jlukja

dom

I really feel for the OP but why wouldn't you have called Acura before getting the car repaired?

TheDukeZip

Before I start, let me be clear that I feel for you. Having your car break and paying $2K+ for repairs sucks.

Say you owned a business and you sold something to everyday people. One day, someone calls you up and says "Hey, I just paid $2400 to get this piece of crap fixed, so send me a check or I'm gonna put a sign outside your business that says how crappy your products are!" Does this sound like a friendly customer? No, it sounds like EXTORTION.

So what would the next thing you do be? Well why don't you bring it in so I can take a look at what happened, and bring in these receipts for your repairs. Except there isn't going to be any way to see what happened because the defective parts have already been replaced and trashed.

And the only thing running through my head in that situation would be "Why did you just bring it to me in the first place when it broke and given me the chance to fix it for free for you? You didn't even give me a chance!"

Just my

poltergeist

Very well said.

HI OFECR

acuratech239

iTrader: (2)

Wow look what I started. Nice to see that quite a few people agree with my points. Time for my rebuttal(s) I guess.

Well since we have people stating their educations, I'll chime in. I too am an engineer. I have my electro mechanical engineering degree from Penn State. I also have a degree in auto tech, hence my current job. I am pretty much repeating that due to size and space limitations, accessibility, and everything else mentioned in my original post, that this location for the ECU has worked for years, problem free.

Acura used to put the ECU under the seat. And guess what happened when you spilled a drink in the center console, between your legs, etc. Oh that's right, it ran right down to the ECU. I can see that happening somewhat frequently. So they relocated it. Not to mention being under the seat is pretty much the lowest interior point. Putting it on the hump, in it's current location, is a much higher spot. (I bring this up as a reference to flooding, accidentally leaving your windows open when it rains, etc)

As for failures, I already acknowledged that no part is perfect, you will have a failure rate of any product. I guess the 1 in xxxxxxx heater core failures was low enough for them to take the chance of placing the ECU where it is.

Speaking of those two parts, I personally checked the availability of both the heater core and ECU (for an auto, of course), and both were at the regular warehouses and would be able to be at (any) dealership by the next day. So someone in the chain of communication wasn't being honest with you.

But on that note, with all this talk of runoff, etc, it is MUCH more common for the coolant, should there be a leak, to run "down", i.e to the sides, causing the areas you put your feet to get wet. Take a look and you'll see what I mean. Guess that was one of their safety measures?

Last time I checked, Toyota/Lexus's reliability was dropping...and multiple magazines have stated/shown that. Though I want to make it clear I'm not attacking Toyota/Lexus. I still believe they make great cars and would never hesitate to buy one...especially that new ISF

And like others have said, I think a statement that very well sums up a lot of this too is Acura never had a chance. They didn't get to look at, attempt to repair it, etc. Also, I think the Acura dealership you deal with...well I'll keep it clean and say they suck. Something like that would never happen at our dealer. You really should look into a new Acura dealer, should you choose to stay with Acura. Although I know you said you weren't so.

So here again I didn't respond to everything, just some stuff. And I'm guessing you view this as personal now. But I really don't mean it that way. I guess I'm just defending a company that I believe in, and have, ever since I started driving. And working for them helps to, as does the experience. And since it seems I have enough people that agree with me, I don't think I'm in the wrong.

I'm still curious to see how Acura handles this, and I'm sure you're going to keep us posted.

-- Kevin

FrankO

I took it to where I took it because I was not happy with my dealer and that I didnt know that this what going to turn into what it did. If I had a crystal ball I would have probably taken it to Acura. That being said, I just looked at the vehicle at AAMCO they showed me the problem. The heater core does have a drain on one side and none on the side where the ecu is located. There is a W configuration below the heater core, one side drained and one side poured onto the ECU. It would have been nice to have been able to see what this turned into but the labor rates that the dealer quoted me were double what anyone else wanted. And I did not have an extended warranty because this is an Acura, and I was out of warranty. If this was a single point failure a switch or even the ECU alone, I would be paying the bill and moving on but this is a design error pure and simple. This was an accident waiting to happen to everyone on this website who owns a TSX. It might never happen but it might. It was a domino effect, that should have been prevented with the addition of a drain hole.

Mskierki

^^ Interesting comments by both of you. It is cool to have some competent engineering discussion on this board. Why don't you guys post more often?

CarbonGray Earl

acuratech and FrankO, any DIY remedy? Can we safely drill a drain hole on the side where the ECU is located?

FrankO

I am going to strive to find that out when I present my information to Acura. For Acura to make allowances for liquid to drain from one side, and not the other side makes little sense to anyone looking this situation. And with the configuration of the cavity it just makes it worse.

Oh and I might also have a blown inline fuse or shorted wire in the system now that blew or melted when the ECU was dumped on. My TSX is still in the shop. AAMCO hasn’t charged me for any of this additional work they are sticking with the original estimate. Actually the owner thinks that this entire situation sucks, and he said he would help in any way he could to provide information to Acura on this incident.

