I wonder if anyone has a successful strategy for dealing with dealerships reluctant to sort warranty problems?
My Accord has suffered from extremely poor fuel consumption for the entire time I have had it. Consumption always hovers around 40 miles per gallon, occasionally as low as 35, and on a steady 60 mph journey on the motorway with no air con I can manage 43. Honda tell me this is normal, despite plenty of people on here getting much better figures, and despite the suggested extra urban figures of 50+. At 70,000 miles it's certainly not the engine having not loosened up yet, but I've got nowhere trying to pursue this. Any ideas? It's an issue that probably costs me about £6-700 a year.
I also want them to sort out various niggling problems with the car. In technical I've asked about some feedback through the steering wheel which I suspect isn't healthy. I also want rattles in the doors fixed, and there are blown bulbs in the dashboard backlight (is that warranty?). The dealers seem reluctant to deal with any of these issues, and I've tried all the fairly local outlets, so I need to find a way to persuade them to co-operate.
As an aside, I?ve also never had any goodwill what so ever for the 8 weeks it?s been off the road completely since I?ve had it, but that?s bye the bye.
Any ideas?
|
I also want rattles in the doors fixed and there are blown bulbs in the dashboard backlight (is that warranty?). The dealers seem reluctant to deal with any of these issues and I've tried all the fairly local outlets so I need to find a way to persuade them to co-operate.
The blown dash bulbs I'd say are definitely warranty items - they're not exactly consumables!
I'd put all the issues down in writing, and fax to Honda HQ, and send a copy to the dealer principal. When I had 'issues' with my wifey's last-gen Civic 18 months ago this is what I resorted to (after some helpful tips on here), worked wonders.
Typical Honda dealers - there's probably not much margin for them to offer decent service.
|
In recent years I have had a Renault, Skoda and Seat and have never had issue with warranty problems. The opposite actually applies that the garage has sometimes been the one to suggest getting something changed under warranty.
I would have thought with low sales, low sales margins, extended servicing etc that if they got half a chance to do warranty work and charge it to Honda they would. Unless of course they have been down that road before, Honda have refused, and they don't want to waste the time and effort putting together the facts for your warranty claim.
|
|
|
|
Gordon
On the odds and ends that did go wrong I never had any problems getting it fixed (maybe because it was a lease car and Inchcape may be a big customer - although my son tells me they are a small leasing co.) Most work was done by the dealer in Shirley (A34)
They changed a clutch cylinder because it was squeaking (I had not noticed) and when the immobilizer module went they took one off a new car to keep mine on the road (at around 120K so out of warranty and more than I expected them to do).
I have no experience of Brindley Cannock as mine used to go in from work. After the dealer on the A45 near the airport (supplied the car) closed Brindley Birmingham did one service and they took 3 return visits trying to replace a failed seat motor (it failed while they had it for the service) and get the seat trim back correctly (I eventually did it myself) - they did not inspire much confidence hence the switch to Shirley when they opened.
BTW do you run with the roofrack on all the time? what are your tyre pressures compared to the book figures? and did you opt for the 17" wheels as those tyres are wider as well.
The mods can remove the names if they wish but there are not that many Honda dealers around here.
|
ijws15
Sounds like you've had more luck than me. To answer your points:
roofrack has been involved with a couple of the 35 mpg runs when there have been 4 bikes on top. I don't think that's unreasonable, 37 mpg with no bikes and no rack is.. Never have it on there unless I'm carrying the bikes. Tyre pressures are normally about 1 psi above book - I'm not really comfortable pushing it more. I am indeed on the 17" tryes, which will undoubtedly have some effect.
I might give Shirley a go - it's not *that* far.. Saying that, that's the dealer who lost 1/4 tank of fuel when changing a fuel filter while trying to avoid replacing the defective EGR valve during one of my stints of being off the road. Hmm.
|
How old is the car?
Mine has done similar mileage 2005 vintage when I got it the consumption was not very good so I changed both the fuel,oil and air filter (never changed from new even though it had full Honda service history) and the consuption flew up by 10mpg the steering is very light see the HJ report I changed the front Michelin run flat tyres for normal tyres and this improved the handling slightly but to me its no problem.
|
|
Andy, bought new in Jan 06, so nearly 3. I'll give the filter change idea a go - don't know if the air filter has been changed; I'd assumed so given a fill Honda history, but... Fuel was done recently, and oil at every service, so is worth a try.
|
I have posted in technical FWIW.
How can they wriggle out of fixing a blown dash bulb? I mean they can say "cant hear a rattle sir", "steering, they are all like that sir", "mpg, quite normal sir" though a blown bulb ? ?
|
|
Cheddar. Bulb = consumable?
|
Cheddar. Bulb = consumable?
Ok, perhaps there is an element of subjectivity then hmm. Though where as a brake light etc bulb might be called a consumable I would argue that a dash bulb should not be so particularly with mind to the fact that it is probably a couple of hours labour as opposed to a DIY outside Halfords. Who would be happy if they had a £150 bill to replace a dash bulb on a month old car? Why any difference at 2.5 years if the warranty terms are the same.
Just one thing, what is the mileage limit on the warranty, its not 60k is it?
|
No, it's 90k or 3 years, hence why I am going to have a final push at getting things sorted at the upcoming 75k service.
Frankly with plenty of people unable to get less than 47 mpg in the exact same car, and easily able to get 55+ on the motorway, I'm convinced there's a fault. Trouble is, it's hard to argue with someone who just maintains the "they all get that" line.
|
Frankly with plenty of people unable to get less than 47 mpg in the exact same car and easily able to get 55+ on the motorway I'm convinced there's a fault. Trouble is it's hard to argue with someone who just maintains the "they all get that" line.
The trouble is they can always claim "its the way you drive it" The only way round this is for them to use a tankfull and prove higher mileage is possible
|
|
|
With all those others on here not having real problems, I decided to have a root and branch re-evaluation of my driving style.
So, full tank, then 296 miles of:
· No more than 2k rpm
· No more than about a quarter throttle (make sure you can't hear the turbo)
· Coast on every downhill
· Slow to 60 on uphills on motorway, 70 otherwise.
· 70% no aircon
· Off the throttle about half a mile before lights / junctions, just ensure not to drop too far below 60.
The result? Well, it?s only over 300 miles of mostly motorway, with a trip into Birmingham thrown in, so it?s not that scientific, but.
296 miles
27.6 litres of diesel
I make that to be?
48.8 mpg.
Blimey. Maybe I better rethink my supposedly fairly fuel-friendly driving style?? We'll see, but possibly a partial apology to Honda is in order?
Edited by Gordon M on 11/09/2008 at 10:05
|
And how difficult was it to drive and meet all those criteria all the time? TBH I'd be absolutely mentally exhausted after an hour or so of driving trying to tick all those boxes whilst also concentrating on the traffic around me.
Do you think everyone who is getting more mpg than you honestly drives to such strict rules all the time? I don't think they do, we all have 'driving' styles, but I doubt all those who get higher mpgs are constantly driving as though Miss Daisy is in the back.
I suspect the main factors in the increase are changing gear at lower revs and reducing your cruise speed, both easy to do most of the time.
|
And how difficult was it to drive and meet all those criteria all the time?
Do you think everyone who is getting more mpg than you honestly drives to such strict rules all the time?
Honestly? No, not at all. I'm still going to change the air filter and see if that helps. But I'm also going to start experimenting again to see how much of an improvement I can get for less 'pain'. At this rate I would save £600+ a year on fuel, that's worth a little experimentation.
|
I have an 07 Accord wagon which is now at 31k. Fuel consumption for me is averaging around 50mpg. Mostly motorway work and very little aircon. Car not driven really hard always cruising at around 70.
Previous Accord wagon only managed about 43mpg, (earlier model with 5 speed) so they appear to be quite variable. New car uses little oil while first car used 1L every 3k. Guess you have been unlucky.
Colleague runs 08 Accord saloon, this is averaging around 56mpg.
Q.
|
|
|
|
.. Saying that that's thedealer who lost 1/4 tank of fuel when changing a fuel filter .........
That's about £20+ worth. I hope you got them to reimburse you?
|
|
|
|
|
This government website explains "official" fuel consumption tests. tinyurl.com/5fuamf
Note that it says "The fuel consumption testing scheme is intended to give car buyers comparative information about the fuel consumption of different models in standard tests." I think this sentence needs to be read carefully and be fully understood.
No car manufacturer claims that you will actually achieve the published figures. On the other hand, it's possible to get better than the official figures ~ I do.
|
L'escargot, couldn't agree more, the official figures are nothing more than a general guide to compare different cars. But, why does my car get 42 on cruise at 70 when others with a supposedly identical car get 55? That's more than 20% different in a near-identical situation.
I'll try the air filter idea and report back.
|
|
Don't assume they have changed the fuel filter when it was serviced.
|
At 70mph mine was around 48mpg, to get over 50 I had to sit at 65 on TOMTOM - not much of the M6 south of Preston where you can do that these days.
Tyres are a factor as I have driven 2 estates, both on 16" (standard) and both had similar economy.
Others in the company (and we have around 15 Accords in 400 cars) have complained about economy but all those who have complained have the 17" wheels. Those with 16s are getting similar (or better in saloons) than I recorded.
Could be a mix of tyre width, tyre composition, tread pattern etc. (mine spent its life on Michelin Primacys). Weight does make a difference and most of my miles were one up and a briefcase, loading the car did increase consumption.
|
|
I have just returned from France with the Accord Tourer loaded with booze and other items. I always keep the tyres at the recommended pressure for fully loaded. With a mixture of autoroute, and N154 to Le Havre, I also did some running around on those narrow lanes in the Lot before I left, and achieved an average of 53 mpg.
Edited by Robbie on 09/09/2008 at 17:07
|
|
|
|
