CR-V safety recall

I just got in the mail a safety recall on my 2010 CR-V. It has to do with the auto transmission control module software. I called one dealer and they said to allow 1/2 day but realistically if anyone
knows, how long does the actual repair take? And do they just plug into the electronics to make the change or have to change out the module itself?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

My 2009 was completed this week. Car in @ 0945, promised beween 3-4 p.m. and that included oil change and state inspection. Their work estimate for the 4 hours, for what I understand is simply a software reprogramming . Was ready @ noon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
"Observer" wrote in message
I just got in the mail a safety recall on my 2010 CR-V. It has to do with the auto transmission control module software. I called one dealer and they said to allow 1/2 day but realistically if anyone knows, how long does the actual repair take? And do they just plug into the electronics to make the change or have to change out the module itself?
My wife's CRV was done together with an A1 service -- total time was a little over an hour.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
4ax.com:

This one is just a software flash. Probably takes less than a half-hour, all told. The "1/2 day" thing would have more to do with the service department's workflow than anything else. It basically means they're not quite sure exactly when they're going to get to your car, depending on what happens with the ones that come before it.
--
Tegger

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

hehehe Yeah, just like I had to get a new control module, complete with new software, when Honda replaced my 02 Odyssey transmission last year.
And just like Honda reflashed the ECUs on all those Civic hybrids that were going through batteries.
The SOLE purpose of this and all other Honda "software flashes" is to benefit Honda by making the car perform in such a way as to get it through the warranty period--never mind how the car performs for the customer afterward.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually, most software flashes are designed to eliminate or ameliorate undesirable or destructive behavior. ALL automakers perform such flashes all the time, and not just to the transmission's control module. Spend a bit of time on various automakers' Techinfo sites, and you'll see.
Everything these days is computer-controlled, and there is a very heavy legislative emphasis on gas-mileage and emissions. The necessary level of control required to achieve the results desired by your lawmakers means that just about every aspect of engine/transmission behavior is subject to some sort of computer adjustment.
Unfortunately -- especially after the legal lynching of innocent Toyota a couple of years ago -- automakers have become extremely skittish and gun- shy, issuing recalls and TSBs for just about anything, even if only a handful of complaints have been received and no harm has resulted. This has the effect of making the product /look/ defective even when it's actually better than ever before. Plus the new regime muddies the waters: It's much less clear now when a recall or TSB covers something actually harmful.
The '99-'04 Honda automatics had terrible problems, most of them due to bad design (yours being one of them, unfortunately). This cost Honda very dearly, something they cannot afford, with Hyundai breathing down their necks. The '05-and-up automatics have a stellar reputation for reliability.
--
Tegger

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Like the hybrid flash?
Which was designed to do exactly what you describe.
BUT: the customer pays in lower gas mileage.
In days past, Honda would have apologized for designing/building a bad traction battery, and would have replaced the battery with one that actually works to make the car what the car is supposed to be. IOW, Honda would have eliminated the undesirable behavior--the battery going bad early--while simultaneously delivering on their promise of what the car is supposed to be.
Instead, the new Honda simply flashes the software to basically limp the battery along until Honda's obligations with respect to warranty claims are over. That the flash takes the gas mileage down to what a Civic LX gets every day without effort, is the customer's problem.
Honda has spent quite a bit of time figuring out how to solve THEIR problems ($$$$$) in software. Whether it FIXES the problem, whether or not the car the customer gets back is the car the customer bought or THOUGHT he bought, doesn't matter to the new Honda.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/09/2011 06:14 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

to be fair to honda, they don't actually make the battery cells, and a lot of those are well below par of late. all kinds of manufacturers [users] have been hit all across the board, not just honda.
now, many have worked with their supplier and will replace the defects free of charge, makita for instance. so really, your criticism is really directed to honda for /not/ doing the right thing with their supplier, and not replacing sub-par battery packs.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Not the customer's problem. Honda sold them something, then failed to deliver--and we're supposed to be "fair to Honda"?
The battery problem is Honda's problem, but instead the new Honda makes the customer pay the price. The REAL solution would be to give the customer what the customer actually paid for--but no, that would cost Honda money. No, it's better for HONDA that they spend as little as possible to fix the problem--and that means developing a one-time software fix instead of paying for parts to fix it.
The Honda I knew would have been falling over themselves to apologize while they fitted a different battery that allowed the car to meet ALL performance specs as advertised, not just a "lasts the length of the federally mandated 8 year warranty (but doesn't do diddly to increase your gas mileage)" spec.
Look: if Honda wants to play with the big boys, then they have to step up to the plate and play. They can't have it both ways. They can't commit to something, sell the hell out of it to hundreds of thousands of customers, then step back and point at their suppliers and shrug their shoulders.

That's EXACTLY my point.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:

This has been well described in multiplle sources. Shameful to say the least. If I were a Honda hybrid owner, I would be thoroughly pissed and waging a war.
Once a car company has a tainted record, it takes years to recover IF it recovers at all.
I'll just stick with my old turd boxes.. . Thank you!
JT
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

Not to mention the car is so underpowered afterward it will barely merge on a highway properly. Once the battery gets toasted the system is constantly charging a battery it never uses. My 1998 Taurus gets better gas mileage than the 2006 Hybrid. Disgusting and I will NEVER own another Honda. Period.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 10/10/2011 10:43 PM, Michael wrote:

I received this recall notification for my 2010 CR-V but in addition to the transmission software update discussed in this thread it also informs me of a "Product Update: Software to Improve Fuel Injector and VTC Timing"
I'm not too concerned about the transmission thing because in 50 years I have never "rapidly shifted between D-N-R at high RPM" If all they are doing is changing the software so that I can't do what I wouldn't do then I'll not ever be aware that they did it and it doesn't matter to me. With Honda's transmission track record I'm afraid to not let them do this to protect my warranty.
I am more concerned about the "product update" which wasn't mentioned by the other posters. This one scares me because the CR-V does not have any power to spare and this seems like it may involve a de-tuning. Here is what the notice says:
What is the problem? On some 2010 CR-Vs, the fuel injector timing and VTC timing at cold start may create deposits on the oil control rings that could contribute to increased oil consumption.
The dealer will update the powertrain control module (PCM) software.
Does anyone have any further info on this, or has anyone let them do it? Until I get convinced they are not going to cost me power or responsiveness I'm not going to let them do it. On the other hand if if somehow increases power I'll get to my friendly dealer tomorrow.
(BTW my "power" gripe is only from dead stop to 10 mph)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.