CarbonGray Earl

^^thanks for the reply. More power to you, and keep us informed.

FYI, I bought my TSX at Weir Canyon Acura. My dealings with them were always cordial, but I never had a problem like that from my 2 Acuras. Best of luck to you.

FrankO

The Acura Customer Service Representative told me today that there was little they would do for this situation, they would consider it. They did not deny that if a Heater Core failed that an ECU would be damaged. They said that was "Associated or Resulting Damage". I told them that I expected them to provide some sort of plan or assistance to all of the TSX owners who like me would be affected by this situation. I told them that I would make people aware of this happening to me. The Customer Service Rep then said, ARE YOU THREATENING ME? DO YOU EXPECT ME TO REACT TO THREATS?
I said no we are way beyond that. He had made it clear to me that because I did not get my service performed at an Acura Dealership that they would only consider this matter. And I know what that means. And he acknowledge that this is a situation that has no cure nor had ever been addressed and I personally do not think that a fix would ever be planned. So I am letting everyone know about this.
I stand by my first posting. IF your heater core fails, your ECU could possibly be damaged because there is no way for the liquid to escape and as you now know, it is only "Associated or Resulting Damage". And it could only cost you about $2,500 if you are lucky enough to be out of warranty. So do not let that happen to you. Lucky Me!

Switch

04 owner here with 95K miles. All is clear on my car but hope this doesn't happen to me.

Good luck getting it worked out.

FrankO

My vehicle is now at Acura, there was additional damage done when the ECU Failed. Blown sensors and relays in the shifter. Now here is the fun part. Acura Customer Service, who said if the car was at Acura they could help me, was informed that the Vehicle was there now.

But................... Hold you hats. Customer Service Just Told Me because I have an intake and aftermarket parts on my vehicle they are now rejecting all help or assistance.

Aftermarket parts void any assistance and any Warranties.

So all of you tuners out there who have installed any grounding wires, intakes, headers exhausts, or etc.

YOU ARE ALL OUT OF WARRANTY EVEN IF YOU HAVE AN EXTENDED WARRANTY.

So if your heater core ever does go out and it were ever to take any additional electronics with it and you have an extended warranty, STILL NO DICE IF YOU HAVE ANY AFTERMARKET PARTS ON THAT VEHICLE. It will not be covered and they would not pay any claim.

Now it is up to $3000 for one leaking heater core.

CarbonGray Earl

^^magnuson moss act....throw that in their face, and make them prove that any part directly caused the heater core to leak.

I don't see any way that an intake/header/exhaust/grounding kit would cause a heater core to leak. You still gotta fight it. Acura is going to continue to be jerks, but its up to you to push it through.

Might have to go nuclear and call a lawyer too. But Magnuson Moss pretty much says that modifications have to have a direct effect on an issue for it to void a warranty.

I don't care if its Acura or Ferrari, the burden of proof is still on them to prove that the defect was caused by anything you did. they're just trying to scare you, again.

KingTSX

iTrader: (1)

The Magnuson-Moss Act may help you out in this situation, tell them to take a look


Can an automotive dealership void your warranty?Understanding the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act of 1975.

Nearly everyone has heard about someone who has taken a vehicle that has been modified with aftermarket parts to a dealer for warranty service, only to have the dealer refuse to cover the defective items. The dealer usually states that because of the aftermarket parts the warranty is void, without even attempting to determine whether the aftermarket part caused the problem.

This is illegal.

Vehicle manufacturers are not allowed to void the vehicle warranty just because aftermarket parts are on the vehicle. To better understand this problem it is best to know the differences between the two types of new car warranties and the two types of emission warranties.

When a vehicle is purchased new and the owner is protected against the faults that may occur by an expressed warranty - an offer by the manufacturer to assume the responsibility for problems with predetermined parts during a stated period of time. Beyond the expressed warranty, the vehicle manufacturer is often held responsible for further implied warranties. These state that a manufactured product should meet certain standards. However, in both cases, the mere presence of aftermarket parts doesn't void the warranty.

There are also two emission warranties (defect and performance) required under the clean air act. The defect warranty requires the manufacturer to produce a vehicle which, at the time of sale, is free of defects that would cause it to not meet the required emission levels for it's useful life as defined in the law. The performance warranty implies a vehicle must maintain certain levels of emission performance over it's useful life. If the vehicle fails to meet the performance warranty requirements, the manufacturer must make repairs at no cost to the owner, even if an aftermarket part is directly responsible for a warranty claim, the vehicle manufacturer cannot void the performance warranty. This protection is the result of a parts self - certification program developed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA).

In cases where such a failed aftermarket part is responsible for a warranty claim, the vehicle manufacturer must arrange a settlement with the consumer, but by law the new - vehicle warranty is not voided.

