|
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
On 8/30/03 11:10 PM, in article birsgg$clt7c$1@ID-194065.news.uni-berlin.de,
"Pete" <pete_nagurski@yahoo.com> wrote: > Chip, > > Another question. What's up with the internal filter on the transmission? > Does this mean it's never changed? > This can't be a good thing. > > Rick > > I'm not Chip, but I'm looking at the diagram of the 5 speed automatic in the 2000 TL Helms book. It doesn't have a filter in the traditional sense. There are screens in the fluid passageways at various places in the transmission. It would have to be disassembled to get to them. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 10:50:03 GMT, fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com
(George Macdonald) wrote: >On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 00:21:04 GMT, "Fluffy" <no-spamming-bsavanh@mchsi.com> >wrote: > >>I had a 2002 Honda Accord EX-V6. In a year we only put 10K miles on it.. it >>was a good car to us. The tranny failure rate I've read in various articles >>was about 2% but the cost for repair if not under warranty is very high. >>One of my co-worker's mom who's working in Germany had a tranny failure on a >>1999 as well and it cost her something crazy like $6,000 to replace. >> >>Though I wasn't afraid that my tranny would fail, I wanted to at least know >>why my 2002 was not part of the warranty extension so I sent letters (four >>letters) to Honda asking for an explanation why the 2002 model was not part >>of the extended warranty models. They would not answer my simple question >>so last month I traded that sucker in for a new Volvo XC90 and VOWED to not >>buy another Honda again and have informed my family members, cousins, >>friends, and their friends to do the same. (As you can see, I'm upset about >>the whole thing.) > >You're saying that, though the car worked fine and showed no signs of >problems, you dumped it because the mfr would not tell you why it was not >part of a warranty extension for other model years? Did it not occur to >you that the *known* flaw had been fixed in the 2002 model year >transmission? It's been mentioned here that this is the case, though I >have no reference for that. > >Do you think that Volvo is going to respond better to such letters >questioning *potential* warranty issues? I wouldn't bet on it. Good luck >with your Volvo but from what I hear their failure/repair rate in general >has not been all that great in recent years. If your Accord had actually >failed your complaint would have sounded a bit more reasonable. As a long-time owner of both Volvos and Hondas, I would say that trading a Honda for a Volvo for reliability reasons because Honda isn't extending your warranty is like moving from Chicago to Baghdad for safety reasons because you heard that purse snatching is up in Chicago. If Honda or Toyota had a car that was a direct substitute for my Volvo 240 wagon, I would be at the dealership when it opened Tuesday morning. And I wouldn't be asking about an extended warranty. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 10:50:03 GMT, fammacd=!SPAM^nothanks@tellurian.com
(George Macdonald) wrote: >On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 00:21:04 GMT, "Fluffy" <no-spamming-bsavanh@mchsi.com> >wrote: > >>I had a 2002 Honda Accord EX-V6. In a year we only put 10K miles on it.. it >>was a good car to us. The tranny failure rate I've read in various articles >>was about 2% but the cost for repair if not under warranty is very high. >>One of my co-worker's mom who's working in Germany had a tranny failure on a >>1999 as well and it cost her something crazy like $6,000 to replace. >> >>Though I wasn't afraid that my tranny would fail, I wanted to at least know >>why my 2002 was not part of the warranty extension so I sent letters (four >>letters) to Honda asking for an explanation why the 2002 model was not part >>of the extended warranty models. They would not answer my simple question >>so last month I traded that sucker in for a new Volvo XC90 and VOWED to not >>buy another Honda again and have informed my family members, cousins, >>friends, and their friends to do the same. (As you can see, I'm upset about >>the whole thing.) > >You're saying that, though the car worked fine and showed no signs of >problems, you dumped it because the mfr would not tell you why it was not >part of a warranty extension for other model years? Did it not occur to >you that the *known* flaw had been fixed in the 2002 model year >transmission? It's been mentioned here that this is the case, though I >have no reference for that. > >Do you think that Volvo is going to respond better to such letters >questioning *potential* warranty issues? I wouldn't bet on it. Good luck >with your Volvo but from what I hear their failure/repair rate in general >has not been all that great in recent years. If your Accord had actually >failed your complaint would have sounded a bit more reasonable. As a long-time owner of both Volvos and Hondas, I would say that trading a Honda for a Volvo for reliability reasons because Honda isn't extending your warranty is like moving from Chicago to Baghdad for safety reasons because you heard that purse snatching is up in Chicago. If Honda or Toyota had a car that was a direct substitute for my Volvo 240 wagon, I would be at the dealership when it opened Tuesday morning. And I wouldn't be asking about an extended warranty. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
Looks like yet another foreign car buyer has awakened in the real
world. Like many buyers, you fell for this myth of superior Japanese quality. They are good cars but every day more people are realizing that they too breakdown on occasion just like all other vehicles on the road. When they do, they cost a lot more to repair than domestics. They paid a lot more to buy that so called superior car over a domestic. When it comes time to buy another new car they are much less likely to pay all that extra money to buy another Japanese car. Drive by any domestic new car dealer and see all the foreign cars sitting on their used car lot if you have any doubt ;) mike hunt Pete wrote: > > > Perhaps in your world a $4-5,000 repair bill on a 3 1/2 year old car with > 48,000 miles isn't a catastrophe. In mine it is. > > This is Honda we're talking about. The supposed king of reliability. I just > sold a 1985 GMC diesel Suburban. It had 250,000 miles. And the original > transmission. My company vehicle is a 1996 Jeep Cherokee. It has 95,000 > miles. And the original transmission. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
Looks like yet another foreign car buyer has awakened in the real
world. Like many buyers, you fell for this myth of superior Japanese quality. They are good cars but every day more people are realizing that they too breakdown on occasion just like all other vehicles on the road. When they do, they cost a lot more to repair than domestics. They paid a lot more to buy that so called superior car over a domestic. When it comes time to buy another new car they are much less likely to pay all that extra money to buy another Japanese car. Drive by any domestic new car dealer and see all the foreign cars sitting on their used car lot if you have any doubt ;) mike hunt Pete wrote: > > > Perhaps in your world a $4-5,000 repair bill on a 3 1/2 year old car with > 48,000 miles isn't a catastrophe. In mine it is. > > This is Honda we're talking about. The supposed king of reliability. I just > sold a 1985 GMC diesel Suburban. It had 250,000 miles. And the original > transmission. My company vehicle is a 1996 Jeep Cherokee. It has 95,000 > miles. And the original transmission. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
Question! Does anyone think a 2% failure rate for ANYTHING, on
20,000 cars out of 1,000,000, is extremely high, average or do you think it is low? Think about it, there are 18 million new vehicles sold in the US yearly. Apply a little logic here. That 54 to 72 million cars still in warranty. ;) mike hunt Fluffy wrote: > > 2% is still 2 cars out of every 100. I don't believe Honda feels that a 2% > failure is commendable. If it's commendable then they would make it a > selling point: "We at Honda build quality cars, only 2% of our transmissions > in some models will fail." I don't think it will catch on too well when you > consider the cost of a new transmission. Sure the article talks about Acura > but it's not just Acura models, but Accord, Odyssey, Prelude's as well. If > the root cause of the premature failures as due to the negligence of the > vehicle owners I doubt that Honda would roger up and extend the warranty on > these vehicles. At the same time, I'm sure that there are failures was due > to negligence i.e. not changing fluid, other factors such as exceeding the > vehicles' limitation or it's intended use. The latter is not just on a > Honda but on any vehicle. > > "American Honda Motor Co., Inc. announced it will provide extended > warranties on approximately 1.2 million Honda and Acura models equipped with > automatic transmissions due to problems that may result in premature wear or > failure. The extended warranty will cover affected transmissions for seven > years or 100,000 miles. > > The standard bumper-to-bumper warranty for Honda vehicles is three years or > 36,000 miles, while Acura vehicles are covered for four years or 50,000 > miles. > > Vehicles covered by the extended warranty include: > > 2000 - 2001 Honda Accord, Odyssey and Prelude > 2000 - 2002 and some 2003 Acura 3.2 TL > 2001 - 2002 and some 2003 Acura 3.2 CL > > While only two percent of these vehicles have experienced these transmission > problems, American Honda will provide extended transmission warranties on > all potentially affected vehicles. > > "Our priorities are making sure our customers are taken care of and > reassured they can continue to depend on their Honda or Acura automobile for > a long time to come," said Tom Elliott, executive vice president for > American Honda. > > There is usually plenty of warning to the driver that the transmission is > not operating properly, such as slow or erratic shifting, giving them ample > time to take the vehicle in for service. > > American Honda will notify all owners of eligible vehicles via mail in the > coming weeks. " > > "Chip Stein" <chip@chipanddebby.com> wrote in message > news:5ddcea74.0308301656.1745a01f@posting.google.c om... > > > > > > Honda has issued a "silent" warranty extension on 2000 and 2001 models. > Why > > > not the others? As far as I know, these transmissions are all the same, > and > > > many owners have experienced similar problems. > > > > it's not a silent warranty at all. letters were mailed out to all > > registered honda owners. and if you have a dealership service your > > vehicle, they should run a vin stat every time and it will show. > > they had a limited run of trannys with a problem. look at > > chrysler... they haven't built a good tranny in 15 years!!. honda's > > 1.6% fail rate is pretty commendable for over a million vehicles. > > as for the article about the acura. that's a different animal if > > you've ever worked on them. that's a five speed auto. honda just got > > that this year. most of the time acura is the experimaental platform. > > out of all the trannys i've seen fail in hondas, most of them have > > never had their fluid changed. and on the oddysey most of them have > > aftermarket trailer hitches with no tranny cooler... > > no matter what people will gripe about it.. > > > > > > for those that don't know. a honda automatic is essentially a manual > > gearbox with wet clutch packs. they are built like no domestic tranny > > on the market. a lot of the common complaints are just normal > > characteristics of the vehicle. > > mor often than not engine maintenance and poor running cause a lot of > > tranny malfunctions due to the ecu being confused. > > chip |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
Question! Does anyone think a 2% failure rate for ANYTHING, on
20,000 cars out of 1,000,000, is extremely high, average or do you think it is low? Think about it, there are 18 million new vehicles sold in the US yearly. Apply a little logic here. That 54 to 72 million cars still in warranty. ;) mike hunt Fluffy wrote: > > 2% is still 2 cars out of every 100. I don't believe Honda feels that a 2% > failure is commendable. If it's commendable then they would make it a > selling point: "We at Honda build quality cars, only 2% of our transmissions > in some models will fail." I don't think it will catch on too well when you > consider the cost of a new transmission. Sure the article talks about Acura > but it's not just Acura models, but Accord, Odyssey, Prelude's as well. If > the root cause of the premature failures as due to the negligence of the > vehicle owners I doubt that Honda would roger up and extend the warranty on > these vehicles. At the same time, I'm sure that there are failures was due > to negligence i.e. not changing fluid, other factors such as exceeding the > vehicles' limitation or it's intended use. The latter is not just on a > Honda but on any vehicle. > > "American Honda Motor Co., Inc. announced it will provide extended > warranties on approximately 1.2 million Honda and Acura models equipped with > automatic transmissions due to problems that may result in premature wear or > failure. The extended warranty will cover affected transmissions for seven > years or 100,000 miles. > > The standard bumper-to-bumper warranty for Honda vehicles is three years or > 36,000 miles, while Acura vehicles are covered for four years or 50,000 > miles. > > Vehicles covered by the extended warranty include: > > 2000 - 2001 Honda Accord, Odyssey and Prelude > 2000 - 2002 and some 2003 Acura 3.2 TL > 2001 - 2002 and some 2003 Acura 3.2 CL > > While only two percent of these vehicles have experienced these transmission > problems, American Honda will provide extended transmission warranties on > all potentially affected vehicles. > > "Our priorities are making sure our customers are taken care of and > reassured they can continue to depend on their Honda or Acura automobile for > a long time to come," said Tom Elliott, executive vice president for > American Honda. > > There is usually plenty of warning to the driver that the transmission is > not operating properly, such as slow or erratic shifting, giving them ample > time to take the vehicle in for service. > > American Honda will notify all owners of eligible vehicles via mail in the > coming weeks. " > > "Chip Stein" <chip@chipanddebby.com> wrote in message > news:5ddcea74.0308301656.1745a01f@posting.google.c om... > > > > > > Honda has issued a "silent" warranty extension on 2000 and 2001 models. > Why > > > not the others? As far as I know, these transmissions are all the same, > and > > > many owners have experienced similar problems. > > > > it's not a silent warranty at all. letters were mailed out to all > > registered honda owners. and if you have a dealership service your > > vehicle, they should run a vin stat every time and it will show. > > they had a limited run of trannys with a problem. look at > > chrysler... they haven't built a good tranny in 15 years!!. honda's > > 1.6% fail rate is pretty commendable for over a million vehicles. > > as for the article about the acura. that's a different animal if > > you've ever worked on them. that's a five speed auto. honda just got > > that this year. most of the time acura is the experimaental platform. > > out of all the trannys i've seen fail in hondas, most of them have > > never had their fluid changed. and on the oddysey most of them have > > aftermarket trailer hitches with no tranny cooler... > > no matter what people will gripe about it.. > > > > > > for those that don't know. a honda automatic is essentially a manual > > gearbox with wet clutch packs. they are built like no domestic tranny > > on the market. a lot of the common complaints are just normal > > characteristics of the vehicle. > > mor often than not engine maintenance and poor running cause a lot of > > tranny malfunctions due to the ecu being confused. > > chip |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
"SoCalMike" <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2Dh4b.312363$YN5.213964@sccrnsc01... > > "Pete" <pete_nagurski@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:bis4n1$cjjpi$1@ID-194065.news.uni-berlin.de... > > > > "Gordon McGrew" <gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com> wrote in message > > news:6mu2lvg63idn808p5ctg492eh6fn962nev@4ax.com... > > >But I certainly wouldn't spend $2000 on an > > > extended warranty to guard against it - transmission failure is not a > > > catastrophe. I would consider changing the fluid more often than > > > recommended, especially if there is any type of severe service > > > involved. > > Perhaps in your world a $4-5,000 repair bill on a 3 1/2 year old car with > > 48,000 miles isn't a catastrophe. In mine it is. > thats like putting $2000 down on one number on a roulette table with 50 > numbers. and if you *do* win, you get back what? $5000? > would you do that in vegas? I wasn't the one that said I'd buy an extended warranty. Never have, never will. I was disputing Gordon's contention that a transmission failure is "not a catastrophe". > > This is Honda we're talking about. The supposed king of reliability. I just > > sold a 1985 GMC diesel Suburban. It had 250,000 miles. And the original > > transmission. My company vehicle is a 1996 Jeep Cherokee. It has 95,000 > > miles. And the original transmission. > > and you lucked out twice. i doubt youd have that luck with a chrysler > minivan, or a ford taurus. Both of these vehicles was and are meticulously maintained. Luck had nothing to do with it. I also have a 1997 Ford Explorer with 90,000 miles on it. Another vehicle notorious for tranny problems. None yet. BTW, Ford recognized that it's service recommendations for the transmission were inadequate. So they sent a letter out to owners recommending transmission service at 25,000 mile intervals for ALL use categories. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
"SoCalMike" <mikein562athotmail@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:2Dh4b.312363$YN5.213964@sccrnsc01... > > "Pete" <pete_nagurski@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:bis4n1$cjjpi$1@ID-194065.news.uni-berlin.de... > > > > "Gordon McGrew" <gRmEcMgOrVeEw@mindspring.com> wrote in message > > news:6mu2lvg63idn808p5ctg492eh6fn962nev@4ax.com... > > >But I certainly wouldn't spend $2000 on an > > > extended warranty to guard against it - transmission failure is not a > > > catastrophe. I would consider changing the fluid more often than > > > recommended, especially if there is any type of severe service > > > involved. > > Perhaps in your world a $4-5,000 repair bill on a 3 1/2 year old car with > > 48,000 miles isn't a catastrophe. In mine it is. > thats like putting $2000 down on one number on a roulette table with 50 > numbers. and if you *do* win, you get back what? $5000? > would you do that in vegas? I wasn't the one that said I'd buy an extended warranty. Never have, never will. I was disputing Gordon's contention that a transmission failure is "not a catastrophe". > > This is Honda we're talking about. The supposed king of reliability. I just > > sold a 1985 GMC diesel Suburban. It had 250,000 miles. And the original > > transmission. My company vehicle is a 1996 Jeep Cherokee. It has 95,000 > > miles. And the original transmission. > > and you lucked out twice. i doubt youd have that luck with a chrysler > minivan, or a ford taurus. Both of these vehicles was and are meticulously maintained. Luck had nothing to do with it. I also have a 1997 Ford Explorer with 90,000 miles on it. Another vehicle notorious for tranny problems. None yet. BTW, Ford recognized that it's service recommendations for the transmission were inadequate. So they sent a letter out to owners recommending transmission service at 25,000 mile intervals for ALL use categories. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
<IleneDover@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:3F520AD1.3633C553@mailcity.com... > Looks like yet another foreign car buyer has awakened in the real > world. Like many buyers, you fell for this myth of superior > Japanese quality. They are good cars but every day more people > are realizing that they too breakdown on occasion just like all > other vehicles on the road. When they do, they cost a lot more > to repair than domestics. They paid a lot more to buy that so > called superior car over a domestic. When it comes time to buy > another new car they are much less likely to pay all that extra > money to buy another Japanese car. Drive > by any domestic new car dealer and see all the foreign cars > sitting on their used car lot if you have any doubt ;) > > > > mike hunt Your trolling, right, Mike? And if not, you're exhibiting an astonishing ignorance of the facts of present day car manufacturing reality. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
<IleneDover@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:3F520AD1.3633C553@mailcity.com... > Looks like yet another foreign car buyer has awakened in the real > world. Like many buyers, you fell for this myth of superior > Japanese quality. They are good cars but every day more people > are realizing that they too breakdown on occasion just like all > other vehicles on the road. When they do, they cost a lot more > to repair than domestics. They paid a lot more to buy that so > called superior car over a domestic. When it comes time to buy > another new car they are much less likely to pay all that extra > money to buy another Japanese car. Drive > by any domestic new car dealer and see all the foreign cars > sitting on their used car lot if you have any doubt ;) > > > > mike hunt Your trolling, right, Mike? And if not, you're exhibiting an astonishing ignorance of the facts of present day car manufacturing reality. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
"E. Meyer" <e.meyer@ieee.org> wrote in message news:BB776793.F896%e.meyer@ieee.org... > On 8/30/03 11:10 PM, in article birsgg$clt7c$1@ID-194065.news.uni-berlin.de, > "Pete" <pete_nagurski@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Chip, > > > > Another question. What's up with the internal filter on the transmission? > > Does this mean it's never changed? > > This can't be a good thing. > > > > Rick > > > > > > I'm not Chip, but I'm looking at the diagram of the 5 speed automatic in the > 2000 TL Helms book. It doesn't have a filter in the traditional sense. > There are screens in the fluid passageways at various places in the > transmission. It would have to be disassembled to get to them. Thanks for the info. I've since spoken with an independent transmission specialist about this. He said the screens are some of the last parts to be removed when you tear apart a Honda transmission for rebuilding. At that point you may as well rebuild :-( |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
"E. Meyer" <e.meyer@ieee.org> wrote in message news:BB776793.F896%e.meyer@ieee.org... > On 8/30/03 11:10 PM, in article birsgg$clt7c$1@ID-194065.news.uni-berlin.de, > "Pete" <pete_nagurski@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Chip, > > > > Another question. What's up with the internal filter on the transmission? > > Does this mean it's never changed? > > This can't be a good thing. > > > > Rick > > > > > > I'm not Chip, but I'm looking at the diagram of the 5 speed automatic in the > 2000 TL Helms book. It doesn't have a filter in the traditional sense. > There are screens in the fluid passageways at various places in the > transmission. It would have to be disassembled to get to them. Thanks for the info. I've since spoken with an independent transmission specialist about this. He said the screens are some of the last parts to be removed when you tear apart a Honda transmission for rebuilding. At that point you may as well rebuild :-( |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
> > No, it wouldn't be for me. Painful yes, but not a catastrophe. I > would suggest that anyone who can pull $2000 out of their wallet for a finance the warranty over 5 years, for 10%... that only makes it $3000! > dubious insurance policy could swing another $2,000 to 3,000 in the > unlikely event that a repair is needed later. What if the > transmission fails at 101K? Put the $2000 in a bank account and most > likely it will still be there when you are ready to buy your next car. 98% likely, or moreso with due care. > > >This is Honda we're talking about. The supposed king of reliability. I just > >sold a 1985 GMC diesel Suburban. It had 250,000 miles. And the original > >transmission. My company vehicle is a 1996 Jeep Cherokee. It has 95,000 > >miles. And the original transmission. > > And there are lots of Honda owners with similar experience. According > to CR, the Cherokee has a good record for transmissions. Suburban is > mediocre but the diesel may come with a better transmission than the > gas models. In any event, I would say you have been lucky. If you > had bought a '96 Caravan instead of a Cherokee, the chance that you > would have replaced the transmission by now is at least 50%. I have > known Caravan owners who were on their third transmission by the time > they had 70K on it. neighbor of mine... 3 of em, 2 under warranty. why they sprung for a third? dunno. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
