Ignore Check Engine light at your peril!!

When people had reported the Check Engine light (MIL) on with an EVAP code
(P045x; P145x), I had been advising people to avoid the hassle and expense
of getting it fixed, if they didn't have a smog check to pass.

This is a potentially /expensive/ mistake.

My attention has been called to TSB A03-001, which covers just about all
models from '98 and up. It seems that corrosion in the EVAP system can
result in an electrical short that can damage the ECM.

I have just witnessed my first instance of exactly this having occurred. A
lady with her '99 Accord is now facing a repair bill of $1,560, part of
which is replacement of the ECM. She ignored the MIL and kept driving,
luckily not having done this because of anything I told her, but just
because she didn't feel like getting it looked at.

Upshot: If the MIL comes on, and the codes have anything to do with EVAP
(anything like P045x or P145x), DON'T IGNORE IT! GET IT FIXED, or have the
EVAP electrically unplugged from its power source!

--
Tegger

On 05/13/2011 04:42 AM, Tegger wrote:
> When people had reported the Check Engine light (MIL) on with an EVAP code
> (P045x; P145x), I had been advising people to avoid the hassle and expense
> of getting it fixed, if they didn't have a smog check to pass.
>
> This is a potentially /expensive/ mistake.
>
> My attention has been called to TSB A03-001, which covers just about all
> models from '98 and up. It seems that corrosion in the EVAP system can
> result in an electrical short that can damage the ECM.
>
> I have just witnessed my first instance of exactly this having occurred. A
> lady with her '99 Accord is now facing a repair bill of $1,560, part of
> which is replacement of the ECM. She ignored the MIL and kept driving,
> luckily not having done this because of anything I told her, but just
> because she didn't feel like getting it looked at.
>
> Upshot: If the MIL comes on, and the codes have anything to do with EVAP
> (anything like P045x or P145x), DON'T IGNORE IT! GET IT FIXED, or have the
> EVAP electrically unplugged from its power source!
>

i don't buy this. the ecm is protected against over-voltage and dead
shorts on all inputs and outputs. a fried solenoid is either doing open
circuit or dead short - neither are going to harm the ecm, it will
simply throw a code.

i think any shop saying the ecm needs to be replaced is taking her for a
very expensive ride.

and this code is usually fixed by simply replacing the gas cap.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam > wrote in
t:

> On 05/13/2011 04:42 AM, Tegger wrote:
>> When people had reported the Check Engine light (MIL) on with an EVAP
>> code (P045x; P145x), I had been advising people to avoid the hassle
>> and expense of getting it fixed, if they didn't have a smog check to
>> pass.
>>
>> This is a potentially /expensive/ mistake.
>>
>> My attention has been called to TSB A03-001, which covers just about
>> all models from '98 and up. It seems that corrosion in the EVAP
>> system can result in an electrical short that can damage the ECM.
>>
>> I have just witnessed my first instance of exactly this having
>> occurred. A lady with her '99 Accord is now facing a repair bill of
>> $1,560, part of which is replacement of the ECM. She ignored the MIL
>> and kept driving, luckily not having done this because of anything I
>> told her, but just because she didn't feel like getting it looked at.
>>
>> Upshot: If the MIL comes on, and the codes have anything to do with
>> EVAP (anything like P045x or P145x), DON'T IGNORE IT! GET IT FIXED,
>> or have the EVAP electrically unplugged from its power source!
>>
>
> i don't buy this. the ecm is protected against over-voltage and dead
> shorts on all inputs and outputs.



Not in this case! American Honda very specifically says so in TSB A03-011.

Quote:
"The EVAP bypass solenoid valve can fail due to
corrosion. The solenoid valve may get water inside. If
the water contains road salt, the solenoid windings
could corrode, causing the valve to fail. In a few rare
instances, the corrosion could be severe enough to
cause an internal short in the solenoid valve, which
could damage the ECM/PCM. If this happens, both the
bypass solenoid valve and the ECM/PCM would need
to be replaced.
Vehicles driven in the Northeastern part of the U.S. are
more likely to have this problem because of the salting
of roads during the winter months. Vehicles driven
where salt is not used on the roads are much less likely
to have this problem."


They say "a few rare cases". Well this was one of them.



> a fried solenoid is either doing
> open circuit or dead short - neither are going to harm the ecm, it
> will simply throw a code.


In this case, it can indeed kill the ECM.





--
Tegger

Tegger > wrote in
:


>
> Not in this case! American Honda very specifically says so in TSB
> A03-011.
>


Sorry, typo. The correct TSB number is A03-001.


--
Tegger

On 05/13/2011 03:19 PM, Tegger wrote:
> > wrote in
> :
>
>
>>
>> Not in this case! American Honda very specifically says so in TSB
>> A03-011.
>>
>
>
> Sorry, typo. The correct TSB number is A03-001.
>
>

i don't disbelieve the existence of the tsb, but several of my friends
are embedded systems engineers. the probability of failure for an
engine module like this, being as survival of dead shorts and open
circuits - the two outcomes of solenoid failure - is built in from day
one, is next to zero. far smaller than the likelihood of misdiagnosis
and resorting to "we can't figure out why the code keeps setting so it's
got to be the computer".

just like the diagnosis in tsb 97-025, they blame the thermostat because
whoever wrote it didn't bother to do two fundamental things:

1. understand the computer logic that goes into energizing the lockup
solenoid - several conditions need to be met - one of them being that
the gear selector switch is making contact.

2. deal with the logic of this being an issue only on one of their
automatics, not all the vehicles with this exact same thermostat. the
transmission selector switch is the only differentiator between the
conventional auto, the cvt auto, and the stick. if it really was the
thermostat, /all/ vehicles would be affected. fix the switch and the
problem disappears immediately and permanently, even with what was
previously a "defective" thermostat.


getting back to this case, i have one of these accords. i have
experience with this exact issue, and i'm telling you for fact - the
code sets each time the gas cap loosens. why it loosens, i don't know,
but it does. fix the cap, and your codes disappear - no broken or
leaking solenoid, and no new ecm.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 05/13/2011 11:05 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<coqdnQ9R2MM8plDQnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@speakeasy .net>,
> jim > wrote:
>
>>> When people had reported the Check Engine light (MIL) on with an EVAP code
>>> (P045x; P145x), I had been advising people to avoid the hassle and expense
>>> of getting it fixed, if they didn't have a smog check to pass.
>>>
>>> This is a potentially /expensive/ mistake.
>>>
>>> My attention has been called to TSB A03-001, which covers just about all
>>> models from '98 and up. It seems that corrosion in the EVAP system can
>>> result in an electrical short that can damage the ECM.
>>>
>>
>> i don't buy this. the ecm is protected against over-voltage and dead
>> shorts on all inputs and outputs. a fried solenoid is either doing open
>> circuit or dead short - neither are going to harm the ecm, it will
>> simply throw a code.
>
> Well, now, you're assuming Honda didn't screw something up in the design
> or manufacture of the ECMs from '98 on up.
>
> Right now, that's a HUGE assumption. Let's see, it was the '98 model V6
> four speed transmissions that started the whole "Honda can't build a
> transmission to save its life, makes Chrysler look like geniuses" thing
> that went on for 7 years and across two different models of transmission.
>
> I'm with you that a properly designed and built ECM is protected, but a
> ****ty piece that saved somebody a half a penny per unit? That would be
> Honda, from '98 on up.

if there is any issue, and i assign a very low probability to that, it's
hardware non-conformance, not design.


regarding the transmissions - i don't think there's much wrong with the
mechanical design per se, but i think the bean counters royally
misunderestimated the effects of their manufacturing execution.

i believe the problem is that they switched from carburized to flame
hardened gears - the latter being much cheaper to make. but these
cheaper gears are also incapable of making the same hardness on the
running surfaces, thus they spall, resultant swarf clogs the cooler
channels, and then the hydraulics fail. spalling of these gears is a
known issue, so i don't believe this was an engineering oversight,
purely a financial decision. and one i suspect that ties in to another
classic bean counter hot button - that of cars "lasting too long" -
because their customer service on the problem has been so bad and ties
in with a fundamental shift in honda attitude.

back in the day, honda's management understood that customers were loyal
because they were happy with the fact that their old honda had never let
them down. these days, business management schools don't teach about
the value of brand loyalty, just about how to calculate increased profit
if turnover can be increased by reducing vehicle lifespan. thus the
literalistic bean counter has a double incentive to mandate a known
defective transmission - cheaper to build, doesn't last, make the
vehicle uneconomic to repair by shafting the customer on the price of
the new transmission and by keeping spare parts off the market, so they
get to sell another vehicle. they think.

gross miscalculation. just like when they stiffed the previously
die-hard "enthusiast" market with the macpherson civics. even if they
fix their mistakes today, it'll take a decade, if ever, before they get
brand loyalty back. and if kia/hyundai ever release a hatch with
wishbones and engine options, they never will.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 05/14/2011 08:02 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<xeSdnYp6D4xXgFPQnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@speakeasy .net>,
> jim > wrote:
>
>> regarding the transmissions - i don't think there's much wrong with the
>> mechanical design per se, but i think the bean counters royally
>> misunderestimated the effects of their manufacturing execution.
>
> That's the polite way of saying that they ignored the engineering
> recommendations when it came to the manufacturing part of the
> process--and no doubt because it saved them a buck or two per unit.