Overall, the laws governing warranties are very clear. The only time a new vehicle warranty can be voided is if an aftermarket part has been installed and it can be proven that it is responsible for an emission warranty claim. However, a vehicle manufacturer or dealership cannot void a warranty simply because an an aftermarket equipment has been installed on a vehicle.

If a dealership denies a warranty claim and you think the claim falls under the rules explained above concerning the clean air act (such as an emission part failure), obtain a written explanation of the dealers refusal. Then follow the steps outlined in the owners manual. However, if this fails, then phone your complaint in to the EPA at (202) 233-9040 or (202) 326-9100.

If a dealer denies a warranty claim involving an implied or expressed new car warranty and you would like help, you can contact the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). The FTC works for the consumer to prevent fraudulent, deceptive and unfair business practices in the marketplace and to provide information to help consumers spot, stop and avoid them. To file a complaint, you can call toll-free, 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357), or use the online complaint form. The FTC enters Internet, telemarketing, and other fraud-related complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to hundreds of civil and criminal law enforcement agencies worldwide.

WHAT IS THE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT?

On January 4, 1975, President Ford signed into law the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Title 1, ..101-112, 15 U.S.C. ..2301 et seq. This act, effective July 4, 1975, is designed to "improve the adequacy of information available to consumers, prevent deception, and improve competition in the marketing of consumer products. . . ." The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act applies only to consumer products, which are defined as "any tangible personal property which is distributed in commerce and which is normally used for personal, family, or household purposes (including any such property intended to be attached to or installed in any real property without regard to whether it is so attached or installed)." Under Section 103 of the Act, if a warrantor sells a consumer product costing more than $15 under written warranty, the writing must state the warranty in readily understandable language as determined by standards set forth by the Federal Trade Commission. There is, however, no requirement that a warranty be given nor that any product be warranted for any length of time. Thus the Act only requires that when there is a written warranty, the warrantor clearly disclose the nature of his warranty obligation prior to the sale of the product. The consumer may then compare warranty protection, thus shopping for the "best buy." To further protect the consumer from deception, the Act requires that any written warranty must be labeled as either a "full" or a "limited" warranty. Only warranties that meet the standards of the Act may be labeled as "full." One of the most important provisions of the Act prohibits a warrantor from disclaiming or modifying any implied warranty whenever any written warranty is given or service contract entered into. Implied warranties may, however, be limited in duration if the limitation is reasonable, conscionable, and set forth in clear and unmistakable language prominently displayed on the face of the warranty. A consumer damaged by breach of warranty, or noncompliance with the act, may sue in either state or federal district court. Access to federal court, however, is severely limited by the Act's provision that no claim may be brought in federal court if: (a) The amount in controversy of any individual claim is less than $25,000; (b) the amount in controversy is less than the sum or value of $50,000 computed on the basis of all claims in the suit; or (c) a class action is brought, and the number of named plaintiffs is less than 100. In light of these requirements it is likely that most suits will be brought in state court. If the consumer prevails, he is awarded costs and attorneys' fees. Nothing in the Act invalidates any right or remedy available under state law, and most suits should proceed on claims based on both the Code and the Act.

Understanding the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act is the federal law that governs consumer product warranties. Passed by Congress in 1975, the Act requires manufacturers and sellers of consumer products to provide consumers with detailed information about warranty coverage. In addition, it affects both the rights of consumers and the obligations of warrantors under written warranties.

To understand the Act, it is useful to be aware of Congress' intentions in passing it. First, Congress wanted to ensure that consumers could get complete information about warranty terms and conditions. By providing consumers with a way of learning what warranty coverage is offered on a product before they buy, the Act gives consumers a way to know what to expect if something goes wrong, and thus helps to increase customer satisfaction.

Second, Congress wanted to ensure that consumers could compare warranty coverage before buying. By comparing, consumers can choose a product with the best combination of price, features, and warranty coverage to meet their individual needs.

Third, Congress intended to promote competition on the basis of warranty coverage. By assuring that consumers can get warranty information, the Act encourages sales promotion on the basis of warranty coverage and competition among companies to meet consumer preferences through various levels of warranty coverage.

Finally, Congress wanted to strengthen existing incentives for companies to perform their warranty obligations in a timely and thorough manner and to resolve any disputes with a minimum of delay and expense to consumers. Thus, the Act makes it easier for consumers to pursue a remedy for breach of warranty in the courts, but it also creates a framework for companies to set up procedures for resolving disputes inexpensively and informally, without litigation.

What the Magnuson-Moss Act Does Not Require

In order to understand how the Act affects you as a businessperson, it is important first to understand what the Act does not require.

First, the Act does not require any business to provide a written warranty. The Act allows businesses to determine whether to warrant their products in writing. However, once a business decides to offer a written warranty on a consumer product, it must comply with the Act.

Second, the Act does not apply to oral warranties. Only written warranties are covered.

Third, the Act does not apply to warranties on services. Only warranties on goods are covered. However, if your warranty covers both the parts provided for a repair and the workmanship in making that repair, the Act does apply to you.

