Honda Car Forum

My 1998 CRV with only 80K miles just went kaput. Towed to the dealer and they
said a piston went bad and it'll cost $1200.

Questions:
1) Is this a fair price?
2) And is the problem related to a recent timing belt service?
3) Is this problem common with CRVs? If it is a known problem maybe they'll
give me a discount.


I'm really dissapointed with my Honda. I thought I was getting an upgrade over
my old FORD, but it has had more problems.

Better sell it and buy a Ford!

That does not mean all Honda are problematic. Many buyers like
you are learning that every manufacture build some that are not
up to their standards. Every manufactures today is building good
vehicles, but they all have problems on occasion. That is why
they all offer a warranty. Japanese superiority is more myth
than reality from what we have seen in our fleet service business
over the years. Apparently other are seeing that as well, look at
all the Japanese cars on GM and Ford dealers used car lots or the
Toyotas on Honda lots and vis versa.



mike hunt




Hjsdafjsafdjsad wrote:
>
> My 1998 CRV with only 80K miles just went kaput. Towed to the dealer and they
> said a piston went bad and it'll cost $1200.
>
> Questions:
> 1) Is this a fair price?
> 2) And is the problem related to a recent timing belt service?
> 3) Is this problem common with CRVs? If it is a known problem maybe they'll
> give me a discount.
>
> I'm really dissapointed with my Honda. I thought I was getting an upgrade over
> my old FORD, but it has had more problems.

<StonyMason@mailcity.com> wrote in message
news:3FB3A786.413F9AE3@mailcity.com...
> That does not mean all Honda are problematic. Many buyers like
> you are learning that every manufacture build some that are not
> up to their standards.

Yawn...the Ford mark returns...

Honda builds the least amount of cars that aren't "up to their standards" of
any manufacture.

>Every manufactures today is building good
> vehicles,

Not true. More fabrication, and talking out his ass.

>but they all have problems on occasion.

But Honda has the fewest.

> That is why
> they all offer a warranty. Japanese superiority is more myth
> than reality from what we have seen in our fleet service business
> over the years.

Then you are even more stupid than you have proven yourself here.

There are facts...cold hard facts, about Honda superior reliability and
dependability compared to other makes.

You are a liar...however...that is already known.

And yes...we know the only "fleet experience" you have, is your Matchbox
cars Mommy bought for you.

>Apparently other are seeing that as well, look at
> all the Japanese cars on GM and Ford dealers used car lots or the
> Toyotas on Honda lots and vis versa.

Yea...so? What does this have to do with your hidden agenda against Honda?

Get out loser.

BTW...stillwating for your answers.

--
'03 S2000
'94 Accord

It's just about going fast...that's all...

http://home.insight.rr.com/cgreen/

Thus spake StonyMason@mailcity.com on 11/13/2003 9:56 AM:

> That does not mean all Honda are problematic. Many buyers like
> you are learning that every manufacture build some that are not
> up to their standards. Every manufactures today is building good
> vehicles, but they all have problems on occasion. That is why
> they all offer a warranty. Japanese superiority is more myth
> than reality from what we have seen in our fleet service business
> over the years. Apparently other are seeing that as well, look at
> all the Japanese cars on GM and Ford dealers used car lots or the
> Toyotas on Honda lots and vis versa.

Apparently Mr. Cunt, for all his "experience" doesn't read. A simple
check with J. D. Power & Associates 2003 Initial Quality Survey (results
can be viewed at
http://www.jdpa.com/awards/industry/...sp?StudyID=736 with a
handy GIF summary at
http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pr/ima...03028bfull.gif) shows that
Japanese nameplates hold their own. Lexus (a Toyota in a tuxedo) has 76
defects per 100 new cars. Infiniti has 110, Acura, 111. Toyota, 121
and Honda, 128.

Let's check out GM's holdings now. Someone correct me if I miss one or
attribute one wrongly.

Cadillac has 103 (and they're in 2nd, making Lexus the run-away 1st
place winner by almost 25 defects). Buick has 112. Chevrolet has 130.
Olds, 134, Pontiac, 142, GMC, 144. Subaru, which GM has interests in
(20%, IIRC), 146. Saturn, GM's much touted import-killer has a whopping
158. Suzuki, a GM nameplate, has 144. Saab, which GM aquired a few
years back, 160. And finally, in a spectacular last place finish,
(still eons behind the Ford-owned Land Rover with 190) is the GM owned
HUMMER with 225. Yep...twice that of Honda, almost twice the industry
average (133).

