Honda Civic 01 Alternator change at 58K

Hi,
I cannot believe that I had to change my alternator and Struts at 58K.
What kind of quality is Honda producing?
I called their customer service, they said sorry out of the warranty!!
Very disappointing. Will never buy a Honda again.

 

No car is going to be problem-free, but Hondas (and Toyotas for that matter)
still experience less problems than GM, Ford and Crapsler. My father had an
issue with a wheel bearing on his 2004 Toyota Corolla, but is he crying
foul? No. If the alternator and struts are the only problems your Civic
has had, then you should be thankful.

 

Hi,
Well, I don't think so. I pay a price premium when I buy a Honda not
to have these kind of issues. Wheel bearing problem is wear & tear
problem. I also just changed the brake pads (which is okay).
Alternator is a different issue. It is a sign of bad product and
quality control. So, it is not okay. Anyway, their loss. Never Honda
again.

 

Hi,
Well, I don't think so. I pay a price premium when I buy a Honda not
to have these kind of issues. Wheel bearing problem is wear & tear
problem. I also just changed the brake pads (which is okay).
Alternator is a different issue. It is a sign of bad product and
quality control. So, it is not okay. Anyway, their loss. Never Honda
again.

 

I am guessing that you've never owned a Honda before, let alone any Japanese
car. Nothing in this world is perfect, and that includes the highest
quality cars. Even my '93 Accord has had a few unusual issues, but it's not
like it was having problems every other day.

At least your alternator lasted longer than the average Delco alternator
that creeps its way into many GM cars. My father once had a '94 Grand Prix
that fried quite a few alternators before he got rid of it at 90K miles.
BTW, the wheel bearing problem in his Corolla could not have been not a wear
and tear issue, as the car had only 10K miles on it at the time. Like I
said, no car going to be problem-free, but if you want a car that will give
you the least amount of problems, Honda and Toyota are apparently still the
most reliable brands. And if the alternator and struts were the only
non-routine issues your Civic has had, then I'd say it's doing OK compared
to most other brands.

If you want something that will give you no problems at all, your only
choice is no car at all.

 

Sorry about your problems. What happened with the alternator and struts?
Who told you they were bad and do you have a lot of potholes on your
roads? With some additional info we may be able to get at the bottom of
this. Also, did you buy your 01 new or used?

 

GM has made tremendous strides in quality in the past 5-10 years.
Here's J.D. Power's vehicle dependability study (how many problems for
a 3-year old vehicle). GM is better than industry average at #4! The
problem is that reliability reputation takes a long time to build up
(and dwindle), so GM's reputation is still stuck on the crappy quality
that they produced in the 80s. And the fact that GM cars are so ugly
doesn't help either. =)

http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2004055

 

It is true that the current generation Civic is not as reliable as the
previous generations. Honda may be a victim of its own reputation
because people have too high expectations. I admit that I was initially
somewhat disappointed when I bought my 01 Civic because it wasn't 100%
perfect. But 4 years later, I'm pretty happy with it, no major
problems, and I would buy Honda again.

Take a look at J.D. Power's dependability study:
http://www.jdpower.com/news/releases/pressrelease.asp?ID=2004055
They look at how many problems for 3-year old cars (this report is for
2001 models). It shows that Honda is near the top of the list with 210
problems per 100 vehicles, which comes out to 2.1 problems per
vehicle... and hey, you had a problem with the alternator and struts.

Out of curiosity, what other makes of cars have you owned? And how did
the quality compare to Honda?

Hyundai has a 10 year warranty, but their dependability is 375 problems
per 100 vehicles. Would you be happier with longer warranty and worse
reliability?

 

Sorry, but I don't put too much stock into a lot of what JD Power says. I
am not convinced that GM has been making the strides in quality that have
been claimed because they still make some unreliable cars--Malibu, Grand Am,
and some of their trucks haven't had particularly good reliability ratings.
Cavalier and Sunfire were two of GM's most unreliable cars, but were
recently phased out in favour of the Chevy Cobalt. The Cobalt coupe is
nice, but who knows how well it will hold up in the long run. It seems that
GM's most reliable cars are their big cars like the Buick LeSabre.

Another thing to consider is, what type of problems did JD Power consider to
be relevant? I was focusing mainly on mechanical issues. Other than a
handful of auto tranny issues with V6-powered cars, most of the gripes that
people have had with recent Hondas are of the fit-and-finish type (such as
interior rattles, which are becoming common on many new cars by most
manufacturers). For those who keep their cars for 5 years or more, I would
still tend to believe that Hondas (and Toyotas) will be more mechanically
reliable than GMs when they get up there in age.

 

Agree totally, S.S.

If I had to cross the country in an 8 year old Cadillac (in 2013, say),
I would cringe. If I had to do it in an 8 year old Civic, I know that
I'd get there without breaking down.