Finally, the Act does not apply to warranties on products sold for resale or for commercial purposes. The Act covers only warranties on consumer products. This means that only warranties on tangible property normally used for personal, family, or household purposes are covered. (This includes property attached to or installed on real property.) Note that applicability of the Act to a particular product does not, however, depend upon how an individual buyer will use it.

The following section of this manual summarizes what the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act requires warrantors to do, what it prohibits them from doing, and how it affects warranty disputes.

What the Magnuson-Moss Act Requires

In passing the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, Congress specified a number of requirements that warrantors must meet. Congress also directed the FTC to adopt rules to cover other requirements. The FTC adopted three Rules under the Act, the Rule on Disclosure of Written Consumer Product Warranty Terms and Conditions (the Disclosure Rule), the Rule on Pre-Sale Availability of Written Warranty Terms (the Pre-Sale Availability Rule), and the Rule on Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures (the Dispute Resolution Rule). In addition, the FTC has issued an interpretive rule that clarifies certain terms and explains some of the provisions of the Act. This section summarizes all the requirements under the Act and the Rules.

The Act and the Rules establish three basic requirements that may apply to you, either as a warrantor or a seller.

As a warrantor, you must designate, or title, your written warranty as either "full" or "limited."
As a warrantor, you must state certain specified information about the coverage of your warranty in a single, clear, and easy-to-read document.
As a warrantor or a seller, you must ensure that warranties are available where your warranted consumer products are sold so that consumers can read them before buying.


The titling requirement, established by the Act, applies to all written warranties on consumer products costing more than $10. However, the disclosure and pre-sale availability requirements, established by FTC Rules, apply to all written warranties on consumer products costing more than $15. Each of these three general requirements is explained in greater detail in the following chapters.

What the Magnuson-Moss Act Does Not Allow

There are three prohibitions under the Magnuson-Moss Act. They involve implied warranties, so-called "tie-in sales" provisions, and deceptive or misleading warranty terms.

Disclaimer or Modification of Implied Warranties

The Act prohibits anyone who offers a written warranty from disclaiming or modifying implied warranties. This means that no matter how broad or narrow your written warranty is, your customers always will receive the basic protection of the implied warranty of merchantability.

There is one permissible modification of implied warranties, however. If you offer a "limited" written warranty, the law allows you to include a provision that restricts the duration of implied warranties to the duration of your limited warranty. For example, if you offer a two-year limited warranty, you can limit implied warranties to two years. However, if you offer a "full" written warranty, you cannot limit the duration of implied warranties.

If you sell a consumer product with a written warranty from the product manufacturer, but you do not warrant the product in writing, you can disclaim your implied warranties. (These are the implied warranties under which the seller, not the manufacturer, would otherwise be responsible.) But, regardless of whether you warrant the products you sell, as a seller, you must give your customers copies of any written warranties from product manufacturers.

"Tie-In Sales" Provisions

Generally, tie-in sales provisions are not allowed. Such a provision would require a purchaser of the warranted product to buy an item or service from a particular company to use with the warranted product in order to be eligible to receive a remedy under the warranty. The following are examples of prohibited tie-in sales provisions.

In order to keep your new Plenum Brand Vacuum Cleaner warranty in effect, you must use genuine Plenum Brand Filter Bags. Failure to have scheduled maintenance performed, at your expense, by the Great American Maintenance Company, Inc., voids this warranty.

While you cannot use a tie-in sales provision, your warranty need not cover use of replacement parts, repairs, or maintenance that is inappropriate for your product. The following is an example of a permissible provision that excludes coverage of such things.

While necessary maintenance or repairs on your AudioMundo Stereo System can be performed by any company, we recommend that you use only authorized AudioMundo dealers. Improper or incorrectly performed maintenance or repair voids this warranty.

Although tie-in sales provisions generally are not allowed, you can include such a provision in your warranty if you can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FTC that your product will not work properly without a specified item or service. If you believe that this is the case, you should contact the warranty staff of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection for information on how to apply for a waiver of the tie-in sales prohibition.

Deceptive Warranty Terms

Obviously, warranties must not contain deceptive or misleading terms. You cannot offer a warranty that appears to provide coverage but, in fact, provides none. For example, a warranty covering only "moving parts" on an electronic product that has no moving parts would be deceptive and unlawful. Similarly, a warranty that promised service that the warrantor had no intention of providing or could not provide would be deceptive and unlawful.

How the Magnuson Moss Act May Affect Warranty Disputes

Two other features of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act are also important to warrantors. First, the Act makes it easier for consumers to take an unresolved warranty problem to court. Second, it encourages companies to use a less formal, and therefore less costly, alternative to legal proceedings. Such alternatives, known as dispute resolution mechanisms, often can be used to settle warranty complaints before they reach litigation.