How about the Fine Ford Family of vehicles? Well, Mercury, Jaguar and
Volvo managed to come out above the industry average with 113, 122 and
128 respectively. Then things go downhill. Ford itself gets 136, tying
with Chrysler. Lincoln loses to Dodge but ties Nissan (who gave up on
quality in about 1996), with 139. Mazda gets 148, and as mentioned
before, Land Rover comes in second-to-last place with 190. Aston-Martin
isn't rated.

Therefore, I postulate the following:

1) All manufacturers are NOT creating "good" cars. Saturn, along with
the Korean imports come to mind.
2) The two pillars of Japanese reliabilty (Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus)
are still pretty much leading the pack as far as reliability.
3) The reason for the increase in Toyota and Honda cars of domestic
used-car lots probably has nothing to do with reliability, but
everything to do with the MASSIVE incentives that the domestic
manufacturers are offering to boost their sales.

I would also like to point out the following information.

As proven above (and once again), Mike Hunt is an Idiot (tm). I'm sure
Netsock will agree.

-moitz-

On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 03:43:32 GMT, Moitz <j.meuzelaar@ten.tsacmoc>
wrote:

>3) The reason for the increase in Toyota and Honda cars of domestic
>used-car lots probably has nothing to do with reliability, but
>everything to do with the MASSIVE incentives that the domestic
>manufacturers are offering to boost their sales.

That's just it. Even with those massive incentives they are still
losing market share to the Japanese.

My Olds Delta 88 threw a rod on queue at 90,000 miles. Lasted just less
than 7 years. I just bought a 2004 Accord. My 1988 Accord is still in my
driveway, it is 16 years old and has 200,000 miles and still runs well
although the clutch and front-end is ailing. The engine runs smooth,
does not use oil, and could more likely go another 100,000 miles plus.
American cars have been designed to die when they reach a certain age to
get the customers back in the showroom. The Japanese, have forced them
to build better cars. But they have by not invested in the effort to
build trouble free cars to the extent of the Japanese. I lived and
worked in Japan for 2 years some time ago. One thing I noticed about
japanese buyers: they buy with less emotion and look at quality first
above looks or performance. This is perhaps why you do not see much
excitement designed into the driving experience of japanese cars, but
they return a value for your money that can't be beat.

StonyMason@mailcity.com wrote:
> That does not mean all Honda are problematic. Many buyers like
> you are learning that every manufacture build some that are not
> up to their standards. Every manufactures today is building good
> vehicles, but they all have problems on occasion. That is why
> they all offer a warranty. Japanese superiority is more myth
> than reality from what we have seen in our fleet service business
> over the years. Apparently other are seeing that as well, look at
> all the Japanese cars on GM and Ford dealers used car lots or the
> Toyotas on Honda lots and vis versa.
>
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
>
>
> Hjsdafjsafdjsad wrote:
>
>>My 1998 CRV with only 80K miles just went kaput. Towed to the dealer and they
>>said a piston went bad and it'll cost $1200.
>>
>>Questions:
>>1) Is this a fair price?
>>2) And is the problem related to a recent timing belt service?
>>3) Is this problem common with CRVs? If it is a known problem maybe they'll
>>give me a discount.
>>
>>I'm really dissapointed with my Honda. I thought I was getting an upgrade over
>>my old FORD, but it has had more problems.

They may rate high on initial quality, but long term, they do not even
compare. Check consumers report.

