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.