http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.makers.honda?hl=en
rec.autos.makers.honda@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Ignore Check Engine light at your peril!! - 7 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.makers.honda/t/ce0a5c2e8c49b7f3?hl=en
* Head Gasket Replacement Question - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.makers.honda/t/693c607baf2c09be?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ignore Check Engine light at your peril!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.makers.honda/t/ce0a5c2e8c49b7f3?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, May 13 2011 4:42 am
From: Tegger
When people had reported the Check Engine light (MIL) on with an EVAP code
(P045x; P145x), I had been advising people to avoid the hassle and expense
of getting it fixed, if they didn't have a smog check to pass.
This is a potentially /expensive/ mistake.
My attention has been called to TSB A03-001, which covers just about all
models from '98 and up. It seems that corrosion in the EVAP system can
result in an electrical short that can damage the ECM.
I have just witnessed my first instance of exactly this having occurred. A
lady with her '99 Accord is now facing a repair bill of $1,560, part of
which is replacement of the ECM. She ignored the MIL and kept driving,
luckily not having done this because of anything I told her, but just
because she didn't feel like getting it looked at.
Upshot: If the MIL comes on, and the codes have anything to do with EVAP
(anything like P045x or P145x), DON'T IGNORE IT! GET IT FIXED, or have the
EVAP electrically unplugged from its power source!
--
Tegger
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, May 13 2011 7:09 am
From: jim beam
On 05/13/2011 04:42 AM, Tegger wrote:
> When people had reported the Check Engine light (MIL) on with an EVAP code
> (P045x; P145x), I had been advising people to avoid the hassle and expense
> of getting it fixed, if they didn't have a smog check to pass.
>
> This is a potentially /expensive/ mistake.
>
> My attention has been called to TSB A03-001, which covers just about all
> models from '98 and up. It seems that corrosion in the EVAP system can
> result in an electrical short that can damage the ECM.
>
> I have just witnessed my first instance of exactly this having occurred. A
> lady with her '99 Accord is now facing a repair bill of $1,560, part of
> which is replacement of the ECM. She ignored the MIL and kept driving,
> luckily not having done this because of anything I told her, but just
> because she didn't feel like getting it looked at.
>
> Upshot: If the MIL comes on, and the codes have anything to do with EVAP
> (anything like P045x or P145x), DON'T IGNORE IT! GET IT FIXED, or have the
> EVAP electrically unplugged from its power source!
>
i don't buy this. the ecm is protected against over-voltage and dead
shorts on all inputs and outputs. a fried solenoid is either doing open
circuit or dead short - neither are going to harm the ecm, it will
simply throw a code.
i think any shop saying the ecm needs to be replaced is taking her for a
very expensive ride.
and this code is usually fixed by simply replacing the gas cap.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, May 13 2011 11:05 am
From: "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
In article <coqdnQ9R2MM8plDQnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> > When people had reported the Check Engine light (MIL) on with an EVAP code
> > (P045x; P145x), I had been advising people to avoid the hassle and expense
> > of getting it fixed, if they didn't have a smog check to pass.
> >
> > This is a potentially /expensive/ mistake.
> >
> > My attention has been called to TSB A03-001, which covers just about all
> > models from '98 and up. It seems that corrosion in the EVAP system can
> > result in an electrical short that can damage the ECM.
> >
>
> i don't buy this. the ecm is protected against over-voltage and dead
> shorts on all inputs and outputs. a fried solenoid is either doing open
> circuit or dead short - neither are going to harm the ecm, it will
> simply throw a code.
Well, now, you're assuming Honda didn't screw something up in the design
or manufacture of the ECMs from '98 on up.
Right now, that's a HUGE assumption. Let's see, it was the '98 model V6
four speed transmissions that started the whole "Honda can't build a
transmission to save its life, makes Chrysler look like geniuses" thing
that went on for 7 years and across two different models of transmission.
I'm with you that a properly designed and built ECM is protected, but a
shitty piece that saved somebody a half a penny per unit? That would be
Honda, from '98 on up.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, May 13 2011 11:48 am
From: Tegger
jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote in
news:coqdnQ9R2MM8plDQnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
> On 05/13/2011 04:42 AM, Tegger wrote:
>> When people had reported the Check Engine light (MIL) on with an EVAP
>> code (P045x; P145x), I had been advising people to avoid the hassle
>> and expense of getting it fixed, if they didn't have a smog check to
>> pass.
