Car Forum / Acura Cars / October 2004
99 CL trans
|
|
Thread rating:  |
catsout - 06 Oct 2004 01:57 GMT I have been having transmission problems for many many miles and finally went to see the dealer who delivered the bad news that I need a new trans(auto) for a tune of about 4000. bucks. I have been told by a few ex Acura Mechs that there have been many with the same problem however Acura has declined me for assistance. Anyone out there who has experienced a failing tranny at 88,000 ,would you get back to me asap Thanks for any help David
JXStern - 06 Oct 2004 03:24 GMT >I have been having transmission problems for many many miles and >finally went to see the dealer who delivered the bad news that I need >a new trans(auto) for a tune of about 4000. bucks. I have been told by >a few ex Acura Mechs that there have been many with the same problem >however Acura has declined me for assistance. Anyone out there who has >experienced a failing tranny at 88,000 ,would you get back to me asap Unloaded mine when four year lease ran out, tranny never really worked right, dealer denied problems, I wonder who has it now.
You have the V6 I presume?
J.
John - 06 Oct 2004 03:59 GMT > >I have been having transmission problems for many many miles and > >finally went to see the dealer who delivered the bad news that I need [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You have the V6 I presume? Didn't the extended warrantee get extended to the 99 TL & CL? I just had my 99 TL trans replaced last week and I think I need it replaced again. It slips worse now than with the original one.
JXStern - 06 Oct 2004 17:37 GMT >Didn't the extended warrantee get extended to the 99 TL & CL? I just had my >99 TL trans replaced last week and I think I need it replaced again. It >slips worse now than with the original one. Swell.
I just hope my 2004 Accord I4 is immune, ... but it probably isn't, though I don't believe Honda has yet offered a recall or extended warranty on the I4's.
Well, I have that on lease, too, and will certainly not keep it past warranty.
I may have to break my Honda habit if this nonsense is still going on in 2007.
J.
E. Meyer - 07 Oct 2004 01:41 GMT On 10/6/04 11:37 AM, in article 4g78m0p1lmsflbo071skd396cgm78kp1fh@4ax.com,
>> Didn't the extended warrantee get extended to the 99 TL & CL? I just had my >> 99 TL trans replaced last week and I think I need it replaced again. It [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > J. This is all getting blown way out of proportion. The recall on Odysseys and Pilots was based on 10 failures. The recall on the sedans was based on 1 (one) failure. I have never heard of any problems with the transmission on the 4 cylinder engines. Honda has not been compelled to recall anything. They did all this of their own volition.
Compare the record of practically any other car maker and I doubt you will find anybody else that actually tries to take care of their customers like this.
Ghislain - 07 Oct 2004 03:48 GMT I know for a fact that the 5-speed auto fails on Acura TLs and CLs. My dealer has already replaced several, including mine last week. However, the '99 CL and TL have a different transmission.
> On 10/6/04 11:37 AM, in article > 4g78m0p1lmsflbo071skd396cgm78kp1fh@4ax.com, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > find anybody else that actually tries to take care of their customers like > this. BR - 07 Oct 2004 04:09 GMT Honda / Acura transmission problems are not blown out of proportion (if the transmission were to fail on YOUR car).
I have a 1995 Acura Legend, a totally problem free and rock solid reliable car, I will probably drive it until gasoline becomes obsolete.
I believe that 1995 was the height of quality and pride for the Japanese auto industry, and quality and reliability have been in steady decline ever since then.
The reason why Honda's and Acura's are losing there superior quality is triple tiered:
1) Outsourcing, unfortunately the Japanese work ethic is getting too pricey for Honda.
2) Globalization, that's a fancy word for produce cheap crap for slave wages in dictatorships while using familiar corporate logos and branding.
3) A far less sosphisticated and less demanding US market, feed them a crap-quality and over-sized SUV barge and they're happy. Meaning that car companies don't have to spend as much on making decent car lines, they butter their bread a lot easier with SUV's and the salt lick cattle that buy them.
Don't let a few token U.S. plants that build Japanese branded cars such as the CL fool you, almost 80% of the parts and inners are now slapped together on a third world sh.t for quality work farm.
> On 10/6/04 11:37 AM, in article > 4g78m0p1lmsflbo071skd396cgm78kp1fh@4ax.com, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > find anybody else that actually tries to take care of their customers like > this. JXStern - 07 Oct 2004 14:04 GMT >>> Didn't the extended warrantee get extended to the 99 TL & CL? I just had my >>> 99 TL trans replaced last week and I think I need it replaced again. It [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >Pilots was based on 10 failures. The recall on the sedans was based on 1 >(one) failure. Bullcrap my friend, bullcrap, they would have no reason to do a recall if there were so few failures.
My guess, based on my experience and the few messages posted in newsgroups like this, is that somewhere between thousands and 100% of units out there malfunction, but most people just live with it unaware, unless the malfunction gets bad enough to actually leave them stranded. Read the message at the head of this thread. The number that are left stranded may be relatively small, less than one percent, but that is more than enough to motivate a government-intiated recall, if the word gets out. How would Honda like to replace 100% of their transmissions - WHEN THEY HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO REPLACE THEM WITH!!!
> I have never heard of any problems with the transmission on >the 4 cylinder engines. Well, hear of it now, my 2004 Accord I4 shows signs of the same torque-converter slippage or whatever you want to call that failure, that I lived with in my 1999 CL. Ten months old, eight thousand easy miles, and at the least, it needs a flush, or something. But for now, I'm just living with it, I know how to work around it, somewhat, and it was twice as bad on the old Acura.
> Honda has not been compelled to recall anything. >They did all this of their own volition. They are playing with fire. At least, they are costing themselves hundreds of millions of dollars. If they lose their quality rep, they will lose tens of billions.
>Compare the record of practically any other car maker and I doubt you will >find anybody else that actually tries to take care of their customers like >this. I do admire their customer service response, but at some point, their customer service people will be overwhelmed by what I see as a *design* failure in their automatic transmissions. I do not see this as a manufacturing quality issue at all, they simply lack the engineering skill to design and build automatic transmissions that work reliably for even the warranty period. VERY embarrassing, and potentially FATAL, and the problem is going on FIVE YEARS now, with really no signs of improvement. You do the math.
J.
E. Meyer - 07 Oct 2004 16:07 GMT On 10/7/04 8:04 AM, in article eqeam0tudtb2ipcjmeccbihnqua0ohr7c4@4ax.com,
>>>> Didn't the extended warrantee get extended to the 99 TL & CL? I just had my >>>> 99 TL trans replaced last week and I think I need it replaced again. It [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Bullcrap my friend, bullcrap, they would have no reason to do a recall > if there were so few failures. Those are the numbers they gave to the NHTSA, quoted from the NHTSA. If its bullcrap, I would expect some sort of Governmental response. The only official response I have seen was highly complementary of Honda for taking the initiative without being forced.
> My guess, based on my experience and the few messages posted in > newsgroups like this, is that somewhere between thousands and 100% of [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > I'm just living with it, I know how to work around it, somewhat, and > it was twice as bad on the old Acura. All torque converters slip. That is their nature. If you expect your automatic to be as direct as a stick, you will be disappointed every time.
>> Honda has not been compelled to recall anything. >> They did all this of their own volition. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > J. I'm sorry your car has a problem, but a small number of people complaining on a newsgroup does not a majority make.
I would love to do some math. Being an engineer, I feel naked without some math to do. I have not seen any math, just hype and anecdotal evidence. I would really like to see some real numbers. For example, what is the actual size of the population? how many transmissions have actually been replaced? What percentage of the population is that? What percentage is considered normal by the industry (not just Honda)? Of those that were replaced, what is the number that actually failed prior to replacement?
Human nature being what it is, once we convince ourselves there must be a problem, we have a way of turning any little anomaly that would never have been noticed before into absolute proof that doom is just around the corner.
I am driving an '00 TL with 55,000 miles. If I saw some real numbers, maybe I could make an intelligent decision about whether to keep it or dump it. I'm still waiting.
JXStern - 07 Oct 2004 18:19 GMT >> Well, hear of it now, my 2004 Accord I4 shows signs of the same >> torque-converter slippage or whatever you want to call that failure, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >All torque converters slip. That is their nature. If you expect your >automatic to be as direct as a stick, you will be disappointed every time. I expect the transmission to work now as it worked off the lot, and it doesn't. I know how an automatic is supposed to work, and freezing out all power to the drive train for a second or two when you hit the accelerator pedal demanding more than 50% power, is not normal slippage, it's malfunction, which can in some cases apparently be cleaned up, for a few weeks or months, by flushing the transmission fluid. In fact, it can be dangerous, for the ephemeral failures come exactly when you most need high power.
>I'm sorry your car has a problem, but a small number of people complaining >on a newsgroup does not a majority make. It's a biased statistical sample of a large population, but even so it has meaning.
>I would love to do some math. Being an engineer, I feel naked without some >math to do. I have not seen any math, just hype and anecdotal evidence. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >normal by the industry (not just Honda)? Of those that were replaced, what >is the number that actually failed prior to replacement? I'd love to see these too, but do you really think Honda is going to publish them?
You really want some knowledge, run your own experiment, go down to your local used car lots and test-drive any old models you find there. This may be a bad sample, if local laws require the tranny to be flushed as part of resale prep, I don't know if that applies anywhere or everywhere. Answering private for-sale ads might get you a better sample. My bet is you'll find 50% or more have this shift-delay, which is probably a frozen torque converter, although I have referred to it as "slippage" (when the converter is supposed to be slipping and passing through 80%, it actually passes through 0%, then finally you get shifted into the next gear with an inappropriate *clunk*)
J.
John - 07 Oct 2004 18:27 GMT > >> Well, hear of it now, my 2004 Accord I4 shows signs of the same > >> torque-converter slippage or whatever you want to call that failure, [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > passing through 80%, it actually passes through 0%, then finally you > get shifted into the next gear with an inappropriate *clunk*) What you described is not the torque converter slipping. It's the clutches and/or bands within the transmission.
JXStern - 08 Oct 2004 16:50 GMT >What you described is not the torque converter slipping. It's the clutches >and/or bands within the transmission. OK by me.
But, maybe it SHOULD be the torque converter, converting, and since it doesn't, then the bands "get confused" and slip more than they should???
J.
John - 11 Oct 2004 16:40 GMT > >What you described is not the torque converter slipping. It's the clutches > >and/or bands within the transmission. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > doesn't, then the bands "get confused" and slip more than they > should??? The bands or clutches don't get confused. They apply or disengage at certain pressures from the transmission fluid pumped by the front pump. They slip because they are crap, the pump's crap, no fluid, bad fluid, etc....
The converter does slip, and is designed to slip. The converter locks up in certain instances in the highest gear. Another design. You'll notice that in 5th, or 4th, gear, the RPM drops another 500 or so. This is the converter locking up and you saving gas while cruising.
JXStern - 11 Oct 2004 19:12 GMT >> >What you described is not the torque converter slipping. It's the >clutches [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >5th, or 4th, gear, the RPM drops another 500 or so. This is the converter >locking up and you saving gas while cruising. It's my driving perception that the malfunction consists of an absence of that torque converter slipping, it's like the synchos going out on a manual transmission and the auto just *clunks* when it tries to downshift, or upshift, come to think of it. It's that little turbine-like whining sound that is absent when the tranny fails to shift smoothly or quickly from gear to gear.
But whatever, I don't really need to understand it, but some design engineers at Honda do, and need to fix something(s).
J.
E. Meyer - 07 Oct 2004 20:27 GMT On 10/7/04 12:19 PM, in article m2uam01reb50rnp4l00pk5omq2jgm0vtrj@4ax.com,
>>> Well, hear of it now, my 2004 Accord I4 shows signs of the same >>> torque-converter slippage or whatever you want to call that failure, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > fluid. In fact, it can be dangerous, for the ephemeral failures come > exactly when you most need high power. I've never experienced an automatic that did not have some sort of irritating hesitation when doing this (all the way back to my '60 Pontiac), some worse than others. It has always bothered me. The '00 TL is definitely not the worst of the bunch - that honor goes to the '63 Oldsmobile (pushed the pedal down, counted one-thousand-one, one-thousand-two, then experienced the rush as it finally kicked down and started to move).
However, if yours is definitely different than it was when new, I will agree that you either have a problem, or Honda's highly touted "grade logic" has adapted to your driving style in a less than ideal manner.
>> I'm sorry your car has a problem, but a small number of people complaining >> on a newsgroup does not a majority make. > > It's a biased statistical sample of a large population, but even so it > has meaning. I disagree. The current transmission recall applies to over a million vehicles. Tens or even hundreds of stories in the newsgroups are statistically insignificant.
>> I would love to do some math. Being an engineer, I feel naked without some >> math to do. I have not seen any math, just hype and anecdotal evidence. I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I'd love to see these too, but do you really think Honda is going to > publish them? I don't know. I think they have to give it to the government at some point.
> You really want some knowledge, run your own experiment, go down to > your local used car lots and test-drive any old models you find there. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > J. I think that could be a valid experiment. There can't possibly be any such rules here in Texas, though. The challenge around here is finding a used car that doesn't look and act like its been used as an outhouse. I've seen oil drip off dipsticks in the dealer's lot that looked like, and had the consistency of, chocolate molasses. Empty radiators, bald tires, 1/4 inch of caked on dirt on the air cleaner, etc., and these were in new-car dealer's used car lots. Private ads are even worse - usually you find a guy in an unfurnished apartment with three or four wrecks straight from the auto auction out in the parking lot.
JXStern - 08 Oct 2004 16:49 GMT >I've never experienced an automatic that did not have some sort of >irritating hesitation when doing this (all the way back to my '60 Pontiac), [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >one-thousand-two, then experienced the rush as it finally kicked down and >started to move). I haven't driven a lot of automatics since about 1970, except for a rental car now and again, but my memory of my parents' old 1964 Buick Wildcat was that yeah, there was a windup before the shift, but during that couple of seconds you still had forward torque much more than the Honda does. And there *should* be a "process" for a second or two as the engine winds up and torque/power builds to the point where the tranny's algorith decides it's time *to* shift.
>However, if yours is definitely different than it was when new, I will agree >that you either have a problem, or Honda's highly touted "grade logic" has >adapted to your driving style in a less than ideal manner. For the longest time I thought the behavior was by design, the computers doing something funky maybe for reasons of pollution control. Then the dealer flushed the tranny, and lo and behold, it worked like I expected!!! About that same time the first TL tranny problems were announced. Suddenly the light shone.
>>> I'm sorry your car has a problem, but a small number of people complaining >>> on a newsgroup does not a majority make. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >vehicles. Tens or even hundreds of stories in the newsgroups are >statistically insignificant. Say one percent of owners ever look at a newsgroup. Say one percent of those ever post. Say fifty percent of vehicles have malfunction. Say you see a hundred posts over a couple of years. 100 * 2 * 100 * 100 = 2,000,000. We're in the ballpark.
>I don't know. I think they have to give it to the government at some point. Not unless "there is a problem". When they are taking care of it, it is not officially a "problem". There's probably a safety rule, if they agreed with me that this hesitation was a *safety* issue, the whole thing might blow up immediately.
>I think that could be a valid experiment. There can't possibly be any such >rules here in Texas, though. The challenge around here is finding a used [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >in an unfurnished apartment with three or four wrecks straight from the auto >auction out in the parking lot. :)
I don't know the law here in California, just the dealer mumbling something about trade-in value and resale price due to the extensive work they have to do on trade-ins, new tires if more than 50% is gone, yada yada. Maybe that's a Honda-blessed used car process or something and not a state law?
Last used car I bought was a Fiat 124 Sport Coupe turned out to have a sticky valve, guy had replaced it with a fat Mercedes which I took to be a good sign, I got seven mostly good years out of the Fix-it-again-Tony. Buddy of mine just recently bought a one-year old Accord off a GMC lot, was missing the fifth lug nut on each wheel where the dealer had removed the locks, sweet, huh? Me, I now think leasing is the best deal on the planet, unless finances get really thin that's how I'm "owning" cars from here on out, on warranty then buh-bye. But the lease rates depend on the resale price holding up (and guys other than me loving to buy three-year old cars off warranty), and if this tranny business keeps up, things could get seriously messy.
J.
E. Meyer - 08 Oct 2004 21:05 GMT On 10/8/04 10:49 AM, in article d8cdm0hebqfdeln50n3hnohpelb6nvh1pj@4ax.com,
>> I've never experienced an automatic that did not have some sort of >> irritating hesitation when doing this (all the way back to my '60 Pontiac), [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > worked like I expected!!! About that same time the first TL tranny > problems were announced. Suddenly the light shone. I tried part of the experiment (unintentionally) this morning with the '00 TL. Pulled out of a parking lot and was at about 35 mph leisurely accelerating towards 40 (fifth had just dropped in) when this guy came flying out of the lot across the street in a wide open throttle left turn trying to beat the oncoming traffic and headed right for the back of my car. I put the accelerator to the floor. There were three distinct downshifts in rapid succession (no apparent hesitation at all, fraction of a second between each of them). It took off in second, tach at 6k and was doing over 60 within a city block (and successfully outran the bozo).
Since all the recalls started, I've been babying it. I had almost forgotten this car could do that. So at least this one example doesn't seem to have the problem.
I have noticed over the years with this car (I'm the original owner) that it does occasionally start shifting "funny", a little more overrun in the upshifts, a little hesitant to downshift, etc. Pulling the backup fuse for ten seconds to clear the memory in the transmission computer seems to fix it. You might try that on the TSX and see if it makes any difference.
JXStern - 08 Oct 2004 22:20 GMT >I tried part of the experiment (unintentionally) this morning with the '00 >TL. Pulled out of a parking lot and was at about 35 mph leisurely [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >between each of them). It took off in second, tach at 6k and was doing over >60 within a city block (and successfully outran the bozo). Yep, that's exactly the situation. Sounds like yours worked well.
>Since all the recalls started, I've been babying it. I had almost forgotten >this car could do that. So at least this one example doesn't seem to have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >ten seconds to clear the memory in the transmission computer seems to fix >it. You might try that on the TSX and see if it makes any difference. I'm in an Accord now (almost a TSX, I guess), does it have that same feature? I'll have to research which fuse to pull.
J.
E. Meyer - 09 Oct 2004 00:49 GMT On 10/8/04 4:20 PM, in article jq0em0hprmdoilgfhpdt4v0sbj3gavn8oo@4ax.com,
>> I tried part of the experiment (unintentionally) this morning with the '00 >> TL. Pulled out of a parking lot and was at about 35 mph leisurely [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > J. In the TL its the number 13 fuse in the passenger side in-the-car fuse box, marked "backup".
Bruno - 08 Oct 2004 23:34 GMT >I have noticed over the years with this car (I'm the original owner) that it >does occasionally start shifting "funny", a little more overrun in the >upshifts, a little hesitant to downshift, etc. Pulling the backup fuse for >ten seconds to clear the memory in the transmission computer seems to fix >it. You might try that on the TSX and see if it makes any difference. Which fuse is that? I assume it's in the fusebox under the hood.
-- Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
E. Meyer - 09 Oct 2004 00:50 GMT On 10/8/04 5:34 PM, in article 1097274897.ya7ysGnNGbMh3oSmzpDxIg@teranews,
>> I have noticed over the years with this car (I'm the original owner) that it >> does occasionally start shifting "funny", a little more overrun in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Which fuse is that? I assume it's in the fusebox under the hood. Its in the in-the-car passenger side box. Number 13, 7.5 amps, marked "Backup"
> -- > Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
|
|
|