 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / January 2007Honda Service Policy
My cousin has a 2002 Honda Primus, which was experiencing transmission problems, like jerky stops. Luckily, he had taken out an extended warranty with Honda, so he is covered for this repair. At first, Honda tried different transmission fluids, which did not fix the problem. Then they said the transmission was faulty, and they needed to replace it. After getting the OK from the extended warranty people and the dealership to replace the transmission, another group in Honda vetoed that decision and said it could be fixed by replacing his start clutch. This involved pulling the transmission from the car to replace it. After waiting over a week, he was told that the part was on back order. It finally arrived Friday and he will pick up the car tomorrow. When he asked the dealership why they didn't just replace the entire transmission, he was told they prefered to try the start clutch first. Honda wants to know if this approach will fix what is evidently a widespread problem. Then they can keep a goodly stock of start clutches in the dealership inventory for such purposes. What appears to me is that my cousin is getting short changed here. It is not the customer's job to do field testing of Honda fixes. There is no guarantee that this start clutch will fix the problem, so he may be back to the dealership for more work. Also, it occured to me that since 2002, there must have been several upgrades to the entire transmission. Is he getting short changed because they are not doing all the upgrades, which might be inside a rebuilt transmission? Maybe the stop clutches themselves have been upgraded and the rebuilts they have in stock don't have that newer version. Not knowing what upgrades Honda has done to the transmission makes it difficult to determine if Honda is just doing the expedient thing for themselves, or the best solution for the customer. Sherwin D. >What appears to me is that my cousin is getting short changed here. It is not >the customer's job to do field testing of Honda fixes. There is no guarantee [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Sherwin D. I think you are a little off on this one... The warranty covers the broken component. Using your logic if they replaced the entire transmission then there must have been upgrades to the engine as well since 2002. So should they should just give him/her a whole new car? In some cases it is easier and more cost effective for the local dealer to replace an entire unit, like a transmission, with a factory rebuild than it is to pay local labor to rebuild that component. It sounds like in this case they have decided that it will be easier and more cost effective to replace the single failed component than it would be to replace the entire unit. Should this repair not resolve the problem the vehicle is still under the same warranty that it is under now so your cousin can take it back. I know what you mean about this might not fix the problem but a replacement transmission might not fix the problem either... it could turn out to be electrical issue or an engine problem or a suspension problem or..... Also consider that sometimes you are "better off with the one you know". Rebuilt isn't always all that it is cracked up to be. You could get a transmission that was rebuilt by the plant drunk first thing on Monday morning or you could get the transmission that belonged to little Stan down the street who put 200k on it jumping hills at the dirt track. Steve B. > I think you are a little off on this one... > > The warranty covers the broken component. Using your logic if they > replaced the entire transmission then there must have been upgrades to > the engine as well since 2002. So should they should just give > him/her a whole new car? My personal experience with this kind of problem was with my 1990 Plymouth Voyager. I had my transmission replaced after one year, and that lasted me another 9 years. That was around the time when these vans were having loads of problems. My replacement transmission was a rebuilt, but re-engineered transmission which had all the design corrections that Chrysler should have put in the first place. > In some cases it is easier and more cost effective for the local > dealer to replace an entire unit, like a transmission, with a factory > rebuild than it is to pay local labor to rebuild that component. It > sounds like in this case they have decided that it will be easier and > more cost effective to replace the single failed component than it > would be to replace the entire unit. Since they have to pull the entire transmission and take it apart, I don't think there is any savings here in labor. Honda is just trying to 'field test' this problem at the customers expense ( time and frustration). > Should this repair not resolve > the problem the vehicle is still under the same warranty that it is > under now so your cousin can take it back. I suppose you would tell the same thing to your surgeon. Well if you don't cure me, you can always cut me open again and try something else. > I know what you mean about > this might not fix the problem but a replacement transmission might > not fix the problem either... it could turn out to be electrical issue > or an engine problem or a suspension problem or..... The chances of that are pretty damm small. If Honda can't pin it down to the transmission, they have even more serious problems. Besides, this is a relatively common problem with this model of Honda. > Also consider that sometimes you are "better off with the one you > know". Rebuilt isn't always all that it is cracked up to be. You > could get a transmission that was rebuilt by the plant drunk first > thing on Monday morning or you could get the transmission that > belonged to little Stan down the street who put 200k on it jumping > hills at the dirt track. You could say that about a new car rolling off the assembly line. I would hope that these rebuilt transmissions are tested before installation. If Honda were supplying less than satifactory rebuilt parts, there would be a big scandal about that. The issue here is, are there other upgrades to this transmission besides the start clutch. Even the Honda dealer was not certain that this start clutch would solve the problem. Evidently, they had cases where it didn't. Sherwin D. > Steve B. a big scandal about that. > The issue here is, are there other upgrades to this transmission besides > the start clutch. Even the Honda dealer was not certain that this start > clutch would solve the problem. Evidently, they had cases where it didn't. > > Sherwin D. Son has a relatively new Honda hybrid. Very nice car, but recently began to have problems with the tranny under warranty. The dealership seemed to be trying to avoid the issue, but he had all his documentation, and they finally checked it out and came up with the recommendation to 'backflush' it. They wanted to charge him a few hundred bucks to do this and said it 'might' solve the problem. Anyway, they finally capitulated and flushed it for free. And, believe it or not, it seems to have solved the problem. (All of you know what a skeptic I am! ) > Son has a relatively new Honda hybrid. Very nice car, but recently began to > have problems [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > or not, it seems to have > solved the problem. (All of you know what a skeptic I am! ) I hope they fixed it, but my cousin said his transmission worked ok for a while, after they changed to a different fluid. It then went bad again. Sounds like your son's car is newer than my cousin's, since it is still under the warranty (3 years, I believe). Looks like this problem is not restricted to the first year models. I guess like Chrysler Vans, it will take a few years to iron out the problems. Don't these car manufacturers ever learn from each other? Sherwin D. Don't these car > manufacturers > ever learn from each other? Nope, I dont think they learn. He had the extended warranty, and I am surprised that they did anything, but they did.. > You could say that about a new car rolling off the assembly line. I > would hope that these rebuilt transmissions are tested before installation. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sherwin D. Apparently you just want people to agree with you. In the future if this is the case you should state that in the beginning instead of pretending like you want other opinions. Steve B. What I was looking for was useful technical information, which you obviously could not provide. You're the kind of guy that dealers love to deal with, or maybe you work for one yourself. > > You could say that about a new car rolling off the assembly line. I > > would hope that these rebuilt transmissions are tested before installation. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Steve B. The only complaint you really have is how long it's taking for the repair, esp if you don't get a free loaner car. The extended warranty is to repair what's broke. When it comes to transmissions its usually cheaper to just rebuild them once they are out and apart and not risk putting used parts back in and have them go bad in a month. But I doubt your policy says you get the whole thing rebuilt if only one part needs replacing. Luckily you do usually get a rebuild but sometimes you don't. >What I was looking for was useful technical information, which you obviously could >not provide. You're the kind of guy that dealers love to deal with, or maybe you [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] >> >> Steve B. It seems to me that the only safe way to repair a transmission is to bring it up to factory specs. Anything else is a partial repair job, which is subject to some other kind of failure, later on. There is ususaly a very good reason why they do these service upgrades. As long as they are tearing the transmission apart anyways, seems like they should do a complete job. It would really be helpful to know what service upgrades Honda has suggested for the entire transmission. I get the impression they are just guessing at a cure, like trying different trans oils, and installing start clutches to see if they fix the problem, so they can decide how many of these they should stock. If I were my cousin, I would accept nothing short of a CURRENTLY rebuilt transmission. It's also amazing that one department of Honda okayed the replacement transmission, while another vetoed it. Sherwin D. > The only complaint you really have is how long it's taking for the > repair, esp if you don't get a free loaner car. The extended warranty [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > >> > >> Steve B. I agree with you that what you describe is the ideal way to do it. But if the only thing wroing is the broken part and if it works like it used to when they replace it you are back where you were before it broke. Is this a Genuine Honda Warranty or a third party warranty? When the transmission on my Mustang went out the Ford Dealer didn't even bother to disassemle it, they just ordered a completely rebuilt/new one from "the coast" and put it in. >It seems to me that the only safe way to repair a transmission is to bring it up to >factory specs. Anything else is a partial repair job, which is subject to some other [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >> >> >> >> Steve B. > I agree with you that what you describe is the ideal way to do it. But > if the only thing wroing is the broken part and if it works like it > used to when they replace it you are back where you were before it > broke. The issue here is that Honda does not have enough data to know for sure that the start clutch is the culprit. The dealer told my cousin that this fix did not always work. Again, it seems like Honda is doing this engineering in the field by letting the customers test it out. Also, since 2002 Honda may have discovered other potential design problems, so as long as they are tearing apart the trans, they should bring the whole thing up to factory specs. > Is this a Genuine Honda Warranty or a third party warranty? It is a Genuine Honda Extended Warranty. Their Warranty department okayed a complete transmission swap, but some other group vetoed it. My cousin was smart enough to realize he was buying a first year model, and that he needed extra protection with an Extended Warranty. > When the transmission on my Mustang went out the Ford Dealer didn't > even bother to disassemle it, they just ordered a completely > rebuilt/new one from "the coast" and put it in. Same with my Plymouth Voyager, and I never had any more problems since they did more than simply replace the broken part. Honda is trying to cut corners here at the customer's expense. > >It seems to me that the only safe way to repair a transmission is to bring it up to > >factory specs. Anything else is a partial repair job, which is subject to some other [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > >> >> > >> >> Steve B. > My cousin has a 2002 Honda Primus, which was experiencing transmission problems, > like jerky stops. Luckily, he had taken out an extended warranty with [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > involved pulling > the transmission from the car to replace it. Sounds like a reasonable approach so far. Why replace the entire transmission if a replacing a single part could fix the problem. > After waiting over a week, he was > told that the part was on back order. No big deal - that happens. > It finally arrived Friday and he will > pick up the car tomorrow. When he asked the dealership why they didn't just [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > start clutch will fix the problem, so he may be back to the dealership for more > work. There is no guarantee that any one repair job will fix the problem the first time. There is however a warranty to fix the problem. And if this fix doesn't work then it's back to the repair shop. I had a comparable problem with the AM reception on a Volvo car. Several fixes were tried until they figured out that it was a poor ground connection in a closed in location. There are times the repair shop and the car manufacturer are faced with some new problem and finding the best solution may take several tries. It sounds like that is what you have. I think your expectations are a bit unrealistic. > Also, it occured to me that since 2002, there must have been several upgrades to > the > entire transmission. Do you know that for a fact or are you just guessing. > Is he getting short changed because they are not doing all > the > upgrades, which might be inside a rebuilt transmission? Specifically which upgrades have you found that were not done. > Maybe the stop clutches > themselves have been upgraded and the rebuilts they have in stock don't have > that > newer version. Not knowing what upgrades Honda has done to the transmission > makes it difficult to determine if Honda is just doing the expedient thing for > themselves, or the best solution for the customer. Why don't you or your cousin cousin find this information out instead of guessing. > > My cousin has a 2002 Honda Primus, which was experiencing transmission problems, > > like jerky stops. Luckily, he had taken out an extended warranty with [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Sounds like a reasonable approach so far. Why replace the entire > transmission if a replacing a single part could fix the problem. Who said a single part will fix the problem? The labor here to bring a trans up to specs by replacement vs. tearing it apart to replace a single part is neglibable. > > After waiting over a week, he was > > told that the part was on back order. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > solution may take several tries. It sounds like that is what you have. > I think your expectations are a bit unrealistic. How can you compare an 'oddball' occurence of a badly connected ground connection to a design flaw affecting maybe thousands of cars? > > Also, it occured to me that since 2002, there must have been several upgrades to > > the > > entire transmission. > > Do you know that for a fact or are you just guessing. I am basing this partly on common sense and also on my experience with my Chrysler Voyager that also had trans problems with the earlier year models. > > Is he getting short changed because they are not doing all > > the > > upgrades, which might be inside a rebuilt transmission? > > Specifically which upgrades have you found that were not done. That's one reason I put this thing to the forum, hoping that someone could give me more feedback. It appears as if Honda has not fully solved this problem because this fix they are putting in doesn't always work. If they haven't gone over this trans with a fine tooth comb, that doesn't say much for them as a car manufacturer. > > Maybe the stop clutches > > themselves have been upgraded and the rebuilts they have in stock don't have [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Why don't you or your cousin cousin find this information out instead > of guessing. I already tried an extensive internet search, but Honda doesn't put out this information. I found zero references to this start clutch replacement, yet we know from my cousin's dealer that it is a common problem. > > > My cousin has a 2002 Honda Primus, which was experiencing transmission problems, > > > like jerky stops. Luckily, he had taken out an extended warranty with [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > up to specs by replacement vs. tearing it apart to replace a single part is > neglibable. There is no guarantee that any one fix will fix a problem. You have awarranty that says they will fix the problem not that they will fix it in one try. That said it is in their interest to repeat this process as few times as possible because it costs them lots of money to do it over. I think that you are expecting way too much. > > > After waiting over a week, he was > > > told that the part was on back order. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > How can you compare an 'oddball' occurence of a badly connected > ground connection to a design flaw affecting maybe thousands of cars? Actually in my situation it was a common problem that involved thousands of cars over 2 model years. And it took over a year for volvo technicians to figure out where the problem was and let everyone know. The fix was simple - solder in a copper ground strap. Remember that problems are solved by people like you and me looking at a problem and trying to figure out a solution. Sometimes it takes a bit of digging and trial and error. I would count on Honda and Volvo to do the right thing because it is in their best interest to do so. Honda along with the rest of the Japanese big three have excellent reputations and they work hard to maintain them. > > > Also, it occured to me that since 2002, there must have been several upgrades to > > > the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I am basing this partly on common sense and also on my experience with my > Chrysler Voyager that also had trans problems with the earlier year models. Well, before you lock yourself into a position of thinking the car maker is somehow shortchanging you be sure to check the facts first. > > > Is he getting short changed because they are not doing all > > > the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > because > this fix they are putting in doesn't always work. How do you know it doesn't always work in other situations with symptoms exactly like yours. > If they haven't gone over this > trans > with a fine tooth comb, that doesn't say much for them as a car manufacturer. They are solving a specific problem, not combing a transmission. > > > Maybe the stop clutches > > > themselves have been upgraded and the rebuilts they have in stock don't have [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > cousin's > dealer that it is a common problem. I suspect that what you or your cousin heard was an off-hand comment from a service writer - correct? Look, you can agonize over the motivations of Honda until the cows come home. But in the end they are on the hook to make the transmission work. And it is in their best interest to make it work or they stand to tarnish their excellent reputation for making solid cars. And that would hurt car sales. > I suspect that what you or your cousin heard was an off-hand comment > from a service writer - correct? Look, you can agonize over the > motivations of Honda until the cows come home. But in the end they are > on the hook to make the transmission work. And it is in their best > interest to make it work or they stand to tarnish their excellent > reputation for making solid cars. And that would hurt car sales. The end result of all this is that it is an inconvenience to the customer to keep coming back to the dealer, or worse yet, having the problem re-appear after the warranty is up. If this were an airplane engine, I would hope the airline would not only fix a broken part, but bring the engine up to full engineering specifications. Here the issue is not human lives (hopefully), but human inconvenience. As far as I'm concerned, Honda has already damaged their reputation. Firstly, they rush a design in 2002 out on the market without the proper testing. Secondly, when they discover design faults, they put customers through agony of repeated returns for repairs. Thirdly, they let the customers do their testing for them by evaluating fixes in the field, they should be doing themselves in the factory. I'm sorry, I would not ever buy a Honda automobile. Sherwin D. >> I suspect that what you or your cousin heard was an off-hand comment >> from a service writer - correct? Look, you can agonize over the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > If this were an airplane engine, I would hope the airline would not only fix a broken > part, but bring the engine up to full engineering specifications. Really? You think every time there is a delay because of some mechanical problem with an aircraft they replace the entire assembly of whatever is not working rather then just fix what is broken? I rather doubt it. There's something to be said for not fixing things that aren't broken. Here the issue is >not > human lives (hopefully), but human inconvenience. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Sherwin D. >Really? You think every time there is a delay because of some >mechanical problem with an aircraft they replace the entire assembly >of whatever is not working rather then just fix what is broken? I >rather doubt it. There's something to be said for not fixing things >that aren't broken. Pretty much, yes, and it's because they are losing revenue every minute that a plane is down. It's faster to swap an entire assembly out and ship it off to the repair depot than try and troubleshoot a problem while the plane is sitting on the ground sucking up money. Note that aircraft are also designed for quick replacement of modules... on a lot of modern passenger craft, dropping an engine and replacing it is a fairly simple task. Passenger cars, sadly, are not designed for easy and fast repair. --scott  Signature"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." > >Really? You think every time there is a delay because of some > >mechanical problem with an aircraft they replace the entire assembly [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > is a fairly simple task. Passenger cars, sadly, are not designed for easy > and fast repair. That flexibility comes at a considerable cost that most consumers would not want to bear. > --scott >>I suspect that what you or your cousin heard was an off-hand comment >>from a service writer - correct? Look, you can agonize over the [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Sherwin D. The problem is, whose are you going to buy? I can think of a couple mfgrs. that your description could apply to, Honda would have been about fourth at best on my list had I to guess which mfgr. to whom you were referring. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > > I suspect that what you or your cousin heard was an off-hand comment > > from a service writer - correct? Look, you can agonize over the [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > not > human lives (hopefully), but human inconvenience. Your expectations are unrealistic about what is covered under the warranty. They pay to fix the broken parts...the ones that don't work. If they replaced every part that was beyond original spec but still working the cost of the extended warranty would likely exceed the cost of a new car. > As far as I'm concerned, Honda has already damaged their reputation. Firstly, they > rush a design in 2002 out on the market without the proper testing. Now how do you know that they put a design on the road without proper testing. Precisely what testing did they do and where would you have enhanced it. You do realize that cars that have been on the road for several years do also wear out prematurely because of owner misuse. > Secondly, when > they discover design faults, they put customers through agony of repeated returns for > repairs. If I remember this story correctly Honda has had the car only once for this problem. > Thirdly, they let the customers do their testing for them by evaluating fixes > > in the field, they should be doing themselves in the factory. Before making a baseless statement like that you should look into what Hona really does in the way of testing. > I'm sorry, I would not > ever > buy a Honda automobile. I think that you should buy a Yugo or a Trabant. With either of those cars you will get a feel for what lack of quality control can really mean. Or you should take the bus. Well, no that might not be a good idea for someone as inflexible as you. Busses do sometimes run a few minutes late and every once in a while they just dont show up because they had a mechanical breakdown. No doubt you would spend hours on the phone complaining to the transit system about their shoddy service after once such incident. Best that you should walk. > Sherwin D. > > > I suspect that what you or your cousin heard was an off-hand comment > > > from a service writer - correct? Look, you can agonize over the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Your expectations are unrealistic about what is covered under the > warranty. They pay to fix the broken parts...the ones that don't work. Problem is that Honda doesn't know how to fix this one. They are just guessing the start clutch will fix the problem. > If they replaced every part that was beyond original spec but still > working the cost of the extended warranty would likely exceed the cost > of a new car. If they didn't have to open up the trans to replace this part, yes it would not make sense to replace the entire unit. Since they are opening it up, they might as well just send it back to the factory for a rebuild and send a replacement. I would be greatly surprised if there have been no factory upgrades to something as complex as a transmission that has been in production since 2002. > > As far as I'm concerned, Honda has already damaged their reputation. Firstly, they > > rush a design in 2002 out on the market without the proper testing. > > Now how do you know that they put a design on the road without proper > testing. Precisely what testing did they do and where would you have > enhanced it. They probably did minimal testing and that's why there are numerous Honda models like this one experiencing the same problem. > You do realize that cars that have been on the road for several years > do also wear out prematurely because of owner misuse. This car was driven by my middle aged cousin, a very quiet kind of professional guy and not by some teen age drag racer. The car has very low mileage. > > Secondly, when > > they discover design faults, they put customers through agony of repeated returns for > > repairs. > > If I remember this story correctly Honda has had the car only once for > this problem. You remember wrongly. He had the car in at least two times before this final repair where they did things like replace the trans oil. Those worked for just a few weeks. > > Thirdly, they let the customers do their testing for them by evaluating fixes > > > > in the field, they should be doing themselves in the factory. > > Before making a baseless statement like that you should look into what > Hona really does in the way of testing. Obviously, not enough. > > I'm sorry, I would not > > ever [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cars you will get a feel for what lack of quality control can really > mean. You can always find junkier cars, if you look around. > Or you should take the bus. Well, no that might not be a good idea for > someone as inflexible as you. Busses do sometimes run a few minutes > late and every once in a while they just dont show up because they had > a mechanical breakdown. No doubt you would spend hours on the phone > complaining to the transit system about their shoddy service after once > such incident. Best that you should walk. Keep up the good work defending this car manufacturer. Who knows, they may give you a raise. > > Sherwin D. > > > > I suspect that what you or your cousin heard was an off-hand comment > > > > from a service writer - correct? Look, you can agonize over the [quoted text clipped - 83 lines] > Keep up the good work defending this car manufacturer. Who knows, they > may give you a raise. At this point you two can second guess Honda's technical designs and testing until the cows come home and you will be no farther ahead. What your cousin has is a car with a busted transmission. And the cousin and the family technical advisor have to figure out the best way to get the transmission repaired. Since your cousin has a warranty I would strongly suggest that you let Honda repair the problem in the manner that they see as appropriate. If you two do not agree with that approach then you could have the transmission completely replaced at your cost then you could then enter into negotiations and possibly sue for damages. Actually I have never owned a Honda, but I know plenty of people who do. The Japanese Big Three did not get to the place they are in by providing poorly designed cars and refusing to stand behind them in the event of problems. Their cars are consistently rated by consumers as having the highest value and lowest number of problems. Hopefully your cousin is more reasonable in approaching this problem than you. > > Sounds like a reasonable approach so far. Why replace the entire > > transmission if a replacing a single part could fix the problem. > > Who said a single part will fix the problem? The labor here to bring a trans > up to specs by replacement vs. tearing it apart to replace a single part is > neglibable. Exactly. More than once I've had a $500 labor bill to replace a 25 cent snap ring or such in the guts of a transmission. And then there's the first law of fixing thing: if you're not sure you've found the problem, they you haven't found the problem. >> > Sounds like a reasonable approach so far. Why replace the entire >> > transmission if a replacing a single part could fix the problem. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >And then there's the first law of fixing thing: if you're not sure >you've found the problem, they you haven't found the problem. And sometimes those broken snap rings are the NEW ones that were just put in when the ENTIRE transmission was rebuilt. If only the problem had been fixed instead of the whole tranny being disassembled that (original) snap ring might not have broken. Taking perfectly operating sub-assemblies apart when there is no reason to think they are out of spec is not invariably a good idea. > >> > Sounds like a reasonable approach so far. Why replace the entire > >> > transmission if a replacing a single part could fix the problem. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > And sometimes those broken snap rings are the NEW ones that were just > put in when the ENTIRE transmission was rebuilt. In this case, Honda had to take apart the whole transmission to replace the start clutch. > If only the problem > had been fixed instead of the whole tranny being disassembled that > (original) snap ring might not have broken. Taking perfectly > operating sub-assemblies apart when there is no reason to think they > are out of spec is not invariably a good idea. No one suggested stripping the trans down to it's smallest components. I'll bet that there are several factory upgrades to this trans, and those should be put in. If there are no upgrades, that's probably why Honda has not yet accurately identified the problem. Well, at this point, I wouldnt buy a Honda either, but it doesnt have anything to do with the problem you have cited. I have had FAR more problems with GM cars than you have ever had, or probably WILL ever have, with something like a Honda. GM is one company which has, in the past, put out products with lousy engines, transmissions, alternators, body techniques, electronics, etc and they didnt stop doing it, nor even try to help the hapless client, when the problems were identified. Sometimes the production of weak technology continued for YEARS. With any new development, there can be 'teething problems', or unexpected issues, which show up after a car is introduced. It happened with that crappy little Mercedes (the 320, I believe) which had serious rollover problems. Mercedes at least had the cojones to stop the production line, engineer a fix, and then make good. Some manufacturers have not been so forthcoming. Honda, at least, doesnt hide behind a 'catch 22' warranty system. Now, why wouldn't I buy a Honda...simply, I have test driven them, and dont like the ride. Too hard, too harsh, for my taste. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.