to be fair, engineers and bean counter work hand in hand - and always
have. from an engineer's perspective, there's not much technical
challenge in making something that works - the challenge is making it
CHEAP but still able to survive the design objectives. if that design
objective includes a "bathtub curve", i.e. life limitation, the tech
challenge becomes significant and you have to throw substantial r&d at it.

it's ironic that saving money costs more don't you think?


>
> Making a mistake is one thing; what counts is how you recover from that
> mistake.
>
> Honda didn't recover from that mistake. Instead, they stuck their heads
> in the sand for years and tried to ignore it.

i don't think it was a mistake - i think it was a business decision.
mistakes get recalled and properly fixed. this has been an exercise in
"customer re-education", i.e. trying to get honda customers to align
their expectations with detroit customers. afterall, detroit customers
/expect/ their transmission to fail after a while - they've been
brainwashed into thinking it's an ok routine maintenance item, and they
open their wallets accordingly. if honda can realign their customer
expectations to match detroit, honda think they can tap into the
millions of dollars a year detroit makes selling "routine" transmission
replacement. and honda are trying to take it a step further by
emulating bmw, and keeping replacement parts off the market. you can't
buy a honda transmission now - you can only exchange it, which keeps
aftermarket rebuilders out of the game, stops rebuilders improving the
build and re-selling transmissions that last properly.


>
>
>
>
>> i believe the problem is that they switched from carburized to flame
>> hardened gears - the latter being much cheaper to make. but these
>> cheaper gears are also incapable of making the same hardness on the
>> running surfaces, thus they spall, resultant swarf clogs the cooler
>> channels, and then the hydraulics fail. spalling of these gears is a
>> known issue, so i don't believe this was an engineering oversight,
>> purely a financial decision.
>
> I'm sure the engineers specified a material with a certain hardness such
> that it behaved a certain way over time, and the beancounters--having at
> the time just recently been given free reign to "make us more
> money"--felt comfortable ignoring those engineering specifications. I'm
> sure the beancounters discovered the magic "will it last 3 years through
> the warranty?" specification that saved them a buck or two per unit, and
> went with that.
>
> And in the end, their choice has cost them dearly.
>
> Honda engineers are (or used to be, anyway) brilliant. Ignore them at
> your own peril.
>
>
>> back in the day, honda's management understood that customers were loyal
>> because they were happy with the fact that their old honda had never let
>> them down. these days, business management schools don't teach about
>> the value of brand loyalty, just about how to calculate increased profit
>> if turnover can be increased by reducing vehicle lifespan. thus the
>> literalistic bean counter has a double incentive to mandate a known
>> defective transmission - cheaper to build, doesn't last, make the
>> vehicle uneconomic to repair by shafting the customer on the price of
>> the new transmission and by keeping spare parts off the market, so they
>> get to sell another vehicle. they think.
>>
>> gross miscalculation. just like when they stiffed the previously
>> die-hard "enthusiast" market with the macpherson civics. even if they
>> fix their mistakes today, it'll take a decade, if ever, before they get
>> brand loyalty back. and if kia/hyundai ever release a hatch with
>> wishbones and engine options, they never will.
>
> yep.
>
> What's the Genesis coupe like?

it's a little too large for my taste, and coming in at $22k base with
macpherson struts, it's not there for anyone wanting to have fun - it
smells of drivers in their 50's who can't afford a bmw.

the old civic/crx concept put honda well and truly on the map and worked
for drivers of all ages. cheap to get into, cheap to run, highly
reliable, and even though it wasn't particularly powerful in stock
config, fun to drive. but because the basic platform was good, and
because more powerful engine options were bolt-in's, the civic platform
dominated the enthusiast market for nearly two decades and thus
generated huge brand loyalty when their drivers graduated to
newer/bigger/more profitable models. when honda dumped wishbones, you
couldn't make the civic platform a decent handling car even if you
wanted to, power then became the differentiator - and subaru [and
mitsubishi] ate their lunch.

honda seem finally to have paid a little attention with the crz, but
it's pretty freakin' bland frankly. it's much too expensive, doesn't
handle, and shows they're still not getting what was a real simple
formula - buy a base civic for $13k. put $10k into
engine/suspension/brake improvements, and for $23k, you have a car that
handles, goes, and more importantly ensures you and your family buy
another of the same brand. [recognition of this is where the toyota
"scion" brand originated.] today, you spend $23k on a honda and you
have nothing and there's nothing you can do with it even if you wanted
to. who is going to be loyal to that?

honda's only relief is that hyundai/kia don't seem to get it either.
they day they do, it's game over. subaru, mitsubishi and toyota will
all eat it too.


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

On 05/14/2011 10:59 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<i6mdnXLWp7MfMlPQnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@speakeasy .net>,
> jim > wrote:
>
>> the old civic/crx concept put honda well and truly on the map and worked
>> for drivers of all ages. cheap to get into, cheap to run, highly
>> reliable, and even though it wasn't particularly powerful in stock
>> config, fun to drive.
>
> give me a Fit Si.
>
> It's more fun to drive a slow car fast...

macpherson front and torsion beam rear won't /allow/ you to drive it
fast dude. and the si has the same output as the base, only it's
heavier with all the accessories...

i'm hanging on to my 89 civic hatches for my fun wheels for the time
being.

http://www.indyscca.org/SoloFiles/So...040311_raw.htm

couple in the top 10, with some serious dough placing well behind...


--
nomina rutrum rutrum

jim beam > wrote in
t:

> On 05/14/2011 08:02 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article<xeSdnYp6D4xXgFPQnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@speakeasy .net>,

>
>
>>
>> Making a mistake is one thing; what counts is how you recover from
>> that mistake.
>>
>> Honda didn't recover from that mistake. Instead, they stuck their
>> heads in the sand for years and tried to ignore it.



<replying to Elmo>

They assuredly did not. Even the NHTSA does not generally act until they
receive at least 1,000 complaints. Anything below that number tends to
fall into the "white noise" category, where it is difficult to determine
patterns.

Honda waited until they were certain they had a systemic issue, then
went -- expensively -- all-out to find a solution. I have personally
corresponded with, and advised, numerous owners who had got stuck with
the defective transmissions. Just about all of them have had Honda pick
up the entire tab for the replacement, and some have struck a deal where
Honda paid for the parts and they paid the labor. In most cases, Honda
did not argue at all: when the dealership made the "goodwill" out-of-
warranty request, Honda agreed immediately.

My observation is that Honda has been very generous with automatic-
transmission warranty-repairs. This fiasco has been horrendously
expensive for Honda, and has resulted in great damage to their
reputation. It is not an experience they can afford to repeat.

Almost all of the people I corresponded with had taken their cars to
independent garages or a transmission shop, and were shocked when told
how much it would cost to fix their transmissions. None were aware of
the various recalls and TSBs, and none of the garages seem to have been
aware of them either.

I am happy to be able to say that I have helped many owners to save a
huge amount of money simply by being able to inform them about the known
problems, the recalls, the TSBs, and Honda's "goodwill" warranty; it's a
good feeling.


>
> i don't think it was a mistake - i think it was a business decision.
> mistakes get recalled and properly fixed.



<repying to jim>

Honda's automatic-transmission woes had nothing to do with the
bean counters. They had to do with poor design, and poor
quality-control.

Honda has suffered mightily from their laxity, and has since corrected
the problem entirely. The 2005+ automatics have stellar reliability
records, and are probably the very best they've ever made.



--
Tegger

In article >,
Tegger > wrote:

> >> Honda didn't recover from that mistake. Instead, they stuck their
> >> heads in the sand for years and tried to ignore it.
>
>
>
> <replying to Elmo>
>
> They assuredly did not. Even the NHTSA does not generally act until they
> receive at least 1,000 complaints. Anything below that number tends to
> fall into the "white noise" category, where it is difficult to determine
> patterns.
>
> Honda waited until they were certain they had a systemic issue, then
> went -- expensively -- all-out to find a solution. I have personally
> corresponded with, and advised, numerous owners who had got stuck with
> the defective transmissions. Just about all of them have had Honda pick
> up the entire tab for the replacement, and some have struck a deal where
> Honda paid for the parts and they paid the labor. In most cases, Honda
> did not argue at all: when the dealership made the "goodwill" out-of-
> warranty request, Honda agreed immediately.

That was back prior to 2007.

Things changed DRAMATICALLY at American Honda when the economy crashed.

Time was, they went too far with goodwill in some circumstances--but
hey, a long term view of things says that's OK. My mechanic talked of a
guy whom they had never seen before at the dealership, ever, who came in
and ended up getting a brand new transmission--DESPITE his having a
trailer hitch on the back of his Odyssey, and his admission that he
towed a trailer through the mountains on a regular basis.

That was back in 2004.

Back in the day, Honda recognized the ultimate value of the goodwill
gesture.

Fast forward to today, and even my salesman admits that Honda has--if
anything--pulled back TOO far on the goodwill, all in the name of
reigning in costs.

This discussion came up last September as my 73K mile Odyssey was
getting a new transmission and tranny ECU, a $5000 repair, which Honda
covered at the 50% rate--and that only grudgingly and after long
negotiation involving both me and executive management at the dealership.

And I have at this point a 25 year relationship with this dealer, both
in sales and in service, for me and my entire extended family. I was in
regularly for every maintenance, even oil changes. I believed in the
Honda goodwill system, and benefited from it in the past--because I was
a good customer with the service history to prove it. I have absolutely
nothing against the dealer--in fact, if they switched to selling
Chryslers tomorrow, I might go in and talk to them. But I have no
reason to give Honda another dollar of my hard earned money after this
snub of theirs.

73K miles over 9 years, with my wife ferrying the kids around town.
Hell, 10K of those miles were highway trips to see family. That leaves
7K miles/year over 9 years of puttering around. And this should destroy
a transmission?

Honda, thy name is irony. Go sit in the corner and discuss life with
Chrysler.



> My observation is that Honda has been very generous with automatic-
> transmission warranty-repairs. This fiasco has been horrendously
> expensive for Honda, and has resulted in great damage to their
> reputation. It is not an experience they can afford to repeat.

I repeat: after the economy crashed, Honda pulled way, WAY back on the
goodwill repairs. They now have $2500 more of my money that absolutely
NO Honda owner, who bought the car new and who had it maintained on
schedule by the Honda dealer, should ever have had to pay.

I was fully aware of the recalls and the TSBs. I currently use exactly
one mechanic at this dealership; he's been there for 20+ years, has
worked on my cars all that time, and is very sharp, and knows all the
ins and outs of Honda and Honda cars. He and I chat while he works on
my car.

I was the very first customer to do the 5 speed tranny 2nd gear recall.
No one had done the procedure before, so I got to get in there and help
set up the digital camera (which had never been out of the box), set up
the jig, help my guy understand the instructions, and help them get the
photos off the camera to send to Honda. I even had the photos on my own
laptop for many years. They showed no bluing, so I got the oil jet. No
big deal.

Yeah. Been there, done that, got the T-shirt.

But American Honda has turned into something very, very bad over the
last few years.

On top of that, one of the other mechanics at this dealership--who also
was allowed to touch my car when he worked there, making that a total of
two people who ever touched my cars--got a job several years ago with
Honda engineering. In fact, Honda called me because he listed me as a
reference; he got the job, so I must have said something right. Anyway,
he now says that he despairs for Honda engineering, because they're
screwing everything up.

He's the one who told me that Acura still gets it right in the details,
but that the Honda brand has gone down the toilet.

A colleague of mine seems to bear that out. Never a Honda owner, three
years ago he bought a current-model Accord. V6, leather, loaded. Over
those three years he wrestled with the car and the dealer and American
Honda over an engine problem that no one could seem to diagnose, or make
happen on demand, or whatever. After pushing hard for the entire time,
he finally got the dealer to admit that there's a problem with that
engine where one particular cylinder fouls the plug within very few
miles. You can replace the plug, but it just fouls right away again.

It took a couple of years for them to admit this. My colleague got
peeved throughout this, because he knew he was being led around. It got
to the point at the end where he forced them to buy the car back at a
very attractive price. He immediately went out and bought an Infiniti
G35--and now swears AGAINST Honda.

This would never have happened in the 80s and 90s.

The days of Honda building quality cars at a reasonable price and then
taking care of their customers are long, long gone. You might as well
buy a Hyundai and save $7000 up front and know from the start you're
likely to get treated like that, instead of spending $7000 more for a
Honda and being surprised when you get treated like that.




> Honda has suffered mightily from their laxity, and has since corrected
> the problem entirely. The 2005+ automatics have stellar reliability
> records, and are probably the very best they've ever made.

That may be, but for the people like me that they dumped because "it's
too expensive to do goodwill anymore, even on our particularly ****ed up
transmissions" are gone for good.

Not only that, we're telling the story everywhere we go. I myself take
a printout of my story whenever I walk into a car dealer to kick tires.
I don't mention my dealer, because he's nowhere to blame in any of this,
but American Honda gets what they deserve--and every car salesman in
town will eventually have my story to tell.

I don't get a dime off any of that, but I get great satisfaction knowing
that in the end I will have cost American Honda much, MUCH more than the
$2500 they stuck me with.