3.2TLc

Hey IllinoisREI, it's always nice to have a shop that ya can trust.

But, IMO the flawed design of our 2nd Gen trannys is not really worth spending $3500 to rebuild. Now if they offerd a full lifetime unconditional guarantee, maybe $2500 .....might be a more realistic price for a full updated rebuild of your original tranny. Get another opinion and quote if ya wanna rebuild.

The newer improved '06>'07 Accord V6 trannys are the best all around option for replacing your old poorly designed TL tranny. They are simply a bolt in replacement, with a few minor details which have been well documented by many others who have used the AV6 with great success. Figure approximately $1000 for the AV6 and $500 to install. Even if the price were about $2000, it would be more cost effective plus more durable. A win-win, IMO !!!

IllinoisREI

Thanks 3.2. Gotta go with the win-win. I just hope the shop can set aside their pride and open their mind to this solution.

IllinoisREI

Thanks Yikes. I'll share the link with the shop and if they won't cooperate I guess I'll just look elsewhere.

Anyone know of a shop in Illinois that will do the AV6 swap?

Nicks2001tl

Replace don`t rebuild!


Before putting a new Honda remanufactured tranny in my car I also asked about the 06/07 Av6 tranny in which he just stayed away from doing it.


Reason being if it`s not the direct replacement most shops won`t do it.


But buying the Av6 replacement has been a big bonus to TL owners who have experienced tranny failures.


1st look for a used one at a salvage yard (some will also install it for you). If not shop around and see if you can find someone to install it.

3.2TLc

Yeah, try your local recycling yards for a good low mileage Accord tranny. They are linked to networks and usually can find what ya want and even help refer shops that will install the tranny. Like everything else, it's best to see the car which the tranny is coming from. That way ya can get other misc parts, look over the donor car's damage and it's mileage.

Most tranny rebuild shops shy away from installing used trannys because it reduces their labor time and parts, along with profit margin. They also can't offer a warranty on a "used" tranny. But, if ya look around some ya maybe able to find an import speed shop that would be willing to install.

nats007

Ok.... posting this as I want to document the transmission since it has been rebuilt. So, the 2G now has just over 2,000 miles on it since it's recent rebuild a month or 2 back. On the return trip from Atlanta, GA to Orlando, FL on Dec. 26 I got a CEL and TCS light.

What happened? Well, I was cruising around 75-80mph in D5 on a expressway when someone slammed on their brakes after signaling to move over and then decided not too. I slammed on mine as well, looked for clearance and was able to switch lanes and then hit the gas again.

I noticed the car did downshift to 3rd and picked up speed very quickly, then switched to 4th and then 5th and I was cruising at 75 mph again. Shortly after that, I saw the CEL popped on. Five minutes later, the TCS popped on. Car still drove fine, so I exited and got some food. When I got back in the car and started it up, the TCS was off, but the CEL is still on.

I got the code read today and I have a P0740 torque converter solenoid according to AutoZone . After reading, that is one of the death codes for the transmission .

Code has been reset and looking to see if it will come back again. I'm also going to inspect the trans fluid and also check for any other indicators, but can it be already? I can't get over it and still in denial that it can be, so I'm asking the experts. I still have all my paperwork and warranty, so I'll be getting this looked into for sure next week.

Rob7886

2002 clp going strong @ 247,986

Rob7886

Most all Hwy miles. I drop out 3 quarts of trans fluid and install 3 fresh every other oil change.

3.2TLc

Hey Nats007, with a recent rebuild and warranty.....just take the car back to the shop and have them diagnose the problem.
Could be that the old solenoids were not replaced at the time of repairs to your car's tranny. They should stand by their work, IMO.

nats007

Update: the TL car has just over 214K on it (approx 10K the rebuilt transmission) and yesterday my wife experienced the car hard shifting and jumping. I was not in the car at the time but she was worried. It drove fine the afternoon, so she thought it was due to low gas. Today, leaving work, I press the gas, car revs with no acceleration, then jumps forward when I ease off the gas pedal. Happened twice and then it was normal.

Over the weekend, it was hard shifting into reverse and back to drive. No CEL, no TCS, no blinking D5. Its not looking too good and really bad timing

3.2TLc

What did the rebuild shop find ?
Apparently they screwed up !!!

Should've went with an "AV6" donor instead of the rebuild, IMO.

nats007

Taking it back to them sometime next week or week after. Of course, these things happen at the worst time...

Will let you guys know. I'm sharing this so others know. Don't bother with the damn rebuild. Just get a AV6 and slap it in there. Save yourself the headaches

3.2TLc

Sorry for your luck and we all know that the timing is never good on an older car.
Thanks for updating and sharing, as it definitely helps others when deciding what to do.

AV6 is the best choice.

BuddyC

iTrader: (6)

My TL has 325k miles on it, and the transmission has started up again. This is a replacement tranny under warranty from Acura.

Been looking for a new TL somewhere in the 2010-2012 range based on my budget.

B.TL

I had mine rebuilt....I wish I hadn't.
To all of you out there-REPLACE DO NOT REBUILD.
While mine has 25k on the rebuild, I am still nervous about it blowing up on me again.
I was on the freeway when the CEL and TCS light came on when it blew at 121k, and had I not already been changing lanes I would have been rear ended when it dropped out of gear.
If I were to do it over again I would swap to the Accord V6 tranny in a heartbeat.

3.2TLc

Hindsight is not always 20/20......but for those who face the inevitable, there is a better choice !

