If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Ignore Check Engine light at your peril!!
When people had reported the Check Engine light (MIL) on with an EVAP code
(P045x; P145x), I had been advising people to avoid the hassle and expense of getting it fixed, if they didn't have a smog check to pass. This is a potentially /expensive/ mistake. My attention has been called to TSB A03-001, which covers just about all models from '98 and up. It seems that corrosion in the EVAP system can result in an electrical short that can damage the ECM. I have just witnessed my first instance of exactly this having occurred. A lady with her '99 Accord is now facing a repair bill of $1,560, part of which is replacement of the ECM. She ignored the MIL and kept driving, luckily not having done this because of anything I told her, but just because she didn't feel like getting it looked at. Upshot: If the MIL comes on, and the codes have anything to do with EVAP (anything like P045x or P145x), DON'T IGNORE IT! GET IT FIXED, or have the EVAP electrically unplugged from its power source! -- Tegger |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Ignore Check Engine light at your peril!!
On 05/13/2011 04:42 AM, Tegger wrote:
> When people had reported the Check Engine light (MIL) on with an EVAP code > (P045x; P145x), I had been advising people to avoid the hassle and expense > of getting it fixed, if they didn't have a smog check to pass. > > This is a potentially /expensive/ mistake. > > My attention has been called to TSB A03-001, which covers just about all > models from '98 and up. It seems that corrosion in the EVAP system can > result in an electrical short that can damage the ECM. > > I have just witnessed my first instance of exactly this having occurred. A > lady with her '99 Accord is now facing a repair bill of $1,560, part of > which is replacement of the ECM. She ignored the MIL and kept driving, > luckily not having done this because of anything I told her, but just > because she didn't feel like getting it looked at. > > Upshot: If the MIL comes on, and the codes have anything to do with EVAP > (anything like P045x or P145x), DON'T IGNORE IT! GET IT FIXED, or have the > EVAP electrically unplugged from its power source! > i don't buy this. the ecm is protected against over-voltage and dead shorts on all inputs and outputs. a fried solenoid is either doing open circuit or dead short - neither are going to harm the ecm, it will simply throw a code. i think any shop saying the ecm needs to be replaced is taking her for a very expensive ride. and this code is usually fixed by simply replacing the gas cap. -- nomina rutrum rutrum |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Ignore Check Engine light at your peril!!
jim beam > wrote in
t: > On 05/13/2011 04:42 AM, Tegger wrote: >> When people had reported the Check Engine light (MIL) on with an EVAP >> code (P045x; P145x), I had been advising people to avoid the hassle >> and expense of getting it fixed, if they didn't have a smog check to >> pass. >> >> This is a potentially /expensive/ mistake. >> >> My attention has been called to TSB A03-001, which covers just about >> all models from '98 and up. It seems that corrosion in the EVAP >> system can result in an electrical short that can damage the ECM. >> >> I have just witnessed my first instance of exactly this having >> occurred. A lady with her '99 Accord is now facing a repair bill of >> $1,560, part of which is replacement of the ECM. She ignored the MIL >> and kept driving, luckily not having done this because of anything I >> told her, but just because she didn't feel like getting it looked at. >> >> Upshot: If the MIL comes on, and the codes have anything to do with >> EVAP (anything like P045x or P145x), DON'T IGNORE IT! GET IT FIXED, >> or have the EVAP electrically unplugged from its power source! >> > > i don't buy this. the ecm is protected against over-voltage and dead > shorts on all inputs and outputs. Not in this case! American Honda very specifically says so in TSB A03-011. Quote: "The EVAP bypass solenoid valve can fail due to corrosion. The solenoid valve may get water inside. If the water contains road salt, the solenoid windings could corrode, causing the valve to fail. In a few rare instances, the corrosion could be severe enough to cause an internal short in the solenoid valve, which could damage the ECM/PCM. If this happens, both the bypass solenoid valve and the ECM/PCM would need to be replaced. Vehicles driven in the Northeastern part of the U.S. are more likely to have this problem because of the salting of roads during the winter months. Vehicles driven where salt is not used on the roads are much less likely to have this problem." They say "a few rare cases". Well this was one of them. > a fried solenoid is either doing > open circuit or dead short - neither are going to harm the ecm, it > will simply throw a code. In this case, it can indeed kill the ECM. -- Tegger |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Ignore Check Engine light at your peril!!
Tegger > wrote in
: > > Not in this case! American Honda very specifically says so in TSB > A03-011. > Sorry, typo. The correct TSB number is A03-001. -- Tegger |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Ignore Check Engine light at your peril!!
