Re: Acura Reliability
 

I would say if both the engine and transmission went after only 40/60k there
is something not right.
I myself would unload it

"Collectif LFG" <clfg@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:8hNaf.16279$1T3.414046@weber.videotron.net...
> Hi! I own a 1999 Acura 3.2TL which I bought new. It only has about 60k on
> the odometer. The whole transmission has been changed at 40k and the WHOLE
> engine is being replaced right now (all under warranty). The mechanics
> don't talk very much and say they had "problems" with that model. I was
> just curious if i was an isolated case or if it's normal that the
> mechanicals on that car SUCK that much. I have to say that I'm the kind of
> guy who tries to save gas instead of racing on every traffic light!
> Everyone I know who own a Honda keep telling me that they beat them up
> like crazy and still get reliability. What do you think? Is my car a
> lemon? Sould I sell it once it has a brand new engine and tranny? Thanks
> for your comments
>

Acura Reliability
 

Hi! I own a 1999 Acura 3.2TL which I bought new. It only has about 60k
on the odometer. The whole transmission has been changed at 40k and the
WHOLE engine is being replaced right now (all under warranty). The
mechanics don't talk very much and say they had "problems" with that
model. I was just curious if i was an isolated case or if it's normal
that the mechanicals on that car SUCK that much. I have to say that I'm
the kind of guy who tries to save gas instead of racing on every traffic
light! Everyone I know who own a Honda keep telling me that they beat
them up like crazy and still get reliability. What do you think? Is my
car a lemon? Sould I sell it once it has a brand new engine and tranny?
Thanks for your comments

Re: Acura Reliability
 

*After* it's been fixed?


"Jamco" <Homer@jamco.com> wrote in message
news:Q4Oaf.76653$S4.60694@edtnps84...
>I would say if both the engine and transmission went after only 40/60k
>there is something not right.
> I myself would unload it
>
> "Collectif LFG" <clfg@videotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:8hNaf.16279$1T3.414046@weber.videotron.net...
>> Hi! I own a 1999 Acura 3.2TL which I bought new. It only has about 60k on
>> the odometer. The whole transmission has been changed at 40k and the
>> WHOLE engine is being replaced right now (all under warranty). The
>> mechanics don't talk very much and say they had "problems" with that
>> model. I was just curious if i was an isolated case or if it's normal
>> that the mechanicals on that car SUCK that much. I have to say that I'm
>> the kind of guy who tries to save gas instead of racing on every traffic
>> light! Everyone I know who own a Honda keep telling me that they beat
>> them up like crazy and still get reliability. What do you think? Is my
>> car a lemon? Sould I sell it once it has a brand new engine and tranny?
>> Thanks for your comments
>>
>
>

Re: Acura Reliability
 

Collectif LFG wrote:
> Hi! I own a 1999 Acura 3.2TL which I bought new. It only has about 60k
> on the odometer. The whole transmission has been changed at 40k and the
> WHOLE engine is being replaced right now (all under warranty). The
> mechanics don't talk very much and say they had "problems" with that
> model. I was just curious if i was an isolated case or if it's normal
> that the mechanicals on that car SUCK that much. I have to say that I'm
> the kind of guy who tries to save gas instead of racing on every traffic
> light! Everyone I know who own a Honda keep telling me that they beat
> them up like crazy and still get reliability. What do you think? Is my
> car a lemon? Sould I sell it once it has a brand new engine and tranny?
> Thanks for your comments
>

The transmission problem is certainly normal. Most Honda transmissions
of that vintage appear destined to fail way before 100,000 miles.

John

Re: Acura Reliability
 

It's practically a new car now. So why would you sell it?

Re: Acura Reliability
 

John Horner wrote:

> The transmission problem is certainly normal. Most Honda transmissions
> of that vintage appear destined to fail way before 100,000 miles.

No, not most. Only many that were mated to V6 engines.

Re: Acura Reliability
 

Thanks for all your replies. However, I think I haven't made myself
clear on certain points: The transmission simply went crazy as it was
unable to change any gears without my head banging on the headrest every
time. So it's been changed. Now, the engine started to sound more like a
diesel than anything else but still was running fine. THEY decided to
replace it. I bought that Acura because I thought it was reliable (as
any jap car?) AND because it was more fun to drive than any of the
equivalent models from other brands. I live in Montréal Canada and I
used to store this car in a garage all winter long to keep it from
rusting and drive my beater during winter (an old Nissan Stanza that I
find more reliable than my TL...) I always took good care of the engine
before every winter: put some fog oil in each cylinder, change the oil,
fill up the gas tank and add some stabiliser etc. I planned to keep that
car forever but since I had so many problems with it (even besides the
drivetrain) and that the engine and tranny are new on it, plus the fact
that it still looks like a brand new car inside and out, I think I'm
going to sell it for a fairly good price! I'm so dissapointed that I may
go back to Nissan with the Infiniti G35 (I miss RWD a lot)

Have a nice day!

Re: Acura Reliability
 

High Tech Misfit wrote:
> John Horner wrote:
>
>
>>The transmission problem is certainly normal. Most Honda transmissions
>>of that vintage appear destined to fail way before 100,000 miles.
>
>
> No, not most. Only many that were mated to V6 engines.

Sorry, I should have said most Honda/Acura vehicles with V6 engines,
which of course includes all of the poster's TLs.

John

Re: Acura Reliability
 

On 11/5/2005 12:54 PM John Horner spake these words of knowledge:

> High Tech Misfit wrote:
>> John Horner wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The transmission problem is certainly normal. Most Honda transmissions
>>>of that vintage appear destined to fail way before 100,000 miles.
>>
>>
>> No, not most. Only many that were mated to V6 engines.
>
> Sorry, I should have said most Honda/Acura vehicles with V6 engines,
> which of course includes all of the poster's TLs.
>
> John

John, you would still be wrong. At the very best, "most" would
represent the slightest number more than 50%. "Many", on the other
hand, indicates a substantial number without (necessarily) implying that
the number of failures is more than the number which don't fail.

"Many Honda/Acura vehicles with V6 engines have transmissions that will
fail" is a true statement.

"Most Honda/Acura vehicles with V6 engines have transmissions that will
fail" is not a true statement. That's why HTMF corrected you.

RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
.... "If you can get people to ask the wrong questions, they'll never
find the right answers." -- Thomas Pyncheon