>>
>> This is a potentially /expensive/ mistake.
>>
>> My attention has been called to TSB A03-001, which covers just about
>> all models from '98 and up. It seems that corrosion in the EVAP
>> system can result in an electrical short that can damage the ECM.
>>
>> I have just witnessed my first instance of exactly this having
>> occurred. A lady with her '99 Accord is now facing a repair bill of
>> $1,560, part of which is replacement of the ECM. She ignored the MIL
>> and kept driving, luckily not having done this because of anything I
>> told her, but just because she didn't feel like getting it looked at.
>>
>> Upshot: If the MIL comes on, and the codes have anything to do with
>> EVAP (anything like P045x or P145x), DON'T IGNORE IT! GET IT FIXED,
>> or have the EVAP electrically unplugged from its power source!
>>
>
> i don't buy this. the ecm is protected against over-voltage and dead
> shorts on all inputs and outputs.
Not in this case! American Honda very specifically says so in TSB A03-011.
Quote:
"The EVAP bypass solenoid valve can fail due to
corrosion. The solenoid valve may get water inside. If
the water contains road salt, the solenoid windings
could corrode, causing the valve to fail. In a few rare
instances, the corrosion could be severe enough to
cause an internal short in the solenoid valve, which
could damage the ECM/PCM. If this happens, both the
bypass solenoid valve and the ECM/PCM would need
to be replaced.
Vehicles driven in the Northeastern part of the U.S. are
more likely to have this problem because of the salting
of roads during the winter months. Vehicles driven
where salt is not used on the roads are much less likely
to have this problem."
They say "a few rare cases". Well this was one of them.
> a fried solenoid is either doing
> open circuit or dead short - neither are going to harm the ecm, it
> will simply throw a code.
In this case, it can indeed kill the ECM.
--
Tegger
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, May 13 2011 3:19 pm
From: Tegger
Tegger <invalid@example.com> wrote in
news:Xns9EE4969D02FECtegger@208.90.168.18:
>
> Not in this case! American Honda very specifically says so in TSB
> A03-011.
>
Sorry, typo. The correct TSB number is A03-001.
--
Tegger
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, May 13 2011 9:38 pm
From: jim beam
On 05/13/2011 03:19 PM, Tegger wrote:
> Tegger<invalid@example.com> wrote in
> news:Xns9EE4969D02FECtegger@208.90.168.18:
>
>
>>
>> Not in this case! American Honda very specifically says so in TSB
>> A03-011.
>>
>
>
> Sorry, typo. The correct TSB number is A03-001.
>
>
i don't disbelieve the existence of the tsb, but several of my friends
are embedded systems engineers. the probability of failure for an
engine module like this, being as survival of dead shorts and open
circuits - the two outcomes of solenoid failure - is built in from day
one, is next to zero. far smaller than the likelihood of misdiagnosis
and resorting to "we can't figure out why the code keeps setting so it's
got to be the computer".
just like the diagnosis in tsb 97-025, they blame the thermostat because
whoever wrote it didn't bother to do two fundamental things:
1. understand the computer logic that goes into energizing the lockup
solenoid - several conditions need to be met - one of them being that
the gear selector switch is making contact.
2. deal with the logic of this being an issue only on one of their
automatics, not all the vehicles with this exact same thermostat. the
transmission selector switch is the only differentiator between the
conventional auto, the cvt auto, and the stick. if it really was the
thermostat, /all/ vehicles would be affected. fix the switch and the
problem disappears immediately and permanently, even with what was
previously a "defective" thermostat.
getting back to this case, i have one of these accords. i have
experience with this exact issue, and i'm telling you for fact - the
code sets each time the gas cap loosens. why it loosens, i don't know,
but it does. fix the cap, and your codes disappear - no broken or
leaking solenoid, and no new ecm.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, May 13 2011 11:14 pm
From: jim beam
On 05/13/2011 11:05 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<coqdnQ9R2MM8plDQnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@speakeasy.net>,
> jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>> When people had reported the Check Engine light (MIL) on with an EVAP code
>>> (P045x; P145x), I had been advising people to avoid the hassle and expense
>>> of getting it fixed, if they didn't have a smog check to pass.
>>>
>>> This is a potentially /expensive/ mistake.
>>>
>>> My attention has been called to TSB A03-001, which covers just about all
>>> models from '98 and up. It seems that corrosion in the EVAP system can
>>> result in an electrical short that can damage the ECM.
>>>
>>
>> i don't buy this. the ecm is protected against over-voltage and dead
>> shorts on all inputs and outputs. a fried solenoid is either doing open
>> circuit or dead short - neither are going to harm the ecm, it will
>> simply throw a code.
>
> Well, now, you're assuming Honda didn't screw something up in the design
> or manufacture of the ECMs from '98 on up.
>
> Right now, that's a HUGE assumption. Let's see, it was the '98 model V6
> four speed transmissions that started the whole "Honda can't build a
> transmission to save its life, makes Chrysler look like geniuses" thing
> that went on for 7 years and across two different models of transmission.
>
> I'm with you that a properly designed and built ECM is protected, but a
> shitty piece that saved somebody a half a penny per unit? That would be
> Honda, from '98 on up.
if there is any issue, and i assign a very low probability to that, it's
hardware non-conformance, not design.
regarding the transmissions - i don't think there's much wrong with the
mechanical design per se, but i think the bean counters royally
misunderestimated the effects of their manufacturing execution.
i believe the problem is that they switched from carburized to flame
hardened gears - the latter being much cheaper to make. but these
cheaper gears are also incapable of making the same hardness on the
running surfaces, thus they spall, resultant swarf clogs the cooler
channels, and then the hydraulics fail. spalling of these gears is a
known issue, so i don't believe this was an engineering oversight,
purely a financial decision. and one i suspect that ties in to another
classic bean counter hot button - that of cars "lasting too long" -
because their customer service on the problem has been so bad and ties
in with a fundamental shift in honda attitude.
back in the day, honda's management understood that customers were loyal
because they were happy with the fact that their old honda had never let
them down. these days, business management schools don't teach about
the value of brand loyalty, just about how to calculate increased profit
if turnover can be increased by reducing vehicle lifespan. thus the
literalistic bean counter has a double incentive to mandate a known
defective transmission - cheaper to build, doesn't last, make the
vehicle uneconomic to repair by shafting the customer on the price of
the new transmission and by keeping spare parts off the market, so they
get to sell another vehicle. they think.
gross miscalculation. just like when they stiffed the previously
die-hard "enthusiast" market with the macpherson civics. even if they
fix their mistakes today, it'll take a decade, if ever, before they get
brand loyalty back. and if kia/hyundai ever release a hatch with
wishbones and engine options, they never will.
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Head Gasket Replacement Question
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.makers.honda/t/693c607baf2c09be?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, May 13 2011 7:12 am
From: jim beam
On 05/12/2011 11:25 PM, MikeLikes wrote:
> Hi All,
> My EG Civic with a D15B7 Motor seems to have blown a head gasket. I am
> planning to only replace the gasket and I am not sure if I should send
> the head away to be tested.
>
> What could happen if I replace the head gasket and not test the head?
> The reason why I am trying to avoid testing the head is becuase the
> gasket only appears to be broken on cylinder 2, the car did not over
> heat and I think I stoped the car quickly when I noticed it running
> funny. Does anyone have any tips or links on how to diagnose a head?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Michael
it's pretty unusual for there to be any actual problems with the head in
this regard. it's usually just a bad gasket and i wouldn't hesitate to
replace the head without testing unless i could see obvious evidence of
problems.
the big thing is making sure the mating surface is clean so you get a
good seal on the new gasket. use a razor blade at a close angle [thin
and won't gouge the surface - thicker blades can badly damage the soft
aluminum surface] and plenty of gasket remover to get rid of the old
gasket, and you're set.
also read this:
<http://www.rebuiltautoengines.com/honda-civic-articles.html>
pay attention to the torque sequence, but don't bother buying new bolts
- honda used to recommend that but have since dropped the requirement.
use a bending beam torque wrench, not clicking type - the bolts creep
around, so torque then hold until it stops moving. several times each
one. definitely get the upgraded gasket part number 12251-P01-004.
most shops will recommend you get the head skimmed. unless the head is
warped or you can't get a straight one at a junkyard, i strongly caution
against this because the surface finish is always much inferior to oem.
the milling process grooves the surface - these are channels for
future leakage. when the head "goes" a second time, most people ditch
the car rather than get to grips with the problem. shops just say "the
head mush be cracked" rather than admit they shouldn't have done the
skim. or they don't even know what they did wrong. [unless warped,
honda say the skim is unnecessary.]
--
nomina rutrum rutrum
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.autos.makers.honda"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.makers.honda?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.autos.makers.honda+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.makers.honda/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment