I don't know if you are on here, but I heard about a Boston TL driver that was rear ended pretty good because of their tranny failure this past Friday.

I hope you and anyone involved is okay.

I am here pleading that you raise the biggest stink smelt since Pepe Le Pew hit the screen with Warner Bros!!

Report it to NHTSA at the very least! Call acura customer care, 800-382-2238 and let them have it!

This could be a vital piece of the puzzle to get Acura to recall these trannys!

-copland007

 

Wow.. that could be the first reported accident due to a tranny failure. I wonder if this will change things......

 

I sure hope so, cause i defently dont want to end up in that situation, i know the 03' havent had as many probs at teh 02' but who knows what will happend in time...

 

Forget calling Acura service, I say they call a lawyer and sue their a$$

 

Even better!

 

This is what I was referring to...Juniorbean. My ONLY objection to my TL-S, beyond how discouraging it was to have the tranny failures in a car of this supposed quality, was this safety issue...this is the only reason why I have been persistent in my posts and returning here to see what others were experiencing. Somehow, your peer Moderator, Mr Hyde, seems to think this is some pissing contest about whether or not I think my G35 is 'better than the TL-S'...and that is not what I'm about...

 

garylee55 - I think he's just messing with you

Honda did finally take a step with the warranty.... and I'm sure if there are a couple more tranny accidents... they will make another move. It's a shame it has to come to that... but that's the way the industry works....

 

hey juniorbean
ive read the articles on the waranty but still confused, what all are our options with this warranty or i guess i should say what do we have to do to make sure we are protected under it cuase i know for the tranny its 100k/7 year , cuase i only took the dealer warranty of 50k/5yrs

 

Garylee, I hear ya. My biggest fear is going from 70 to 35mph on the highway because the tranny craps out!

 

If your car is one of the 1.2 million that are affected you will be notified by Honda/Acura. Once you receive that notification you know that you have the 7yr./100k warranty. Keep in mind that the free warranty is only for the tranny.

If you still want to be reassured... you can call Acura and give them your VIN number. They'll be able to let you know if you're affected or not....

 

How do you come up with the logic that Acura is responsible for causing someone to get hit from the rear because their tranny failed. What would the difference be if that same tl-s ran out of gas, or had a blow-out ?

It is the responsibility of the driver to always have his vehicle in control and to be a safe distance away from the person in front. It is the person who hit you that is at fault, not the car that broke down.

 

For an example, picture this: you are traveling at highway speeds (lets say 70mph) in a pack of traffic with a gracious three car lengths between you and the person in front of you. Let's say that person in front of you is driving an Acura tls and is about to experience a catastrophic tranny failure. All of the sudden the Acura slows down with no brake lights faster than if they had stood on the brake pedal. Now with this gracious 3 car length between you and this car in front of you swerving out of control (side to side), and slowing down extremely quickly with no warning. What would you do? How would you react? What if you were driving a vehicle that had inferior braking capabilities, like a SUV or truck?

After all the dust settles and the car is inspected it is found to have suffered from a 'total transmission failure', as stated by Acura.

Now how would you react to this situation?

It has been proven and admitted by Acura that high-speed transmission failures happen and are 0% dependant on how the car was driven. It could happen to anybody or nobody (I think the count was 26,000 failures last I read). Out of that 26,000 Acura confirmed 63 such high-speed failures (source: http://www.activedayton.com/ddn/busi...0924honda.html)

So out of those 63, if any single one of them resulted in damage to either property or life, who is to blame?

I am sorry if I am ranting, but I will not stand for anyone blaming the drivers for these incidents.

There is a HUGE difference between a car in the distance which is not moving that is in your way, and a car just seconds in front of you which wildy goes out of control for no reason without warning.

-copland007

 

70 on the highway....when do yoiu ever drive that slow?

 

LMAO!! Even I admitted in the article I was doing 80 on Rt 3, hehe

 

Thanks! I was trying not to incriminate myself in case anything ever happened! Ok, what if I were going 115 mph and the tranny craps out on me....I am in some deep doo-doo!

As for roadman's comments, I agree with copland on this one! If the tranny craps out at 60, 80 or 115, it is not my fault! So if your car catches fire because the electric system is faulty I guess thats your fault. Now if someone you cared about was waiting in the car for you and the same sh!t happens and they die, I guess thats your fault for leaving the car on huh? That sh!t make no sense!

 

I was driving up rt 3 sunday on my bike and it was like a friggin obstacle course. I would think that is one of the worst roads (in the shape it's in now) to have to manuever to the breakdown lane without a tranny. There was one bridge wich was somehow flooded underneath. There was only water (and small ice chunks!) underneath this bridge, so of course by murphy's law that is right where I was changing lanes doing about 75 or so and it was scary. Espcially when the person in front of me in the right lane decide to hit the brakes when she go to the edge of the water.

 

copland007,

70mph and three car lengths!!! If that is the distance that you felt that you could safely stop then you were sadly mistaken. It is your responsibility to maintain the safe distance and not hit another car, not Acura's.

Any car can have a catastophic tranny failure, that is a given as is any situation where a car may suddenly stop in front of of you. You are responsible for total control of the car that you are driving, you are liable if you hit someone because you could not stop in time.

 

roadman,

I do see your point, but come on, have you driven in rush hour traffic lately, since when is there a proper enough amount of space to react. My driver's Ed class said 10 seconds of distance is proper. Well, if Mass tripled the lanes maybe we would have enough tar for that much luxury

I stand firm, it is the manufacturers fault. They have admitted to it already.

And you better believe it would be a lawyer's field day to have such a case. It would be such an easy case to win. There is enough evidence from gathered stats and from Honda themselves to prove it was a manufacturer defect that resulted in the accident.

At any rate, this situation stinks. I dearly hope no one else gets into an accident because of this flaw.

-copland007


edit: In my case there was only about three car lengths if that between me and the drivers behind me. They were able to swerve out of the way and avoid slamming into my rear. They didn't need to stop in three car lengths, just get the hell out of the way, which thank god they were able to do. But for the sorry sap that I heard about above, that wasn't the case

 

Copland007,

I agree a lawyer will definately have a field day anytime you hit a vehicle from behind.

In virtually any other scenario I agree that Acura would be to blame, but in the instance where you cannot stop in time and hit a disabled car, it is your fault regardless of why the vehicle was stopped.

I agree it is a problem that this tranny issue is one that we all potentially face. Having had two fail myself I never found them to fail where I even came close to loosing control. It could happen and I hope that no-one gets hurt, but reality is that sometimes your fate is up to how good the driver behind you is.

 

I think blow outs and running out of gas are part of driving. Short of a fuel system failure, having enough gas is the responsibility of the driver. You may have even been taught to be aware during situations like a blow out and how to control the car.

But, a safe driving class will _never_ cover catastrophic transmission failures.
uhh.... that's just plain ignorant.

We're not talking about the driver of the car that suffered the transmission failure being at fault. We're talking about a guaranteed component of an automobile being defective and dangerous.


.

 

:p

 

I am missing your point here. If I run out of gas or get a blow-out it is not the fault of someone that hits me from behind ? Guess again. Explain the difference in your stopping ability if you see a disabled car in front of you, one that failed from a tranny failure and one that ran out of gas. Do you care how it is stopped in front of you ?

I think you are confusing what the the guarantee means. It does not mean guaranteed not to fail.

 

If not guaranteed against failure, what is the guarantee for? A guarantee is most certainly a promise that something will not fail. But, what will that get you... a new transmission. The guarantee (I don't have mine handy.. sorry... ) will probably say that they're not responsible for what happens if something fails.

We can agree not to see each other's points. These threads are free-flowing conversations.

But I'm not sure this conversation is moving forward.

I do think that the manufacturer of a defective product that puts a user in a dangerous situation can be responsible. Especially if the manufacturer can do something that can prevent injury from happening as a result of the defect. I'm not talking about the technicalities of traffic laws. If someone was injured or killed, it wouldn't be a simple who hit whom from behind case.



.

Signing off... probably bugging out from that damn hurricane!

 

 

so how many of us here actually pratice law in order to have such discussions, but roadman i have to ask u one thing, get ur buddy to stall a car on top of a hill were u can only see it once u are at the top of the hill at full momentum and then lets discuss driver control.......

 

there is a reason why the hyway speed is a MINIMUM of a certain speed....

 

The difference in your example is this:

Car ran out of gas = your fault

Tranny failed in a car manufactured by a company that admits to 26,000 failed trannies in vehicles they build, but do not recall said vehicles. Instead, they issue an extended warranty.
Tranny fails = Manufacturer's fault (provided they can't prove that somehow you did something to make it fail) otherwise, it is the poor build quality that caused the failure, which attributed to your hypothetical accident.

 

Let's try another example. You and I both in our TL-S's are driving down the highway, you in the far left lane, me in the far right. All of a sudden we both have tranny failures. We both slow down to a stop, our cars unable to proceed. I get smashed in the rear by an SUV that was not keeping a safe distance behind me. You do not, how did Acura cause my accident.

My car is smashed because my tranny failed or because someone could not control their vehicle and stop in time ?

Following your logic on blaming Acura for the accident then if I ran out of gas due to a faulty fuel guage then that also would be Acura's fault. The point is not how your car gets disabled, if you hit a disabled vehicle from the rear it is your fault, every time, Not the manufacturer of the car that caused the disability. If it is, then the guy in the SUV could blame Ford for not making the brakes better so that he could stop in time.

 

I don't want to keep round-robin'ing the issue, but in your example I would absolutely without a doubt hold Acura 100% responsible for both cars incidents, regardless of the input/ouput of the scenario.

Mainly because of their ignorance of admitting to faulty parts that they knowingly admitted cause high speed incidents and yet have done nothing to rectify the situation.

Warrantee extension was to shut people up, not to fix the problem.

Acura has knowingly allowed a potentially dangerous faulty part of the drive train of these cars to remain in operation on the road. Unacceptable IMO, and most peoples’ opinion I would imagine.

But, enough of this topic I think. We both have views and we aren't budging, hehe

Cheers!

-copland007

 

Well we definately agree that they are dropping the ball on getting to the problem at hand. Enough time has passed where they should have determined the problem.

In my case they replaced a bad tranny with an identical one that they knew very well may fail again and it did. I wonder if tranny number three is the identical to the first two.

IMHO, giving a warrantee extension on only the tranny is a weak move on their part, the entire drivetrain goes through hell when a tranny goes.

 

i agree with roadman, but is there an extent to this rule. for example, lets say a 360 modena slams on his brakes going at 70 mph. if an SUV with crappy braking capabilites has maintained a 3-4 car length distance, and assuming physics still applies in todays world , it will smash into the ferrari.
who is at fault here, the ferrari with incredible deceleration or the SUV with the most law-abiding driver ever!!!!

 

SUV every time, a driver is completely responsible and liable for being able to control his vehicle. You hit someone in the rear because you could not stop in time, it is your fault, every time.

 

I am looking at it from this angle...if the failure stops your car in while traveling at highway speeds and does not allow you control enough to get out of the way of other vehicles...and, the failures are because of a known, documented condition...then the manufacturer is still liable. I would think that even the NHTSA could be sued for not recognizing this could be a safety issue...because they have reports on this as well.

 

I don't agree, sorry. It is not so black-and-white.

So what of the person who suffered from the tranny failure? Since they couldn't control their car (me!) are they at fault for the failure. NO!

This is all I am trying to get across, I don't care about anything else in the formula, put the car in a bubble dome driving around in circles on a track. If his tranny failure is the principle cause for a loss of control resulting in an accident I would not hold him liable for the accident.

-copland007

 

If it was so black-and-white, than what about WiLz case: http://www.acura-tl.com/forum/showth...threadid=47458

Is he at fault?

 

source: http://www.njatty.com/tips/autoaccident.html

I'll keep searching for more sources if needed...

 

Copland007,

It is ok that we do not agree, this is a dicussion forum

Let's get this correct, you lost control of your car because the tranny failed, and someone hit you from behind and they are telling you that you are at fault. Is that correct ? Plus, why would you be at fault for the tranny failure ?

In the accident that you referenced, first that guy hit a car totally stopped on the freeway going 65mph and did not get hurt, very very lucky. The key to his description is that the car in front of him was able to avoid the accident, why was he not able to ?

 

Oh, I love google! Here's the money line:

source: http://www.fowlerwhite.com/pubs/casu...ec/motor.shtml

 

The higway example mentioned that car was simply stopped without any lights on. If you are backing up a freeway and get hit, guess what you are going the wrong way down a one way road.

 

Yes, this get the driver who hits you in the rear off the hook if their car has a mechanical failure. The scenario was that a car that has a tranny failure is struck in the rear, was it not ?

This is an excellant reference though, good job, it would provide Acura with a bunch of case history to fight that they are not liable either.