"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:

> Can you deal with a re-used outer case? I'm sure you can.

The case? Yes. A transmission that is as bad as the original? No.

My "remanufatured" trans failed at 25k miles. Can you deal with that?
From posts (v6p.net, for instance) it seems that the remans fail
about as frequently as the originals. Perhaps the remans are built
exactly like the new ones, I don't know, but either way, my point is
that the basic design seems flawed. Nearly every Honda V6 trans has
had a higher rate of failure than Honda wants to see for the past 7
years.

> Does the
> fact that the case is used mean it's not realisitcally a new
> transmission? No. It's just how the law is written.

True, and I couldn't give a fat rats behind about the cosmetics. The
newness of the internals doesn't help longevity when there is a
fundamental design problem, or worse yet, a quality issue. What I
want is a tranmission that will not fail for 125k+ miles. EVERY other
car I have owned made it that far, and I drove some of them MUCH
harder than I drive my Honda.

>
> So to pooh-pooh Honda's use of "remanufactured" transmissions is silly.
> Everything inside the case is new, from the original manufacturer. How
> much newer do you need before you're satisfied that it's a "new"
> transmission?
>

New is not what I'm after. I want a stable, solid, well-engineered
trans. A transmission that is as good as the remainder of the car.
The fact that they are using remans is not the problem. The failure
of the remans, regardless of cause is unacceptable (and reason enough
for me to "pooh-pooh" Honda).

> Don't pooh-pooh Honda; pooh-pooh your lawmakers who wrote the law.

My lawmakers aren't responsible for the transmissions I have received,
only for the language used to describe them.