Consumer Lawsuits

The Act makes it easier for purchasers to sue for breach of warranty by making breach of warranty a violation of federal law, and by allowing consumers to recover court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees. This means that if you lose a lawsuit for breach of either a written or an implied warranty, you may have to pay the customer's costs for bringing the suit, including lawyer's fees.

Because of the stringent federal jurisdictional requirements under the Act, most Magnuson-Moss lawsuits are brought in state court. However, major cases involving many consumers can be brought in federal court as class action suits under the Act.

Although the consumer lawsuit provisions may have little effect on your warranty or your business, they are important to remember if you are involved in warranty disputes.

Alternatives to Consumer Lawsuits

Although the Act makes consumer lawsuits for breach of warranty easier to bring, its goal is not to promote more warranty litigation. On the contrary, the Act encourages companies to use informal dispute resolution mechanisms to settle warranty disputes with their customers. Basically, an informal dispute resolution mechanism is a system that works to resolve warranty problems that are at a stalemate. Such a mechanism may be run by an impartial third party, such as the Better Business Bureau, or by company employees whose only job is to administer the informal dispute resolution system. The impartial third party uses conciliation, mediation, or arbitration to settle warranty disputes.

The Act allows warranties to include a provision that requires customers to try to resolve warranty disputes by means of the informal dispute resolution mechanism before going to court. (This provision applies only to cases based upon the Magnuson-Moss Act.) If you include such a requirement in your warranty, your dispute resolution mechanism must meet the requirements stated in the FTC's Rule on Informal Dispute Settlement Procedures (the Dispute Resolution Rule). Briefly, the Rule requires that a mechanism must:

Be adequately funded and staffed to resolve all disputes quickly;
Be available free of charge to consumers;
Be able to settle disputes independently, without influence from the parties involved;
Follow written procedures;
Inform both parties when it receives notice of a dispute;
Gather, investigate, and organize all information necessary to decide each dispute fairly and quickly;
Provide each party an opportunity to present its side, to submit supporting materials, and to rebut points made by the other party; (the mechanism may allow oral presentations, but only if both parties agree);
Inform both parties of the decision and the reasons supporting it within 40 days of receiving notice of a dispute; Issue decisions that are not binding; either party must be free to take the dispute to court if dissatisfied with the decision (however, companies may, and often do, agree to be bound by the decision);
Keep complete records on all disputes; and
Be audited annually for compliance with the Rule.

It is clear from these standards that informal dispute resolution mechanisms under the Dispute Resolution Rule are not "informal" in the sense of being unstructured. Rather, they are informal because they do not involve the technical rules of evidence, procedure, and precedents that a court of law must use.

Currently, the FTC's staff is evaluating the Dispute Resolution Rule to determine if informal dispute resolution mechanisms can be made simpler and easier to use. To obtain more information about this review, contact the FTC's warranty staff.

As stated previously, you do not have to comply with the Dispute Resolution Rule if you do not require consumers to use a mechanism before bringing suit under the Magnuson-Moss Act. You may want to consider establishing a mechanism that will make settling warranty disputes easier, even though it may not meet the standards of the Dispute Resolution Rule.

You can view a slightly more detailed legal explanation of the Magnuson - Moss Warranty act of 1975 by clicking on the following link: http://www.pipelin e.com/~rmantis/webdoc14.htm

Sources of the above information include:

Superchips Inc. Newsletter / Car Craft September 1994 issue.
Federal Trade Commission Website.
State Bar of Texas Website (texasbarcle.com)

dajlol77

104k here on my 2004...No problem so far

poltergeist

Um......the car is out of warranty.......the OP was looking for Goodwill consideration from Acura.

FrankO

Two things, potentially everyones problem.

Actually as I understood the explaination from the customer servce person even if I had an extended warranty they would not allow the repair under warranty if there were any modifications to the vehicle. They said an evaporator hose was left un attached. Which AAMCO admitted was their fault before they took the vehicle to Acura for reflashing the ECU. But Acura Customer Service did not care.

Second, my problem.

I called and spoke to the Service Manager at Weir Canyon, one that I have never spoke to before, who was very upset that Acura was not helping me and a pretty nice guy in this case. I guess a nice guy who isn't going to do anything for me but. He said my vehicle had exposed wires in my wiring harness and splices were cut off of the harness. Then said something about an Alarm system must have been in the car and had been removed haistly. I told him that I had never touched the under the dash wiring at all, not one bit and I bought the vehicle new from Weir Canyon.

Well when my wife came home she said dont you remember? When we were buying the car they said that it had a dealer add on alarm system and they wanted to charge us a couple grand for the dealer add on, and you said you didnt want it. So they must have went and pulled the system out by what ever means was the quickest. Acura induced failure?

I then called and spoke to a Sales Manager at Weir Canyon and asked if he could look up the records and confirm that for me. He said he could and would. He has not called back. But I did tell him that I would be looking to unload the vehicle so he still might. I will be selling the car once I have it fixes. So far $3,000+ now in repairs. Almost everything is new so I wont feel too bad for the buyer who gets it.

Here is my TSX as you can see it was never well cared for, I have 5 zigen wheels now and a Carbon Trunk Lid without a wing, to match the hood. I have the old trunk lid with the wing, and the original hood and front end. And i still have the 19" Maya Wheels and the original wheels too, I am always experimenting:

PACman

I too had a dealer installed alarm, but was not told this was an add on, but rather it was an alarm only used on their dealership property. I assume to track the car or if it were ever stolen from the lot. Anyhow, back when I bought it, and had the car home, I noticed the device underneath the driver's side dash; a small black box with a red/green light. I remember calling my sales person, and they told me to bring it back and they'd remove it (plus a tank of 91). Keep us (me) informed FrankO, cause if Weir admits that it was the removal of said device, this effects me. (I too bought from Weir - Nov 2003).

FrankO

That might be the case, but they haven’t called me back. But what you are saying is part of it. Now, the removal of that unit and possibly another alarm or part of that alarm is the reason that Acura is using not to assist me. I think that they know that so they are not calling me back. I am not even angry today I am just numb over this entire situation.

Just think about this........Even if you do not touch your vehicle in any way. And that modifications that the Dealer made on a new vehicle before you purchased it, without your knowledge or authorization could possibly void a warranty, an extended warranty or the Car Company assisting you with an obvious design flaw?

See they are using this to deflect the conversation away from the fact that this is a design flaw. When people approach them about this all they have to say is that the vehicle was modified. Case Closed. Now all of you all are sitting out there with time bombs under your dash. And possibly with already modified wiring harnesses that you are not even aware of because you didn’t do it the dealer did.

And even if you do have an extended warranty they can say, look at all of your OTHER modifications, you must have done this too. CASE CLOSED forget the Magnuson Moss Act, this is questioning your word, character and honor. Of which i am finding Acura has none. I can’t be an isolated incident. This will happen again.

Ken2007

You might also lodge a complaint with the NTSB. This could be considered a safety issue if the ECU craps out while driving causing the the car to stall or die in a dangerous situation.

FrankO

I will when i have all of the paperwork and the parts back from both shops. I am going to have the heater core and the ECU analyzed by an inspection laboratory in Los Angeles. I am actually thinking of take the ECU to Hondata for testing if they do that type of analysis. There is a place in Texas that repairs ECUs but i haven’t found anyone in California yet. If anyone knows of an ECU repair shop in Cali let me know please.

I am no way near done with this problem or with Acura. Their attitude in dealing with this was rude and ignorant.

Oh I now after a little investigation have the email address and direct telephone number for the Acura Regional Manager who rejected my request for advice. I am not sure how appropriate it is to post it here.

What would the Moderators feel about that?

I am sure you would all have questions for him about your vehicles and how they feel that flooded heater cores are simply resulting damage. And I would be curious what he would tell you all. If he changed his story with you I would use that information and forward it to the NTSB and possibly the Department of Transportation too (DOT).

Xtremespeed2102

Im sorry but I too am sick of how Acura of America treats their customers. I am still within warranty and they refuse to complete warranty work. (Brake shudder). The person assigned to my account never once called me back promptly, I wound up calling her every two days!

My biggest issue is that Acura has no control over their privately owned dealerships. They cant provide me with loaner cars while my dealership refuses to offer them. They can never reach their sales managers at the dealerships nor even reach an agreement with them.

If Acura wont stand behind their products, thats fine. If they cannot work with the people that sell their products thats even worse.

Granted my issue would have been solved with 200 bucks, still it pisses me off.

What will my next car be, I have no idea but Acura finds things to push my buttons. You wont catch me purchasing another car from Courtesy Acura.

FrankO

I have to be honest, I would have paid for the repairs and taken my licks on this one if it had been a single point failure, a broken part, etc. but when I found out what was really going on I got very upset. And Acura has no idea what they are in for.

I am filing with the NTSB today. I am writing the report today. My business takes me to Washington DC and I will be visiting the NTSB at 490 L'Enfant Plaza, SW Washington, DC 20594 (202) 314-6000, in the next few weeks to present my case personally. I will not stand for this. I told Acura that if they were not going to treat my case seriously and if they were not going to even consider assisting me that I would let everyone know about this situation and how I was treated. There would have been no reason for me to have begun this effort if they would have admitted that yes there is a problem and of course we are going to assist you in this case just like we would assist any Acura owner. But no, the Acura Representative told me, ARE YOU THREATENING ME? ARE YOU THREATENING MY COMPANY? I said no, if you were to take care of this there would be no reason for me to even mention this but now there is. They do this every day to hundreds of owners, who just crawl away with their tails between their legs, but that has never been me.

So if Acura won’t deal with this. AND IF THERE IS AN ACTUAL PROVEN PROBLEM HERE, WHICH AN OUTSIDE AGENCY THE NTSB WILL DETERMINE, NOT ME. Then they will have an issue. After that is concluded, I will consider personal litigation and again, I will proceed with that if I have the NTSB findings behind me. This could be a class action lawsuit. You would all benefit in that case they would have to recognize the problem and deal with it. And if I am wrong and AAMCO was wrong and this wasn't a design defect then I will admit it at some point, BUT NOT NOW, and not before I take this further to a governmental agency.

human668

Is it a good idea that we write a group email to Acura Regional Manager? Saying that we all hear this issue and we are all worry so we request a free check up at any dealer.

poltergeist

Have fun with your "crusade", but after looking at the firewall and heater core connections in the engine compartment, I can see (and Acura can easily claim) that an aftermerket header while being installed "could" have hit the heater core connection which "could" cause it to fracture where the tube is connected to the core. Of course this is all hypothetical, but unless you can uncover numerous other heater core failures on '04 TSX's (so far none on this Board) I think you're fighting an uphill battle.

And after threating to smear Acura on the internet and park your car in front of their headquarters for "bad" publicity, you're surprised that they won't offer you Goodwill assistance???? Maybe there's a reason they call it GOODwill.

poltergeist

And I'm sure you're aware the Maintenance Schedule for the '04 TSX instructs to change the coolant at 120K miles/10 years. Acura also does not recommend any kind of "flush" equipment be used on the cooling system. Was the proper coolant and mix used on your car?

FrankO

They never had any intention to help in any way. Let's be serious about this. But they might take a look at the next case more carefully and seriously. I knew I was doomed from the start. The header was installed two years ago. Yes the proper collant and mix was used on my vehicle.

FrankO

If you believe that I have a TSX I want to sell you. 120K? That is plain crazy.

Please read this thread:

https://acurazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31475

FrankO

I was just thinking that this could put the entire tuner industry out of business. Put on a header void your warranty on every part in your vehicle. Any part in the vehicle could have been damaged by that one act. Did the header when installing it damage any wiring? Did it short against a positive power connection? Did it bump up against a hose or connection? Did its installation put undue stress on the engine and there for cause binding in one of the mechanical systems a motor mount perhaps? Could it have accidently been banged against a brake rotor or break line, the fire wall, or the master cylinder and cause future brake failures? Could it have been bumped against the radiator and have caused that future radiator failure?

Cant almost any add on part cause any or all of these problems voiding every standard or extended warranty? So if you do your own oil changes, you put on those 18’s or 19’s additional un-sprung weight that could cause damage to your steering or suspension system voiding any braking, or suspension part warranty. Add an IPOD adapter or video monitors put additional load on the electrical system causing the alternator to work harder and putting additional load on your engine there by voiding any and all engine warranty claims.

The addition of a new shifter knob could allow additional leverage that puts stress on the shifter and all of the transmission linkage and thereby contributing to transmission failure. The addition of ground effects can actually increase the drag on the vehicle and cause the engine to work harder and put undue stress on the engine and cause early failure. And it could decrease or increase the airflow through the radiator exacerbating cooling systems problems. And if not equipped with a navi system plugging in a Garmin Nav system and setting it on your dash could again put undue stress on the entire electrical system voiding any and all warranties. Even smokers who use the optional cigarette lighter can do the same if they are constantly lighting up with auto lighter. Even the smoke which is abrasive could damage the electronics. That pesky alternator is a bridge to the mechanical systems and if not allowed to operate at design parameters that did not include all of these additional electrical parts and electronics could be overworked and cause damage thereby boding warranties.

Perhaps if you have a particularly fat family the increased weight of all of those pudgy people could damage any and all of the vehicle components by the stresses caused by the additional weight, the suspension, body, and the engine. And the air-conditioning system would need to work harder because of all of those sweaty fat people voiding any and all warranties.

If you have done any of those things or have met any of the above criteria then you might have voided your warranty. I think I will apply for a job in Acura Customer Relations. Then I will get to talk to all of you great guys and girls on a daily basis and figure out unique and entertaining ways of VOIDING YOUR WARRANTIES & REJECTING YOUR IN OR OUT OF WARRANTY CLAIMS. I bet that they just laugh the day away because of all of us suckers who have touched our car or not have had all of our services done by the dealer. Well they won’t laugh at me any more I will be with them on the dark side. Bow down to the great Gods of Honda you simple humans.

I feel much better now. I give, thanks

poltergeist

So after you threatened the Customer Service Rep. you're mad that he asked you if you were threatening him/Acura?

Pretty sure the NTSB is only concerned with vehicle "safety" issues. Not sure they'll consider your Check Engine light/D4 light coming on a serious "safety" issue.

You're going to sue Acura for not honoring their warranty after it has expired? For designing a car that AAMCO and someone from Lexus has decided is poorly engineered? Doesn't matter whether you have mods or not, they're not obligated to goodwill anything on the car after the warr. period has lapsed.

From my experience with Honda, IF the car was brought in to an Acura francise just out of warranty and IF the car was not modified the District Service Rep. would have goodwilled the repair in a heartbeat....no questions asked. Honda (because of the "tuner" attraction to their cars) gets burned all the time with cars that have mods that did damage the car.

One that sticks in my mind several years ago at our shop was a just-out-of-warranty Prelude that came in with a snapped timing belt/bent valves (pretty unheard of for a car with only 40K on it. Rep was looking at it and about to sign off on goodwill when we found the nitrous lines running thru the interior. Customer had removed the tank from the trunk and the plumbing in the engine compartment. You can thank guys like that when you wonder why Honda/Acura usually doesn't goodwill repairs on modified cars.

poltergeist

Glad to know that because it's "easy and cheap" that the "experts" in your quoted thread have decided that the 120K/10year interval is wrong. Call Acura and tell them that, they'll get a laugh out of it.

And with all due respect, the exterior mods on your car do nothing for me...so I'm not interested in buying.

FrankO

Who asked you Mr Acura?

kimster

I have a 04 as well. And FrankO, thanks for keeping us inform.
Good Luck.

LukeaTron

I feel for you and this freak failure but given the way your reacted to the whole situation, I'm not surprised in the least bit by the outcome. You're a 50 year old engineer, you really should be better at responding to adversity at this point. It should have been totally expected to encounter resistance when you pulled up in your riced out car that had some random outside party dig around and do who knows what. You overplayed your hand, got your ass handed to you as a result and now your response is to turn it up another 10 notches?

Sorry for your troubles and all but you've dug yourself a nice hole. I don't understand why you think digging deeper is going to make the situations any better. If you really want to spend the time, energy and money on something that doesn't have much chance at all of swinging your direction, have it I suppose, but aren't there things more worthy of your personal investment? It just seems to me you're letting your emotions have the better of you.

FrankO

Thank you Doctor, would you recommend Zoloft?

Perhaps my heater core didnt flood my ecu, and none of the 4 relays that they have replaced actually shorted and failed after that, and that I should have thought for one second that Acura was going to do something about any of this because they would actually admit that was a problem with the TSX. Goodness you have just illuminated this entire situation for me. You are so brilliant.

If you really think that anything that happened would not have happened no matter what I did or am going to do you have to be out of your mind Dr. Dude. If I would have taken this directly to Acura nothing would have changed. You get that right? You can read right? I have a modified vehicle, you got that right? That was their out with this situation right and every one of these out of warranty situations right? Not going to fast for you right? You made my day that was the best posting yet. You win you are the best. I feel so shamed. Now I must bow down at the Temple of Vetc and pay for forgives. Do you even think before you post these messages?

LuvMyTSX

Alright, let's cool it down just a little bit, guys.

acn684

this situation seems to be taken out of hand by the OP. I agree with the OP that this is an incident that Acura should deal with, but the manner in which you took it is completely out of line.

First, you never gave Acura the chance to diagnose the problem themselves. Instead you took it to an Amacco. I'm not saying Acura techs are the best, but I'm sure they look at more TSX's than your local Amacco.

Next, don't come onto a message board and say grand things like "2004 ECU's are in Danger of Flooding." Cause frankly they're not. If that were the case, the 10,000 2004 TSX or so out there would all the dying left and right, not to mention probably the 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008's as well if they're designed the same way; for the most part, they are.

Don't call them and threaten to the middle man that if you don't do something about this problem, you'll tell the whole world about it. Frankly, he can't do anything about it because hes only the service rep and also this problem isn't even as big as you make it seem. In order for acura to even consider a recall or a fix for a problem, the problem has to be on a considerable number of cars and the damage has to be high enough to warrant a recall. Your one...one 2004 tsx that i think any of us heard of getting flooded is the first. And I certainly don't expect acura to go out of their way to make sure it doesn't happen to the 50,000 or so TSX's out there, when chances are probably only a handful of them might get affected, if even any. Plus, i certainly don't want acura wasting their time and money to issue a nationwide protocol to remedy an isolated issue cause it'll just drive up their costs and that would trinkle down to us consumers for their future cars.

I don't think this OP understands that ultimately, this is a FREAK Incident. It happened to him, it probably wont' happen to others; maybe one or two more. This type of thing is like if your AC suddenly broke. Acura would help you fix it, but they're not gonna make a national case out of it, they just deal with it case by case. Frankly, I'm sure Acura would've been much more helpful to you had you not run your mouth off against them. I mean seriously, you threatened their phone customer service that you will make this issue known if he didn't do anything about it.

Just my 2c.

FrankO

Finally a voice of reason, as the antifreeze mix was drizzeling out of my fried ECU how dare I post such an inflammatory statement.
As I realized that all was lost the very first time I spoke with Acura how could it possibly anger me to action. and what foolishness to inquire at this website if anyone else has had the same problem. That was complete insanity on my part.

Mr. Moderator please erase this thread completely so that we may make room for one concerning the latest IPOD interface cable or a new motor oil that makes your exhaust smell like a pina colada.

I applogize to the entire TSX Community.
Happy Driving To All