| asn |
How many 2003/2004 Transmissions have died? I have a 2003 and am concerned about it. Are the 2003/2004's failing too? I know they are different from the 2001/2002's, but with everything else I'm reading, I'm concerned about mine.
Thanks |
|
|
| mash |
| Yes, mine (2003) failed last week. Don't know the EXACT reason yet but is is not the same as the recall. |
|
|
| m2pc |
:3:
Darn, was hoping the redesign would fix it. Now I wish they would include these years as well.
Can you let us know what the exact failure was if you find out?
Thanks |
|
|
| darkhelmet |
| This is concerning. Thought the 03 was ok but then again you never know. I guess all you can do it keep changing the fluid and hope for the best. |
|
|
| asn |
how many miles did you have on your car?
anyone else have problems with their 03/04 tranny?
thanks |
|
|
| jlrebate |
interesting that the recall only includes 03 and 04 honda pilot and not the MDX for 03 and 04 models.
I was always under the assumptoin that Pilot and MDX have the same engine and transmission. Perhaps my assumption is wrong. |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by jlrebate
interesting that the recall only includes 03 and 04 honda pilot and not the MDX for 03 and 04 models.
I was always under the assumptoin that Pilot and MDX have the same engine and transmission. Perhaps my assumption is wrong.
The Pilot maintains the same drivetrain as the 01-02 models, along with the 240 hp engine. |
|
|
| JeffK |
As many of you know, I am a firm advocate of leasing.
With leasing, the problems with cars, including the present transmission recall, are not as great as when you own.
No matter what Acura says, a recall of 600,000 hurts - the reliability issue is at stake. Reliability is what supports high resale value.
The sad fact is that Acura is not Lexus. How many Lexuses have failing transmissions? None that I have heard of.
What is truly sad is that Acura was the first Japanese luxury car. Today when I think of Japanese luxury I think First, Second and Third Lexus and then Infiniti. Acura is not even on the radar screen.
In fact, Acura seems like an afterthought to Honda.
Just my opinion. |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by JeffK
As many of you know, I am a firm advocate of leasing.
With leasing, the problems with cars, including the present transmission recall, are not as great as when you own.
No matter what Acura says, a recall of 600,000 hurts - the reliability issue is at stake. Reliability is what supports high resale value.
The sad fact is that Acura is not Lexus. How many Lexuses have failing transmissions? None that I have heard of.
What is truly sad is that Acura was the first Japanese luxury car. Today when I think of Japanese luxury I think First, Second and Third Lexus and then Infiniti. Acura is not even on the radar screen.
In fact, Acura seems like an afterthought to Honda.
Just my opinion.
Why would a recall be less of a problem with a leased car? Same problem, same inconvenience.
How many Honda/Acura engines failed due to excessive sludge buildup in the cylinder head lubrication system? And some were not even covered by Toyota even though they did a redesign later.
And I am asking the question from a perspective that I always thought Toyota/Lexus had a slight edge over Honda/Acura in reliability and overall fit and finish. But the differeneces are not great compared with domestics, et al, in my opinion.
Also, 'Luxury' is a class of automobile. Has little to do with the marque's reliabilty scores. |
|
|
| JeffK |
Dear DaleB:
You posted:
<i>"Why would a recall be less of a problem with a leased car? Same problem, same inconvenience. </i>
You have to be kidding! I trust you are not serious!
Just think about this: When I leased, my residual after 48 months was 59% - $21,358 (MSRP $36,200)
Now common sense tells me that with a recall of 600,000 vehicles including <b>all '01 and '02 MDX and all Pilots</b>, that this is a reliability issue.
Resale value follows reliability.
Now ask yourself this question: Today, would you pay more or less for a '01 or '02 MDX than say four months ago, before the recall. Of course you would pay less! (At least I hope you would pay less)
Once a car has problems resale value plummets (Think about the Audi's unintentional acceleration).
When you lease the resale value is locked in - mine at 59% of MSRP.
By leasing the lessor (read Honda Financial) will suffer any decline in resale because of a recall.
When you own, you suffer the loss. All those owners of '01 and '02 MDX's just took a big hit on the value of their cars.
If you do not believe me, check out what a dealer (not Acura) will now allow you on trade - <b>it is substantially less than before the recall.</b>
JeffK |
|
|
| DaleB |
quote:
Originally posted by JeffK
Dear DaleB:
You posted:
<i>"Why would a recall be less of a problem with a leased car? Same problem, same inconvenience. </i>
You have to be kidding! I trust you are not serious!
Just think about this: When I leased, my residual after 48 months was 59% - $21,358 (MSRP $36,200)
Now common sense tells me that with a recall of 600,000 vehicles including <b>all '01 and '02 MDX and all Pilots</b>, that this is a reliability issue.
Resale value follows reliability.
Now ask yourself this question: Today, would you pay more or less for a '01 or '02 MDX than say four months ago, before the recall. Of course you would pay less! (At least I hope you would pay less)
Once a car has problems resale value plummets (Think about the Audi's unintentional acceleration).
When you lease the resale value is locked in - mine at 59% of MSRP.
By leasing the lessor (read Honda Financial) will suffer any decline in resale because of a recall.
When you own, you suffer the loss. All those owners of '01 and '02 MDX's just took a big hit on the value of their cars.
If you do not believe me, check out what a dealer (not Acura) will now allow you on trade - <b>it is substantially less than before the recall.</b>
JeffK
Well, you answered one question, sort of. I guess your point was that leasing 'protects' you against getting dumped on in case of a major drop in resale value. For those with immediate plans to sell or trade in their vehicle that may be a problem for the next few months.
I do not see this recall as having a major impact like the previous generation of Ford Explorer, for example, over the normal 4 to 6 year period of ownership most seem to go for. I guess time will tell. |
|
|
| darkhelmet |
| Leases don't always fit...I put 20 to 25k miles a year on my vechiles and no one has a lease that works for me. |
|
|
| JeffK |
Dear DaleB;
You posted:
Well, you answered one question, sort of. I guess your point was that leasing 'protects' you against getting dumped on in case of a major drop in resale value. For those with immediate plans to sell or trade in their vehicle that may be a problem for the next few months.
Precisely! I suggest the period that is affected is until the resale value falls below $8,000 to $10,000. Once a car falls below $8,000 it is usually over 8 years old and over 100,000 miles - and then prior reliability problems are not an issue. Until that time, usually the first 6 to 7 years, reliability does effect resale.
But my point is that for those of us who do get a new car every 3 to 4 years (I do and prefer not to keep cars beyond the manufacturers warranty) and own, they have really taken a hit with this recall.
JeffK |
|
|
| JeffK |
Dear Dark Helmet:
Well I guess it is now time to answer those who say they cannot lease because of high mileage.
First, before any intelligent discussion can take place, we must agree that a 4 year old MDX with 48,000 miles on it (average 12,000 miles per year) will be worth substantially more than a 4 year old MDX with 100,000 miles (average of 25,000 miles per year).
The question is how much less: To try to get an idea I went to Kelley's Blue Book and looked up the trade in value of a 1999 Lexus RX 300 with 48,000 miles and for 100,000 miles in excellent condition. This car is similar in cost and depreciaton to an MDX.
Trade in value at 48,000 miles is $17,600.
Trade in value at 100,000 miles is 13,000.
So those additional 52,000 miles cost 9 cents a mile!
A normal lease allows 12,000 miles per year. You need 25,000 miles per year.
Those 12,000 miles per year, if you own, are going to cost you $1080 per year. Divide this by 12 months, that is $90 per month.
What you must do is negotiate your best lease deal at 12,000 miles per year. Then when you have finished ask how much more will it cost to have 25,000 miles per year. If it is less than $90 per month, you get my point.
Actually, as I have posted, it is cheaper to lease than buy. So the cost can probably be as high as $120 extra per month and you will still come out ahead and have all the advantages of leasing.
JeffK |
|
|
| mash |
quote:
Originally posted by m2pc
:3:
Darn, was hoping the redesign would fix it. Now I wish they would include these years as well.
Can you let us know what the exact failure was if you find out?
Thanks
Picked up the X this morning. Everything looks smooth but I guess it will take a while to restore the confidence in the car.
I suspect Acura knew about the problem and the service guys have no idea what's wrong. Acura Tech Line asked the svc techs to drain transmission fluid and look for metal shavings, which turned out to be the case. The only explanation they have is in certain gears, some parts are rubbing against each other :eek: and shreading the parts. This is the first case of its type at this dealer. They have replaced pre-03 transmissions and so far the replacements haven't failed.
Now for the parts list
Qty Part
21 ATF Z1 (08200-9005P)
2 Nut, Spindle
2 Pin, Cotter 3
1 WARRANTY A/T KI (06200-RDK-020RM) |
|
|
| norcalchuck |
quote:
Originally posted by JeffK
Dear DaleB:
When you lease the resale value is locked in - mine at 59% of MSRP.
Well not exactly--it's called euphemistically, "residual value". It's a pro forma number used for a starting point for the return value, less any abnormal wear, tear. While generally a pretty loose and liberal concept, the condition of the vehicle is still a determining factor. If the car is trashed inside and out, there is no "locked in" number. |
|
|
| JeffK |
Dear norcalchuck:
I believe you are one of the oldest posters on this board, so I am taking the time to respond to you post.
You posted:
Well not exactly--it's called euphemistically, "residual value". It's a pro forma number used for a starting point for the return value, less any abnormal wear, tear. While generally a pretty loose and liberal concept, the condition of the vehicle is still a determining factor. If the car is trashed inside and out, there is no "locked in" number.
Again, we must agree on the following: When you trade or sell a car you own, the condition of the car will determine its value. If it is "trashed" it will be worth less.
Equally, if a car is "trashed" at the end of the lease there may be additional costs.
Perhaps you were not aware that with Honda Financial, all damage up to $1500 is waived. This is even better than a "normal wear and tear" clause.
Assuming the car is maintained, which my MDX is, my residual is a hard cap cost. At the end of the lease, I will incur no additional expenses.
In reality the residual is not a "fro-forma" or a "lose and liberal number" but a hard calculated number. By leasing I am protected on the downside - protection you cannot get when you own.
JeffK |
|
|
| perk |
Regrettably, this post has become yet another endless discussion on the merits of lease vs. purchase. I'd like to suggest that we leave that discussion to the innumerable other repetitions of the same posted elsewhere, i.e., we get you loud, clear, and often JeffK!
Since I own a 2003 X, I'd like some discussion (any discussion) on what folks know or don't know about the state of problems in the redesigned 2003 and 2004 transmission. So far, there has been at least one confirmed failure and some discussion as to cuase. Perhaps in this thread we could continue that discussion with others in the same situation. |
|
|
| TheWorm |
quote:
Originally posted by perk
Regrettably, this post has become yet another endless discussion on the merits of lease vs. purchase. I'd like to suggest that we leave that discussion to the innumerable other repetitions of the same posted elsewhere, i.e., we get you loud, clear, and often JeffK!
Since I own a 2003 X, I'd like some discussion (any discussion) on what folks know or don't know about the state of problems in the redesigned 2003 and 2004 transmission. So far, there has been at least one confirmed failure and some discussion as to cuase. Perhaps in this thread we could continue that discussion with others in the same situation.
Yes, and please. |
|
|
| JL_SS |
quote:
Originally posted by perk
Regrettably, this post has become yet another endless discussion on the merits of lease vs. purchase. I'd like to suggest that we leave that discussion to the innumerable other repetitions of the same posted elsewhere, i.e., we get you loud, clear, and often JeffK!
Since I own a 2003 X, I'd like some discussion (any discussion) on what folks know or don't know about the state of problems in the redesigned 2003 and 2004 transmission. So far, there has been at least one confirmed failure and some discussion as to cuase. Perhaps in this thread we could continue that discussion with others in the same situation.
I had done a site search in Dec of 2003 and came up with 5 2003 tranny failures as of that time. All were below 21,000 miles. |
|
|
| cp_ssrebba |
quote:
Originally posted by JL_SS
I had done a site search in Dec of 2003 and came up with 5 2003 tranny failures as of that time. All were below 21,000 miles.
alright~! mine is 2003 and has about 30,000 now :) |
|
|
| darkhelmet |
| Thinking the same thing as I am @ 22k on my 03. I had the transmission flushed (BG) at 18k and plan on doing it every 20k or so in hopes of improving the transmissions life. |
|
|
| asn |
quote:
Originally posted by perk
Since I own a 2003 X, I'd like some discussion (any discussion) on what folks know or don't know about the state of problems in the redesigned 2003 and 2004 transmission. So far, there has been at least one confirmed failure and some discussion as to cuase. Perhaps in this thread we could continue that discussion with others in the same situation.
I agree - that's why I started this thread! |
|
|
| JL_SS |
quote:
Originally posted by cp_ssrebba
alright~! mine is 2003 and has about 30,000 now :)
2 were even below 2000 miles........ |
|
|
| Alton |
quote:
Originally posted by JeffK
The sad fact is that Acura is not Lexus. How many Lexuses have failing transmissions? None that I have heard of.
What is truly sad is that Acura was the first Japanese luxury car. Today when I think of Japanese luxury I think First, Second and Third Lexus and then Infiniti. Acura is not even on the radar screen.
In fact, Acura seems like an afterthought to Honda.
Just my opinion.
Many people feel the same way - not because of a belief that Acura reliability is questionable, but because of Acura's resistance to producing a V8 sedan (or even a RWD V6 sedan). |
|
|
|