On 05/13/2011 03:19 PM, Tegger wrote:
> > wrote in > : > > >> >> Not in this case! American Honda very specifically says so in TSB >> A03-011. >> > > > Sorry, typo. The correct TSB number is A03-001. > > i don't disbelieve the existence of the tsb, but several of my friends are embedded systems engineers. the probability of failure for an engine module like this, being as survival of dead shorts and open circuits - the two outcomes of solenoid failure - is built in from day one, is next to zero. far smaller than the likelihood of misdiagnosis and resorting to "we can't figure out why the code keeps setting so it's got to be the computer". just like the diagnosis in tsb 97-025, they blame the thermostat because whoever wrote it didn't bother to do two fundamental things: 1. understand the computer logic that goes into energizing the lockup solenoid - several conditions need to be met - one of them being that the gear selector switch is making contact. 2. deal with the logic of this being an issue only on one of their automatics, not all the vehicles with this exact same thermostat. the transmission selector switch is the only differentiator between the conventional auto, the cvt auto, and the stick. if it really was the thermostat, /all/ vehicles would be affected. fix the switch and the problem disappears immediately and permanently, even with what was previously a "defective" thermostat. getting back to this case, i have one of these accords. i have experience with this exact issue, and i'm telling you for fact - the code sets each time the gas cap loosens. why it loosens, i don't know, but it does. fix the cap, and your codes disappear - no broken or leaking solenoid, and no new ecm. -- nomina rutrum rutrum |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Ignore Check Engine light at your peril!!
On 05/13/2011 11:05 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<coqdnQ9R2MM8plDQnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@speakeasy .net>, > jim > wrote: > >>> When people had reported the Check Engine light (MIL) on with an EVAP code >>> (P045x; P145x), I had been advising people to avoid the hassle and expense >>> of getting it fixed, if they didn't have a smog check to pass. >>> >>> This is a potentially /expensive/ mistake. >>> >>> My attention has been called to TSB A03-001, which covers just about all >>> models from '98 and up. It seems that corrosion in the EVAP system can >>> result in an electrical short that can damage the ECM. >>> >> >> i don't buy this. the ecm is protected against over-voltage and dead >> shorts on all inputs and outputs. a fried solenoid is either doing open >> circuit or dead short - neither are going to harm the ecm, it will >> simply throw a code. > > Well, now, you're assuming Honda didn't screw something up in the design > or manufacture of the ECMs from '98 on up. > > Right now, that's a HUGE assumption. Let's see, it was the '98 model V6 > four speed transmissions that started the whole "Honda can't build a > transmission to save its life, makes Chrysler look like geniuses" thing > that went on for 7 years and across two different models of transmission. > > I'm with you that a properly designed and built ECM is protected, but a > ****ty piece that saved somebody a half a penny per unit? That would be > Honda, from '98 on up. if there is any issue, and i assign a very low probability to that, it's hardware non-conformance, not design. regarding the transmissions - i don't think there's much wrong with the mechanical design per se, but i think the bean counters royally misunderestimated the effects of their manufacturing execution. i believe the problem is that they switched from carburized to flame hardened gears - the latter being much cheaper to make. but these cheaper gears are also incapable of making the same hardness on the running surfaces, thus they spall, resultant swarf clogs the cooler channels, and then the hydraulics fail. spalling of these gears is a known issue, so i don't believe this was an engineering oversight, purely a financial decision. and one i suspect that ties in to another classic bean counter hot button - that of cars "lasting too long" - because their customer service on the problem has been so bad and ties in with a fundamental shift in honda attitude. back in the day, honda's management understood that customers were loyal because they were happy with the fact that their old honda had never let them down. these days, business management schools don't teach about the value of brand loyalty, just about how to calculate increased profit if turnover can be increased by reducing vehicle lifespan. thus the literalistic bean counter has a double incentive to mandate a known defective transmission - cheaper to build, doesn't last, make the vehicle uneconomic to repair by shafting the customer on the price of the new transmission and by keeping spare parts off the market, so they get to sell another vehicle. they think. gross miscalculation. just like when they stiffed the previously die-hard "enthusiast" market with the macpherson civics. even if they fix their mistakes today, it'll take a decade, if ever, before they get brand loyalty back. and if kia/hyundai ever release a hatch with wishbones and engine options, they never will. -- nomina rutrum rutrum |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Ignore Check Engine light at your peril!!
