And yet even more on the legendary Honda failing transmissions--Honda won't let you buy a new one on

honda's of that generation are great - later 80's/early 90's was their
finest hour. great mechanicals, great ergonomics, they really were at
the top of their game.

in terms of achieving goals, the technical challenge since the period
above is that of life limitation, not getting it to work well or
"improvement". with bean counters setting the engineering agendas, it's
all about getting stuff to last for a design period, but then having it
fail. light bulb manufacturers figured this out decades ago - that's
why things like domestic tungsten filament bulbs only last 800 or 1000
hours - it's what they're designed for. apply the same principles to
cars, and you have a more predictable revenue stream. or so they think.
truth is though, designing in failure costs a lot more and takes a
heck of a lot more in r&d and lead time for testing than just making it
to work reliably. when the bean counters do their math, they'll model
increased sales decreased lifespans create, but it seems they don't
factor in reputation damage or losing customer loyalty.

mechanically, that's pretty much correct, some engine improvements
aside. but i'm not sure that emissions regs are as you say. fact is,
manufacturers like honda have always been way ahead of any regs on
economy and emissions, and will probably continue to be so.

fromt he political perspective though, when we have regulators who
mandate emissions and economy targets for manufacturers, but then waive
those requirements if a honking great gas guzzler has a few different
o-rings in it so that it qualifies as "flex fuel" and is thus exempt
from c.a.f.e., you /know/ that the regs are a secondary concern.

 

honda's of that generation are great - later 80's/early 90's was their
finest hour. great mechanicals, great ergonomics, they really were at
the top of their game.

in terms of achieving goals, the technical challenge since the period
above is that of life limitation, not getting it to work well or
"improvement". with bean counters setting the engineering agendas, it's
all about getting stuff to last for a design period, but then having it
fail. light bulb manufacturers figured this out decades ago - that's
why things like domestic tungsten filament bulbs only last 800 or 1000
hours - it's what they're designed for. apply the same principles to
cars, and you have a more predictable revenue stream. or so they think.
truth is though, designing in failure costs a lot more and takes a
heck of a lot more in r&d and lead time for testing than just making it
to work reliably. when the bean counters do their math, they'll model
increased sales decreased lifespans create, but it seems they don't
factor in reputation damage or losing customer loyalty.

mechanically, that's pretty much correct, some engine improvements
aside. but i'm not sure that emissions regs are as you say. fact is,
manufacturers like honda have always been way ahead of any regs on
economy and emissions, and will probably continue to be so.

fromt he political perspective though, when we have regulators who
mandate emissions and economy targets for manufacturers, but then waive
those requirements if a honking great gas guzzler has a few different
o-rings in it so that it qualifies as "flex fuel" and is thus exempt
from c.a.f.e., you /know/ that the regs are a secondary concern.

 

Not the same one, but yes--the auto transmission in a modern car is by
far the weakest link in the whole chain.

And let's face it: Honda is just like GM now, where they plan the car
to become obsolete so that you come back and buy a new one.

From what I've seen, it's cheap insurance to change the trans fluid at
least twice as often as what Honda says. No guarantees, though. But if
you're religious about having your maintenance and repairs done at the
dealer, that kind of diligence shows Honda that you're serious--and when
the transmission fails at 75K miles (not saying it will), you have a leg
to stand on when demanding accommodation for the repair.

 

Not the same one, but yes--the auto transmission in a modern car is by
far the weakest link in the whole chain.

And let's face it: Honda is just like GM now, where they plan the car
to become obsolete so that you come back and buy a new one.

From what I've seen, it's cheap insurance to change the trans fluid at
least twice as often as what Honda says. No guarantees, though. But if
you're religious about having your maintenance and repairs done at the
dealer, that kind of diligence shows Honda that you're serious--and when
the transmission fails at 75K miles (not saying it will), you have a leg
to stand on when demanding accommodation for the repair.

