How can we be sure about Honda ATs?

[JHZR2]

My MIL wants a CR-V. She lives in the VI, where the terrain, especially the hills are severe.

They have an accord that only got 38k out of its AT before failing.

Their same age Camry still shifts great after 80k+.

I see that Honda recalled 1.5M vehicles up to MY10 for At bearing issues.

How can we trust them?

Highlander is bigger than she wants, doesnt like the rav4. I think an escape hybrid would be ideal, but she likes the CRV.

I've spent a lot of time and miles in the current one. Some aspects are super cheap or flimsy, but for its size, IMO it is ultra volume-efficient and a nice little vehicle.

Problem is that AT, especially down there...

Thoughts?

 

[Turk]

Wow, if she gets one, change out the fluid at 10-15k and put in a top quality ATF like Amsoil.

That or pay $$$$ for an extended warranty...

 

[hypervish]

If your looking at a new CR-V, then there's not much to worry about. Honda has worked the kinks out of their transmissions for the most part.

As for how we can trust them... Well that's for you to decide.

 

[ethangsmith]

Would she be willing to check out a Ford Escape or Subaru Forester? I would think either of those vehicles would fit the small SUV need but be more reliable. As much as people say Hondas are amazing, I know equally as many people that have had unexpected mechanical issues before 75K miles with them. I too question their quality.

 

[nfs480]

My family has 5 Honda's (1989 Accord, 2002 Civic, 2005 CR-v, 2008 Ridgeline, and 2011 Fit) and we have never had a transmission problem on any of them. I just change the fluid every 30k and no problems.

 

[dishdude]

My Dad had a 2001 TL that ate transmissions. Big V6 + heavy vehicle (TL, Ody) = failure.

I think the CR-V would be fine since it is light and the tranny is behind a 4 cyl. There are so many nicer small SUVs out on the market though...the interior is just awful in the CR-V, and the exterior is no prize either.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
My MIL wants a CR-V. ...I see that Honda recalled 1.5M vehicles up to MY10 for At bearing issues.....
Problem is that AT, especially down there...

Thoughts?


thoughts? No offense intended but I think your concerns are unreasonable and based on your own (very strong) bias against Honda, and not based in reality.

The recalls on the CR-V transmission? I'd suggest reading up on the actual recall. It's a software re-program to stop people from doing something they shouldn't be doing in the first place.

I'd suggest doing some independent research via the various places that compile reliability data (Identifix, Truedelta, Consumer Reports), then check out the car-specific forums, and you'll discover that the CR-V has among the lowest incidence of transmission failures of any AT ever produced. Every generation CR-V transmission has been exceedingly reliable. Honda's made some really questionable transmissions, but they never put one in this car.

 

[JavierG]

Everybody knows someone who loves a Honda. Why? Because they're that good. Don't prevent your MIL from buying a great little SUV (or are they called Crossovers now?). She'll get years of satisfaction. Don't care for the Escape myself (was a Ford guy until I got tired of them breaking down on me) but the Subaru Forester and Outback are great as well.

 

[chubbs1]

I will tell you my Civic tranny sounds horrid @ 18k. I think I will do a servicing with a better fluid. I don't know what to tell you. I keet thinking they had to be getting their act together so I got a 2010; I am disappointed. Other than that the car is great. (I think, have a UOA coming this week).

 

[Hermann]

If my Gf's Escape clone is a typical example of the breed, I would steer clear. Her problems include in warranty, a PTO(big $ repair if out of warranty) box for the AWD, front and rear sway bars bushings, bad wiring in the right rear turn signal assembly. Took the dealer 3 attempts to finally figure that one out.

Out of warranty it has a chassis that flexes and groans in and out of driveway curbs. At 55K it started using oil. Using a qt about every 2500 miles. Vehicle has had to have brakes f & r and new rear rotors. The OEM tires were horrible. New tires at 45K. And MPG's are so-so. Averages about 18 MPG. It does have nicely weighted and accurate steering, now that it has decent tires. At 72K it is starting to show its age. The transmission is good. but if you creep up a hill to slow down, the 3-2 downshift is sometimes very rough and noisy.

From personal experience I would not recommend a Escape, Mariner or Tribute.

 

[4ever4d]

All i can say about Honda AT's is when i quit driving a tractor-trailer 2 years ago two of our local Honda dealers were on my regular daily route and i have picked up as many as 10 a day being returned to Oklahama for warranty rebuild after dropping off 5-6 earlier that morning. Now what percentage that was of the total Hondas these dealers sold and serviced is another matter, most likely a small fraction but enough for me not to own one.Just my opinion.

 

[rjundi]

CRV's have never really encountered any significant failures of automatics. I know quite a few folks who really like the CRV a lot. Not my cup of tea but they really like it.

The early 2000's were tough for Acura/Honda however this was mostly the heavier models with V6 and Accord. However they did goodwill them on many vehicles.

In the end she should buy what she wants.

 

[Brons2]

The CR-V does not have very good legroom for anyone over 6', in any of it's generations. One of my co-workers has one and I can't stand riding in it.

The Subaru Forester has very good legroom.

I'm 6'7" btw.

 

[OceanDoctor]

I have a bit of trouble with statements like "It'll be fine, it's a Honda" and "They're just that good". How does one quantify statements like that? In the few Hondas and Acuras that I have been aquianted with, I can't say any of them have been flawless, or even 'totally' reliable. Each one of a sample size of no less than 7 have been unexpectedly disabled in some way. Generally fine automobiles, but some absolute basics like ATs, ignition systems and suspension components have had less than stellar reliability.

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: 4ever4d
All i can say about Honda AT's is when i quit driving a tractor-trailer 2 years ago two of our local Honda dealers were on my regular daily route and i have picked up as many as 10 a day being returned to Oklahama for warranty rebuild after dropping off 5-6 earlier that morning.


how many CRV's were on that trailer??

...because in scouring the interwebs when considering buying one, and deciding on a fluid for a friend's when I serviced it, I probably saw fewer than 5 documented cases of transmission failure in the 10+ years they've been making that model.

I simply don't believe there are truckloads of CR-V's going in for rebuilds without anyone squawking about it.

 

[tdpark]

my 04 ody has the bad tranny, so bad that i only have 199,735 miles and it still kicking, wonder when the peice of junk is going to go before i have to get a new one or rebuild. Oh and i live in in a pretty hilly and mountainious area. What a peice of junk, the cel light when on at 165k miles for a bad coil and i had to clean the egr valve, and i had to replace two rollers in the sliding doors at 199,500. What a royal peice of junk.

My next car will be a honda.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
My MIL wants a CR-V. ...I see that Honda recalled 1.5M vehicles up to MY10 for At bearing issues.....
Problem is that AT, especially down there...

Thoughts?


thoughts? No offense intended but I think your concerns are unreasonable and based on your own (very strong) bias against Honda, and not based in reality.

The recalls on the CR-V transmission? I'd suggest reading up on the actual recall. It's a software re-program to stop people from doing something they shouldn't be doing in the first place.

I'd suggest doing some independent research via the various places that compile reliability data (Identifix, Truedelta, Consumer Reports), then check out the car-specific forums, and you'll discover that the CR-V has among the lowest incidence of transmission failures of any AT ever produced. Every generation CR-V transmission has been exceedingly reliable. Honda's made some really questionable transmissions, but they never put one in this car.


Bias? I have real life - accord at failure at 38k and an integra, which still had a beautiful engine at 188k but always had the worst clutch action and poor quality rubber parts.

If nobody should be doing it, then either it should have been prevented from the start or tough enough to just take it. I've not heard of other mfrs having to do stuff like this.

And keep in mind that the terrain in the vi is far steeper and more severe than most places in the USA. Top fluids are not readily available. PM is certainly doable, but if it needs to be done more often than the ford trucks or toyota Camry to last, then that is a poor design.

The forester is awfully plasticky inside like the CRV... Ditto maybe more for the escape. Highlander is too big. There is a Honda dealer there, no Subaru. I'm failing to see a better option than a CRV, IF the AT can be trusted, which right now is a "no".

And I'm 6'4, have driven thousands of miles in the front seat on an 11, and hundreds in the back, and can't complain. Plus cargo space is handy and sliding rear seat is nice. And I'm the biggest in the family...

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
My Dad had a 2001 TL that ate transmissions. Big V6 + heavy vehicle (TL, Ody) = failure.

I think the CR-V would be fine since it is light and the tranny is behind a 4 cyl. There are so many nicer small SUVs out on the market though...the interior is just awful in the CR-V, and the exterior is no prize either.


While the engine may not be as sporty as a v6, it didn't stop the accord at from going bad at 38k... Meanwhile the v6 Camry shifts like a champ.

It may not be as heavy or powerful, but the hills equalize that a bit - they are bad and they twist and curve, so it stresses things more.

Also what about the AWD system? I hear in the CRV it is pretty hokey, and it really is fed most all of the time. The issue down there is that mismatched and lousy tires are the norm. Even if keeping pairs on the axles, do we need to worry?

 

[KrisZ]

Since the car is for your MIL, I would simply mention recent troubles with Honda transmissions and that you don't think there is enough evidence that Honda fixed all these issues. I would leave it at that.


On an unrelated note, why some people appear to be offended by questioning Honda's reliability? Just count to 10 and relax, Honda doesn’t give a rat’s behind of your chivalry.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
I'm failing to see a better option than a CRV, IF the AT can be trusted, which right now is a "no".


You may be one who never will trust it, and that's okay as long as you acknowledge that the data and general knowledge base of the CR-V just doesn't show a failing record for the transmission. To the contrary, transmission reliability in the CR-V has been excellent, and since the very beginning really. "Recent troubles with Honda transmissions" aren't relevant at all here. This is the problem on an internet forum: stuff gets highly over-generalized and the issue becomes larger than it ever was. SOME of Honda's transmissions in the past have short service lives. Thinking of buying a 2002 Odyssey for example? Better budget for a transmission because it'll probably need one. The CR-V's transmission, however, has never been an issue.

The CR-V's AWD system is also reliable. There's not much to go wrong with it to begin with. It's very simple and works on the basis of speed differences between the front and rear tires. There's nothing electronic about the system; it's a mechanical system that operates on fluid pressure. Most of the time, the rear wheels don't receive any motive power from the propeller shaft (it does spin all the time). If there is a difference in speed between the propeller shaft (turned by the transmission) and the rear differential (turned by the rear tires), the clutches are engaged and the rear wheels receive torque from the propeller shaft. It's not a 4:1 transfer case like what you'd find in a Jeep Rubicon, nor can it perform magic and overcome basic laws of physics. It's a very simple traction aid that provides motive force to the rear wheels if the fronts begin to spin faster. It's no more and it's no less. CR-V owners generally report that it works very well for how it's intended to be used.

The CR-V is a perennial best- or at least top-selling small SUV, and the reason is because it's a great package. Lots of room inside and reasonably efficient at what it does. Because it's a Honda, there are often unrealistic expectations of out-of-body experiences and such, but it really is just a machine. It's a pretty well-designed one that gets the job done in most situations, but it really is just a collection of nuts and bolts.

What model year are you considering, and if you don't mind me asking, what is the current budget for the vehicle?