Last post on Sep 07, 2011 at 3:17 PM
You are in the Smart Shopper
What is this discussion about?
#641 of 680 Re: Honda Civic Hybrid [longo2]
Apr 30, 2009 (5:39 am)
>Accord, Acura and Odyssey all used the same a/t.
Many people report the replacements failing after a similarly small amount of mileage. Does get people to 100K to trade the vehicle, but for those keeping a car longer since they are reliable, having the transmission fail at 120K is on their own dime. So the free replacements (actually in the price of the car) aren't good if the replacements fail later on the customer's cost rather than running 200-250K.
CR was too blinded by their favoritism to report on early symptoms. Note the popular smiling tester in from of a red S2000 with a big smile on his faceas an ad for CR.
#642 of 680 Re: Honda Civic Hybrid [imidazol97]
Apr 30, 2009 (6:20 am)
I would hardly call it " blinded by their favoritism." The reliability survey depends on consumers reporting their problems. If failing transmissions aren't reported for whatever reason, then it's simply not going to show up in the magazine. My guess is that not enough failed in the earlier years for a downgrade to show up.
BTW, I have no dog in this fight, having never owned a Honda product.
#643 of 680 Re: Honda Civic Hybrid [210delray]
Apr 30, 2009 (6:29 am)
>having never owned a Honda product.
For how many years have Hondas had early transmission failures... Back in the 90s the transmission warranties were extended to 100K and a longer time period because of Honda's transmissions. It's not an unknown problem.
#644 of 680 Car Mag Reliablitly Lag
Apr 30, 2009 (8:03 am)
Reporting on reliablity of the current crop of fast depreciating, poorly put together vehicles out there, needs to be improved, not only for the benifit of the Consumer, but for the health of the car companies as well.
It does no one a service not to due everything possible not to hunt down reliabilty issues with the same focus as keeping track of your credit rating.
If CR chiefley relies on it's members to report a/t issues, they are doing a great disservice to the rest of the car buying public.
I stopped supporting CR years ago, after I too discovered that certain car brands got passes for problems with no reporting on those issues until long after anyone shopping for a that car, had already done the deal.
Imagine how fast Honda would have come up with a solution to their a/t problems if CR had nailed them years sooner, early enough to cut into their $ales numbers.
Everyone except CR seemed to know about the problem 5 or more years before they started Black Marking it.
#645 of 680 Re: Car Mag Reliablitly Lag [longo2]
Apr 30, 2009 (8:06 am)
Well this source gives more timely feedback, but the problem is not enough people know about it and therefore don't participate.
#646 of 680 Re: Car Mag Reliablitly Lag [210delray]
Apr 30, 2009 (10:51 am)
I've gotten e-mails and have seen them on other sites. The problem is they look too much like spam.
Apr 30, 2009 (12:48 pm)
While the transmission problem Honda had was real, and serious it did not effect every car. Most people did not have a problem. Look at the Chrysler transmission, now those were terrible and got a black dot as quite a large percentage failed.
CR used to compare how a car did against other cars of the same year, and that was probably a better system. Now the reliability is on an absolute scale. The absolute scale may give a better idea of problem areas, but it is hard to tell reliability.
To illustrate (making up numbers as I don't have any in front of me) - by the new method if a car is above a certain failure rate it gets a red circle no matter what the year. The tendency is for less red to show up as the car ages and the parts get less reliable. This helps to illustrate that cars are less reliable as they age.
With the old method, a car was compared to its peers. So it would get a red circle even if it failed a fair amount as long as there were other cars that failed more. Or a car that only fails 5% of the time would still get a black mark if the other cars only fail 2% of the time
With the new method a car that is two years old might get a red circle as it has a relatively low failure rate, but it could still be below average and would have a black circle by the old method.
This is why problems don't stick out as early on the CR tests as they used to.
The way to find problem areas now is to compare to other cars of the same year. Basically any new car that does not have a full Red circle is a poor bet. Honda does/did not have a full red circle for transmissions, and should have been suspect if the charts were read properly.
Understanding how data is gathered is very important and they (CR) explain it every year in the auto issue.
Apr 30, 2009 (3:37 pm)
I thought CR still did the comparative rating.When did they change to the absolute problem rating system?
Apr 30, 2009 (3:45 pm)
Also CR is now recommending new models with less than 3 yr history.Previously it never used to do that.
Also for a new car--it has all red dots in reliability stats--but at the end it gets a black dot--saying much worse than average.
So does it mean -the car is reliable enough,,but still below average compared to other cars?
#650 of 680 Re: - [deltheking]
Apr 30, 2009 (7:33 pm)
CR has recommended new models with less than a 3 year history for a long time. They did it when the overall reliability record of the manufacturer was strong, e.g. for Toyota and Honda. However, they recently got burned by this policy when their survey found problems in the current-gen Camry's transmission--bad enough to put the V6 "below average" for a time. So CR announced they would no longer give Toyota a "free pass" on recommending new models. They still seem to do it for Hondas, however.
I have never seen CR give a car all red dots, but a black dot for overall reliability. Can you give us a specific example or two of where they have done that?