 

So, then, if I think I'm likely to keep the Civic beyond the expiration of
the factory warranty, would the "legendary transmission problem" make it
advisable to purchase an extended warranty?

 

So, then, if I think I'm likely to keep the Civic beyond the expiration of
the factory warranty, would the "legendary transmission problem" make it
advisable to purchase an extended warranty?

 

Dec 02 I bought a new 03 Accord EX-L V6 from dealer A.

Jul 07 I bought new 07 Accord EX-L V6, this time from dealer B.

May 08 the 03 Accord transmission went out at 85,300 miles. I brought
it to dealer B. Next day they called and said the trans was shot, did I
want them to fix it and did I want them to call Honda and see if they
could do anything for me, since I was an established Honda customer. I
said sure. Next call was that they could put in a factory rebuilt,
36,000 3 year warranty, and split the cost 50-50 (about 1550. to me). I
said go. Two days later he called and said it was done. Total out the
door cost to me was $1492.14 (less than the estimate - and they gave me
a free oil change since it was due - note dealer B had never seen or
serviced this car before)

I don't know if an 02 Odyssey is a much more expensive trans than an 03
Accord, or if the time/difficulty to change it is so much greater to
account for the difference between my 50% (1492.14 including tax) and
your 50% ($2218 plus tax)

I bought the vehicle knowing it had a 36,000 mile, 36 month warranty. I
was quite pleased with the adjustment I got, realizing I was 49,300
miles and 41 months over the warranty. (More than double both time and
miles).

In your case you are 37,000 miles and 60 months past the warranty. For
how many miles and how many months should/can any manufacturer stand
ready to do multi-thousand dollar repairs on every unit it has ever built?

 

Dec 02 I bought a new 03 Accord EX-L V6 from dealer A.

Jul 07 I bought new 07 Accord EX-L V6, this time from dealer B.

May 08 the 03 Accord transmission went out at 85,300 miles. I brought
it to dealer B. Next day they called and said the trans was shot, did I
want them to fix it and did I want them to call Honda and see if they
could do anything for me, since I was an established Honda customer. I
said sure. Next call was that they could put in a factory rebuilt,
36,000 3 year warranty, and split the cost 50-50 (about 1550. to me). I
said go. Two days later he called and said it was done. Total out the
door cost to me was $1492.14 (less than the estimate - and they gave me
a free oil change since it was due - note dealer B had never seen or
serviced this car before)

I don't know if an 02 Odyssey is a much more expensive trans than an 03
Accord, or if the time/difficulty to change it is so much greater to
account for the difference between my 50% (1492.14 including tax) and
your 50% ($2218 plus tax)

I bought the vehicle knowing it had a 36,000 mile, 36 month warranty. I
was quite pleased with the adjustment I got, realizing I was 49,300
miles and 41 months over the warranty. (More than double both time and
miles).

In your case you are 37,000 miles and 60 months past the warranty. For
how many miles and how many months should/can any manufacturer stand
ready to do multi-thousand dollar repairs on every unit it has ever built?

 

In my case, it wouldn't have helped. However, I am a big proponent of
HondaCare.

That being said, I haven't seen a HondaCare contract lately, and I can't
speak to today's terms and conditions. Read it carefully to see what it
covers and doesn't cover.

 

In my case, it wouldn't have helped. However, I am a big proponent of
HondaCare.

That being said, I haven't seen a HondaCare contract lately, and I can't
speak to today's terms and conditions. Read it carefully to see what it
covers and doesn't cover.

 

No doubt there's some extra labor involved, but I think most of the
additional cost was the transmission control computer that Honda also
replaces as part of these particular repairs.

I have to say, overall my total bill (including a couple other things I
had them do while it was in) came in a bit under what I expected.

That's not the point. This isn't just "one of those things;" this
transmission was known by Honda to be pure junk from the get-go. They
let the accountants design this, cutting costs so far as to guarantee
that every unit will self-destruct at around 80K miles or so.

When Honda discovered this, it was on the heels of the pure junk 4 speed
automatic they hooked to their V6 engines, the unit they put onto
Accords from 98 through 02 and on Odysseys from 99 through 01 (and
various Acuras, naturally). That unit was the center of the largest
recall and service campaign Honda had ever been pushed into. When they
discovered that its replacement, my 5 speed auto that they introduced
with the 02 Odyssey, was also junk, they were quite sensitive to the
cost situation. They quickly fixed the design of the 5 speed auto, such
that mid-04 and up models got good units. But instead of taking care of
the customers that got the initial design of that unit, they stuck their
heads in the sand.

Keep in mind, this transmission was in a family van, which is
traditionally filled with children and mothers. And when the
transmission goes out, the car just STOPS accelerating forward. This is
NOT good when driving in the city, going through intersections and
trying to squeeze into various traffic.

I would go so far as to consider this dangerous to drive from the first
moment it starts failing.

Now, allow me to frame the above with a bit of context. In 1984 or so,
I bought a 79 Civic. Loved it. But at one point the front end started
swaying around. I took it to my dealer--this very dealer that I've
dealt with ever since, and which handled my Odyssey this go round.

The dealer called me to say they wouldn't be giving my car back that
day. Why? Because the FRONT BEAM was rusted out, and the car was--get
this--dangerous to drive. The good news, though, was that Honda was
picking up the repair COMPLETELY and I'd have the car back the next day,
after they got a new front beam installed. It was a safety issue, they
said, and Honda was simply taking care of it to the point of shipping a
new front beam across country for next day installation.

Great. (Just like they should have with my transmission--read on.)

Fast forward a few months, and my gas tank is leaking. ????? Back to
this dealer. Hey, guess what? Honda admitted to a bad design with the
gas tank straps trapping moisture and causing the tank to rust. They'll
buy me a new tank if I'll pay the labor to install it ($50 at the time).
Absolutely!!

I didn't even have to ASK for any of these things to be taken care of.
Honda and this dealer did this for me AUTOMATICALLY. No stonewalling,
no "we've never heard of anything like this, don't know what to tell
you," nothing like that at all.

Man, I am loving this Honda thing. They really know how to engender
loyalty. This is the mid-80s, and THEY ADMIT TO THEIR MISTAKES. Not
only that, THEY CORRECT THEIR MISTAKES and they don't force their
customers to pay for their mistakes. Wow.

Late 86 or early 87, my girlfriend (now wife) needs a car. I love my
shitbox Civic (we're college students), and that's all she really needs,
so we find one. A 79, copper, 1200 4 speed, just what the doctor
ordered. Fast forward a few months, and guess what? The gas tank is
leaking.

Oh HO, say I. No problem; take it to the dealer, and explain how
there's a campaign on that, and that Honda will buy the part. She's
much closer to a different dealer, but I don't care. She takes it in on
a Thursday. Friday they call, the car is ready--but they want full
price for the repair. She asks them: didn't you check with Honda like
I said about this being covered by a service campaign? Well, no, they
didn't. If she wants the car now, she'll have to pay full ticket and
they'll check with Honda later (fat chance). Otherwise, she'd have to
leave the car there while they check with Honda on Monday.

She calls me, upset. She doesn't have the cash, and she needs the car
that weekend.

Hmmmm. It's 4:15 on a Friday afternoon. Hmmmm. I dig up the number
for the Honda zone office in my area, and I call them. I briefly
explain what's going on, and my history with this same situation. The
guy listens politely, I finish my piece, he says "that's crap, hang on"
and puts me on hold. A few minutes later he comes back and says, "It's
all taken care of, all you pay is labor. Go get your car."

WHEEEE! Sure enough, we roll into this other dealership right before
5pm on Friday. The service manager is there at the service desk, hears
my wife give her name to pick up her car, and addresses us with, "So,
you went over our heads, eh?" Sure as hell did, lady. Thanks for
nothing. Have a good life, we're out of here.

That was 1987 or so. That series of events nailed it shut. When I went
to spend my money on a car, it was "of course I'm buying a Honda. This
is a huge expense; why would I risk it with anything else?" This led to
my family buying Hondas, and finally to me buying the most expensive car
that dealership had sold to date--on Sept. 12, 2001, when I rolled out
of there in a $30,500 van (and then last year, when my brothers and I
went to buy our father a luxury SUV and ended up with a $50K Acura MDX
on the very same basis--"it's a Honda, why are we even looking at Volvo
or Lexus?").

Fast forward to this situation. Honda has radically changed, and really
doesn't give a rat's ass about their customers anymore. Honda is just
GM of the 70s and 80s--seeking the almighty immediate profit at the
expense of long term business and profits.

In one fell swoop, Honda has changed my tune into, "I'm spending a huge
amount of money to acquire a car; why would I risk that by buying a
Honda?"

That's a full 180, Honda. A full 180. Now you're no better than any
other crappy manufacturer out there, and in addition I have incentive
NOT to reward you for your recent behavior toward me.

How many others have you done this to, Honda?

I just read an editorial where someone has studied and claims that true
profit, long term profit, cannot be sustained when you're focusing so
hard on the short term. Honda *used* to understand that, but they no
longer do.

I will still tell the original stories, partly because they're true but
mostly because they put a good framework to the final story showing just
how far Honda has fallen and what a sucker bet it is to buy that 06 90K
mile Odyssey for anywhere near the $20K asking price (just as an
example). I *want* the Honda legend to die, because it deserves to. I
*want* people to stop thinking that a used Honda is worth insane amounts
of money simply because it's a Honda.

 

No doubt there's some extra labor involved, but I think most of the
additional cost was the transmission control computer that Honda also
replaces as part of these particular repairs.

I have to say, overall my total bill (including a couple other things I
had them do while it was in) came in a bit under what I expected.

That's not the point. This isn't just "one of those things;" this
transmission was known by Honda to be pure junk from the get-go. They
let the accountants design this, cutting costs so far as to guarantee
that every unit will self-destruct at around 80K miles or so.

When Honda discovered this, it was on the heels of the pure junk 4 speed
automatic they hooked to their V6 engines, the unit they put onto
Accords from 98 through 02 and on Odysseys from 99 through 01 (and
various Acuras, naturally). That unit was the center of the largest
recall and service campaign Honda had ever been pushed into. When they
discovered that its replacement, my 5 speed auto that they introduced
with the 02 Odyssey, was also junk, they were quite sensitive to the
cost situation. They quickly fixed the design of the 5 speed auto, such
that mid-04 and up models got good units. But instead of taking care of
the customers that got the initial design of that unit, they stuck their
heads in the sand.

Keep in mind, this transmission was in a family van, which is
traditionally filled with children and mothers. And when the
transmission goes out, the car just STOPS accelerating forward. This is
NOT good when driving in the city, going through intersections and
trying to squeeze into various traffic.

I would go so far as to consider this dangerous to drive from the first
moment it starts failing.

Now, allow me to frame the above with a bit of context. In 1984 or so,
I bought a 79 Civic. Loved it. But at one point the front end started
swaying around. I took it to my dealer--this very dealer that I've
dealt with ever since, and which handled my Odyssey this go round.

The dealer called me to say they wouldn't be giving my car back that
day. Why? Because the FRONT BEAM was rusted out, and the car was--get
this--dangerous to drive. The good news, though, was that Honda was
picking up the repair COMPLETELY and I'd have the car back the next day,
after they got a new front beam installed. It was a safety issue, they
said, and Honda was simply taking care of it to the point of shipping a
new front beam across country for next day installation.

Great. (Just like they should have with my transmission--read on.)

Fast forward a few months, and my gas tank is leaking. ????? Back to
this dealer. Hey, guess what? Honda admitted to a bad design with the
gas tank straps trapping moisture and causing the tank to rust. They'll
buy me a new tank if I'll pay the labor to install it ($50 at the time).
Absolutely!!

I didn't even have to ASK for any of these things to be taken care of.
Honda and this dealer did this for me AUTOMATICALLY. No stonewalling,
no "we've never heard of anything like this, don't know what to tell
you," nothing like that at all.

Man, I am loving this Honda thing. They really know how to engender
loyalty. This is the mid-80s, and THEY ADMIT TO THEIR MISTAKES. Not
only that, THEY CORRECT THEIR MISTAKES and they don't force their
customers to pay for their mistakes. Wow.

Late 86 or early 87, my girlfriend (now wife) needs a car. I love my
shitbox Civic (we're college students), and that's all she really needs,
so we find one. A 79, copper, 1200 4 speed, just what the doctor
ordered. Fast forward a few months, and guess what? The gas tank is
leaking.

Oh HO, say I. No problem; take it to the dealer, and explain how
there's a campaign on that, and that Honda will buy the part. She's
much closer to a different dealer, but I don't care. She takes it in on
a Thursday. Friday they call, the car is ready--but they want full
price for the repair. She asks them: didn't you check with Honda like
I said about this being covered by a service campaign? Well, no, they
didn't. If she wants the car now, she'll have to pay full ticket and
they'll check with Honda later (fat chance). Otherwise, she'd have to
leave the car there while they check with Honda on Monday.

She calls me, upset. She doesn't have the cash, and she needs the car
that weekend.

Hmmmm. It's 4:15 on a Friday afternoon. Hmmmm. I dig up the number
for the Honda zone office in my area, and I call them. I briefly
explain what's going on, and my history with this same situation. The
guy listens politely, I finish my piece, he says "that's crap, hang on"
and puts me on hold. A few minutes later he comes back and says, "It's
all taken care of, all you pay is labor. Go get your car."

WHEEEE! Sure enough, we roll into this other dealership right before
5pm on Friday. The service manager is there at the service desk, hears
my wife give her name to pick up her car, and addresses us with, "So,
you went over our heads, eh?" Sure as hell did, lady. Thanks for
nothing. Have a good life, we're out of here.

That was 1987 or so. That series of events nailed it shut. When I went
to spend my money on a car, it was "of course I'm buying a Honda. This
is a huge expense; why would I risk it with anything else?" This led to
my family buying Hondas, and finally to me buying the most expensive car
that dealership had sold to date--on Sept. 12, 2001, when I rolled out
of there in a $30,500 van (and then last year, when my brothers and I
went to buy our father a luxury SUV and ended up with a $50K Acura MDX
on the very same basis--"it's a Honda, why are we even looking at Volvo
or Lexus?").

Fast forward to this situation. Honda has radically changed, and really
doesn't give a rat's ass about their customers anymore. Honda is just
GM of the 70s and 80s--seeking the almighty immediate profit at the
expense of long term business and profits.

In one fell swoop, Honda has changed my tune into, "I'm spending a huge
amount of money to acquire a car; why would I risk that by buying a
Honda?"

That's a full 180, Honda. A full 180. Now you're no better than any
other crappy manufacturer out there, and in addition I have incentive
NOT to reward you for your recent behavior toward me.

How many others have you done this to, Honda?

I just read an editorial where someone has studied and claims that true
profit, long term profit, cannot be sustained when you're focusing so
hard on the short term. Honda *used* to understand that, but they no
longer do.

I will still tell the original stories, partly because they're true but
mostly because they put a good framework to the final story showing just
how far Honda has fallen and what a sucker bet it is to buy that 06 90K
mile Odyssey for anywhere near the $20K asking price (just as an
example). I *want* the Honda legend to die, because it deserves to. I
*want* people to stop thinking that a used Honda is worth insane amounts
of money simply because it's a Honda.

 

there are two possible scenarios for this. read on...

company is run by u.s.-educated mba's.

would be interested to read that if you have the link.

in the mid 80's when i was an undergrad, one of my materials profs gave
us a series of lectures on design life limitation. it was an
interesting topic in that there are a number of significant technical
challenges in making stuff fail - because things have to fail in a
certain way to be invisible to the consumer prior to it happening. for
cars, it has to be catastrophic enough to prevent shade-tree repair.
this was presented as having the benefit of significant repair revenue
generation when the vehicle is still valuable, and to get them off the
road when they get older. my prof's specialty was metal fatigue, and he
outlined the consulting work he'd done for a certain european
manufacturer [has the words "machine", "driving", and "ultimate" in
their tag line]. it was a fascinating case-study. for that
manufacturer, the transmissions were chosen because visually, the car
still looks great, it's invisible until it happens, it is [arguably]
non-fatal to the driver, and best of all, really freakin' expensive to
fix, . young [but higher mileage] car failures can be explained with
"never seen this before, but 100k miles in three years - you must be a
hard driver sir/madam", and older cars "it's to be expected from a
performance vehicle"...

unlike frod or chevy whose transmission clutch packs are worn out in
100-120k, but whose transmissions get rebuilt by specialists outside the
manufacturer's control because the guts are salvageable, and clutches
are cheap, fatigue failure is the uneconomic/unsalvageable way to go -
and not single cog failure either since that might be economic to repair
in quantity by a specialist. so it was decided that they wanted to
design a transmission that fatigue-failed all five ratios. in the world
of fatigue, this is a technical lunar landing mission because the usage
of each is radically different. first gear might see a total operation
life of only 10 hours. top gear might see 3000. there are different
fatigue mechanisms at each end of the range, and the intermediates,
well, let's just say it's challenging.

but it can be done. the perverse thing though is that the quality
control necessary to achieve this is much tighter than that to just make
a component that works and /doesn't/ break - it adds 20%-30% to the
production cost!!! needless to say, the mba's driving this technical
agenda had done their math based on the sales arguments above, and
decided that they could carry it off. and if you look at the vehicles
that manufacturer sells, there are still a number of their old [pre late
80's] vehicles on the road, a bunch of their new [sub 7-10 years], but
almost nothing in between - it works! but they have gotten away with it
because they target a certain niche market that wants new cars every few
years anyway, [used vehicle owners have no say in the
warranty/reliability chain] and who are prepared to pay a 20+% price
premium for the advertising costs on a vehicle they believe
differentiates them.

honda are not in that space, and never will be in that space - so if
they think it's something they should pursue, they're seriously
miscalculating. i think the bottom line is that honda either fucked up
mechanically and made a genuine design error, [and then compounded the
problem with management snafus] or they've jumped on the life limitation
bandwagon [with virtually everybody else who has seen this work but who
doesn't understand the element of it only working for a niche market!!!]
and the johnny-come-lately mba's don't understand what built the
fundamentals of the business whose profitability they're trying to
"improve". they missed the part about "niche market". for
manufacturers playing in the commodity market, like honda, life
limitation hurts goodwill, the element that advertising does NOT buy.
goodwill/brand loyalty is buying a honda and being able to drive it
until we're sick of it. and perversely, the fact that there's a bunch
of crappy old honda's on the road, is the greatest advertisement and
brand loyalty generator they have - people see and believe these cars
can be trusted. if the old hondas go away, there will be no more brand
loyalty. just like volvo and saab.

 

there are two possible scenarios for this. read on...

company is run by u.s.-educated mba's.

would be interested to read that if you have the link.

in the mid 80's when i was an undergrad, one of my materials profs gave
us a series of lectures on design life limitation. it was an
interesting topic in that there are a number of significant technical
challenges in making stuff fail - because things have to fail in a
certain way to be invisible to the consumer prior to it happening. for
cars, it has to be catastrophic enough to prevent shade-tree repair.
this was presented as having the benefit of significant repair revenue
generation when the vehicle is still valuable, and to get them off the
road when they get older. my prof's specialty was metal fatigue, and he
outlined the consulting work he'd done for a certain european
manufacturer [has the words "machine", "driving", and "ultimate" in
their tag line]. it was a fascinating case-study. for that
manufacturer, the transmissions were chosen because visually, the car
still looks great, it's invisible until it happens, it is [arguably]
non-fatal to the driver, and best of all, really freakin' expensive to
fix, . young [but higher mileage] car failures can be explained with
"never seen this before, but 100k miles in three years - you must be a
hard driver sir/madam", and older cars "it's to be expected from a
performance vehicle"...

unlike frod or chevy whose transmission clutch packs are worn out in
100-120k, but whose transmissions get rebuilt by specialists outside the
manufacturer's control because the guts are salvageable, and clutches
are cheap, fatigue failure is the uneconomic/unsalvageable way to go -
and not single cog failure either since that might be economic to repair
in quantity by a specialist. so it was decided that they wanted to
design a transmission that fatigue-failed all five ratios. in the world
of fatigue, this is a technical lunar landing mission because the usage
of each is radically different. first gear might see a total operation
life of only 10 hours. top gear might see 3000. there are different
fatigue mechanisms at each end of the range, and the intermediates,
well, let's just say it's challenging.

but it can be done. the perverse thing though is that the quality
control necessary to achieve this is much tighter than that to just make
a component that works and /doesn't/ break - it adds 20%-30% to the
production cost!!! needless to say, the mba's driving this technical
agenda had done their math based on the sales arguments above, and
decided that they could carry it off. and if you look at the vehicles
that manufacturer sells, there are still a number of their old [pre late
80's] vehicles on the road, a bunch of their new [sub 7-10 years], but
almost nothing in between - it works! but they have gotten away with it
because they target a certain niche market that wants new cars every few
years anyway, [used vehicle owners have no say in the
warranty/reliability chain] and who are prepared to pay a 20+% price
premium for the advertising costs on a vehicle they believe
differentiates them.

honda are not in that space, and never will be in that space - so if
they think it's something they should pursue, they're seriously
miscalculating. i think the bottom line is that honda either fucked up
mechanically and made a genuine design error, [and then compounded the
problem with management snafus] or they've jumped on the life limitation
bandwagon [with virtually everybody else who has seen this work but who
doesn't understand the element of it only working for a niche market!!!]
and the johnny-come-lately mba's don't understand what built the
fundamentals of the business whose profitability they're trying to
"improve". they missed the part about "niche market". for
manufacturers playing in the commodity market, like honda, life
limitation hurts goodwill, the element that advertising does NOT buy.
goodwill/brand loyalty is buying a honda and being able to drive it
until we're sick of it. and perversely, the fact that there's a bunch
of crappy old honda's on the road, is the greatest advertisement and
brand loyalty generator they have - people see and believe these cars
can be trusted. if the old hondas go away, there will be no more brand
loyalty. just like volvo and saab.

 

would be interested to read that if you have the link.[/QUOTE]

yeah, me too. I can't find the link. Still looking.

 

would be interested to read that if you have the link.[/QUOTE]

yeah, me too. I can't find the link. Still looking.

 

Certified used?

 

Certified used?

 

read the fine print - they're only "certified" for the "window" that's
left over from the warranty - it doesn't extend beyond the original.
dealers taking up the slack on what /is/ built in to the design life.

and if you get a sucker in to buy that brand of used vehicle, maybe you
can get them to buy new when that one craps out. "free maintenance"?
same thing - suck the suckers in.

 

read the fine print - they're only "certified" for the "window" that's
left over from the warranty - it doesn't extend beyond the original.
dealers taking up the slack on what /is/ built in to the design life.

and if you get a sucker in to buy that brand of used vehicle, maybe you
can get them to buy new when that one craps out. "free maintenance"?
same thing - suck the suckers in.