Honda Car Forum


 

Go Back   Honda Car Forum - Accord Parts Civic Tuning Acura Racing > Honda Acura > Honda 3

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 09 Oct 2011, 07:50 am
Observer
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default CR-V safety recall

I just got in the mail a safety recall on my 2010 CR-V. It has to do
with the auto transmission control module software. I called one
dealer and they said to allow 1/2 day but realistically if anyone
knows, how long does the actual repair take? And do they just plug
into the electronics to make the change or have to change out the
module itself?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 09 Oct 2011, 10:54 am
starrin
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: CR-V safety recall

On Sun, 09 Oct 2011 06:50:56 -0500, "Observer" <fake@net.com> wrote:

>I just got in the mail a safety recall on my 2010 CR-V. It has to do
>with the auto transmission control module software. I called one
>dealer and they said to allow 1/2 day but realistically if anyone
>knows, how long does the actual repair take? And do they just plug
>into the electronics to make the change or have to change out the
>module itself?


My 2009 was completed this week. Car in @ 0945, promised beween 3-4
p.m. and that included oil change and state inspection. Their work
estimate for the 4 hours, for what I understand is simply a software
reprogramming . Was ready @ noon.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 09 Oct 2011, 05:26 pm
tww1491
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: CR-V safety recall



"Observer" wrote in message
news:ug2397tirgmg673fmleqfe7hikfuu466p6@4ax.com...

I just got in the mail a safety recall on my 2010 CR-V. It has to do
with the auto transmission control module software. I called one
dealer and they said to allow 1/2 day but realistically if anyone
knows, how long does the actual repair take? And do they just plug
into the electronics to make the change or have to change out the
module itself?

My wife's CRV was done together with an A1 service -- total time was a
little over an hour.

Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 09 Oct 2011, 06:20 pm
Tegger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: CR-V safety recall

"Observer" <fake@net.com> wrote in news:ug2397tirgmg673fmleqfe7hikfuu466p6@
4ax.com:

> I just got in the mail a safety recall on my 2010 CR-V. It has to do
> with the auto transmission control module software. I called one
> dealer and they said to allow 1/2 day but realistically if anyone
> knows, how long does the actual repair take? And do they just plug
> into the electronics to make the change or have to change out the
> module itself?



This one is just a software flash. Probably takes less than a half-hour,
all told. The "1/2 day" thing would have more to do with the service
department's workflow than anything else. It basically means they're not
quite sure exactly when they're going to get to your car, depending on what
happens with the ones that come before it.

--
Tegger
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 09 Oct 2011, 06:37 pm
Elmo P. Shagnasty
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: CR-V safety recall

In article <Xns9F79BA98F97F7tegger@208.90.168.18>,
Tegger <invalid@example.com> wrote:

> This one is just a software flash.


hehehe Yeah, just like I had to get a new control module, complete with
new software, when Honda replaced my 02 Odyssey transmission last year.

And just like Honda reflashed the ECUs on all those Civic hybrids that
were going through batteries.

The SOLE purpose of this and all other Honda "software flashes" is to
benefit Honda by making the car perform in such a way as to get it
through the warranty period--never mind how the car performs for the
customer afterward.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 09 Oct 2011, 07:21 pm
Tegger
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: CR-V safety recall

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote in news:elmop-
53A122.18370509102011@news.eternal-september.org:

> In article <Xns9F79BA98F97F7tegger@208.90.168.18>,
> Tegger <invalid@example.com> wrote:
>
>> This one is just a software flash.

>
> hehehe Yeah, just like I had to get a new control module, complete with
> new software, when Honda replaced my 02 Odyssey transmission last year.
>
> And just like Honda reflashed the ECUs on all those Civic hybrids that
> were going through batteries.
>
> The SOLE purpose of this and all other Honda "software flashes" is to
> benefit Honda by making the car perform in such a way as to get it
> through the warranty period--never mind how the car performs for the
> customer afterward.
>




Actually, most software flashes are designed to eliminate or ameliorate
undesirable or destructive behavior. ALL automakers perform such flashes
all the time, and not just to the transmission's control module. Spend a
bit of time on various automakers' Techinfo sites, and you'll see.

Everything these days is computer-controlled, and there is a very heavy
legislative emphasis on gas-mileage and emissions. The necessary level of
control required to achieve the results desired by your lawmakers means
that just about every aspect of engine/transmission behavior is subject to
some sort of computer adjustment.

Unfortunately -- especially after the legal lynching of innocent Toyota a
couple of years ago -- automakers have become extremely skittish and gun-
shy, issuing recalls and TSBs for just about anything, even if only a
handful of complaints have been received and no harm has resulted. This has
the effect of making the product /look/ defective even when it's actually
better than ever before. Plus the new regime muddies the waters: It's much
less clear now when a recall or TSB covers something actually harmful.

The '99-'04 Honda automatics had terrible problems, most of them due to bad
design (yours being one of them, unfortunately). This cost Honda very
dearly, something they cannot afford, with Hyundai breathing down their
necks. The '05-and-up automatics have a stellar reputation for reliability.



--
Tegger
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 09 Oct 2011, 09:14 pm
Elmo P. Shagnasty
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: CR-V safety recall

In article <Xns9F79C4E53E398tegger@208.90.168.18>,
Tegger <invalid@example.com> wrote:

> Actually, most software flashes are designed to eliminate or ameliorate
> undesirable or destructive behavior.


Like the hybrid flash?

Which was designed to do exactly what you describe.

BUT: the customer pays in lower gas mileage.

In days past, Honda would have apologized for designing/building a bad
traction battery, and would have replaced the battery with one that
actually works to make the car what the car is supposed to be. IOW,
Honda would have eliminated the undesirable behavior--the battery going
bad early--while simultaneously delivering on their promise of what the
car is supposed to be.

Instead, the new Honda simply flashes the software to basically limp the
battery along until Honda's obligations with respect to warranty claims
are over. That the flash takes the gas mileage down to what a Civic LX
gets every day without effort, is the customer's problem.

Honda has spent quite a bit of time figuring out how to solve THEIR
problems ($$$$$) in software. Whether it FIXES the problem, whether or
not the car the customer gets back is the car the customer bought or
THOUGHT he bought, doesn't matter to the new Honda.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 10 Oct 2011, 05:23 pm
jim beam
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: CR-V safety recall

On 10/09/2011 06:14 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<Xns9F79C4E53E398tegger@208.90.168.18>,
> Tegger<invalid@example.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually, most software flashes are designed to eliminate or ameliorate
>> undesirable or destructive behavior.

>
> Like the hybrid flash?
>
> Which was designed to do exactly what you describe.
>
> BUT: the customer pays in lower gas mileage.
>
> In days past, Honda would have apologized for designing/building a bad
> traction battery, and would have replaced the battery with one that
> actually works to make the car what the car is supposed to be. IOW,
> Honda would have eliminated the undesirable behavior--the battery going
> bad early--while simultaneously delivering on their promise of what the
> car is supposed to be.
>
> Instead, the new Honda simply flashes the software to basically limp the
> battery along until Honda's obligations with respect to warranty claims
> are over. That the flash takes the gas mileage down to what a Civic LX
> gets every day without effort, is the customer's problem.
>
> Honda has spent quite a bit of time figuring out how to solve THEIR
> problems ($$$$$) in software. Whether it FIXES the problem, whether or
> not the car the customer gets back is the car the customer bought or
> THOUGHT he bought, doesn't matter to the new Honda.


to be fair to honda, they don't actually make the battery cells, and a
lot of those are well below par of late. all kinds of manufacturers
[users] have been hit all across the board, not just honda.

now, many have worked with their supplier and will replace the defects
free of charge, makita for instance. so really, your criticism is
really directed to honda for /not/ doing the right thing with their
supplier, and not replacing sub-par battery packs.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 10 Oct 2011, 06:26 pm
GrumpyOne
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: CR-V safety recall

Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<Xns9F79C4E53E398tegger@208.90.168.18>,
> Tegger<invalid@example.com> wrote:
>
>> Actually, most software flashes are designed to eliminate or ameliorate
>> undesirable or destructive behavior.