TLZINE99

Dispose of the car once u notice slippage...

nistah

COMESNOW, JOHN DOE, Plaintiff pro se in the above-entitled action ,

by andthrough himself, and files this Second Amended Complaint against Co -Defendants,

AMERICANHONDA MOTOR CO., INC. and Acura respectfully directs the Court'sattention to following :


1. Plaintiff,JOHN ANDREW DOE . ("MR. DOE") is an individual who is a resident ofthe District Of Columbia

2.Defendant, AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC.. and/or American Honda Motor Co.Acura Division.("Honda") is a foreign corporation authorized to dobusiness in the State of Maryland, and is engaged in the manufacture, sale, anddistribution of motor vehicles and related equipment and services. Honda isalso in the business of marketing, supplying and selling written warranties tothe public. Honda may be served with process by serving its registered agentfor service in Maryland: THE CORPORATION TRUST INCORPORATED, 351 WEST CAMDENSTREET, BALTIMORE, MD 21201

3.Defendant, RHD, GAITHERSBURG DBA ROSENTHAL ACURA. ("Rosenthal") is a licenseddealership authorized to do business in the State of Maryland, and is engagedin the sale, and repair of motor vehicles and related equipment and services. Rosenthalis also in the business of marketing, supplying and selling written warrantiesto the public. Rosenthal may be served with process by serving its registeredagent for service in Maryland: THECORPORATION TRUST INCORPORATED, 351 WEST CAMDEN STREET, BALTIMORE, MD 21201


4. Itis worth noting that transmissions on all model year 2002 Acura TL's weredefective due to a design flaw which was never properly remedied by themanufacturer. In the affected vehicles, the 5-speed automatictransmission failed: as the third clutch pack wore, particles blocked off oilpassages and prevented the transmission from shifting or holding gearsnormally. The transmission would slip, fail to shift, or suddenly downshift andmake the car come to a screeching halt, even at freeway speeds. This problemwas highlighted in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_Times in September 2002. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_Reports took note and gave the TL and CL the black spot, the worstrating for transmission reliability. The manufacturer did provide a recall on the defective parthowever the associated service bulletin and associated service and/orreplacement options did nothing to cure the issue, it only provided a temporaryfix. Furthermore the aforementioned transmission defect has resulted inprevious litigation including but not limited to Chris Collins v. American Honda Motor Company , Case No. RG03099677 Superior Court for the State ofCalifornia, Alameda County. Plaintiffs in the above referenced class actionlawsuit allege that the automatic transmissions in the Class vehicles containdefects that result in the complete failure of the automatic transmission atany speed. (Exhibit A).

5. Priorto and/or during the relevant time period as alleged herein, Defendant("Defendant" or "Honda") has known of the existence andmanifestation of this defect, as is documented in its own internal documents,but has failed to take appropriate corrective or remedial action, and has concealedthe existence and true nature of this defect from unsuspecting owners andlessees. Plaintiff is among the numerous owners of such vehicles that have hadfaulty transmissions or transmission gears, and has incurred thousands ofdollars' worth of repair bills as a result. Defendant's conduct with regards tothe sale, distribution, and repair (or lack thereof) of these vehicles amountsto a violation of Defendant's common law and statutory duties, as detailed morefully herein.

6. OnApril 24, 2006, Mr. DOE’s 2002 Acura TL Type S was serviced by Rosenthal Acurain Gaithersburg, Maryland ("Rosenthal") A replacement transmission wasinstalled under warranty in the 2002 Acura TL Type S automobile ("TL") with the VehicleIdentification Number ("VIN") .Defendant Rosenthal Acura performed the warranty work to replace the defectivetransmission on Plaintiffs 2002 Acura TL which had 47,116 Miles on the odometerat the time of service. Defendant performed work in question at their shoplocated in Montgomery County, Maryland. According to Rosenthal's Servicedepartment the replacement transmission was supposed to cure the known designflaw in the transmission which caused premature transmission failure in theaffected units. Rosenthal did not offerto return the replaced (old) transmission. (Exhibit B)

7. OnApril 10, 2013 Plaintiffs 2002 Acura TL again experienced total transmissionfailure, causing plaintiff to experience an unreasonably dangerous episodecausing the Acura TL to experience rapid deceleration on the highway, in heavytraffic. The odometer reading at thetime of the second transmission failure was 96,780 - less than 50,000 milessince the original transmission failure which transpired at 47,116.

8. OnApril 11, 2013 seeking assistance Plaintiff contacted Acura Client Relations tolook into the matter and advise his awareness of the inherent transmissiondefects in the model year 2002 Acura TL and to alert that he had experiencedthe 2nd transmission failure on his Acura TL within the past 50,000 miles. In light of the historic transmission issuesplaintiff respectfully requested assistance in resolving the issue and AcuraClient Relations opened corporate case # B012013-04-11-1482

9. OnApril 15, 2013 Plaintiff had the Acura TL towed to Rosenthal to have thetransmission issue diagnosed & resolved. Plaintiff advised the serviceadvisor Dennis Hoffer that the transmission had been replaced less than 50,000miles ago & less than 7 years ago and produced documentation on theprevious replacement, expecting the problem to be resolved without cost toplaintiff.

10. OnApril 19, 2013 the service advisor at Rosenthal confirmed that the transmissionneeded to be replaced in Plaintiff’s TL. Plaintiff was quoted $5500-$6000 fortransmission replacement. Additionallyplaintiff advised service advisor of Acura corporate case # B012013-04-11-1482and asked service advisor to advocate on plaintiffs behalf for assistance fromAcura corporate. Service advisor explained that he spoke with Acura corporateregarding case # B012013-04-11-1482 and that Acura was unwilling to provide anyassistance whatsoever. Rosenthal releasedthe car to Plaintiff with the transmission issue unresolved, in doing soRosenthal and Acura effectively refused to honor the implied warranty ofmerchantability by refusing responsibility for the known and copiouslydocumented transmission defect . (Exhibit C)

11. OnApril 23, 2013 Plaintiff contacted Acura Client Relations and expresseddisappointment over Acura Corporate’s refusal to provide any assistancewhatsoever. Furthermore Plaintiff requested Acura Corporate put the refusal ofassistance in writing, to which the representative suggested he would need tocheck with his supervisor. After consulting with his superior, therepresentative stated that it was “against policy” to reduce Acura Corporate’s decisionto writing. Moreover, Plaintiff then advised of his awareness of the ClassAction Suit brought against Acura for the Transmission issue in Alameda CountyCalifornia which Acura settled, resulting in the extension of warranty on alltransmissions placed in 2002 Acura TL automobiles 7 years or 109,000miles. Finally Plaintiff suggested that ifAcura warranted the parts for their vehicles under warranty of merchantabilitythen Acura should have provided goodwill coverage of a new transmission, unlessAcura is saying they have an expectation that a part will fail and the customershould be liable for the cost of replacement of the defective part.

12. AfterAcura Client Relations indicated that there was nothing else it could do tocorrect the defect on April 24, 2013 Plaintiff submitted complaint #MU-226449to the Maryland Office of the Attorney General, Consumer Protection Division.To advocate on Plaintiff’s behalf with Acura Corporate (Exhibit D)

13.On May 16, 2013 the Maryland Office of the Attorney General, ConsumerProtection Division sent a letter to Acura Plaintiff seeking to mediate theissue and detailing the above referenced series of events (Exhibit E)

14. OnJune 4, 2013 the Maryland Office of the Attorney General received a letter fromAcura Division American Honda Motor Co/ Client Relations refusingresponsibility and amazingly denying knowledge of the exceedingly welldocumented defect with the transmission (Exhibit F)

15. OnJune 11, 2013 the Maryland Office of the Attorney General, Consumer ProtectionDivision sent a letter to Plaintiff. issuing an opinion on the matter in favorof Plaintiff. Furthermore the letter explains that they were unable to resolvethe complaint against Co-Defendants, due to Co-Defendants refusal to entermediation. The letter goes on to advise that Honda refused to respond to theOffice of the Attorney General’s question concerning the life expectancy of thedefective transmissions. The letter also suggests that only a court candetermine if rights were infringed upon and order an appropriate remedy. Finally the letter advises that plaintiff iswell within his rights to sue Co-Defendants for alleged violations of theMaryland Consumer Protection Act. Letter dated June 11, 2013 from MarylandOffice of the Attorney General is attached to this complaint. (Exhibit G)

16. Plaintiffafforded Defendants a reasonable opportunity to cure the defect yet Defendantscontinue to refuse to take responsibility for said defect in subjectautomobile.






17.Plaintiff's experience is but one of the many similar situations encountered by

owners orlessees of 5 speed automatic transmission equipped Acura TL vehicles in the United States.

18. Uponinformation and belief, the defect in the subject vehicles appears to beattributable to a defect in the materials selection and/or the manufacture ordesign of the transmission, gears and clutch packs that causes the transmissionin the Acura TL to wear prematurely andexcessively. Indeed, so pervasive is the problem, that a host of message

boards foraggrieved Acura owners have arisen online. Even a cursory sampling of these documentsshow how pervasive the problem is.

19.Attached as (Exhibit H) hereto arepostings at an online message board found at a websitehttp://www.carcomplaints.com/Acura/TL/2003/transmission/transmission_failure.shtmlThe message board topic begins with a posting of an owner of a 2003 Acura TL whichbegan to experience transmission problems at only 22,000 miles & ultimatelyhad to have 3 transmission replacements,averaging only 30,000 miles per transmission. (Ex. 1 at Posting No. 1). Thereply postings reveal a steady stream of owners similarly affected, One poster#2 relates that: "My 2003 Acura transmission failed utterly ata little over 70,000 miles. Honda of America admitted to a recall on thismodel--the subject of a Class Action Lawsuit (settled) in California in2006--but offered to compensate me only one quarter of the $4,500 cost. This ismy last Honda ever. I'm done." {Id. at Posting No. 2).Another owner # 4 posts that:"Bought the car certified pre-owned in 2003. At 23,000 miles the firsttransmission went. It was replaced under Warranty. Dealer said it was replacedunder the recall. Now at 139,000 just out of the 7 years and out of warrantly2nd transmission went. Acura Client Services told us to got through the ServiceMgr, he escalated to Factory Field Rep who declined to offer any "goodwillassistance." {Id at posting No 4.). Another post #20 relates, "Engine light came on about 2 days before I took it into the Acuradealer who told me the transmission needed to be completely replaced. Acurawould not help with any of the cost despite the fact that the transmissionissue is a known issue. I ended up taking the car to a local reputable repairservice who has developed a good technique of repairing the transmission.."{Id. at Posting No. 20). Yet another posting #21 relates that"I bought my 2003 Acura TL brandnew. At 90,000 the transmission failed and left me stranded. Acura of Bellevue,WA replaced it with rebuilt transmission. Acura headquarters in California paidhalf so my half was $1500. At 130,00 the transmission started doing the samething (slipping between 2nd and 3rd). Before it left me stranded, I took itinto a transmission shop who told me my best bet was to buy another vehicle.." {Id. at Posting No, 21). And the postings continue, on and on literally thousands of similarlysituated owners experiencing transmission issues with Honda Acura product andHonda Acura does little or nothing to help owners of defective

20.The foregoing are but selected postings in only one online message board, butthe problem is so pervasive that several other online message boards withsimilar experiences exist.

Anothermessage board entitled at the https://acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9037882site, attached hereto as (Exhibit I), contains the following posting from a Acuraowner, " We are currently in the process of gettingour third transmission replacement (we already had the oil jet kit put in andbegan having more problems ten months later). My faith in our Acura has definitelybeen shaken and I am concerned for future problems not only with thetransmission but with other parts of the engine due to wear and tear as aresult of these problems. Given the circumstances pertaining to our experience,I am not willing to believe that this third transmission will be any differentfrom the first two. When we inquired about what exactly is wrong with thetransmission we get the run around. .”

21. Findingsfrom other web site threads and blogs indicate that Honda USA is not consistentwith the treatment of customers... some customers are bearing the full cost ofthe repair while others are being offered "good will" discounts. Forexample one poster on http://honda-tech.com/showthread.php?t=2647078 (Exhibit J) writes: “Honda denied my 'goodwill repair' request. [getting heat off mychest]...And they were extremely rude about it. I am disappointed in theirsalesmanship. I called CS to request a 'goodwill repair' for my prematurefailing automatic transmission. I explained to them my situation; strugglingcollege student working at Starbucks, I also explained my goal of working forHonda...ANYTHING to get another tranny. They told me that there was never anyextended warrantyor recall on my Accord, and didn't give a second thought to it.*bummed” Whileanother aggrieved and similarly situated consumer on https://acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=696200 (Exhibit K) writes: “We own a 2001 Acura CL TypeS with 29,000 garaged and easy-driven miles. My family purchased the car with13,000 several years ago. We took the car on a long drive of several hours andafter driving back to home, the second gear slipped during a shift. I took itto the dealer and after a week of calls with Acura CS...the will not offer anymore than 60 percent of the total repair. I need help, I am frustrated and donot feel like I should have to pay. I am five months outside of the extended warranty.I have purchased several new Acura's for me and my family in the last fewyears. I am a loyal customer”. It appears there has been a service bulletinout for 10 years on this problem with no sign that Acura is stepping up inuniform fashion to cover a known fault, althoughnumerous edits to the service bulletin with updated service instructions havebeen authored.



