How can we be sure about Honda ATs?

[rjundi]

Quote:

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?


The truth is the majority of entry level SUV's except Subaru use a "hokey" AWD. RAV4 is okay with a switchable software based locker of center differential under 25MPH.

Our neighbor to our family's place in the White Mountain's has a 2006 CRV with 100k+. It lives its life climbing gravel roads starting around elevation 500' and our family's place is at elevation 1100'. The majority of that rise is in
I laugh when people say you don't need AWD/4wd. That road turns to mud soup in the spring time and is not town's priority with 5 homes on it.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: rjundi


I laugh when people say you don't need AWD/4wd. That road turns to mud soup in the spring time and is not town's priority with 5 homes on it.



That's not the issue here. It is mainly excessive grades on slick pavement that is wet. In reality, the camry with snow tires seems to outclimb some AWD (escape/lexus RX type) vehicles on some of these as I understand it.

 

[JOD]

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".



Again, you seemed to miss my point: there are very few documented failures of CR-V transmissions, as in almost none. And it's not like it's not a popular car. If the transmission had ANY hint of unreliability, you'd think that *some* sources of reliability would have picked up on it, or that there would be a few dozen internet reports on it? So again, I just don't see a rational reason to question the transmission in the CR-V.

If it's anecdote you want though, I know 3 people who own them, 2 of whom are both over 150K, and one at 70K, no problems. Of the former, neither of them are rigorous on maintenance, so I doubt the fluid has ever been changed--on the latter, I changed the FF @ 60K/7 years. All of the cars are in Seattle, which is about as steep as it gets.

To me, I hate the exterior styling of it (though the '12 looks a little better), and I'm enough of a contrarian that I'd like to not like it, just based on its popularity. But it's a really solid car with a ton of usable space and demonstrated exceptional reliability. I'm no devout Honda lover. I haven't owned one for almost 20 years (an '88 CRX Si, one of the last cool cars they made). But I think there's absolutely no evidence to support the idea that the CR-V has an unreliable transmission, and a lot of evidence to support that it does--so I guess I just don't get it when folks imply or infer otherwise?

 

[rjundi]

This is a little off topic, however an interesting showing of the safety of systems of AWD/Stability Control/Traction control etc working(Subaru) vs not working(rest) in entry level SUV's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P21lwEYY-D0

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: rjundi
This is a little off topic, however an interesting showing of the safety of systems of AWD/Stability Control/Traction control etc working(Subaru) vs not working(rest) in entry level SUV's.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P21lwEYY-D0


To me, the stability control, more than AWD system, is to credit/blame for what we're seeing in this video.

They're also comparing SUVs with a station wagon which has a lower center of gravity and is probably somewhat lighter.

 

[cchase]

The AT in our 2003 Accord V6 has 70k miles on it with one drain and fill. It still operates as terribly as it did when it was new! (knock on wood)

 

[JHZR2]

If they just sold the CRV as MT, this would be done and over - MIL would buy and drive an mt no problem...

 

[IndyIan]

Sounds like a Subaru is the ticket then, maybe a Hyundai of some sort? I don't think any other manufacturers still offer a manual trans and AWD.
I think the manual subies still have the simple centre differential which shouldn't be bothered as much with mismatched tires as the "hokey" auto subies and others with a centre locking coupling or diff.
A part time 4wd system like a CRV isn't great as it will have the axles fighting each other once they are locked together when the MIL spins up the inside front tire going up a steep switchback.

 

[Hokiefyd]

The front and rear axle of the CR-V don't "fight" with each other. To the contrary, they work together, spinning at the same speed once the front has lost traction. Once their speed equilibrates (front vs. rear that is), the clutch will begin to back off...but if the front again loses traction, the speed difference will again become apparent, and the pressure differential will apply more pressure to the clutch. In effect, you get a system that works pretty well for what it's intended to do.

It's not a Rubicon-class rock-crawling system. It's not intended to be driven in RWD only mode. It cannot push a CR-V through 36 inches of snow. It's simply a means to provide motive force to the rear wheel to assist when the front wheels lose traction.

Two YouTube videos are linked below...it will get you through some snow if you need it to. If you're high-centered on a block of ice, it won't work. If you're trying to off-road in 10" of mud and fall into ruts, it won't work. In situations where most CR-Vs are used, it does work. The CR-V is one of the most global cars on the market (sold in something like 160 different countries). The mechanicals are proven and they work well.





Here...she can even have fun with some donuts.

 

[91344George]

My father has a 2011 Scooby Outback. He loves it. No issues with 20k on it so far. It's reliable, comfortable, good to drive, and great in bad weather conditions like snow and ice.

 

[GMFan]

My grandparents have an 04 CR-V that is meticulously dealer maintained and it has 120k miles on it. I popped the hood the other day to check the oil and even the engine bay looked clean. I had the opportunity to drive it and it shifted like it was new. I'm assuming that since it's been dealer maintained the transmission fluid has been changed at some point. They have told me the car has had no problems since they bought it new.

 

[silverrat]

If we can't be sure about Honda ATs, then how can we ever be sure about GM intake gaskets?

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: silverrat
If we can't be sure about Honda ATs, then how can we ever be sure about GM intake gaskets?


What a waste of a post.

 

[JHZR2]

Originally Posted By: IndyIan
Sounds like a Subaru is the ticket then, maybe a Hyundai of some sort? I don't think any other manufacturers still offer a manual trans and AWD.
I think the manual subies still have the simple centre differential which shouldn't be bothered as much with mismatched tires as the "hokey" auto subies and others with a centre locking coupling or diff.
A part time 4wd system like a CRV isn't great as it will have the axles fighting each other once they are locked together when the MIL spins up the inside front tire going up a steep switchback.



Except that there are no subaru or hyundai dealers there. Parts can be a problem. Its not life in the USA or Canada...

My comments about the AWD system were mainly because of tire quality. Obviously there will be no snow, ice, etc. It is all just slick pavement with poor tire availability and costs that are so high that often only two are replaced. Someone in another thread said that the CRV AWD system was effectively an FWD system only and poorer than other AWD systems. Not sure she really even needs AWD, but if it helps with going up slick hills (after rains Ive been in cars that could not go up steep, curved inclines), then great.

So the next question is what is fundamentally different in the "problem free" ATs in cars like the CRV and the problem prone ones in some vehicles. Weight and power is not a good answer, IMO, as this CRV can be subjected to a lot of high grade inclines and high power output for sustained duration. Did they really just throw an AT with some torque rating (and no mods to accept higher power) into light 4cyl and heavy 6cyl vehicles, with the identical AT? No mods?

BTW, another friend is loosing 2nd gear right now in his 99 accord. Apparently lube flow to that section of the AT is a problem in those.

 

[hypervish]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Originally Posted By: silverrat
If we can't be sure about Honda ATs, then how can we ever be sure about GM intake gaskets?


What a waste of a post.


Is that so? I can say the same about this thread.

The matter of fact here is that the Transmission in the CR-V is reliable, and is not prone to failure.

 

[Quattro Pete]

Originally Posted By: hypervish
The matter of fact here is that the Transmission in the CR-V is reliable, and is not prone to failure.

Would you be willing to pay for JHZR2's CRV transmission if it were to conk out prematurely?

IMO, he has a valid concern. His family will be using it in what I'd call severe service, so he's right to eliminate vehicles where even non-severe service resulted in a failure. Honda has had significant trans issues in recent history, so it's not that farfetched. With that said, you can find an occasional failed trans on just about any car these days. I guess it's a matter of statistical significance. Everything else will be the luck of the draw...

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: JHZR2
So the next question is what is fundamentally different in the "problem free" ATs in cars like the CRV and the problem prone ones in some vehicles. Weight and power is not a good answer, IMO, as this CRV can be subjected to a lot of high grade inclines and high power output for sustained duration. Did they really just throw an AT with some torque rating (and no mods to accept higher power) into light 4cyl and heavy 6cyl vehicles, with the identical AT? No mods?


I'm not sure why the CR-V's transmission has been more reliable than others. But there's a clear trend toward improving reliability in Honda automatics over the last decade, with a marked and significant improvement about 8 years ago. Taking Consumer Reports' data as some of the most accessible data out there, and transmission reliability from a full black dot (worse) to a full red dot (better)…

Accord 4-cyl: half black dot in 2002, full red dot from 2003 to current
Accord 6-cyl: full black dot in 2002-2003, half black in 2004, full red from 2005 to current
Civic: half red dot in 2002, full red dot from 2003 to current
CR-V: full red dot for all model years (2002 to current)
Element: full red dot for all model years (2003 to current)
Odyssey: full black dot in 2002-2003, half red from 2005-2008, full red 2009 to current
Pilot: half black in 2003, half red in 2004, full red 2005 to current
Ridgeline: full red dot for all model years (2006 to current)

I know Consumer Reports isn’t the be-all end-all of automotive data. No single source is. However, a trend can clearly be identified. Since 2003, Honda’s 4-cylinder transmissions have a record that can’t be exceeded in CR’s statistics model; it’s the best you can get (full red dot). Why the Accord 4-cyl and Civic score below full red in 2002, or what changed in them between 2002 and 2003, I don’t know. Still, the reliability data, at least reported to CR, is excellent.

On the 6-cylinder front, a trend is also clear: they were BAD before the 2004 era. The line appears fuzzy depending on the model of Honda, but clear: from 2004 and beyond, even Honda’s 6-cylinder transmissions have a record that can’t be exceeded in CR’s statistics model. The exception is the Accord, which seemed to take an additional model year to catch up.

The general thought about these transmissions is the 6-cylinder ones used to get eaten up due to heat. That, and Honda specified drain intervals that were too long for the conditions. I personally think they tried to stretch the fluid too far in their interval recommendations. An early band-aid fix was an oil jet kit that plumbed into the fill plug at the top of the transmission. I believe that in the 2004 timeframe, the transmission was changed to have this feature integral to the case, so an external kit is not required. The 4-cylinder transmissions don’t seem to suffer the same problem. They ARE different transmissions; my MDX’s transmission has a full plug on top and the CR-V’s transmission must be filled through the relatively large dipstick tube. So I know that at least the case is different.

Honda seems to have gotten a handle on their transmission design issues about 8-9 years ago, and their transmission record since, frankly, is quite good…at least competitive with its peers. Nobody likes to focus on the positive though…negative stories always bring more press.

JHZR2, your mother-in-law seems to be looking at new models, or just slightly used ones. Given the excellent reliability of all Honda transmissions in the last 6-8 years, and the excellent reliability of CR-V transmissions in particular over the lifespan of that particular model, I'd say that your chances of having transmission issues are extremely small.

 

[hypervish]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete
Originally Posted By: hypervish
The matter of fact here is that the Transmission in the CR-V is reliable, and is not prone to failure.

Would you be willing to pay for JHZR2's CRV transmission if it were to conk out prematurely?

IMO, he has a valid concern. His family will be using it in what I'd call severe service, so he's right to eliminate vehicles where even non-severe service resulted in a failure. Honda has had significant trans issues in recent history, so it's not that farfetched. With that said, you can find an occasional failed trans on just about any car these days. I guess it's a matter of statistical significance. Everything else will be the luck of the draw...


I said they weren't prone to failure. I didn't say they were immune to it. Like you mentioned yourself, any car can have an occasional transmission failure and it doesn't mean that all of the same cars will.

An engine failure, transmission failure, differential failure, transfer case failure, etc are all a risk and can happen to any car (if applicable of course). It's a gamble, but you have to be willing to take that risk. NO one can guarantee that your trans won't fail, but you have to have some amount of faith, or blind faith rather.

I understand his concern, he has a right to be. It's his family. Just trying to state the "facts".

Also, I wouldn't call New Jersey hills severe conditions, or even Pennsylvania hills If that is where the primary use of the vehicle will be. But, for arguments sake let's just leave it at that. The amount of potholes is ridiculous though...haha

 

[cchase]

Originally Posted By: hypervish
Also, I wouldn't call New Jersey hills severe conditions, or even Pennsylvania hills If that is where the primary use of the vehicle will be. But, for arguments sake let's just leave it at that. The amount of potholes is ridiculous though...haha

Whoops!

 

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

Would you be willing to pay for JHZR2's CRV transmission if it were to conk out prematurely?

IMO, he has a valid concern. His family will be using it in what I'd call severe service, so he's right to eliminate vehicles where even non-severe service resulted in a failure. Honda has had significant trans issues in recent history, so it's not that farfetched. With that said, you can find an occasional failed trans on just about any car these days. I guess it's a matter of statistical significance. Everything else will be the luck of the draw...


I think it's totally reasonable to ask the question, given Honda's track record with certain models. I think it's unreasonable to hold onto that position after doing some research though, in light of the fact that there are very few documented cases of transmission failures on CR-V's--probably fewer than any car for which I've looked, and all of the independent sources which track reliability rank it as highly reliable.

JHZR2 asked a question, and that's cool--but I have to wonder if he (or others) are really willing to look objectively at the information that's available.

Things break. I'm not going to buy him a new transmission if his MIL's breaks. But that fact remains that according to all available sources of information in the public domain, the transmission in this car is exceedingly reliable, and there's been zero evidence to suggest otherwise.

The fact the he suggests that he suggests that a manual would be a better choice demonstrates to me that he's not really willing to look objectively at the issue (sorry to talk about you in the 3rd person JHZ, I just didn't want to start another response). There's no way the average life-cycle cost is going to be less in an MT than an AT on this particular vehicle. AT rebuilds are exceedingly rare. MT rebuilds happen with about the same regularity (or more), plus you have the potential for a $1,500 clutch replacement--which, on hilly terrain, is a reality for most drivers at some point, regardless of experience. I say this as a big fan of MT's. As an aside, you can easily add additional gear in the Gen II MT's, which is pretty awesome.

I think luck plays a very, very small part in transmission failures; purchasing a reliable transmission, maintenance practices and driving habits are all a lot more important, IMO. Luck is at the bottom of the list. Sure, it plays a (tiny) part, but the other variables factor into the equation a lot more.