My 2000 Honda Accord V6 needs a new transmission!

[Ornery]

NHTSA refuses to admit that CAFE kills anyone

• "NHTSA has been engaged in administering the CAFE program (49 U.S.C. 32901, et seq.) for nearly a quarter of a century. During that time, the agency has consistently failed to adequately address the issue of CAFE?s adverse effect on auto safety. Peer-reviewed research indicates that, through its downsizing effect on passenger cars, CAFE is responsible for 2,000 to 4,000 additional traffic deaths yearly. Despite this, and despite federal court rulings on the arbitrariness of its approach, NHTSA refuses to admit that CAFE kills anyone
  
  Until NHTSA changes its approach to this issue, the current appropriations freeze on CAFE standards should remain in force...

"Large cars usually offer more protection in a crash than small cars. These test results are only useful for comparing the performance of cars in the same size class." - NHTSA, Testing How Well New Cars Perform In Crashes

This is NOT news to some of us!


Forcing ever-smaller automobiles on the American public will exact a terrible price.
by Daniel R. Levine

• "Forcing automakers to build vehicles to meet a drastically higher gas mileage standard would cost us more money, limit our choices and endanger our live. Just ask Tim Kauk, whose two-month-old son was left without a mother after the head-on collision of their subcompact car: "Every time you go out in a small car, you're putting your family's safety on the line. The sacrifice is not worth it."

Report says vehicle safety ratings confusing to consumers
From the Journal Sentinel

• "Many consumers likely believe a 4-star compact car protects them in a crash to a similar degree as a 4-star van or (sports) utility (vehicle), when in fact they are significantly more likely to be injured in a crash when occupying the smaller vehicle," wrote author Patrick Anderson of Anderson Economic Group."

Status of Injury and Crashworthiness Consumer Information
TranSafety, Inc

• "Large, heavy cars generally offer more protection to their occupants, with fatalities in lighter vehicles averaging two to three times the fatalities in heavier vehicles. Because of their additional size, larger vehicles allow more "crush space" to absorb impact."

The Issue: Do real-life safety statistics warrant an insurance discount for larger vehicles?

• "State Farm Insurance, the nation's largest underwriter, will begin offering discounts to drivers of safer automobiles. Critics charge that the plan will "legitimize" larger vehicles that pose a danger to smaller cars. But the new policy actually reflects sound risk management."

When Heavy Meets Light

• "...So the statistics show. In 1996, 41,207 people died in traffic accidents, 35,579 of them within their vehicles. Crashes between LTVs and cars resulted in 5,259 fatalities. Of these, 81 percent, or 4,260 fatalities, occurred in the cars. Clearly, the passengers in the larger vehicles came out ahead. But that doesn?t make the LTVs the villains of the piece. Because it?s not just the mismatch in size that makes cars less safe. Fatal crashes between two cars caused 4,013 deaths, while LTV-LTV crashes resulted i n far fewer fatalities: 1,225. Even if we correct for the difference in the numbers of each type of vehicle on the road, it seems obvious that if everyone drove an LTV, far fewer bodies would be hauled off the nation?s highways every year..."

Safety Pointers for Car Shoppers

• "Larger, heavier vehicles generally are crashworthier than smaller, lighter ones. First, larger vehicles typically have longer crush zones, which helps protect the safety cage in one- and two-vehicle accidents. Plus, the extra weight offers additional safety in two-vehicle crashes -- as the heavier vehicle plows into the lighter one, some of its momentum is transferred to the other vehicle."

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: Ornery
My point is that a V8, body on frame, RWD is more durable and safer than the econoboxes our consumers have opted for. Our consumers are making a BIG mistake in this choice. The gas savings is nullified by the repair costs of these fragile wimp-mobiles and their families very lives are at greater risk on top of all that. Strange priorities!

It was the consumer that forced Detroit to shift gears to building these Japanese clones. We had the most durable auto platform in the world being built here routinely and cheaply, but our consumers threw it all away in favor of fuel savings. Strange priorities... VERY strange!

More durable? Maybe. Safer? Hmm.. not so sure about that. Cars like Golf and Civic beat most SUV's in death rates.

 

[tcsenter]

Someone I know was driving in the winter on I-96 just out of Grand Rapids. She hit some black ice and started to fish-tail. Her vehicle spun and went across the median backwards and into the other direction of traffic. She was first hit by a tractor trailer, which spun the vehicle around until it was facing oncoming traffic, where another tractor trailer hit her head-on.