22.Honda has known all along about the existence of the defect which causes a crossleak in 3rd gears on its transmissions installed in subject vehicleand all other 2000-2003 model year Acura TL and TL Type S models, yet it hasconcealed that knowledge and deliberately omitted key information aboutdefendant’s engineering staff’s inability and/or failure to properly remedy thedefect. Furthermore Honda failed to disseminate existence of this failure tothe unsuspecting plaintiff.

23.Honda' knowledge of the defect isevidenced by the fact that at least asearly as January 20th , 2003, Honda issued an internal Technical Service Bulletin # 03-002 (Exhibit L) that documentedthe problem and informed Hondatechnicians how to diagnose it and replace the defective transmission, clutch packs and/ or gears. Further, to date, since the 2003 release of the original internalTechnical Service Bulleting, Honda has issued at least 5 amendments, supplements or additional Technical Service Bulletins includingTSB 90-009 dated January 27, 2004,on January 21, 2005 TSB90-009 (Exhibit M) was again updatedwith superseded information, all of which acknowledge the problem brought aboutby the defective transmission, clutch pack and internal gears.

24.The Technical Service Bulletins were disseminated internally by Honda to itsrepair technicians, and were not designed to and did not inform the generalpublic, drivers, or lessees of affected vehicle about the defect. To the contrary, even while knowing all thewhile of the existence of this defect, Honda continued to offer for sale and sell the subject vehiclesequipped with the subject defective transmissions, and took no steps toreplace the defective parts, or to otherwise remedy and cure the defect.

25.That Honda knew and has known all along about the defect in its transmissiongears is also independently confirmed by review of their diagnostic codes andmanuals. When a Honda vehicle is broughtin for repairs to an authorized Honda dealership, the technician may connectthe vehicle to an electronic diagnostic scanner that will output a series ofcodes, which purport to store in the vehicle's computer memory a set ofconditions that the vehicle has experienced. Armed with these codes, the Honda technician can turn to Honda repairsmanuals that may document potential diagnoses of fault tree procedures tofollow, given certain diagnostic code outputs from the scanner tool. For several years now, Honda diagnostic manuals have alerted its technicians that in vehicles equippedwith the subject transmission, if thescanner outputs codes that correspond toretarded transmission maladies, theHonda diagnostic manual instructs therepair technician to check for probabletransmission gear wear, thereby highlighting that Honda already knew of this defect, itssymptoms, and manifestations, yet concealed its existence from the driving andbuying public.

26.Honda' knowledge and concealment of the defect is also independently evidencedby the fact that, upon information andbelief, only sometime in 2005 Honda eventually replaced thetransmission gears in its defective transmission for new vehicles coming off the assembly line with thesetransmissions. Yet, while it did that going forward, Honda took no action andmade no disclosure as to the defective transmission and gears on the thenexisting Honda vehicles equipped with the affected transmissions. Instead offixing the issue Honda simply replaced under warranty broken transmissions withsimilarly defective transmissions which were prone to recurrent failure.

27.Honda' concealment and its omission of any disclosure of the defect in the affected automobiles was not merely acase of innocent omission or misrepresentation, but rather represents anintentional campaign to fraudulently deceive the buying public. Honda knew that, if it disclosed itsknowledge of the existence of the defect in the transmission, it would beliable for their replacement, and would face adverse consequences to its reputationand sales. In addition, failing to disclose the defect would allow Honda'dealerships to generate additional significant revenues from the costassociated with the replacement of the defective transmission and idle gears invehicles that had experienced the manifestations of the defect. As a result, Honda sought to avoid thisliability and adverse consequences, and at the same time to enhance the revenuestream to its dealership's repair garages, by intentionally and fraudulentlyconcealing this defect.

















28. Plaintiff sues for breach of an impliedwarranty of merchantability, § 2-314 and breach of an implied warranty of fitness for aparticular use, § 2-315.

29.The above counts fall under a strict product liability cause of action: to wit:Manufacturers or sellers of goods are legally responsible for any damage orharm suffered as a result of the use of their product for the purpose for whichit was intended. This means that manufacturers who sell defective products toend-users or middlemen for resale will be held accountable for injuriessuffered from the use of the products.

30. Hondahas failed to diagnose and repair the defect.

31. Thedefect violates the manufacturer's warranty and the implied warranty ofmerchantability.

32. Onnumerous occasions Mr. DOE afforded Honda a reasonable opportunity to cure thedefect.

33.The defect in the transmission remains uncorrected.

34.As a result of the numerous attempts and inability to repair the vehicle, Mr. DOEjustifiably lost confidence in the vehicle’s safety and reliability.

35.The value of the TL has become substantially impaired to Mr. DOE.

36.The defect was not and could not have been reasonably discovered by Mr. DOEprior to the replacement of the transmission for the TL Vehicle.

37.As a result of the defect and Honda's inability to cure, the NADA book value ofMr. DOE’s TL has become substantially diminished; under Maryland Statutory law Hondais liable for the diminished value depreciation on Mr. DOE’s TL.

38.The TL was in substantially worse condition after it received the replacementtransmission than it was before Rosenthal performed their service installingsaid defective transmission or at the time of purchase

39. Hondarefused plaintiffs legitimate implied warranty claim and request for goodwillassistance within the court specified implied warranty period and thecorresponding remedies to which Mr. DOE is entitled under the law.

40. Mr.DOE has been and will continue to be financially damaged due to Honda's failureto comply with the provisions of the implied warranty and to provide Mr. DOEwith a merchantable transmission.

41. Plaintiffis entitled by the terms of the implied warranty to enforce the obligations ofthe implied warranty.

42. Thedefective transmission installed in Plaintiffs TL was manufactured, sold andpurchased after July 4, 1975 and, costs in excess of ten dollars ($10 .00).

43. Underthe implied warranty Honda should repair or replace defective parts, or takeother remedial action free of charge to Mr. DOE in the event that the transmissionwithin the TL failed to meet the specifications set forth under Marylandimplied warranty of merchantability statute and code.