> > No, it wouldn't be for me. Painful yes, but not a catastrophe. I > would suggest that anyone who can pull $2000 out of their wallet for a finance the warranty over 5 years, for 10%... that only makes it $3000! > dubious insurance policy could swing another $2,000 to 3,000 in the > unlikely event that a repair is needed later. What if the > transmission fails at 101K? Put the $2000 in a bank account and most > likely it will still be there when you are ready to buy your next car. 98% likely, or moreso with due care. > > >This is Honda we're talking about. The supposed king of reliability. I just > >sold a 1985 GMC diesel Suburban. It had 250,000 miles. And the original > >transmission. My company vehicle is a 1996 Jeep Cherokee. It has 95,000 > >miles. And the original transmission. > > And there are lots of Honda owners with similar experience. According > to CR, the Cherokee has a good record for transmissions. Suburban is > mediocre but the diesel may come with a better transmission than the > gas models. In any event, I would say you have been lucky. If you > had bought a '96 Caravan instead of a Cherokee, the chance that you > would have replaced the transmission by now is at least 50%. I have > known Caravan owners who were on their third transmission by the time > they had 70K on it. neighbor of mine... 3 of em, 2 under warranty. why they sprung for a third? dunno. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 16:44:42 GMT, "Fluffy" <no-spamming-bsavanh@mchsi.com>
wrote: >I hope I didn't sound like the ONLY reason why I got rid of the Accord was >Honda's refusal to provide feedback BUT it was definitely a factor, a >swaying one in fact. XC90's and Accord's are apples and oranges. We've been >extremely happy with the XC90 so far and the gas mileage isn't too bad >either, getting 21.3 mpg with combined city but mostly highway driving. It certainly sounded to me like it was the main factor in dumping the car. >If *known* flaws has been "fixed" on the 02 Accord then why don't they just >come out and say it? If you can't put it in writing then it didn't happen. Same theory as the tree that nobody heard falling?:-) ><"As a long-time owner of both Volvos and Hondas, I would say that trading a >Honda for a Volvo for reliability reasons because Honda isn't extending your >warranty is like moving from Chicago to Baghdad for safety reasons because >you heard that purse snatching is up in Chicago." > * Good analogy, is >purse snatching up in Chicago? Volvo must have something that you like that >you're willing to sacrifice the pain of reliability issues to be a long time >owner. Do you have any experience with recent Volvo models? What are the >major complaints from your experience? I hope Dizzy sees this one - it's perverse... to copy text up from the previous post to quote it in a top-post. Is in-line reponse so difficult? >I personally have not heard or read about any major reliability issues with >Volvo's but time will tell. (If someone has reference that they can point >out to me that shows major flaws or other major reliability issues with the >XC90 please show me.) The only personal feedback I have IRT Volvo's is from >my neighbor who owns an S80 for about a year an a half now with no problems >and loves it. He now wants to get the XC90 after he saw ours. If Volvo >doesn't treat me right, as with other things... I vote with my $$. We'll >see how it goes since this is the first Swedish automobile we've owned. A quick search on Volvo and complaints will turn up plenty - every mfr has complaints against them of course but Volvo has some of the most vociferous group I've seen... ranking up there with VW and with similar non-reponsive results. There's nothing very "Swedish" about your car I'm afraid; Volvo, as a company is kinda like Mitsubishi in Japan, in that they dabble in lots of heavy industrial stuff but their car division, which is now owned by Ford of course, does not have much of a design capability. Much of their car design is sub-contracted to various consulting companies, like the recently liquidated TWR. Like the rest of the entire Ford empire they are bleeding red ink - the only exception is Aston Martin, which is making lots of money on limited production luxury cars... which are back ordered up to 2 years on some models. Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 16:44:42 GMT, "Fluffy" <no-spamming-bsavanh@mchsi.com>
wrote: >I hope I didn't sound like the ONLY reason why I got rid of the Accord was >Honda's refusal to provide feedback BUT it was definitely a factor, a >swaying one in fact. XC90's and Accord's are apples and oranges. We've been >extremely happy with the XC90 so far and the gas mileage isn't too bad >either, getting 21.3 mpg with combined city but mostly highway driving. It certainly sounded to me like it was the main factor in dumping the car. >If *known* flaws has been "fixed" on the 02 Accord then why don't they just >come out and say it? If you can't put it in writing then it didn't happen. Same theory as the tree that nobody heard falling?:-) ><"As a long-time owner of both Volvos and Hondas, I would say that trading a >Honda for a Volvo for reliability reasons because Honda isn't extending your >warranty is like moving from Chicago to Baghdad for safety reasons because >you heard that purse snatching is up in Chicago." > * Good analogy, is >purse snatching up in Chicago? Volvo must have something that you like that >you're willing to sacrifice the pain of reliability issues to be a long time >owner. Do you have any experience with recent Volvo models? What are the >major complaints from your experience? I hope Dizzy sees this one - it's perverse... to copy text up from the previous post to quote it in a top-post. Is in-line reponse so difficult? >I personally have not heard or read about any major reliability issues with >Volvo's but time will tell. (If someone has reference that they can point >out to me that shows major flaws or other major reliability issues with the >XC90 please show me.) The only personal feedback I have IRT Volvo's is from >my neighbor who owns an S80 for about a year an a half now with no problems >and loves it. He now wants to get the XC90 after he saw ours. If Volvo >doesn't treat me right, as with other things... I vote with my $$. We'll >see how it goes since this is the first Swedish automobile we've owned. A quick search on Volvo and complaints will turn up plenty - every mfr has complaints against them of course but Volvo has some of the most vociferous group I've seen... ranking up there with VW and with similar non-reponsive results. There's nothing very "Swedish" about your car I'm afraid; Volvo, as a company is kinda like Mitsubishi in Japan, in that they dabble in lots of heavy industrial stuff but their car division, which is now owned by Ford of course, does not have much of a design capability. Much of their car design is sub-contracted to various consulting companies, like the recently liquidated TWR. Like the rest of the entire Ford empire they are bleeding red ink - the only exception is Aston Martin, which is making lots of money on limited production luxury cars... which are back ordered up to 2 years on some models. Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 16:44:42 GMT, "Fluffy"
<no-spamming-bsavanh@mchsi.com> wrote: ><"As a long-time owner of both Volvos and Hondas, I would say that trading a >Honda for a Volvo for reliability reasons because Honda isn't extending your >warranty is like moving from Chicago to Baghdad for safety reasons because >you heard that purse snatching is up in Chicago." > * Good analogy, is >purse snatching up in Chicago? Volvo must have something that you like that >you're willing to sacrifice the pain of reliability issues to be a long time >owner. Do you have any experience with recent Volvo models? What are the >major complaints from your experience? I don't know about purse snatching in Chicago but my complaints about the Volvo ('92 240 Wagon) include: Leaks oil like the Exxon Valdez (mechanic can't fix in four tries) Electrical problems too numerous to list Ball joints wore out Trip Odometer broken Clutch cable broke Short exhaust system life U-joint failure Erratic coolant temp gauge (not sure if it is real or just the gauge) Squeaks, rattles and groans galore Probably a few others I can't recall off the top of my head. On the plus side: It is near perfect size with usable cargo space - small enough to fit in my garage but big enough to haul my hobby rocketry equipment, camping equipment, garden supplies, etc. Very durable body, engine and transmission (but that is available in most Japanese cars as well now.) Manual transmission (although it was hard to find one with MT when I bought it in 1992) Good handling with after-market sway bars and good tires. (But engine is anemic.) Granted this is a model which hasn't been made in ten years but based on CR reliability data and other reports I don't see any reason to think that the newer ones are much improved. The electrical system is still reported as a major problem area. The reason I still own this car is that no manufacturer that I would consider buying from makes a vehicle in this size. They are all either too big to fit in my garage or too small to haul my stuff or both!!!! Best candidates are the Mazda MPV or a (used) G1 Ody. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 16:44:42 GMT, "Fluffy"
<no-spamming-bsavanh@mchsi.com> wrote: ><"As a long-time owner of both Volvos and Hondas, I would say that trading a >Honda for a Volvo for reliability reasons because Honda isn't extending your >warranty is like moving from Chicago to Baghdad for safety reasons because >you heard that purse snatching is up in Chicago." > * Good analogy, is >purse snatching up in Chicago? Volvo must have something that you like that >you're willing to sacrifice the pain of reliability issues to be a long time >owner. Do you have any experience with recent Volvo models? What are the >major complaints from your experience? I don't know about purse snatching in Chicago but my complaints about the Volvo ('92 240 Wagon) include: Leaks oil like the Exxon Valdez (mechanic can't fix in four tries) Electrical problems too numerous to list Ball joints wore out Trip Odometer broken Clutch cable broke Short exhaust system life U-joint failure Erratic coolant temp gauge (not sure if it is real or just the gauge) Squeaks, rattles and groans galore Probably a few others I can't recall off the top of my head. On the plus side: It is near perfect size with usable cargo space - small enough to fit in my garage but big enough to haul my hobby rocketry equipment, camping equipment, garden supplies, etc. Very durable body, engine and transmission (but that is available in most Japanese cars as well now.) Manual transmission (although it was hard to find one with MT when I bought it in 1992) Good handling with after-market sway bars and good tires. (But engine is anemic.) Granted this is a model which hasn't been made in ten years but based on CR reliability data and other reports I don't see any reason to think that the newer ones are much improved. The electrical system is still reported as a major problem area. The reason I still own this car is that no manufacturer that I would consider buying from makes a vehicle in this size. They are all either too big to fit in my garage or too small to haul my stuff or both!!!! Best candidates are the Mazda MPV or a (used) G1 Ody. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
You are kidding, right? If ANY manufacture had anywhere near
a 2% failure rate they would go out of business. mike hunt Gordon McGrew wrote: > > On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:30:12 GMT, IleneDover@mailcity.com wrote: > > >Question! Does anyone think a 2% failure rate for ANYTHING, on > >20,000 cars out of 1,000,000, is extremely high, average or do > >you think it is low? Think about it, there are 18 million new > >vehicles sold in the US yearly. Apply a little logic here. That > >54 to 72 million cars still in warranty. ;) > > > > > >mike hunt > > I would say that a less than 2% failure rate is pretty low, especially > on cars that are a few years old. What is your point? > > The mathematical fact that 20,000 is 2% of 1,000,000 comes as no > revelation. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
You are kidding, right? If ANY manufacture had anywhere near
a 2% failure rate they would go out of business. mike hunt Gordon McGrew wrote: > > On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:30:12 GMT, IleneDover@mailcity.com wrote: > > >Question! Does anyone think a 2% failure rate for ANYTHING, on > >20,000 cars out of 1,000,000, is extremely high, average or do > >you think it is low? Think about it, there are 18 million new > >vehicles sold in the US yearly. Apply a little logic here. That > >54 to 72 million cars still in warranty. ;) > > > > > >mike hunt > > I would say that a less than 2% failure rate is pretty low, especially > on cars that are a few years old. What is your point? > > The mathematical fact that 20,000 is 2% of 1,000,000 comes as no > revelation. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
From what I see on our business ALL manufactures are building
good dependable vehicle today, the only real difference is price and style. They will all last a long time if given the proper maintenance. Murphy's law is still at work. They ALL build some that are not up to their build standards and they ALL built some that breakdown on occasion, that's why they ALL have a warranty. Anybody that believes that by buying particular brand, or paying a premium price to do so, they are necessarily going go get one that will not have problems is deluding themselves. We warrant and service most brands, I can assure none is free of defects. mike hunt Pete wrote: > > <IleneDover@mailcity.com> wrote in message > news:3F520AD1.3633C553@mailcity.com... > > Looks like yet another foreign car buyer has awakened in the real > > world. Like many buyers, you fell for this myth of superior > > Japanese quality. They are good cars but every day more people > > are realizing that they too breakdown on occasion just like all > > other vehicles on the road. When they do, they cost a lot more > > to repair than domestics. They paid a lot more to buy that so > > called superior car over a domestic. When it comes time to buy > > another new car they are much less likely to pay all that extra > > money to buy another Japanese car. Drive > > by any domestic new car dealer and see all the foreign cars > > sitting on their used car lot if you have any doubt ;) > > > > > > > > mike hunt > > Your trolling, right, Mike? And if not, you're exhibiting an astonishing > ignorance of the facts of present day car manufacturing reality. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
From what I see on our business ALL manufactures are building
good dependable vehicle today, the only real difference is price and style. They will all last a long time if given the proper maintenance. Murphy's law is still at work. They ALL build some that are not up to their build standards and they ALL built some that breakdown on occasion, that's why they ALL have a warranty. Anybody that believes that by buying particular brand, or paying a premium price to do so, they are necessarily going go get one that will not have problems is deluding themselves. We warrant and service most brands, I can assure none is free of defects. mike hunt Pete wrote: > > <IleneDover@mailcity.com> wrote in message > news:3F520AD1.3633C553@mailcity.com... > > Looks like yet another foreign car buyer has awakened in the real > > world. Like many buyers, you fell for this myth of superior > > Japanese quality. They are good cars but every day more people > > are realizing that they too breakdown on occasion just like all > > other vehicles on the road. When they do, they cost a lot more > > to repair than domestics. They paid a lot more to buy that so > > called superior car over a domestic. When it comes time to buy > > another new car they are much less likely to pay all that extra > > money to buy another Japanese car. Drive > > by any domestic new car dealer and see all the foreign cars > > sitting on their used car lot if you have any doubt ;) > > > > > > > > mike hunt > > Your trolling, right, Mike? And if not, you're exhibiting an astonishing > ignorance of the facts of present day car manufacturing reality. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
<MelvinGibson@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:3F536398.CDDEE122@mailcity.com... > From what I see on our business ALL manufactures are building > good dependable vehicle today, the only real difference is price > and style. They will all last a long time if given the proper > maintenance. Murphy's law is still at work. They ALL build some > that are not up to their build standards and they ALL built some > that breakdown on occasion, that's why they ALL have a warranty. > Anybody that believes that by buying particular brand, or paying > a premium price to do so, they are necessarily going go get one > that will not have problems is deluding themselves. We warrant > and service most brands, I can assure none is free of defects. > > > > mike hunt 1. I am a car 2. I am branded by a "domestic" manufacturer 3. Therefore I am a domestic car. Non Sequitur Pete |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
<MelvinGibson@mailcity.com> wrote in message news:3F536398.CDDEE122@mailcity.com... > From what I see on our business ALL manufactures are building > good dependable vehicle today, the only real difference is price > and style. They will all last a long time if given the proper > maintenance. Murphy's law is still at work. They ALL build some > that are not up to their build standards and they ALL built some > that breakdown on occasion, that's why they ALL have a warranty. > Anybody that believes that by buying particular brand, or paying > a premium price to do so, they are necessarily going go get one > that will not have problems is deluding themselves. We warrant > and service most brands, I can assure none is free of defects. > > > > mike hunt 1. I am a car 2. I am branded by a "domestic" manufacturer 3. Therefore I am a domestic car. Non Sequitur Pete |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:14:27 GMT, MelvinGibson@mailcity.com wrote:
>You are kidding, right? If ANY manufacture had anywhere near >a 2% failure rate they would go out of business. > > >mike hunt You're nuts. Look at a '97 Caravan - five years old at the time of the latest CR reliability survey. Component Failure rate (%) --------- ----------- Engine 9-15 Cooling 5-9 Fuel 5-9 Ignition <2 Transmission 9-15 Electrical >15 A/C 9-15 Suspension 5-9 Brakes 9-15 Exhaust <2 Paint/trim/rust 2-5 Body integrity 5-9 Power equipment 5-9 Body hardware 5-9 Compare to a '97 Ody where only the brakes have a greater than 5% failure rate (5-9%). Most components are <2%. So why is Chrysler still in business? Well, they aren't as an independent company of course, but Ford and GM are no better. BTW, how old are the cars you service? Most (not all ) cars are OK for 2 or 3 years but after that the domestic models start to plummet. > > > >Gordon McGrew wrote: >> >> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:30:12 GMT, IleneDover@mailcity.com wrote: >> >> >Question! Does anyone think a 2% failure rate for ANYTHING, on >> >20,000 cars out of 1,000,000, is extremely high, average or do >> >you think it is low? Think about it, there are 18 million new >> >vehicles sold in the US yearly. Apply a little logic here. That >> >54 to 72 million cars still in warranty. ;) >> > >> > >> >mike hunt >> >> I would say that a less than 2% failure rate is pretty low, especially >> on cars that are a few years old. What is your point? >> >> The mathematical fact that 20,000 is 2% of 1,000,000 comes as no >> revelation. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:14:27 GMT, MelvinGibson@mailcity.com wrote:
>You are kidding, right? If ANY manufacture had anywhere near >a 2% failure rate they would go out of business. > > >mike hunt You're nuts. Look at a '97 Caravan - five years old at the time of the latest CR reliability survey. Component Failure rate (%) --------- ----------- Engine 9-15 Cooling 5-9 Fuel 5-9 Ignition <2 Transmission 9-15 Electrical >15 A/C 9-15 Suspension 5-9 Brakes 9-15 Exhaust <2 Paint/trim/rust 2-5 Body integrity 5-9 Power equipment 5-9 Body hardware 5-9 Compare to a '97 Ody where only the brakes have a greater than 5% failure rate (5-9%). Most components are <2%. So why is Chrysler still in business? Well, they aren't as an independent company of course, but Ford and GM are no better. BTW, how old are the cars you service? Most (not all ) cars are OK for 2 or 3 years but after that the domestic models start to plummet. > > > >Gordon McGrew wrote: >> >> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:30:12 GMT, IleneDover@mailcity.com wrote: >> >> >Question! Does anyone think a 2% failure rate for ANYTHING, on >> >20,000 cars out of 1,000,000, is extremely high, average or do >> >you think it is low? Think about it, there are 18 million new >> >vehicles sold in the US yearly. Apply a little logic here. That >> >54 to 72 million cars still in warranty. ;) >> > >> > >> >mike hunt >> >> I would say that a less than 2% failure rate is pretty low, especially >> on cars that are a few years old. What is your point? >> >> The mathematical fact that 20,000 is 2% of 1,000,000 comes as no >> revelation. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
Perhaps if you took a course on statistical analysis you might
understand. mike hunt Gordon McGrew wrote: > > On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:14:27 GMT, MelvinGibson@mailcity.com wrote: > > >You are kidding, right? If ANY manufacture had anywhere near > >a 2% failure rate they would go out of business. > > > > > >mike hunt > > You're nuts. Look at a '97 Caravan - five years old at the time of > the latest CR reliability survey. > > Component Failure rate (%) > --------- ----------- > Engine 9-15 > Cooling 5-9 > Fuel 5-9 > Ignition <2 > Transmission 9-15 > Electrical >15 > A/C 9-15 > Suspension 5-9 > Brakes 9-15 > Exhaust <2 > Paint/trim/rust 2-5 > Body integrity 5-9 > Power equipment 5-9 > Body hardware 5-9 > > Compare to a '97 Ody where only the brakes have a greater than 5% > failure rate (5-9%). Most components are <2%. So why is Chrysler > still in business? Well, they aren't as an independent company of > course, but Ford and GM are no better. > > BTW, how old are the cars you service? Most (not all ) cars are OK > for 2 or 3 years but after that the domestic models start to plummet. > > > > > > > > >Gordon McGrew wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:30:12 GMT, IleneDover@mailcity.com wrote: > >> > >> >Question! Does anyone think a 2% failure rate for ANYTHING, on > >> >20,000 cars out of 1,000,000, is extremely high, average or do > >> >you think it is low? Think about it, there are 18 million new > >> >vehicles sold in the US yearly. Apply a little logic here. That > >> >54 to 72 million cars still in warranty. ;) > >> > > >> > > >> >mike hunt > >> > >> I would say that a less than 2% failure rate is pretty low, especially > >> on cars that are a few years old. What is your point? > >> > >> The mathematical fact that 20,000 is 2% of 1,000,000 comes as no > >> revelation. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
Perhaps if you took a course on statistical analysis you might
understand. mike hunt Gordon McGrew wrote: > > On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:14:27 GMT, MelvinGibson@mailcity.com wrote: > > >You are kidding, right? If ANY manufacture had anywhere near > >a 2% failure rate they would go out of business. > > > > > >mike hunt > > You're nuts. Look at a '97 Caravan - five years old at the time of > the latest CR reliability survey. > > Component Failure rate (%) > --------- ----------- > Engine 9-15 > Cooling 5-9 > Fuel 5-9 > Ignition <2 > Transmission 9-15 > Electrical >15 > A/C 9-15 > Suspension 5-9 > Brakes 9-15 > Exhaust <2 > Paint/trim/rust 2-5 > Body integrity 5-9 > Power equipment 5-9 > Body hardware 5-9 > > Compare to a '97 Ody where only the brakes have a greater than 5% > failure rate (5-9%). Most components are <2%. So why is Chrysler > still in business? Well, they aren't as an independent company of > course, but Ford and GM are no better. > > BTW, how old are the cars you service? Most (not all ) cars are OK > for 2 or 3 years but after that the domestic models start to plummet. > > > > > > > > >Gordon McGrew wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:30:12 GMT, IleneDover@mailcity.com wrote: > >> > >> >Question! Does anyone think a 2% failure rate for ANYTHING, on > >> >20,000 cars out of 1,000,000, is extremely high, average or do > >> >you think it is low? Think about it, there are 18 million new > >> >vehicles sold in the US yearly. Apply a little logic here. That > >> >54 to 72 million cars still in warranty. ;) > >> > > >> > > >> >mike hunt > >> > >> I would say that a less than 2% failure rate is pretty low, especially > >> on cars that are a few years old. What is your point? > >> > >> The mathematical fact that 20,000 is 2% of 1,000,000 comes as no > >> revelation. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:27:05 GMT, MelvinGibson@mailcity.com wrote:
