i don't know where they got those manual pages because i have the accord
shop manual and they're not what i recall from my copy. i need to dig
but it is true that different vehicles have different belt change
intervals specified. not all belt types or manufactures are equal either.
Could that be for Canadian versions? What does that CD mean in the URL
address, anyway? I can imagine Canadian versions having more frequent
intervals due to the harsher weather, but I'm just speculating.
One would think so but then you find a Canadian web link like this:
where if you fill in the Complete Maint. Schedule variables for a 1994
Accord sedan and View Complete Maint Schedule for it, you'll find a
"Specific Additional Required Maintenance" list at the bottom where
timing belt replacement is called for at 96,000 km, which is about
60,000 miles. This is not what they specify for '94 US models.
you'll get yet another disparity* if you look at the european specs too.
which is why, with the qualification that belts /do/ need to be
inspected and changed periodically, i'm in the "pinch of salt"
department on this.
* my favorite is towing capacity. euro-spec towing capacity for a civic
with a braked trailer is 4 digits. u.s. spec is zero. now /that/ is
100% bullshit and 100% the result of political backroom deals to keep
the oilcos and detroit in business selling gigantic trucks with
ridiculously huge gas guzzling engines selling to people that only want
to tow a motorcycle or fishing boat.
Well woddyaknow. I was wrong. Even for my car they list a 60K mile belt
chenge, whereas my factory paper manual (which I've been following for 21-
years) says 90K miles.
This must be a fairly new thing, since the paper manuals I have (non-
Accord, mind you) that are meant for both the Canadian and US markets give
no difference in interval for either market. I wonder what changed?
i recently changed on of mine at 110k. it was in pretty decent shape
when it came off.
detroit-trained management. the same ones that managed to ensure
transmission failures "mysteriously" occurred across the honda line of
civic, accord, odyssey, etc. [you don't get simultaneous failures on
different transmission families unless you make a management decision
that it's going to happen.]
and as we all now know, honda usa's senior guy is an "ex" frod guy.
either he's misguidedly having honda mimic the worst of detroit's
maintenance practices in an attempt to make a small amount more money
without realizing the consequences. or he's still actually working for
frod and setting out to undermine honda's customer loyalty as part of
frod's public perception repositioning program.
one technical thing we know for sure - there's no reason for a decrease
in specification because belt quality has improved over time, not degraded.
another technical thing we know for sure - detroit [and the germans]
consider transmission life limitation as "fair game". it doesn't affect
the vehicle's appearance, its failure doesn't typically kill the driver,
and it comes as a prohibitively expensive repair item at a time when a
vehicle has lost a lot of value thus making it "uneconomic to repair"
thus improving new car sales. i know this for fact because one of my
profs was a consultant that helped a certain big name design failure
/in/ to their transmissions for this reason. for honda to have major
failures happen across multiple transmission families with no parts
commonality, all in exactly the same time frame is not coincidence but a
business decision in the detroit tradition at a time when they have "ex"
one business thing we know for sure - frod have specifically mentioned
honda in the business press as their target for domestic competition.
now, you may call my conclusion cynical, but it's also logical given the
And the *real* conclusion is a massive exodus of customers.
In typical American management fashion, Honda chose this route at
*exactly* the wrong time: when Hyundai (and its sister Kia) was in a
position to, and chose to, attack the market heavily with decent
products at decent prices and great styling.
Honda lobbed a softball to Hyundai, who went after it with gusto and is
hitting it out of the park.
it was the late 90's when honda decided to get rid of the macpherson
civics and jump on the detroit design life limitation bandwagon.
hyundai/kia wasn't a serious consideration on anyone's horizon at that
time. i agree that hyundai/kia have made a great interception, but i
think the intended recipient was detroit. and to a large extent it's
worked. look at frod's current customer approval ratings. it's
certainly not because frod have improved technically, but the goal posts
have moved to make frod look a good deal better just standing still.
True, but inertia carried Honda's reputation long enough to allow
Hyundai to form an attack plan. By the time their plan was ready, the
chinks in Honda's armor were becoming more and more apparent.
I'm reading Car and Driver's review of the Acura ILX; when I see that, I
immediately think of the Cadillac Cimarron. C&D is too sensitive to ad
dollars to say that directly, and even tries to drive the reader away
from that conclusion with things like "it doesn't share any body panels
with the Civic". If THAT'S the best you can come up with, you've damned
with faint praise indeed.
Personally, I've been waiting for Honda to put an auto trans in the
Civic Si platform. That Acura launched the "all-new" ILX-dressed Civic
Si with the same manual-trans-only configuration, and no auto trans
option, tells us that they managed to get that car out the door
*without* much (if any) govt-mandated testing (crash, EPA, etc). If
that is indeed the case, then the cars are so similar as to be
indistinguishable and the ILX is nothing but Acura doing its own
Cadillac Cimarron play with the Civic.
Honda didn't spend the R&D dollars to put the auto trans into the "all
new, completely different" ILX with the hot motor? Cheap bastards.
Especially when Honda several years ago was among the first to show that
they could achieve *higher* mileage with an auto trans vs a row-your-own.
damned right. you can get the "new" manual/auto transmissions, d.s.g.
or otherwise, on bmw, vw, audi, subaru, frod, toyota... it's frankly
ridiculous that in this day and age of electronic throttle, that honda's
/still/ throwing the ball to the competition by neglecting this stuff.
is this just incompetence? or is it trojan horse management?
"hot" motor??? wrx sti hot? mitsu evo hot? vw gti turbo hot? after
they've dropped the nsx, the prelude, the s2000? and made the crz a
gutless macpherson hybrid? and a civic hybrid that has lower mpg's than
than civic hx or crx hf?
after a long and amazingly accurately targeted series of fouls against
the old and loyal honda customer base, i just can't believe it's merely
cheapness. particularly when you look at the civic hf vs civic hybrid.
I will go so far as to say that some of this is the same mentality that
kept Honda using vinyl seats for so long, avoiding cloth, and that kept
Honda from putting any kind of as sound system into their cars that was
worth a damn until 2005.
The same mentality that said even in 2009, we won't use keyless
start/entry on even the $50K Acura MDX.
The same mentality that has kept Honda from putting memory seats tied to
the remote entry transmitter on anything other than the most expensive
Odyssey, and even at that it took them until 2011.
Honda has a long and solid history of resisting to the end doing things
the rest of the world considers mainstream.
They were able to do this because, for example, I would suffer the sound
system problem (fix it myself) in order to get the Honda goodness of
that 92 Civic Si. As just one example.
But now, all they have is "me-too" engineering that falls apart on
cue--and they STILL expect me to suffer not having the goodies? Really?
Hot for Honda. Everything's relative. But "hot" on an absolute scale?
OTOH, I know a guy who overall knows his stuff, who swears by his V6
Accord 6 speed. Dunno, never drove one.
I also know another guy who *really* knows his stuff (particularly Honda
stuff from way back) who swears by the TL 6 speed SH-AWD. The AWD makes
the difference. Apparently some good design accidentally slipped by the
On 06/09/2012 09:31 PM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
honda had the rt4wd civic way back. it was an awesome system, cheap and
reliable, and you got a great car for your money*. then honda usa
switched on to the crx being "too cheap", the 4wd civic being "too
cheap", so they came out with the massively overpriced del sol and sold
the 4wd civic in the shape of the crv with a radically different price
tag, even though it's essentially the same car.
so the only reason you're getting the 4wd tl is because of the crazy
price tag on it. compare that tag with the wrx sti or the evo and
you'll understand that the tl is still not enough car for way too much
money. and that they could sell it for way less and still make money
like they did with the civic.
* 4wd civics go for silly money here in the bay area. beaten up ones
are nearly $4k. good condition working ones, well, you could be looking
hmmmmmm, maybe you're right. I was never in the market, so I never
looked into it.
TrueCar shows the manual trans TL AWD w/Tech pkg to be a $39,000 car.
The 'Rex STI Limited (I figure that must compared with the TL Tech) is
But, they're different cars for different markets. I can see that price
difference buying more luxury in the TL, and--frankly--a significantly
larger car (whatever that might mean to you).
Edmunds shows that a 2010 highest end TL AWD w/36K should be in the
$30K-$32K range. But AutoTrader doesn't even show any available in this
area. I'd have to go 300 miles to find one.
indeed. honda/acura have axed everything that put them on the map:
the crx si/sir
the civic si/sir that actually handled well and had a decent
subaru have the wrx
mitsubishi have the evo
vw have the gti's.
i don't understand the intended market. lexus have eaten acura's lunch
with much superior vehicles. the nissan super-car is in a different
league. the only thing the tl can take aim at is audi or volvo. both
those have the wagons as well as sedans, and wagons are a significant
proportion of their market. and audi have the s4 and r8. so acura,
again, is left standing with nothing competitive on any level, luxury or
performance, and there's nothing on their horizon.
honda need to have a [genuinely competitively] fast version of the civic
or fit. not on the basis that it'll sell in quantity, but on the basis
that it helps the marque. and they need a prelude. and they need an
nsx. again, genuinely competitive ones. they will define the low
middle and high end ranges.
"win on sunday, sell on monday". it's an ancient motor sales maxim, but
it's as true today as it ever was. and honda are doing exactly the
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.