44.The implied warranty was the basis of the bargain with respect to the purchaseand sale contract executed and entered into by plaintiff when purchasing theAcura TL.

45.The purchase of plaintiffs TL vehicle was induced by the implied warranty forthe first replacement transmission, upon which plaintiff relied. Honda/Acuramisrepresented facts to intimate that transmission design defect was resolvedwhen in fact it never was.

46. Plaintiffhas performed his obligations under the warranty.

47. Hondabreached its obligations under the implied warranty by failing to repair thedefect present in the transmission after being afforded a reasonableopportunity to cure and/or by failing and refusing to provide plaintiff with areplacement transmission the second time the transmission failed.

48.The transmission remained subject to an implied warranty of merchantabilityuntil September 2013.

49.Honda contracted to sell goods and does, in fact, sell vehicle parts topurchasers, orders component parts, and/or assembles them into final products. Hondais a merchant with respect to the goods of the kind sold to Mr. DOE.

50. Asa matter of law, the installation of the transmission implies that the said transmissionwill remain merchantable for the duration of the warranty on the part, because Hondais a merchant with respect to such goods.

51.Honda breached the implied warranty inasmuch as it installed a transmissioninto Plaintiffs vehicle of insufficient quality. The transmission is not fitfor the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used.

52.The transmission has failed to meet Mr. DOE's reasonable expectations.

53. Throughoutthe course of ownership due to the defective transmission the Plaintiff’s vehiclehas not provided dependable transportation, and it has not been trouble-free.

54.Honda has attempted, in contravention of law, to disclaim the implied warrantyof merchantability.

55.As a result of the breach of implied warranty by Honda, Mr. DOE is without thereasonable value and use of the TL vehicle.

56.Defendant is a merchant with respect to the distribution, sale, and leasing ofAcura automobiles in the United States. With respect to the sale or lease ofPlaintiffs' automobiles, the Acura dealership from which Plaintiff’stransmission was replaced were acting as agents of the corporate parent Honda, the Codefendant.They were selected by Defendant, and authorized by Honda to representthemselves as Acura Honda-authorized dealers. They were further authorized tooffer Acura warranty coverage on the vehicles only subject to Defendant'sauthorization and criteria.

57.By operation of law, an implied warranty of merchantability from Defendant attachedto each sale and lease of the subject vehicles warranting that the vehicleswere of merchantable quality.

58.Because the subject vehicles contain a defect in their transmission’s which cause’sthem to become unduly prone to experience a cross leak in third gear, having a"check engine light" condition, or to stop running, they are ofunmerchantable quality, and Defendant has breached its implied warranty ofmerchantability.

59.The subject vehicles are not merchantable because, inter alia: theywould not pass without objection in the trade under the contract description;they are not of fair average quality within the description; they are not fitfor the ordinary uses for which such vehicles are used; and, they are notadequately labeled.

60.As a proximate and foreseeable result of this breach, Plaintiff has beeninjured by being forced to operate an unmerchantable vehicle that did notcorrespond to the benefits of the plaintiffs bargain




61. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates herein by reference theallegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if set forthfully herein.

62. In Honda’s correspondence with the Maryland Office of the AttorneyGeneral, Honda categorically mislead and concealed from the OAG key details with respect to questions the OAGposed to Honda concerning expected life span of the subject transmissions.

63. To prevail on an action for intentional misrepresentation, aplaintiff must prove: "(1) that the representation made is false; theevidence presented forms a preponderance of fact that Honda consistentlyengaged in a repetitive pattern of deception and inconsistency with regards tothe resolution of the transmission defect. See exhibits A through K and compareand contrast the extraordinarily woven tale of double talk and misinformationwhich Honda was responsible for publishing. J (2) that its falsity was eitherknown to the speaker, or the misrepresentation was made with such a recklessindifference to the truth as to be equivalent to actual knowledge; compare the evidence as suggested by similarlysituated parties (Exhibits H and I) and contrast with the technical service bulletins (Exhibits J and K )proves that Honda was disseminating different information AKA paying lipservice to different parties IE those under it’s employ versus it’s customers,each received a different explanation for the same defect (3) that it was made for the purpose ofdefrauding the person claiming to be injured thereby; plaintiff used thedocumentation of subject vehicles 2006 transmission replacement as Honda’s wordand bond that the defect had been properly resolved this information broughtforth by Honda although reduced to writing in the form of a work order andinvoice for warranty transmission repair dated 4/15/2006 which inducedPlaintiff into a transaction was false in nature, in this instance Honda’s wordwas the basis of the bargain. See (Exhibit B)( 4) that such person not only relied upon the misrepresentation, but had aright to rely upon it in the full belief of its truth, and that he would nothave done the thing from which the injury resulted had not suchmisrepresentation been made; Plaintiff was well within his rights to takedocuments disseminated by Honda to vehicles previous owner as truthful in fact.Again see (Exhibit B). And (5) that heactually suffered damages directly resulting from such fraudulentmisrepresentation." The monetary damages suffered by plaintiff havebeen painstakingly detailed in the above complaint. Also the repair bill forthe independent shop which rebuilt the defective transmission see (Exhibit N)which represents plaintiffs actual out of pocket losses. The actual punitive damages related toplaintiffs struggle to defend himself against a sophisticated corporation witha myriad of resources is also worthy of consideration.

64. Defendants intentionally, through its statements made in businesstransaction documentation and to the Plaintiff, made representations and oromitted material information about the qualities, condition, safety, and orvalue of the transmission replaced by them in the subject vehicle

65. Those representations and omitted material facts included, but arenot limited to, that the transmission was safe and in a habitable andmerchantable condition, and that repairs would be effectuated to maintain theAcura in a safe and habitable condition, and or that no defect existed withinthe transmission.

66. Those representations and or omissions were false and material innature.

67. Defendant knew of the falsity of those representations and oromissions, and or made them with a reckless indifference to the truth as to beequivalent to actual knowledge.

68. Defendant made those representations and or omissions for thepurpose of defrauding and or inducing Plaintiff to buy the subject Acura inquestion and or to continue business relationships with Defendant, to hisdetriment.