On 05/14/2011 08:02 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<xeSdnYp6D4xXgFPQnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@speakeasy .net>, > jim > wrote: > >> regarding the transmissions - i don't think there's much wrong with the >> mechanical design per se, but i think the bean counters royally >> misunderestimated the effects of their manufacturing execution. > > That's the polite way of saying that they ignored the engineering > recommendations when it came to the manufacturing part of the > process--and no doubt because it saved them a buck or two per unit. to be fair, engineers and bean counter work hand in hand - and always have. from an engineer's perspective, there's not much technical challenge in making something that works - the challenge is making it CHEAP but still able to survive the design objectives. if that design objective includes a "bathtub curve", i.e. life limitation, the tech challenge becomes significant and you have to throw substantial r&d at it. it's ironic that saving money costs more don't you think? > > Making a mistake is one thing; what counts is how you recover from that > mistake. > > Honda didn't recover from that mistake. Instead, they stuck their heads > in the sand for years and tried to ignore it. i don't think it was a mistake - i think it was a business decision. mistakes get recalled and properly fixed. this has been an exercise in "customer re-education", i.e. trying to get honda customers to align their expectations with detroit customers. afterall, detroit customers /expect/ their transmission to fail after a while - they've been brainwashed into thinking it's an ok routine maintenance item, and they open their wallets accordingly. if honda can realign their customer expectations to match detroit, honda think they can tap into the millions of dollars a year detroit makes selling "routine" transmission replacement. and honda are trying to take it a step further by emulating bmw, and keeping replacement parts off the market. you can't buy a honda transmission now - you can only exchange it, which keeps aftermarket rebuilders out of the game, stops rebuilders improving the build and re-selling transmissions that last properly. > > > > >> i believe the problem is that they switched from carburized to flame >> hardened gears - the latter being much cheaper to make. but these >> cheaper gears are also incapable of making the same hardness on the >> running surfaces, thus they spall, resultant swarf clogs the cooler >> channels, and then the hydraulics fail. spalling of these gears is a >> known issue, so i don't believe this was an engineering oversight, >> purely a financial decision. > > I'm sure the engineers specified a material with a certain hardness such > that it behaved a certain way over time, and the beancounters--having at > the time just recently been given free reign to "make us more > money"--felt comfortable ignoring those engineering specifications. I'm > sure the beancounters discovered the magic "will it last 3 years through > the warranty?" specification that saved them a buck or two per unit, and > went with that. > > And in the end, their choice has cost them dearly. > > Honda engineers are (or used to be, anyway) brilliant. Ignore them at > your own peril. > > >> back in the day, honda's management understood that customers were loyal >> because they were happy with the fact that their old honda had never let >> them down. these days, business management schools don't teach about >> the value of brand loyalty, just about how to calculate increased profit >> if turnover can be increased by reducing vehicle lifespan. thus the >> literalistic bean counter has a double incentive to mandate a known >> defective transmission - cheaper to build, doesn't last, make the >> vehicle uneconomic to repair by shafting the customer on the price of >> the new transmission and by keeping spare parts off the market, so they >> get to sell another vehicle. they think. >> >> gross miscalculation. just like when they stiffed the previously >> die-hard "enthusiast" market with the macpherson civics. even if they >> fix their mistakes today, it'll take a decade, if ever, before they get >> brand loyalty back. and if kia/hyundai ever release a hatch with >> wishbones and engine options, they never will. > > yep. > > What's the Genesis coupe like? it's a little too large for my taste, and coming in at $22k base with macpherson struts, it's not there for anyone wanting to have fun - it smells of drivers in their 50's who can't afford a bmw. the old civic/crx concept put honda well and truly on the map and worked for drivers of all ages. cheap to get into, cheap to run, highly reliable, and even though it wasn't particularly powerful in stock config, fun to drive. but because the basic platform was good, and because more powerful engine options were bolt-in's, the civic platform dominated the enthusiast market for nearly two decades and thus generated huge brand loyalty when their drivers graduated to newer/bigger/more profitable models. when honda dumped wishbones, you couldn't make the civic platform a decent handling car even if you wanted to, power then became the differentiator - and subaru [and mitsubishi] ate their lunch. honda seem finally to have paid a little attention with the crz, but it's pretty freakin' bland frankly. it's much too expensive, doesn't handle, and shows they're still not getting what was a real simple formula - buy a base civic for $13k. put $10k into engine/suspension/brake improvements, and for $23k, you have a car that handles, goes, and more importantly ensures you and your family buy another of the same brand. [recognition of this is where the toyota "scion" brand originated.] today, you spend $23k on a honda and you have nothing and there's nothing you can do with it even if you wanted to. who is going to be loyal to that? honda's only relief is that hyundai/kia don't seem to get it either. they day they do, it's game over. subaru, mitsubishi and toyota will all eat it too. -- nomina rutrum rutrum |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Ignore Check Engine light at your peril!!
On 05/14/2011 10:59 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<i6mdnXLWp7MfMlPQnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@speakeasy .net>, > jim > wrote: > >> the old civic/crx concept put honda well and truly on the map and worked >> for drivers of all ages. cheap to get into, cheap to run, highly >> reliable, and even though it wasn't particularly powerful in stock >> config, fun to drive. > > give me a Fit Si. > > It's more fun to drive a slow car fast... macpherson front and torsion beam rear won't /allow/ you to drive it fast dude. and the si has the same output as the base, only it's heavier with all the accessories... i'm hanging on to my 89 civic hatches for my fun wheels for the time being. http://www.indyscca.org/SoloFiles/So...040311_raw.htm couple in the top 10, with some serious dough placing well behind... -- nomina rutrum rutrum |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ignore Check Engine light at your peril!!
jim beam > wrote in
t: > On 05/14/2011 08:02 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote: >> In article<xeSdnYp6D4xXgFPQnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@speakeasy .net>, > > >> >> Making a mistake is one thing; what counts is how you recover from >> that mistake. >> >> Honda didn't recover from that mistake. Instead, they stuck their >> heads in the sand for years and tried to ignore it. <replying to Elmo> They assuredly did not. Even the NHTSA does not generally act until they receive at least 1,000 complaints. Anything below that number tends to fall into the "white noise" category, where it is difficult to determine patterns. Honda waited until they were certain they had a systemic issue, then went -- expensively -- all-out to find a solution. I have personally corresponded with, and advised, numerous owners who had got stuck with the defective transmissions. Just about all of them have had Honda pick up the entire tab for the replacement, and some have struck a deal where Honda paid for the parts and they paid the labor. In most cases, Honda did not argue at all: when the dealership made the "goodwill" out-of- warranty request, Honda agreed immediately. My observation is that Honda has been very generous with automatic- transmission warranty-repairs. This fiasco has been horrendously expensive for Honda, and has resulted in great damage to their reputation. It is not an experience they can afford to repeat. Almost all of the people I corresponded with had taken their cars to independent garages or a transmission shop, and were shocked when told how much it would cost to fix their transmissions. None were aware of the various recalls and TSBs, and none of the garages seem to have been aware of them either. I am happy to be able to say that I have helped many owners to save a huge amount of money simply by being able to inform them about the known problems, the recalls, the TSBs, and Honda's "goodwill" warranty; it's a good feeling. > > i don't think it was a mistake - i think it was a business decision. > mistakes get recalled and properly fixed. <repying to jim> Honda's automatic-transmission woes had nothing to do with the bean counters. They had to do with poor design, and poor quality-control. Honda has suffered mightily from their laxity, and has since corrected the problem entirely. The 2005+ automatics have stellar reliability records, and are probably the very best they've ever made. -- Tegger |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Ignore Check Engine light at your peril!!
In article >,
Tegger > wrote: > >> Honda didn't recover from that mistake. Instead, they stuck their > >> heads in the sand for years and tried to ignore it. > > > > <replying to Elmo> > > They assuredly did not. Even the NHTSA does not generally act until they > receive at least 1,000 complaints. Anything below that number tends to > fall into the "white noise" category, where it is difficult to determine > patterns. > > Honda waited until they were certain they had a systemic issue, then > went -- expensively -- all-out to find a solution. I have personally > corresponded with, and advised, numerous owners who had got stuck with > the defective transmissions. Just about all of them have had Honda pick > up the entire tab for the replacement, and some have struck a deal where > Honda paid for the parts and they paid the labor. In most cases, Honda > did not argue at all: when the dealership made the "goodwill" out-of- > warranty request, Honda agreed immediately. That was back prior to 2007. Things changed DRAMATICALLY at American Honda when the economy crashed. Time was, they went too far with goodwill in some circumstances--but hey, a long term view of things says that's OK. My mechanic talked of a guy whom they had never seen before at the dealership, ever, who came in and ended up getting a brand new transmission--DESPITE his having a trailer hitch on the back of his Odyssey, and his admission that he towed a trailer through the mountains on a regular basis. That was back in 2004. Back in the day, Honda recognized the ultimate value of the goodwill gesture. Fast forward to today, and even my salesman admits that Honda has--if anything--pulled back TOO far on the goodwill, all in the name of reigning in costs. This discussion came up last September as my 73K mile Odyssey was getting a new transmission and tranny ECU, a $5000 repair, which Honda covered at the 50% rate--and that only grudgingly and after long negotiation involving both me and executive management at the dealership. And I have at this point a 25 year relationship with this dealer, both in sales and in service, for me and my entire extended family. I was in regularly for every maintenance, even oil changes. I believed in the Honda goodwill system, and benefited from it in the past--because I was a good customer with the service history to prove it. I have absolutely nothing against the dealer--in fact, if they switched to selling Chryslers tomorrow, I might go in and talk to them. But I have no reason to give Honda another dollar of my hard earned money after this snub of theirs. 73K miles over 9 years, with my wife ferrying the kids around town. Hell, 10K of those miles were highway trips to see family. That leaves 7K miles/year over 9 years of puttering around. And this should destroy a transmission? Honda, thy name is irony. Go sit in the corner and discuss life with Chrysler. > My observation is that Honda has been very generous with automatic- > transmission warranty-repairs. This fiasco has been horrendously > expensive for Honda, and has resulted in great damage to their > reputation. It is not an experience they can afford to repeat. I repeat: after the economy crashed, Honda pulled way, WAY back on the goodwill repairs. They now have $2500 more of my money that absolutely NO Honda owner, who bought the car new and who had it maintained on schedule by the Honda dealer, should ever have had to pay. I was fully aware of the recalls and the TSBs. I currently use exactly one mechanic at this dealership; he's been there for 20+ years, has worked on my cars all that time, and is very sharp, and knows all the ins and outs of Honda and Honda cars. He and I chat while he works on my car. I was the very first customer to do the 5 speed tranny 2nd gear recall. No one had done the procedure before, so I got to get in there and help set up the digital camera (which had never been out of the box), set up the jig, help my guy understand the instructions, and help them get the photos off the camera to send to Honda. I even had the photos on my own laptop for many years. They showed no bluing, so I got the oil jet. No big deal. Yeah. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt. But American Honda has turned into something very, very bad over the last few years. On top of that, one of the other mechanics at this dealership--who also was allowed to touch my car when he worked there, making that a total of two people who ever touched my cars--got a job several years ago with Honda engineering. In fact, Honda called me because he listed me as a reference; he got the job, so I must have said something right. Anyway, he now says that he despairs for Honda engineering, because they're screwing everything up. He's the one who told me that Acura still gets it right in the details, but that the Honda brand has gone down the toilet. A colleague of mine seems to bear that out. Never a Honda owner, three years ago he bought a current-model Accord. V6, leather, loaded. Over those three years he wrestled with the car and the dealer and American Honda over an engine problem that no one could seem to diagnose, or make happen on demand, or whatever. After pushing hard for the entire time, he finally got the dealer to admit that there's a problem with that engine where one particular cylinder fouls the plug within very few miles. You can replace the plug, but it just fouls right away again. It took a couple of years for them to admit this. My colleague got peeved throughout this, because he knew he was being led around. It got to the point at the end where he forced them to buy the car back at a very attractive price. He immediately went out and bought an Infiniti G35--and now swears AGAINST Honda. This would never have happened in the 80s and 90s. The days of Honda building quality cars at a reasonable price and then taking care of their customers are long, long gone. You might as well buy a Hyundai and save $7000 up front and know from the start you're likely to get treated like that, instead of spending $7000 more for a Honda and being surprised when you get treated like that. > Honda has suffered mightily from their laxity, and has since corrected > the problem entirely. The 2005+ automatics have stellar reliability > records, and are probably the very best they've ever made. That may be, but for the people like me that they dumped because "it's too expensive to do goodwill anymore, even on our particularly ****ed up transmissions" are gone for good. Not only that, we're telling the story everywhere we go. I myself take a printout of my story whenever I walk into a car dealer to kick tires. I don't mention my dealer, because he's nowhere to blame in any of this, but American Honda gets what they deserve--and every car salesman in town will eventually have my story to tell. I don't get a dime off any of that, but I get great satisfaction knowing that in the end I will have cost American Honda much, MUCH more than the $2500 they stuck me with. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
engine cuts off and check engine light comes on, after oil change,'89 325i | Nancy | BMW | 20 | December 8th 08 04:59 AM |
Check Engine Warning light appeared after filling engine oil! | [email protected] | BMW | 6 | July 1st 06 12:22 AM |
Check light / Check engine light | nichdl1 | BMW | 2 | June 8th 06 10:39 PM |
1996 Chrysler Cirrus - Check engine light on and battery light on - HELP.... | [email protected] | Chrysler | 6 | December 25th 05 06:55 PM |
2000 Passat V6 Engine Misfire + Check Engine light | Sergio | VW water cooled | 3 | February 11th 05 06:08 PM |