There were 6 children in the car, she was taking them to some event in Lansing. She was killed but all of the children survived because they were in the middle and rear passenger areas. Both the rear and front of the vehicle were smashed completely in and up to the area where the children were, but no intrusion into that area.

She was driving a 1996 Chevy Suburban. Bigger is better. Maybe not if you're the one driving the smaller vehicle, but who cares about the occupants of the OTHER vehicle?

 

[Ornery]

"Cars like Golf and Civic beat most SUV's in death rates."

• Link?

Edit: Link I Found:

• The New York Times reported startling statistics in an issue in 1997. The article reported that the passenger of a car is 4 times more likely to die compared to that of an SUV during an accident involving the two. The article also reported that if a car were hit on the side, the likelihood of death became 27 times greater for the passenger of the car compared to the SUV.

 

[Ultima]

Death rates / million registrations

Toyota Camry 4dr 37
Honda Civic 4dr 47
Volkswagen Golf 4dr 47
Honda Accord 2dr 47

Buick Regal 70
Mercury Grand Marquis 76
Ford Crown Victoria 77
Buick LeSabre 80

You were saying, Ornery?
Oh, here are some SUV rates:

Ford Explorer 2wd 2dr 231
Chevrolet T10 Blazer 4wd 2dr 153
Ford Explorer 4wd 4dr 56
Ford Expedition 4wd 39

Only the Expedition gets to the level of the Camry, even though it weights a couple of tons more. Not only that, but it's extremely dangerous for other vehicles. Absolutely pathetic.
Japanese cars are safer, more fuel efficient, AND handle better! Detriot doesn't make old cruisers anymore because in today's world they suck!

 

[CraigRT]

they must have put in a chrysler 4-speed auto into your accord before you bought it! :Q

 

[Ultima]

She was driving a 1996 Chevy Suburban. Bigger is better. Maybe not if you're the one driving the smaller vehicle, but who cares about the occupants of the OTHER vehicle?

Me, me, me and to hell with anybody else

It's not called a society for nothing.

 

[Ornery]

There's no accounting for how particular buyers of particular vehicles drive, but the laws of physics are written in stone!

SHOPPING FOR A SAFER CAR

• "Vehicle size and weight are important characteristics that influence crashworthiness. The laws of physics dictate that, all else being equal, larger and heavier vehicles are safer than smaller and lighter ones. In relation to their numbers on the road, small cars have more than twice as many occupant deaths each year as large cars."

 

[tcsenter]

Dodge Ram 2500 2wd 67
Dodge Ram 1500 4wd Club Cab 71
Dodge Ram 1500 2wd Club 75
Ford F-150 2wd Super Cab 76
Dodge Ram 2500 4wd 77

The authors acknowledged that the characteristics of drivers who tended to purchase certain vehicles influenced death rates; therefore, vehicle design would not be the sole variable.

You know what happens to a study that only accounts for a single variable to which multiple variables would affect the outcome? Yeah, it makes the study meaningless and the results cannot be compared.

For the trucks and SUV, deaths in single-vehicle accidents involving a rollover is obviously going to skew the death rate higher, because we know that trucks and SUVs have a greater tendency to rollover than cars, and we know there is a sizable percentage of SUV and truck owners who drive as though they're behind the wheel of a 5200lb Miata.

These results cannot possibly be compared.

 

[Cyberian]

Originally posted by: drogue

Originally posted by: Cyberian

efficiency is the key principle in cars

Bullshit.

well then tell me, oh wise master, what exactly auto manufacturers shoot for? performance, comfort, and everything else takes a distant 2nd or 3rd to efficiency in 95% of cars produced. obviously $100K+ cars dont follow that rule, but they aren't a representative cross section sample of the majority of cars either. engine efficiency can be tuned for performance, economy, smoothness, or in between. if you cant understand that, you dont understand cars very well either. i'm no mechanical engineer, but i'm not an idiot either. even NFS4 would be forced to agree with me on efficiency of engines, much as he would hate to agree with me just once. atleast he (unlike you and ornery) has a clue what he's talking about.

 

[Ornery]

"...what exactly auto manufacturers shoot for?"

1. Sales
2. More Sales
3. Even MORE Sales!

What ever the hell people want, that's what they'll build. The cheaper and faster they can build and sell them, the better!

 

[drogue]

ok, wow...you demonstrated the principle of momentum...gee, i really needed a 6th grade physics lesson, dumbass.
factor in single car deaths and all of a sudden, SUV and truck deaths go astronomically high. if we could get rid of gas hogging suvs the world would be a safer, cleaner place. i understand trucks are sometimes necessary (for hauling purposes), but out of all the trucks you see in a day, how many are actually hauling ANYTHING?