69. Plaintiff reasonably relied on those representations and oromissions to his detriment.

70. Plaintiff, as a consumer, had a right to rely on therepresentations and or omissions made by Defendant.

71. Plaintiff was injured by Defendant’s intentionalmisrepresentations and omitted material statements.

72 .Defendant’s actual or constructive malice in making intentionalmisrepresentations and in omitting material facts to Plaintiff should bepunished by punitive damages.



73. Plaintiff repeats and incorporates herein by reference theallegations in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if set forthfully herein.

74. Defendant's failure to disclose as well as its intentional andfraudulent omission from any of its advertising and sales materials orbrochures of the subject vehicles' defects, as well Defendant's denial ofwarranty coverage for repairs required as a result of these defects that were knownto it, but concealed from the public, amount to an unconscionable commercialpractice, deception, fraud, false pretense, or the knowing, concealment,suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely uponsuch concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale oradvertisement of the subject vehicles, thereby also violating the Maryland Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”)which prohibits any person from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices inthe sale, or offer for sale, of consumer goods. MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW II §§13-303 (Repl. Vol. 1990). See count VI.

75. Among other things, Defendant knew that the subject vehicles had adefect which would cause them to fail before their expected useful life, andintentionally concealed that information from plaintiff, with the purpose ofmaximizing profit, thereby independently violating the Maryland Consumer protectionAct. Again, see count VI

76. Plaintiff has suffered anascertainable loss and/or injury as a result of Defendant's violations of theMaryland Consumer protection Act. . Plaintiff has had to expend significantmoney to cover the repair bills required as a result of the defects See (ExhibitN). Further, Plaintiff has sustained adiminished value of subject vehicle as aresult of the subject defect because, once the defect is disclosed as is beingdone through the filing of this lawsuit, the resale value of the vehicle willbe negatively impacted as a specific and predictable result of the subjectdefect. In addition, plaintiff has further suffered an ascertainable loss orinjury because plaintiff has not received the benefit of his bargain inconnection with plaintiff’s purchase of the subject vehicle. Instead, plaintiffreceived a vehicle bearing a latent defect in its transmission gears.

77. To prevail upon a claim of negligent misrepresentation, aplaintiff must prove: (1) the defendant,owing a duty of care to the plaintiff, negligently asserts a false statement;in this particular instance the duty of care was breached when Honda knowinglyand negligently issued statements in the form of repair orders certifying thatcorrective action was taken to resolve the issue with the transmission duringthe first attempt to remedy the defect under warranty. See (Exhibit B) the workorder and invoice for warranty transmission repair dated 4/15/2006 whichinduced Plaintiff into a transaction was false in nature, since Honda wasreplacing defective transmissions with similar defective transmissions thatwere or like kind and quality which were just as prone to failure as thetransmission unit which was replaced, evidenced by the replacement unitsfailure less than 50,000 miles after replacement, further in this instanceHonda’s word that the repair was merchantable was the basis of the bargain with respect toPlaintiffs purchase. See (Exhibit B) (2) the defendant intends that hisstatement will be acted upon by the plaintiff; again see (Exhibit B) the workorder and invoice for warranty transmission repair dated 4/15/2006 whichinduced Plaintiff into a transaction was false in nature, since Honda wasreplacing defective transmissions with similar defective transmissions thatwere or like kind and quality which were just as prone to failure as thetransmission unit which was replaced, Plaintiff was well within his rights totake documents disseminated by Honda to vehicles previous owner as truthful infact. Again see (Exhibit B). (3) thedefendant has knowledge that the plaintiff will probably rely on the statement,which, if erroneous, will cause loss or injury; See (Exhibit B) the workorder and invoice for warranty transmission repair dated 4/15/2006 is adocument which is intended by defendants to be factual in nature and basis.This documentation was induced Plaintiff into a transaction, since Plaintiffrelied on this information and it wasfalse in nature, since Honda was replacing defective transmissions with similardefective transmissions that were or like kind and quality which were just asprone to failure as the transmission unit which was replaced, evidenced by thereplacement units failure less than 50,000 miles after replacement, Defendantwould plainly have knowledge that it’s business invitee’s and third partydescendants would probably rely on said statements ( 4) theplaintiff, justifiably, takes action in reliance on the statement; See (ExhibitB) the work order and invoice for warranty transmission repair dated 4/15/2006 indeeddid induced Plaintiff into a transaction. The underlying facts within the workorder were false in nature, since Honda was replacing defective transmissionswith similar defective transmissions that were or like kind and quality whichwere just as prone to failure as the transmission unit which was replaced,evidenced by the replacement units failure less than 50,000 miles afterreplacement, further in this instance Honda’s word that the repair wasmerchantable was the basis of thebargain with respect to Plaintiffs purchase and (5) the plaintiff suffers damage proximately caused by thedefendant's negligence." Sheets v. Brethren Mut. Ins. Co., 342 Md.634, 659 (1996). The monetary damages suffered by plaintiff have beenpainstakingly detailed in the above complaint. Also the repair bill for theindependent shop which rebuilt the defective transmission see (Exhibit N) whichrepresents plaintiffs actual out of pocket losses. The actual punitive damages related toplaintiffs struggle to defend himself against a sophisticated corporation witha myriad of resources is also worthy of consideration.

78. Defendant negligently, through its statements made to thePlaintiff, made representations and or omitted material informationrepresentations and or omitted material information about the qualities,condition, safety, and or value of the Transmission replaced by them in theSubject Acura and or to induce the Plaintiff to buy the same.

79. Those representations and omitted material facts included, but arenot limited to, that the transmission was safe and in a habitable andmerchantable condition and that repairs would be effectuated to maintain theAcura in a safe and habitable condition, and or that no defect existed withinthe transmission.

80. Those representations and or omissions were false and material innature.

81. Those statements had the tendency of inducing Plaintiff to buy hissubject Acura automobile and or to continue his patron ship of the Acura brand,to his detriment.

82. Plaintiff reasonably relied on those representations and oromissions to his detriment.

83. Plaintiff, as a consumer, had a right to rely on therepresentations and or omissions made by Defendant.

84.Plaintiff was injured by Defendant’s intentional misrepresentationsand omitted material statements.



85 Plaintiff hereby incorporates by referenceeach and every allegation of this complaint with the same force and effect asif it had been fully restated herein.

86. Plaintiff is the owner of Acura automobilewhich contained transmissions that are defective in the manner detailed herein.

87. By purchasing an Acura branded automobile,Plaintiff conveyed monetary as well as intangible benefits on Defendants, andDefendant appreciated and was enriched by those benefits.

88. As a result of Defendant's unjust andinequitable conduct alleged herein, including its

distribution of defective automobiles into the United States' streamof commerce, as well as its failure to properly remedy those defects, it wouldbe unjust and inequitable for Defendant to be

permitted to retain these benefits.

89. Plaintiff is, therefore, entitled to andhereby prays for a judgment of restitution, ordering Defendant to disgorge itsill-gotten gains to the defendant to offset damages which have arisen solelyfrom defendants caustic negligence and scorched earth policy of attempting toconceal latent defects contained in products marketed as merchantable at anycost including but not limited to fraud, negligence and intentionalmisrepresentation.






90. Plaintiffhereby incorporates by reference each and every allegation of this complaintwith the same force and effect as if it had been fully restated herein.

91. Plaintiff also asserts his right as aconsumer under the Maryland’s Consumer Protection Act (“CPA”) which prohibitsany person from engaging in unfair or deceptive practices in the sale, or offerfor sale, of consumer goods. MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW II §§ 13-303 (Repl. Vol.1990).

92. The statute specifically authorizes aprivate cause of action for recovery of damages, and possibly attorney’s fees.MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW II §13-408 (Repl. Vol. 1990). The purpose of the CPA isto establish minimum standards of conduct in the market place and to protectconsumers. MD. CODE ANN., COM. LAW II §§ 13- 302(b)(1), 13-103(a) (Repl. Vol.1990);Consumer Protection Division v. Luskins, Inc.,120 Md.App. 102 (1998).

93. To establish a violation of the CPA,plaintiff must prove that the defendant engaged in unfair and deceptive tradepractices in connection with the sale or offer for sale of consumer goods,causing the plaintiff to sustain injury. Morris v. Osmose Wood Preserving,340Md. 519, 538-539, 667 A.2d 624 (1995). The deceptive practice must occur in thesale or offer for sale to consumers. A private party suing under the CPA must establishactual injury or loss. Morris,340 Md. at 538.

94. In this particular instance (Exhibit B) clearlydemonstrate that Honda has engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices specificallywhen Honda replaced under warranty broken transmissions with similarlydefective transmissions which were prone to recurrent failure instead of fixingthe latent defects inherently associated with the defective transmissions theywere marketing as merchantable, marketing which was also a grossmisrepresentation of the truth.

95. As a direct and proximate cause of Honda's breach of impliedwarranty of merchantability, breach of an implied warranty of fitness for aparticular use, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation andunjust enrichment as well as violation of the Maryland Consumer Protection act Mr.DOE has suffered damages, including, but not limited to:





(a) loss of use;

(b) diminished value;

(c) incidental damages ;

(d) consequential damages;and

(e) attorney fees .

Nicks2001tl

^^What is that? That looks like a lawsuit brought upon someone from the state of Maryland. Nothing has been ruled on that and that isn`t a nation wide lawsuit for all defective 2nd gen Acura Tl transmissions.

nats007

update: the car has been at the rebuild shop now since yesterday. Today I received a call that the torque converter is bad its being replaced under warranty

nistah

Nick that is a lawsuit I brought against Acura out of sheer frustration after they refused to acknowledge and take responsibility for the trans failure problem. While this suit was dismissed by the district court judge & I did not have further time or energy to appeal ( in hindsight I probably should have) I wanted to post here for information purposes so other similarly situated folks with TLS AT issues can review and hopefully replicate, because while Acura refused to fix my defective transmission I am sure that they spent much more than the cost of a new transmission to defend against this complaint, Acura was completely useless is helping me ( a loyal repeat customer) and for that reason I will never give them business or buy another car from them, they have lost this customer for life! Acura is

01tl4tl

once they honored the court ordered 7/109 or if the original replacement was made due to finding the required heat damage to 2nd gear shaft and gear during inspection to install recall oil jet kit- Honda has done more than the average car company would
try ford and the 51kmile failure of tempo and Taurus transmissions- zero help

some of your facts are off regarding the what and why and effects of the defect in CASE oil passage design causing low oil flow to 3rd clutchpack and its often but not always premature wear - recall ending in replacement due to burnt gear or shaft --that breaks and its a real sudden stop! versus early wear warranty

Not every TL has suffered trans problems, ask someone in a parking lot about theirs- nope never heard of any prob, never had a prob

glad it was just the torque convertor,,I would keep up atf changes every 7500 miles 3qts or once a year full changeout
AND new atf filter with that new TC, want to keep crud out of that for sure

musiclevelz5

Just bought a black 2002 TL-P nav with 234k a week ago. trans is bad so I got a great deal on the car, just pulled the top cover off the trans last night. the third clutch pack is toast, nothing left on the friction discs. trans has the # 149k written on it so I assume it was rebuilt there, but who knows if it was done before or after as well.

thought it was odd that all the solenoid screens were minty clean and no friction material was found in the fluid when I strained it out.

I will be rebuilding the trans sometime this week and keeping the car for my personal use.

3.2TLc

Chances are that the previous owner attempted to prolong the tranny's life by replacing it's fluid and either cleaning or replacing solenoids.

Good luck with the rebuild, take some notes and pics along the way. Post them if ya can. Once the tranny issues are resolved, the 2nd Gen TLs are great cars. Check out the "DIY" sticky for common problems & fixes.

PS: Ya may wanna consider bolting in an '06>'07 AV6 donor to replace the TL's old ailing original tranny.
Check out the previous threads on "AV6". May be a faster and more durable fix.

MafiaBoy

Mimm.jeff

Ok guys, just bought a 2002 Type S w/ 34K miles on it. I searched the VIN through Acrua's website and it says the Transmission Recall issue is STATUS: FIXED. I assume that means that my car either has the jet kit or a new transmission.

How successful was the oil jet kit?
Also, how will I know if my transmission was repaired or replaced?

Also, are the transmissions still likely to fail after they have been fixed/replaced? or does this generally solve the issues?

thanks everyone!!

3.2TLc

Have your local Acura dealership's service department run the car's VIN#. They will be able to tell you if the FIXED recall work involved the "jet kit" or if the tranny was replaced. A quick easy way for you to find out on your own would be to simply check the top of the tranny.....where the "fill" bolt is located. If there's any extra hoses and stuff, then the jet kit was installed at the time of recall. Another thing to look for would be "blue bolts" on the tranny's bottom and mounting areas.

The oil jet helped, but did not totally resolve the poorly designed tranny's inherent problems. Even tranny's replaced under the recall still failed, so for the most part it's simply a roll of the dice and keeping the fluid clean.

Drive and maintain it until you have issues, then look for an "AV6" donor tranny should the time come. They are a direct bolt-in newer designed replacement for our problematic 2nd Gen tranny's. Read threads on the AV6. Learn what symptoms to look for with your present tranny, if it starts shifting funny.

Mimm.jeff

Hey guys, just called the Acura Dealership and found that my transmission was replaced in 2010 with Acura part# 06200p7wa87rm .

Can anyone speak to the reliability/specs of this new transmission? Does this tranny have the original problems solved?

thanks everyone!!

3.2TLc

^^^ A tranny replaced in 2010 by Acura will have the updates incorporated and should be much more reliable than the ones they used originally earlier on during the recall.

Consider yourself fortunate !!! Keep up with the recommended PM and it should last awhile.

Mimm.jeff

That is great news, can anyone else confirm that? I'd like to know more about the new transmissions and what type of improvements/upgrades were made to the newer replacements. (circa 2010)

nistah

I can tell you from personal experience, I purchased my 2002 TL Type S used with 70K miles on it in 2009, the trans was replaced by Acura under warranty @ 47K miles in 2006. I based my purchase on the fact that the trans was replaced with an upgraded unit, using the logic that the trans would not fail again. This proved false and an ill informed decision as the upgraded replacement trans went out again at 96K miles. I wish I had researched more on this thread as I had my unit rebuilt, prob should have got an 06-07 accord trans.

So to answer your question, don't use the logic that since your trans was replaced in 2010 it won't fail, because it will eventually maybe sooner rather than later. Hopefully it will not but, use my case as an example and beware

Shade Gaiven

...with my 03 TL.

Yesterday it's was pretty hot here in STL. 101 in a couple of parts. That's when it started. The car slipping out of gear. I thought, "it's just being fussy from the heat." For some reason this made sense. Got in the car this morning, about 77°, and it was still doing it. I drove it easy and got most of the way to work, then limped it the last half mile. They let me go early so I can work on it, I made it about 2 miles maybe.

Here's what's going on:
Hot day, transmission started slipping.
Less hot today, slipping worse.
Interesting point here: if I shut the car off for a few seconds the transmission will reengage temporarily.
Car has 148k miles, one owner prior, and the transmission only has about 8k miles on it.
Fluid looks good, right levels, good red color.
Don't know if there's an electronic going out in the transmission or the tranny itself already, but I'm stuck where I'm at. And I don't have my Haynes manual.
I called the dealer I bought it from to find out what warranty the car has, he said to call him back.
Any suggestions about how bad this is?

Shade Gaiven

I wanted to add that originally my tcs light came on this morning when it was happening. Now just the check engine light.

Still new to acuras and I was referred here.

Yikes

It's hard to diagnose these things from behind a computer screen, especially when these transmissions can (and will) fail in a multitude of ways.

Go to any auto parts store- they'll pull the codes for free. Common codes associated with transmission failure:

P0740 - Torque converter lockup clutch solenoid circuit
P0730 - Incorrect gear ratio
P1750 - Mechanical fault in hydraulic system

TCS & CEL usually come on. Sometimes paired with a blinking "D5" light.

You mention that the transmission only has 8,000 miles on it. I'm assuming it was rebuilt? Go back to who ever rebuilt it and tell them it's acting up.

As for being fussy with the heat- you weren't wrong to assume that, when (automatic) transmissions get too hot they begin to act up, but D5 would have started to flash if the transmission was over its operating temperature.

As for how bad it can be:

2000 - 2003 TLs were known for transmission failure. People avoid buying them like the plague because no one wants to deal with the transmission headaches. Same goes for 1998 - 2004 Honda Odysseys, 1998 - 2002 Honda Accords, and 2000 - 2005 Acura MDXs.

First generation Honda 5 speed A/Ts piss poor designs and the majority of them experienced premature failure. Rebuilds do nothing to correct these problems- it's just building them back up to fail again. Sometime in early 2005, the casing was redesigned, which allowed for better flow of ATF (among other things). These transmissions are marked with blue bolts in the engine bay. These aren't immune from the run-of-the-mill failure, but the chances of them failing prematurely are drastically lowered.

Shade Gaiven

Yeah. I'm sitting here waiting on the tow truck. I can't say if it was rebuilt or new, as that was done 3k miles before I owned the car. But I called the dealer I got it from and he told me to bring it to him while he finds out what the warranty is (it was his ex wife's car, he was just selling it for her). If I remember correctly he said it was a completely new transmission. I'm curious if maybe it's a problem in the transmission range switch. But sitting on the side of the road broke down I can't find out for sure.

Chojun

Did they replace (REPLACE) the torque converter with the rebuild? Experience here has shown that when the transmission fails, clutch material clogs up the torque converter. When you shut your car off the material slides off the screens in the TC, which is why you can start it up and drive it again for a short period.

Get those codes if you can - typically P0740 means transmission death.

01tl4tl

Im guessing this was a used car dealer not an acura dealer?

call acura care with the VIN and ask for warranty and recall history, you may still need a few free things! 1 800 382 2238 x5 gets a human

If its an acura corp warranty replaced trans (unlikely now) there is blue paint on the bolt heads of things attached to trans, and main trans to engine bolts
Open hood- if present, the blue paint is obvious

01acls

FYI... Link is below.

2007 EX-L V6 Auto Transmission Problems - Drive Accord Honda Forums

01tl4tl

and still they are a better option than rebuilding a TL trans!

01acls

Easy for you to say. I dear you to go tell that to the two poor saps that just did their av6 swaps on another thread here that are having problems and now pleading for help?

I'd be piss if I spent around $1500 dollars and still having problems in 1-2 shifs... erratic shifting... flares... etc.