Moitz wrote:

> Thus spake StonyMason@mailcity.com on 11/13/2003 9:56 AM:
>
>> That does not mean all Honda are problematic. Many buyers like
>> you are learning that every manufacture build some that are not
>> up to their standards. Every manufactures today is building good
>> vehicles, but they all have problems on occasion. That is why
>> they all offer a warranty. Japanese superiority is more myth
>> than reality from what we have seen in our fleet service business
>> over the years. Apparently other are seeing that as well, look at
>> all the Japanese cars on GM and Ford dealers used car lots or the
>> Toyotas on Honda lots and vis versa.
>
>
> Apparently Mr. Cunt, for all his "experience" doesn't read. A simple
> check with J. D. Power & Associates 2003 Initial Quality Survey (results
> can be viewed at
> http://www.jdpa.com/awards/industry/...sp?StudyID=736 with a
> handy GIF summary at
> http://www.jdpa.com/presspass/pr/ima...03028bfull.gif) shows that
> Japanese nameplates hold their own. Lexus (a Toyota in a tuxedo) has 76
> defects per 100 new cars. Infiniti has 110, Acura, 111. Toyota, 121
> and Honda, 128.
>
> Let's check out GM's holdings now. Someone correct me if I miss one or
> attribute one wrongly.
>
> Cadillac has 103 (and they're in 2nd, making Lexus the run-away 1st
> place winner by almost 25 defects). Buick has 112. Chevrolet has 130.
> Olds, 134, Pontiac, 142, GMC, 144. Subaru, which GM has interests in
> (20%, IIRC), 146. Saturn, GM's much touted import-killer has a whopping
> 158. Suzuki, a GM nameplate, has 144. Saab, which GM aquired a few
> years back, 160. And finally, in a spectacular last place finish,
> (still eons behind the Ford-owned Land Rover with 190) is the GM owned
> HUMMER with 225. Yep...twice that of Honda, almost twice the industry
> average (133).
>
> How about the Fine Ford Family of vehicles? Well, Mercury, Jaguar and
> Volvo managed to come out above the industry average with 113, 122 and
> 128 respectively. Then things go downhill. Ford itself gets 136, tying
> with Chrysler. Lincoln loses to Dodge but ties Nissan (who gave up on
> quality in about 1996), with 139. Mazda gets 148, and as mentioned
> before, Land Rover comes in second-to-last place with 190. Aston-Martin
> isn't rated.
>
> Therefore, I postulate the following:
>
> 1) All manufacturers are NOT creating "good" cars. Saturn, along with
> the Korean imports come to mind.
> 2) The two pillars of Japanese reliabilty (Honda/Acura and Toyota/Lexus)
> are still pretty much leading the pack as far as reliability.
> 3) The reason for the increase in Toyota and Honda cars of domestic
> used-car lots probably has nothing to do with reliability, but
> everything to do with the MASSIVE incentives that the domestic
> manufacturers are offering to boost their sales.
>
> I would also like to point out the following information.
>
> As proven above (and once again), Mike Hunt is an Idiot (tm). I'm sure
> Netsock will agree.
>
> -moitz-
>

Thus spake Gordon McGrew on 11/13/2003 11:35 PM:
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 03:43:32 GMT, Moitz <j.meuzelaar@ten.tsacmoc>
> wrote:
>
>
>>3) The reason for the increase in Toyota and Honda cars of domestic
>>used-car lots probably has nothing to do with reliability, but
>>everything to do with the MASSIVE incentives that the domestic
>>manufacturers are offering to boost their sales.
>
>
> That's just it. Even with those massive incentives they are still
> losing market share to the Japanese.
>

Anyone else notice that Ford's credit status got reduced to one step
above junk Wednesday? Huh. Apparently even with thos rebates and
finance deals they're still not selling enough to pay the bills.

-moitz-

That is precisely the point. Every manufacture is building
good vehicles today, why pay thousands more to buy a particular
brand simply because you think it may last longer? They all have
problems on occasion that is why they all have a warranty. Price
is what sells cars. The most often asked question is 'How much
is my monthly payment?' The average new car buyer in the US
today replaces their vehicle in three or four years anyway. Any
brand on the market today will last longer than that. I think
buyers are finding that the car they paid four or five thousand
more to buy wasn't any better than their other vehicle. Four or
five thousand dollar will buy all of your gas for three or four
years.



mike hunt



Gorton McGrew wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 03:43:32 GMT, Moitz <j.meuzelaar@ten.tsacmoc>
> wrote:
>
> >3) The reason for the increase in Toyota and Honda cars of domestic
> >used-car lots probably has nothing to do with reliability, but
> >everything to do with the MASSIVE incentives that the domestic
> >manufacturers are offering to boost their sales.
>
> That's just it. Even with those massive incentives they are still
> losing market share to the Japanese.