>From what I see on our business ALL manufactures are building >good dependable vehicle today, the only real difference is price >and style. They will all last a long time if given the proper >maintenance. Murphy's law is still at work. They ALL build some >that are not up to their build standards and they ALL built some >that breakdown on occasion, that's why they ALL have a warranty. And all the warranties expire. >Anybody that believes that by buying particular brand, or paying >a premium price to do so, they are necessarily going go get one >that will not have problems is deluding themselves. We warrant >and service most brands, I can assure none is free of defects. Nope, no guaranty only a warranty. However, all sources indicate that your odds are better with a Toyota or Honda than a Ford or GM (or Volvo, VW, Mitsubishi, BMW, etc.) > > > >mike hunt > > > >Pete wrote: >> >> <IleneDover@mailcity.com> wrote in message >> news:3F520AD1.3633C553@mailcity.com... >> > Looks like yet another foreign car buyer has awakened in the real >> > world. Like many buyers, you fell for this myth of superior >> > Japanese quality. They are good cars but every day more people >> > are realizing that they too breakdown on occasion just like all >> > other vehicles on the road. When they do, they cost a lot more >> > to repair than domestics. They paid a lot more to buy that so >> > called superior car over a domestic. When it comes time to buy >> > another new car they are much less likely to pay all that extra >> > money to buy another Japanese car. Drive >> > by any domestic new car dealer and see all the foreign cars >> > sitting on their used car lot if you have any doubt ;) >> > >> > >> > >> > mike hunt >> >> Your trolling, right, Mike? And if not, you're exhibiting an astonishing >> ignorance of the facts of present day car manufacturing reality. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:27:05 GMT, MelvinGibson@mailcity.com wrote:
>From what I see on our business ALL manufactures are building >good dependable vehicle today, the only real difference is price >and style. They will all last a long time if given the proper >maintenance. Murphy's law is still at work. They ALL build some >that are not up to their build standards and they ALL built some >that breakdown on occasion, that's why they ALL have a warranty. And all the warranties expire. >Anybody that believes that by buying particular brand, or paying >a premium price to do so, they are necessarily going go get one >that will not have problems is deluding themselves. We warrant >and service most brands, I can assure none is free of defects. Nope, no guaranty only a warranty. However, all sources indicate that your odds are better with a Toyota or Honda than a Ford or GM (or Volvo, VW, Mitsubishi, BMW, etc.) > > > >mike hunt > > > >Pete wrote: >> >> <IleneDover@mailcity.com> wrote in message >> news:3F520AD1.3633C553@mailcity.com... >> > Looks like yet another foreign car buyer has awakened in the real >> > world. Like many buyers, you fell for this myth of superior >> > Japanese quality. They are good cars but every day more people >> > are realizing that they too breakdown on occasion just like all >> > other vehicles on the road. When they do, they cost a lot more >> > to repair than domestics. They paid a lot more to buy that so >> > called superior car over a domestic. When it comes time to buy >> > another new car they are much less likely to pay all that extra >> > money to buy another Japanese car. Drive >> > by any domestic new car dealer and see all the foreign cars >> > sitting on their used car lot if you have any doubt ;) >> > >> > >> > >> > mike hunt >> >> Your trolling, right, Mike? And if not, you're exhibiting an astonishing >> ignorance of the facts of present day car manufacturing reality. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:28:22 GMT, "Miniman"
<dasutcliffe@earthlink.net> wrote: >In terms of a 2% defect rate, my opinion is that it is far too high. Honda >(and other Japanese manufacturers) hold their suppliers to a 15 parts per >million defect rate which is 0.0015%. Keep in mind a couple things. If there are 500 parts in an AT, the chance of one of them failing with the above defect rate is 0.75%. If one sneaks in with a 1% defect rate, the chances of a transmission failure reach 1.75%. Also, what constitutes a defective part? A measurable defect on receipt or a failure within the warranty period? The concern here is cars with failures before 100,000 miles. Add to this the risk of a design problem that may add to the failure rate and varying levels of owner abuse and you could easily exceed 2% failures before the warranty period expires. In fact, if your name isn't Toyota or Honda, you can pretty much count on it. If the vehicle says Caravan on the back, expect about 15%. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:28:22 GMT, "Miniman"
<dasutcliffe@earthlink.net> wrote: >In terms of a 2% defect rate, my opinion is that it is far too high. Honda >(and other Japanese manufacturers) hold their suppliers to a 15 parts per >million defect rate which is 0.0015%. Keep in mind a couple things. If there are 500 parts in an AT, the chance of one of them failing with the above defect rate is 0.75%. If one sneaks in with a 1% defect rate, the chances of a transmission failure reach 1.75%. Also, what constitutes a defective part? A measurable defect on receipt or a failure within the warranty period? The concern here is cars with failures before 100,000 miles. Add to this the risk of a design problem that may add to the failure rate and varying levels of owner abuse and you could easily exceed 2% failures before the warranty period expires. In fact, if your name isn't Toyota or Honda, you can pretty much count on it. If the vehicle says Caravan on the back, expect about 15%. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 16:44:34 GMT, MelvinGibson@mailcity.com wrote:
>Perhaps if you took a course on statistical analysis you might >understand. > > >mike hunt Perhaps if you took a course in arithmetic you wouldn't be confused. > > >Gordon McGrew wrote: >> >> On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:14:27 GMT, MelvinGibson@mailcity.com wrote: >> >> >You are kidding, right? If ANY manufacture had anywhere near >> >a 2% failure rate they would go out of business. >> > >> > >> >mike hunt >> >> You're nuts. Look at a '97 Caravan - five years old at the time of >> the latest CR reliability survey. >> >> Component Failure rate (%) >> --------- ----------- >> Engine 9-15 >> Cooling 5-9 >> Fuel 5-9 >> Ignition <2 >> Transmission 9-15 >> Electrical >15 >> A/C 9-15 >> Suspension 5-9 >> Brakes 9-15 >> Exhaust <2 >> Paint/trim/rust 2-5 >> Body integrity 5-9 >> Power equipment 5-9 >> Body hardware 5-9 >> >> Compare to a '97 Ody where only the brakes have a greater than 5% >> failure rate (5-9%). Most components are <2%. So why is Chrysler >> still in business? Well, they aren't as an independent company of >> course, but Ford and GM are no better. >> >> BTW, how old are the cars you service? Most (not all ) cars are OK >> for 2 or 3 years but after that the domestic models start to plummet. >> >> > >> > >> > >> >Gordon McGrew wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:30:12 GMT, IleneDover@mailcity.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >Question! Does anyone think a 2% failure rate for ANYTHING, on >> >> >20,000 cars out of 1,000,000, is extremely high, average or do >> >> >you think it is low? Think about it, there are 18 million new >> >> >vehicles sold in the US yearly. Apply a little logic here. That >> >> >54 to 72 million cars still in warranty. ;) >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >mike hunt >> >> >> >> I would say that a less than 2% failure rate is pretty low, especially >> >> on cars that are a few years old. What is your point? >> >> >> >> The mathematical fact that 20,000 is 2% of 1,000,000 comes as no >> >> revelation. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 16:44:34 GMT, MelvinGibson@mailcity.com wrote:
>Perhaps if you took a course on statistical analysis you might >understand. > > >mike hunt Perhaps if you took a course in arithmetic you wouldn't be confused. > > >Gordon McGrew wrote: >> >> On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:14:27 GMT, MelvinGibson@mailcity.com wrote: >> >> >You are kidding, right? If ANY manufacture had anywhere near >> >a 2% failure rate they would go out of business. >> > >> > >> >mike hunt >> >> You're nuts. Look at a '97 Caravan - five years old at the time of >> the latest CR reliability survey. >> >> Component Failure rate (%) >> --------- ----------- >> Engine 9-15 >> Cooling 5-9 >> Fuel 5-9 >> Ignition <2 >> Transmission 9-15 >> Electrical >15 >> A/C 9-15 >> Suspension 5-9 >> Brakes 9-15 >> Exhaust <2 >> Paint/trim/rust 2-5 >> Body integrity 5-9 >> Power equipment 5-9 >> Body hardware 5-9 >> >> Compare to a '97 Ody where only the brakes have a greater than 5% >> failure rate (5-9%). Most components are <2%. So why is Chrysler >> still in business? Well, they aren't as an independent company of >> course, but Ford and GM are no better. >> >> BTW, how old are the cars you service? Most (not all ) cars are OK >> for 2 or 3 years but after that the domestic models start to plummet. >> >> > >> > >> > >> >Gordon McGrew wrote: >> >> >> >> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 15:30:12 GMT, IleneDover@mailcity.com wrote: >> >> >> >> >Question! Does anyone think a 2% failure rate for ANYTHING, on >> >> >20,000 cars out of 1,000,000, is extremely high, average or do >> >> >you think it is low? Think about it, there are 18 million new >> >> >vehicles sold in the US yearly. Apply a little logic here. That >> >> >54 to 72 million cars still in warranty. ;) >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >mike hunt >> >> >> >> I would say that a less than 2% failure rate is pretty low, especially >> >> on cars that are a few years old. What is your point? >> >> >> >> The mathematical fact that 20,000 is 2% of 1,000,000 comes as no >> >> revelation. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
You are entitle to your opinion but our records of thousands of
vehicles, the source I use, says differently. But hey it's your money spend it where you wish. I could not car less. The original poster did, apparently believing buying a Honda would insure trouble free longevity, yet he has a blown engine under 60K. mike hunt Gorton McGrew wrote: > > On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:27:05 GMT, MelvinGibson@mailcity.com wrote: > > >From what I see on our business ALL manufactures are building > >good dependable vehicle today, the only real difference is price > >and style. They will all last a long time if given the proper > >maintenance. Murphy's law is still at work. They ALL build some > >that are not up to their build standards and they ALL built some > >that breakdown on occasion, that's why they ALL have a warranty. > > And all the warranties expire. > > >Anybody that believes that by buying particular brand, or paying > >a premium price to do so, they are necessarily going go get one > >that will not have problems is deluding themselves. We warrant > >and service most brands, I can assure none is free of defects. > > Nope, no guaranty only a warranty. However, all sources indicate that > your odds are better with a Toyota or Honda than a Ford or GM (or > Volvo, VW, Mitsubishi, BMW, etc.) > > > > > > > > >mike hunt > > > > > > > >Pete wrote: > >> > >> <IleneDover@mailcity.com> wrote in message > >> news:3F520AD1.3633C553@mailcity.com... > >> > Looks like yet another foreign car buyer has awakened in the real > >> > world. Like many buyers, you fell for this myth of superior > >> > Japanese quality. They are good cars but every day more people > >> > are realizing that they too breakdown on occasion just like all > >> > other vehicles on the road. When they do, they cost a lot more > >> > to repair than domestics. They paid a lot more to buy that so > >> > called superior car over a domestic. When it comes time to buy > >> > another new car they are much less likely to pay all that extra > >> > money to buy another Japanese car. Drive > >> > by any domestic new car dealer and see all the foreign cars > >> > sitting on their used car lot if you have any doubt ;) > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > mike hunt > >> > >> Your trolling, right, Mike? And if not, you're exhibiting an astonishing > >> ignorance of the facts of present day car manufacturing reality. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
You are entitle to your opinion but our records of thousands of
vehicles, the source I use, says differently. But hey it's your money spend it where you wish. I could not car less. The original poster did, apparently believing buying a Honda would insure trouble free longevity, yet he has a blown engine under 60K. mike hunt Gorton McGrew wrote: > > On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 15:27:05 GMT, MelvinGibson@mailcity.com wrote: > > >From what I see on our business ALL manufactures are building > >good dependable vehicle today, the only real difference is price > >and style. They will all last a long time if given the proper > >maintenance. Murphy's law is still at work. They ALL build some > >that are not up to their build standards and they ALL built some > >that breakdown on occasion, that's why they ALL have a warranty. > > And all the warranties expire. > > >Anybody that believes that by buying particular brand, or paying > >a premium price to do so, they are necessarily going go get one > >that will not have problems is deluding themselves. We warrant > >and service most brands, I can assure none is free of defects. > > Nope, no guaranty only a warranty. However, all sources indicate that > your odds are better with a Toyota or Honda than a Ford or GM (or > Volvo, VW, Mitsubishi, BMW, etc.) > > > > > > > > >mike hunt > > > > > > > >Pete wrote: > >> > >> <IleneDover@mailcity.com> wrote in message > >> news:3F520AD1.3633C553@mailcity.com... > >> > Looks like yet another foreign car buyer has awakened in the real > >> > world. Like many buyers, you fell for this myth of superior > >> > Japanese quality. They are good cars but every day more people > >> > are realizing that they too breakdown on occasion just like all > >> > other vehicles on the road. When they do, they cost a lot more > >> > to repair than domestics. They paid a lot more to buy that so > >> > called superior car over a domestic. When it comes time to buy > >> > another new car they are much less likely to pay all that extra > >> > money to buy another Japanese car. Drive > >> > by any domestic new car dealer and see all the foreign cars > >> > sitting on their used car lot if you have any doubt ;) > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > mike hunt > >> > >> Your trolling, right, Mike? And if not, you're exhibiting an astonishing > >> ignorance of the facts of present day car manufacturing reality. |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
Falling asleep through 's post...
> mike hunt You running from the Toyota regs in the Toyota NGs? -- "If you can't change a tire, you're not allowed to have a beard. It's the most basic part of a car: If you don't know that much about a car, you really shouldn't be driving, should you?" - Jimmy Kimmel ntlhell rolls a six... deathwind is disembowelled with a chainsaw, run over with a rhino, fed to the fish and his computer taken away from him such that he doesn't bore us with that inane rot ever again. - ntlhell - A.G.G- T-A http://www.cafeshops.com/creexul.2534632 |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
Falling asleep through 's post...
> mike hunt You running from the Toyota regs in the Toyota NGs? -- "If you can't change a tire, you're not allowed to have a beard. It's the most basic part of a car: If you don't know that much about a car, you really shouldn't be driving, should you?" - Jimmy Kimmel ntlhell rolls a six... deathwind is disembowelled with a chainsaw, run over with a rhino, fed to the fish and his computer taken away from him such that he doesn't bore us with that inane rot ever again. - ntlhell - A.G.G- T-A http://www.cafeshops.com/creexul.2534632 |
Re: 1999 Accord V6 transmission problems
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 22:12:41 GMT, MelvinGibson@mailcity.com wrote:
>You are entitle to your opinion but our records of thousands of >vehicles, the source I use, says differently. But hey it's your >money spend it where you wish. I could not car less. The >original poster did, apparently believing buying a Honda would >insure trouble free longevity, yet he has a blown engine under >60K. "Blown engine"? You have completely lost track of the thread. Move along please. Rgds, George Macdonald "Just because they're paranoid doesn't mean you're not psychotic" - Who, me?? |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:58 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands