> Honda needs no improvement on their warranty, since they rarely break. I
> own 2 of them (CR-V and an Element) and have owned 3 others (2 Civics and an
> Accord) and all have been or were flawless.
Circular logic Larry. If they rarely break, then it should be a
no-brainer for Honda to increase the warranty period. That way the
"rare" cases where something which should not go wrong does in fact go
wrong, the company gets the cost instead of the unlucky customer.
My Honda is in getting a new transmission under warranty, and I just
barely made it under the wire at 35,000 miles.
Your reasoning does not hold up.
John
BigBrew - 15 Jul 2005 01:40 GMT
Honda is selling a reputation, not a warrantee. Why give a warrantee if
it is not demanded by the consumer? When people stop paying top dollar
Hondas, then maybe they'll sweeten the deal. Sounds like maybe you
should invest in the company.
B.
>> Honda needs no improvement on their warranty, since they rarely
>> break. I own 2 of them (CR-V and an Element) and have owned 3 others
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> John
Larry - 15 Jul 2005 02:07 GMT
I simpathize with your issues for sure. Maybe you have had other Hondas
maybe not. Counting my family, my parents, parents in law, sister in law,
brother in law, nieces, and best friend, a total of 17 Honda/Acura cars have
been owned over the years and not a one has been a problem child or had a
serious issue such as yours. Granted, somebody is bound to have a major
problem, but we haven't, so my opinion is skewed. Some of these cars are as
old as 15 yrs old with 140,000 miles and they run strong and durable, so I
see no need for Honda to lengthen the warranty myself....and sales figures
also back that up. Thats what the purchase of an extended warranty is
for.....which I'd be doing if I owned your car given its problem. I'll
agree to disagree with you, based upon our different sets of experience
here. Just my opinion from a very satisfied owner.
>> Honda needs no improvement on their warranty, since they rarely break. I
>> own 2 of them (CR-V and an Element) and have owned 3 others (2 Civics and
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> John
Michael Pardee - 15 Jul 2005 04:32 GMT
>> Honda needs no improvement on their warranty, since they rarely break. I
>> own 2 of them (CR-V and an Element) and have owned 3 others (2 Civics and
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> John
A long warranty is a blessing and a curse. For example, my future
daughter-in-law recently bought a Kia. It has a 100K mile warranty... as
long as the required maintenance is kept up. That includes a 3000 mile
service interval, meaning she will pay for 33 required services to maintain
the warranty. When the car was one year old, she had already paid over $3000
for non-warranty service, including a set of brakes. In fact, her first year
non-warranty maintenance costs exceeded her car payments.
My wife has a Toyota Prius, which had a 3yr/36Kmile warranty that has
expired. It has a slightly longer power train warranty and a 8yr/100Kmile
hybrid system warranty. Including the 5 initial 7.5Kmile services that were
free under a promotion and the two I've done myself, we have spent under
$300 on maintenance in 2 1/2 years... mostly for a cracked windshield.
As somebody who never buys "extended warranty" service policies, I'm quite
happy to be given the choice instead of having it decided for me. After all,
I tell the salesmen, I wouldn't buy something if I expected it to give
trouble as soon as the manufacturer warranty ran out.
Mike