24th Dec 2006, 20:56

Sorry Honda has had serious extensive transmission issues... my latest was their upscale Acura TL. I have owned Hondas-Acuras since 1989. Check out TL's on this site it may enlighten you if you are not very knowledgeable about Hondas.

I now own 2 new GM's.

25th Dec 2006, 09:55

What benefit does a Japanese manufacturer have in "paying" an idependent research firm to say small cars are safer than SUVs when THEY SELL SUVs THEMSELVES? It's like Baskin Robbins paying a company to say ice cream makes you fat.

If you want to risk your families' lives in SUVs, go ahead. Just make sure I, as a taxpayer, am not paying for it - you better be paying your own medical and car insurance.

25th Dec 2006, 11:36

I said that they have fixed most of the issues for the new TL!! THE 2004 and newer models and the new oddysseys! READ THESE REVIEWS MORE CLOSELY NEXT TIME!

25th Dec 2006, 13:46

Speaking of reading, it appears that most comments on these sites seem to fall into two categories: Honest admissions of the many problems the Japanese auto makers are having with myriad mechanical problems and serious safety issues (by actual owners of these vehicles in most cases), and unfounded attacks, insults and silly claims made by fanatics who probably have never even DRIVEN one of these death traps.

If nothing else, this site has given me a far greater insight into the thinking of those who blindly follow the ad dollars poured into the creation of costly (and often DANGEROUS) myths. After perusing many of these sites and comments it is doubtful that I will ever so much as consider another Japanese car (and we've had 3).

25th Dec 2006, 17:03

I would typically expect the average individual that bought any Acura TL new to be a college grad. Common sense would dictate if you have 2 transmissions on a low mileage well cared for vehicle you are not going to dash out for a repeat.

I may buy another Acura I have also owned a new Legend which was my best car. My boss owned a new black NSX and I drove it on occasion as well. His only issue was premature tire wear and it was very costly to repair the body after a low speed impact. I may go back to Acura, but it will have to be a few years from now to be sure that the problems have been totally resolved. The only model I liked was the TL the RL was too soft. I also looked at Lexus did not like the ride and handling by the way.

25th Dec 2006, 21:34

I drive one of these "death traps" and have had no trouble at all. I have 141,000 miles and I take great care of my transmission. I make sure I change the fluid every 30-35,000 miles. I know there is probably a defect with the transmission, but I have taken care of the problem for me and my transmission gears are happier as ever!

26th Dec 2006, 10:27

What year... was it pre 2000? It happened to me twice. Wouldn't the dealer do full scheduled service that I always asked for? I had no qualms having everything that possibly needed to be done and had faith that they would address everything. I didn't go the cheap or the neglect route... very disappointed is an understatement.

26th Dec 2006, 10:56

Changing transmission fluid at 30-35,000 miles is just another of the outrageous expenses required by the imports. In 60,000 miles my current GM car has had ZERO maintenance except for oil changes. I checked my owner's manual regarding transmission maintenance and it simply states "This transmission requires no maintenance under normal driving conditions". Considering that 2 of our GM vehicles have gone over 230,000 miles with no transmission maintenance I'm sure that information is correct. We spend less on total maintenance on our GM vehicles in 200,000+ miles than our import owning friends spend on required maintenance on their cars in the first 36,000 miles.

26th Dec 2006, 17:58

My four General Motors car's transmissions were shot when we did not change the fluid every 50,000 miles; and I have heard the same from friends who own Chrysler and Ford products. My neighbor has a 1994 Civic with 230,000 miles and I have not recorded a fluid change on his car since 90,000 miles. Although it does not drive the nicest--a little slipping, it has held up with old transmission fluid. Your Detroit talk bashing imports does not add up sir.

27th Dec 2006, 05:41

After 2000 check out the Civic... I use to agree with you. Having the same family members and buying many Hondas over and over you notice issues you never had before. If I had Hondas like I had new in the late 80's and the 90's I would be pleased and was. It seems that after 2000 our problems started.

28th Dec 2006, 01:03

I would like to explain why you don't see a hummer in any "good" crash test score articles, its because they crash them into a metal barrier with very little padding, and the weight of the hummer simply adds to the force of the impact. with a small car, there's less impact force due to a lesser weighing car. now, in a real accident, that little accord is going to give A lot more than that metal barrier, and therefore the full weight of the hummer isn't confined to the 1.5 meter space the barrier provides. with a real accident, the accord crumples into bits as the hummer plows through it. THAT is why I would prefer driving a large SUV rather than a small car. I would, however, be concerned if I was planning on driving my hummer into a tree or a building any time soon. but I rest easily knowing that if any yahoo in a car decides to become an idiot and hit me, he's gonna be the one getting hurt, not me.

28th Dec 2006, 06:08

You would think mass would be beneficial. An airbag is thin protection when a large vehicle and inertia travel into the cab.

28th Dec 2006, 07:47

I'm pretty sure no one would deliberately hit you. To my knowledge, no one hates Hummers that much yet. Does preparing yourself for that one-in-a-million lunatic or drunk driver require driving a vehicle that obstructs the vision of those around you on a daily basis? I'm not sure if the trade off between the two is exactly worth it.

28th Dec 2006, 08:13

Thank you for clarifying that. After all, I wouldn't want to take the word of ACTUAL test results from SEVERAL independent testing labs over your theory.

Facts are facts, and Hummers are death traps and you are something like 43% more likely to die or be maimed in an accident than with a regular car.

You're just another passenger on the TItanic wondering when breakfast is going to be served.

28th Dec 2006, 12:13

Comment 01:03 is a very good point, and I appreciate the more sane approach to explaining a situation that often confuses people. Crash tests are NOT valid in real world conditions for the reason so clearly stated in this comment.

Seldom do steel reinforced concrete barriers run red lights in front of you. It is a simple (and all too obvious) violation of the laws of physics for a well built, heavy vehicle such as a Hummer (or my GMC) to be damaged much at all by something as insubstantial as a Civic, Corolla or Highlander in a collision. That is kind of like arguing that your egg can smash my bowling ball. My family will continue to ride in the safety of well built American SUVs.