 

[Angrymarshmello]

Originally posted by: drogue
ok, wow...you demonstrated the principle of momentum...gee, i really needed a 6th grade physics lesson, dumbass.
factor in single car deaths and all of a sudden, SUV and truck deaths go astronomically high. if we could get rid of gas hogging suvs the world would be a safer, cleaner place. i understand trucks are sometimes necessary (for hauling purposes), but out of all the trucks you see in a day, how many are actually hauling ANYTHING?

Gee why don't you run for Congress and change that? And where are these single car deaths you're talking about? How about pulling some numbers of both these super safe Japanese cars and the huge gas guzzling Tanks of Death? You honestly can't say you'd rather get into a major collision in a small Civic than a Suburban. That would be demonstrating the principe of stupidity, something you seem to have done rather well in this thread

 

[Ornery]

"...factor in single car deaths and all of a sudden, SUV and truck deaths go astronomically high."

Yet not higher than econobox deaths. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety doesn't agree with you either:

• "...Vehicle size can protect you in both single- and two-vehicle collisions because larger vehicles usually have longer crush zones, which help prevent damage to the safety cage and lower the crash forces inside it.
  
  "All else being equal, you're safer traveling in a passenger vehicle that's larger and heavier than in one that's smaller and lighter."

Sucks to be "smaller and lighter", eh?

Too bad you and the rest of the American consumers have forced Detroit out of building RWD, family cruisers. Now the consumers left that do prefer that type of platform are FORCED to buy either trucks or SUVs instead. Face it, not everyone is willing to settle for your precious, Earth friendly, CAFE imposed econoboxes.

 

[mAdD INDIAN]

How is it these threads always turn to safety war threads between the newer cars and the older American Iron??

Anyway, about the Accord....Honda has had a problem on their 5-spd auto trannies in their TLs and the 4-spd in their Accords....A LOT of ppl had problems with it and had to get it replaced. Also, a Acura TL forum had a whole section dedicated to the tranny problems...that shows how much problems Honda had with their tranny.

About trashing trannies, in my auto '91 Corolla, I used to redline it everytime..and when I was stupider, I would downshift into 1 or 2 in order to accelerate (it was a 3spd auto).

Oh, and I'm back from India =)

 

[mithrandir2001]

Originally posted by: Ornery
There's no accounting for how particular buyers of particular vehicles drive, but the laws of physics are written in stone!

SHOPPING FOR A SAFER CAR

• "Vehicle size and weight are important characteristics that influence crashworthiness. The laws of physics dictate that, all else being equal, larger and heavier vehicles are safer than smaller and lighter ones. In relation to their numbers on the road, small cars have more than twice as many occupant deaths each year as large cars."

There's a trade-off that must be made. If everybody migrates to big heavy vehicles, then out the door goes fuel economy. And we all know that fuel supply is not infinite nor is it largely controlled by peaceful nations.

 

[athithi]

Originally posted by: kenleung

Originally posted by: athithi
My wife's cousin had the transmission on his Accord break down within a month of purchase - V4 though. Recently, I started hearing a grinding noise from my '99 Accord right after I changed the tires. My mechanic told me the transmission was gone and would have to be replaced. Took it to the dealer, he took one look at it and said my front tires were causing the noise. Big relief! I was out of warranty by some 7k miles! And yes, I changed the mechanic 😉

v4 you mean inline 4 right

Yes, inline 4 🙂 Thanks!

 

[tcsenter]

Yet not higher than econobox deaths. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety doesn't agree with you either:

The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety goes even further:

"Bigger and heavier vehicles are better: Two important characteristics influencing crash outcome are vehicle size and weight, which are strongly related. The smaller, lighter vehicles in each class generally have higher death rates. (See Table 1.)"

I guess he doesn't even read the primer for his own sources. The method of obtaining 'death rates' is a statistical exercise, and the statistical methodology used by the IIHS makes comparisons valid ONLY between vehicles in the same class.

Although the 'numbers don't lie', its what they 'mean' that matters. One must question the practical and real-world implications of "relative risk" when one model of vehicle has a substantially higher death rate than another model, yet both vehicles are essentially the same model with only slight cosmetic differences (e.g. Chevy Cavalier and Pontiac Sunbird, Pontiac Bonneville and Olsmobile Eighty-Eight, Toyota Corolla and Geo Prism, Chevy S10 Blazer and GMC S15 Jimmy, etc.)

The IIHS goes on to say that single-vehicle accidents involving roll-overs largely account for the higher death rate of SUV's and some pick-ups. Since cars have a lower center of gravity and more difficult to roll, it is exceptionally difficult to compare the death rates of cars vs. SUV's.

An SUV with a death rate of 200 is NOT 'four times more dangerous' than a sedan with a driver death rate of 50. Different classes of vehicles cannot be compared, the IIHS makes this very clear.

 

[zsir]

The 98 and up accord auto tranny's are prone to breakage........

the 4 cyl trans eats diff bearings


The 6 cyl trans has torque converter / pump problems......if you drive them hard.........manual up/down shifts.........you might get 25,000 mikes out of it........

They only cost $5,000.00 hahaha............

Hope you have Hondacare..........most aftermarket warranty's will just buy you a junkyard tranny as a replacement

 

[jimmygates]

Your not he only one affected. Acura which is basically a Honda are affected also. Check out the horror stories at Acura-TL. Many that are affected at from 2000' and beyond.




-Jimbo

 

[Ultima]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"...factor in single car deaths and all of a sudden, SUV and truck deaths go astronomically high."

Yet not higher than econobox deaths.

Yes, higher! Christ, are you willfully choosing to ignore my posts while following your own agenda!? There is PROOF in numbers that practically all SUV's are *more*dangerous. I've posted it in this very thread! Okay.. continue to ignore it.. continue to believe that your old cruisers are god's gift to carkind... believe whatever you want, there's obviously no changing your opinion.

For the dumbasses spewing crap about "bigger" is better, yes it is but to a certain point. You wouldn't want a 32" dick would you? guess what? If ALL vehicles were big, you don't exactly have an advantage anymore now do you? Instead you have big land boats that are more dangerous than so called "econoboxes", handle for sh!t, more dangerous to OTHER vehicles, more polluting thus causing more air-pollution related deaths, eat tons of gas prompting more oil wars. Is that what you want, more oil wars? More people dead or more environmental destruction in the name of oil? Then go ahead, get your 10mpg monsters, but stay the hell away from me on the highway.

 

[Ultima]

An SUV with a death rate of 200 is NOT 'four times more dangerous' than a sedan with a driver death rate of 50. Different classes of vehicles cannot be compared, the IIHS makes this very clear.

The hell they can't be compared. Star ratings can't be compared, deaths per million registrations sure as hell can. Sh!t, I can compare between motorcycles, planes, and pedestrians if I want to! It's right there in plain sight that most SUV's have higher death rates.

 

[Ornery]

From your own source. Talk about ignoring FACTS!:

• "...Vehicle size can protect you in both single- and two-vehicle collisions because larger vehicles usually have longer crush zones, which help prevent damage to the safety cage and lower the crash forces inside it.
  
  "All else being equal, you're safer traveling in a passenger vehicle that's larger and heavier than in one that's smaller and lighter." PERIOD!

 

[GoSharks]

Originally posted by: Ornery
My point is that a V8, body on frame, RWD is more durable and safer than the econoboxes our consumers have opted for. Our consumers are making a BIG mistake in this choice. The gas savings is nullified by the repair costs of these fragile wimp-mobiles and their families very lives are at greater risk on top of all that. Strange priorities!

It was the consumer that forced Detroit to shift gears to building these Japanese clones. We had the most durable auto platform in the world being built here routinely and cheaply, but our consumers threw it all away in favor of fuel savings. Strange priorities... VERY strange!

so what happens when the US starts consuming even MORE amounts of oil? dont prices start going up becuase of the increased demand and also we would eventually run out quicker? and what aobut pollution? global warming? you are forgetting all of these things. if everybody was driving those big v8's around, would the enviroment look like it does now? i bet it would be even worse off...

 

[Ornery]

That's all noble of you to be so worried about pollution and global warming, but that's not why consumers switched. They made the change because gas prices doubled during the 1973 oil embargo. Priorities switched from safety and comfort to fuel savings. Not for "tree hugging" reasons, but simply to keep a few bucks in their pockets.

Detroit's (damn thing's built in Canada) lone RWD, family cruiser hold out gets 18 mpg city / 26 mpg highway. Still too small to suit me, but it'll do. Is that mileage shameful? Personally, even at 10mpg, I only go through 550 gallons per year. How about you? Wouldn't bother me if they rationed gas to suit the tree huggers, but they can kiss my ass if they expect me to drive these friggin go-carts! :frown: