA) (at least it was true several years ago - if they do it during the brake job OR if you bring your rotors to the shop yourself and ask them to do it for you).
40K miles for replacing front rotors are about right for mixed city/highway driving. It all depends on your driving habits.
BTW, to my surprise, I found that VOLVO do not turn rotors - they just changing pads. During second front pads change they usually replacing rotors also.
That seems too early to need new rotors. Take it to another dealership or a brake place or two that offers free inspections and see what they have to say. Saying vehicles need new rotors when they don't, during a brake job, is a common scam. The temptation is there because the rotors are already off for resurfacing anyway, (shop time on labour will already be covered by the customer and as you can see the price charged for rotors is significant). Do you feel the steering wheel shimmy back and forth a little when you apply the brakes? That would indicate warped rotors. Let us know how it goes.
So lots of mechanics just turn or replace the rotors whenever they change the brake pads, instead of letting the new pads wear into the grooves in the old rotors.
Steve, Host
If you agree that this is OK, please tell me what happened to the left rear rotor on my vehicle at 10000 miles (it was "machined" and the pads were replaced under warranty.)
I have no problem replacing pads at 40000 miles, but I think it's nuts to accept that rotors are also replaceable at this mileage.
The only other times in my life that I have had rotors turned, or replaced, it has been my fault, because I did my own oil/filter changes, but neglected the brakes.
This time, though, I have given the car (CR-V) to my dealer at the recommended service intervals, and now I'm told I need new rotors. Does this mean that every 2002 CR-V needs new rotors at 40000 miles?
Defielding, I'm in Barrie, Ontario, 50 miles north of Toronto, and I will check out those franchises to get a second/third opinion.
Thanks again, everyone.
<"Replace rear brake pads & brake rotors to correct for worn condition $504.25.>
That's very high. Now I know you're quoting CAN dollars and I don't know the currency exchange, but my mechanic charged me $165 USD for replacing front brake pads (using the new ceramic ones), turn the rotors and bleed the brakes.
<"Resurface front brake rotors to correct for abnormal warp & rust edge condition $96.60">
You would know yourself if your front rotors are warped. The steering wheel would vibrate when braking. And I believe you'll see a small amount of surface rust on them everywhere but where the pads touch them.
Elissa
39350 miles
585 mile round trip (within Texas)
95% highway driving
average speed 75-85 mph
carrying 2 adults / 1 child / luggage
A/C running constantly!
23 MPG both directions.
I don't know if that is good or bad. But I'm not really complaining since I used to have a Nissan Pathfinder that would get 17 MPG when staying under 70 all the way. It couldn't hold as much as the CR-V either.
average speed 75-85 mph
A/C running constantly!
23 MPG both directions.
Not too bad for those speeds and having to run the A/C all the time. My best ever in my '99 EX 5 speed was 31 MPG covering about 200 miles at 55-60 MPH using the cruise control and no A/C.
One of the big ways to improve fuel mileage is to slow down. The US EPA has a website dedicated to fuel economy: Fuel Economy
Gas mileage decreases rapidly at speeds above 60 mph.
I've been averaging 26.3 mpg with the past 5 tanks in my '99 5 speed. I almost never venture into the city. Most of my driving is on town roads and the highway. Though I do spend plenty of time in stop and go traffic.
As part of our investigation, I was wondering if you might be able to provide us with the following information:
the VIN number of your car
the bill of sale
a phone number where I may contact you
My question is, how wary should I be of providing this information? My thought in contacting the firm handling the lawsuit was to find out more about the suit, and not necessarily to tell others more about me and our CR-V! What do you think?
I apologized for mistake, I rather meant (which was pretty obvious):
40K miles for replacing front pads are about right for mixed city/highway driving .
Your rotors might have been damaged by over heating: Turning the warped rotors is NOT a good idea. Rotors are made of SOFT steel/metal, and during over heating and warping, steel might have been forged - STRUCTURE of metal changed and nothing you can do about it but to replace the rotor and fix (adjust/tune) the brakes. One of good indication that metal get forged is "rainbow" colors on the "turned" rotor (you can easily see them on polished rotor).
Why "turning" warped rotor not always help?
It all depends of what area was affected. You basically will have area of soft metal and area of hard metal. Rotor start wearing-of unevenly and eventually (what might happened to you) you will have "pulsating" brakes again.
Bruce
http://www.petitiononline.com
I do understand your reservations about sending us your information.
As part of the investigation that we are conducting we are looking to see if there are any patterns here. For example, if the vast majority of fires occurred in cars purchased in Woodbridge, VA, then maybe that piece of information would aid us in narrowing down the nature of the defects. The bill of sale would provide us with that type of infomation. In addition, the bill of sale would be necessary to demonstrate privity of contract, should you or your wife decide to take a more active role in the litigation. Finally, the bill of sale helps us to determine the precise amount of damages involved. The VIN number is required to demonstrate that you do, indeed, own a CRV.
I am going to respond with my VIN and the price I paid for the CR-V rather than the bill of sale. I just don't think at this stage that I want to give them too much in the way of personal information. They also asked for a phone number ... we have an unlisted home phone number for a reason, and I don't think I should give them a work phone. Besides, I haven't had a problem yet with the CR-V catching fire - 800 miles to go to our first oil change.
Sorry, it's just a little annoying that my resistance to blame Honda gets me the label of supporting them. When, I know for an absolute fact, the problem wouldn't exist if people did their jobs correctly.
Well now, I wouldn't go that far.
Technician error seems to be the most likely cause for the problem, but we don't know that for certain. I suggest waiting for more information before making any guilty or innocent claims.
What we know so far is that Technician error seems to be the likely cause. I think we can assume that the issue now is a matter of risk. There is always a risk of fire resulting from an oil leak. The question is whether or not the CR-V is at a significantly greater risk even after Honda has taken action via instruction. So far, the NHTSA thinks the risk is not significant.
Technician error.
I agree that so far the data supports the theory that is issue is the result of Technician error. But I haven't heard any fat ladies warming up. I'm not willing to say that the case is closed until the case is actually closed.
Honda investigated 14 of the fires. Every single one of those investigated resulted from technician error.
HONDA'S INVESTIGATION OF 14 OF THE FIRE INCIDENTS DETERMINED THAT "FIVE OIL FILTERS HAD STACKED SEALS (DOUBLE-GASKETING), AND NINE OIL FILTERS HAD DISTORTED OR PINCHED SEALS."
The way I read it, not all 22 were investigated by Honda.
Technicians make errors every minute of every day yet we don't hear reports about specific vehicles bursting into flames. No one has been able to explain that one away. There is a reason this is happening to the CR-V. It may be an error in the way the filter was installed at the factory, or the "technician error" you refer to when the filter is replaced. But no one knows for sure. Not even you, unless you've personally inspected every vehicle that has burned.
Steve, Host
I always believed that we had a "freedom of speech" in this country :-).
Steve, Host
Thanks, Steve. I'm not usually cynical (despite my posts about the CR-V fires) but in this case I think I'll let this "opportunity" slide. If our CR-V was among those that caught fire, I would be sending the law firm as much information as I could ... but that's not the case.
Basically if the suit prevails, all possibly affected CRV owners will get the settlement which most likely will be a somewhat useless token gesture. For instance, I received a credit on a credit card for less than $1 as "compensation" and a 10% discount certificate for contact lenses since I was an affected party in 2 class action suits.
link
Grisham's The King of Torts is a good read, and the lawyer who hits it big with a class action starts out driving a beat up Honda :-).
Steve, Host
I took the NHTSA release to mean that Honda fully investigated 32 events. 22 of these investigations involved a fire. 14 of those were found to be the fault of the technician, but the others were either undetermined or some other problem. The point being that all reports were investigated, but only the results of 14 were made public.
While I understand that the CR-V is NOT a Jeep Wrangler or a Hummer H2, I am curious to the limited off-road capabilities of the CR-V. I am considering buying one to be a 50% street dweller and a 50% off-road vehicle to get to bike trails and other recreational activities that would entail muddy/gravel/sandy/wet surfaces that would be considered "light to moderately" challenging.
What has been your experiences with the CR-V once it leaves pavement...if at all?
The CR-V does have decent ground clearance (8.1") and will scamper over most small rocks, but the control arms and gas tank (on the new models) are at risk. You have to take care to scoot in between the big rocks or make sure your tires go over them.
Mud is a challenge because the CR-V has open differentials at both ends. If one tire starts spinning, the other tire on that axle will come to a complete stop. Most slippery surfaces are no big deal, but deep mud can bog you down fast.
Gravel, loose stone, tight turns, and other situations are not really a big deal.
Don't try water any deeper than this. (Quicktime required)
10081234
10082143
10081292
In addition there was one reported oil leak, no fire
That brings 2004 total to 15 fires
I understand that the owner usually does.
But if the owner fail to report, would Insurance Co or Honda do it?
I think I have read all of them. None of them seemed like they were written by insurance company and definitely none by Honda.
I do not know if there is some obligation of Honda to report if there is a fire.
So, IMHO, Insurance Co's should have most complete picture of CR-V fires not NHTS'a.
Additionally, if Honda is found to be "hiding" any such reports from NHTSA, I'm sure there would be harsh penalties to be suffered.
Not to mention the backlash from the media. Honda would be eaten alive for hiding information that important.