>
> Like the hybrid flash?
>
> Which was designed to do exactly what you describe.
>
> BUT: the customer pays in lower gas mileage.
>



This has been well described in multiplle sources. Shameful to say the
least. If I were a Honda hybrid owner, I would be thoroughly pissed and
waging a war.

Once a car company has a tainted record, it takes years to recover IF it
recovers at all.

I'll just stick with my old turd boxes.. . Thank you!

JT



Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 10 Oct 2011, 07:06 pm
Elmo P. Shagnasty
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: CR-V safety recall

In article <j6vnp0$dnt$1@speranza.aioe.org>, jim beam <me@privacy.net>
wrote:

> > Instead, the new Honda simply flashes the software to basically limp the
> > battery along until Honda's obligations with respect to warranty claims
> > are over. That the flash takes the gas mileage down to what a Civic LX
> > gets every day without effort, is the customer's problem.
> >
> > Honda has spent quite a bit of time figuring out how to solve THEIR
> > problems ($$$$$) in software. Whether it FIXES the problem, whether or
> > not the car the customer gets back is the car the customer bought or
> > THOUGHT he bought, doesn't matter to the new Honda.

>
> to be fair to honda, they don't actually make the battery cells, and a
> lot of those are well below par of late. all kinds of manufacturers
> [users] have been hit all across the board, not just honda.


Not the customer's problem. Honda sold them something, then failed to
deliver--and we're supposed to be "fair to Honda"?

The battery problem is Honda's problem, but instead the new Honda makes
the customer pay the price. The REAL solution would be to give the
customer what the customer actually paid for--but no, that would cost
Honda money. No, it's better for HONDA that they spend as little as
possible to fix the problem--and that means developing a one-time
software fix instead of paying for parts to fix it.

The Honda I knew would have been falling over themselves to apologize
while they fitted a different battery that allowed the car to meet ALL
performance specs as advertised, not just a "lasts the length of the
federally mandated 8 year warranty (but doesn't do diddly to increase
your gas mileage)" spec.

Look: if Honda wants to play with the big boys, then they have to step
up to the plate and play. They can't have it both ways. They can't
commit to something, sell the hell out of it to hundreds of thousands of
customers, then step back and point at their suppliers and shrug their
shoulders.



> now, many have worked with their supplier and will replace the defects
> free of charge, makita for instance. so really, your criticism is
> really directed to honda for /not/ doing the right thing with their
> supplier, and not replacing sub-par battery packs.


That's EXACTLY my point.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CR-V safety recall Observer Honda 2 12 17 Oct 2011 10:18 pm
2008-09 Canadian Civic safety recall M.A. Stewart Honda 3 12 12 Dec 2008 05:48 pm
2008-09 Canadian Civic safety recall M.A. Stewart Honda 2 3 11 Dec 2008 06:37 pm
2008-09 Canadian Civic safety recall M.A. Stewart Honda 1 3 11 Dec 2008 06:37 pm
2007 Honda CR-V and Pilot Earn Insurance Institute for Highway Safety TOP SAFETY PICK skylight Honda News 0 07 Aug 2007 07:28 pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:27 am.


Attribution:
Honda News | Autoblog
Powered by Yahoo Answers




Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2 © 2011, Crawlability, Inc.
HondaCarForum.com is not affiliated with Honda Motor Company in any way. Honda Motor Company does not sponsor, support, or endorse HondaCarForum.com in any way. Copyright/trademark/sales mark infringements are not intended or implied.