| evanskevins |
| Just curious to see if anyone knows anything about Consumer Reports reliability ratings? I have an 04 Pilot EX and I obviously have some concerns about potential transmission issues after reading posts on this website daily for the past several months. I did have the transmission recall work done way back when. I've had absolutely no problems with the Pilot and no indication of any issues with the transmission. So maybe I'm worrying for nothing. But the 04 Pilot gets a "better than average" rating for the transmission. Can anyone tell me what that rating translates to in probability? Does than mean 1 in 100 had problems, or does it mean 10 in 100 had problems? I have about 58k on my Pilot and I'm considering trading in. 60K is a a good mileage (in my experience) to decide if you are going to dump a car or stick with it and plan on running it into the ground. I'd hate to plan on running it into the ground if there are significant transmission woes. Any input is appreciated. |
|
|
| jl_ss |
quote:
Originally posted by evanskevins
Just curious to see if anyone knows anything about Consumer Reports reliability ratings? I have an 04 Pilot EX and I obviously have some concerns about potential transmission issues after reading posts on this website daily for the past several months. I did have the transmission recall work done way back when. I've had absolutely no problems with the Pilot and no indication of any issues with the transmission. So maybe I'm worrying for nothing. But the 04 Pilot gets a "better than average" rating for the transmission. Can anyone tell me what that rating translates to in probability? Does than mean 1 in 100 had problems, or does it mean 10 in 100 had problems? I have about 58k on my Pilot and I'm considering trading in. 60K is a a good mileage (in my experience) to decide if you are going to dump a car or stick with it and plan on running it into the ground. I'd hate to plan on running it into the ground if there are significant transmission woes. Any input is appreciated.
Half a red dot in CR means that it has a total (serious and minor) reported problem rate of less than 2%. This is better than a lot of vehicles. I would say that the small number of tranny problems posted on this site backs up that number - I wouldn't worry about it at all. |
|
|
| whizmo |
quote:
Originally posted by jl_ss
Half a red dot in CR means that it has a total (serious and minor) reported problem rate of less than 2%.
This is probably correct, but here's my read of what CR is doing based on watching these reliability ratings over the years.
Many years ago, they used to completely normalize the data. A red dot didn't mean any particular number. Instead it meant "fewer problems than average", a black dot "more problems then average", and so on. They'd compute the average number of problems for a particular "trouble spot" for a given vintage car, and report everything as above or below this average.
About 10-15 years ago, they decided to stop normalizing the data. Each type of dot now represented a hard number touble rate (e.g., 2% for half a red-dot). So the dots would get progressively blacker as the cars were older and would vary from trouble spot to trouble spot. To tell if your car was above or below average, you had to compare the column of dots for your car with a key which showed what an average car would look like. This made it really hard to look at a car's record and tell at a glance whether it was better or worse than average.
About a year ago, they appeared to go back to normalizing the data. But they also declared that they would use non-normalized data for trouble spots where the problem rate was so low that it didn't make sense to give a car a black dot even if it was below average when the average was super low. For example, if the average failure rate as 0.5%, they didn't feel they should show a black mark for a car because it's rate was 0.3%. When you get down to numbers like this, just one random failure could cause a car to go from better than average to worse than average. So if the rates are below certain thresholds, they still give a car a red dot even if it's below average.
So.... as I read it, half a red dot for a 2004 Pilot transmission means that the transmission problem rate is EITHER: 1) less than 2%, OR 2) somewhat less than average if the problem rate for 2004 transmissions is high enough such that somewhat less than average is above 2%.
I suspect, transmissions problem rates are pretty low, so I would assume less than 2%.
Clear as mud, I know.
Looking at the data for both Honda and Acrua, it appears the transmission problems very much appears to be a 00-03 issue. Rates for 04 and later appear to be very low. And I think folks have said that 04 was a year when they made some major changes to the transmission.
IOW, I wouldn't worry about it.
- Mark |
|
|
| jl_ss |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
This is probably correct, but here's my read of what CR is doing based on watching these reliability ratings over the years.
Many years ago, they used to completely normalize the data. A red dot didn't mean any particular number. Instead it meant "fewer problems than average", a black dot "more problems then average", and so on. They'd compute the average number of problems for a particular "trouble spot" for a given vintage car, and report everything as above or below this average.
About 10-15 years ago, they decided to stop normalizing the data. Each type of dot now represented a hard number touble rate (e.g., 2% for half a red-dot). So the dots would get progressively blacker as the cars were older and would vary from trouble spot to trouble spot. To tell if your car was above or below average, you had to compare the column of dots for your car with a key which showed what an average car would look like. This made it really hard to look at a car's record and tell at a glance whether it was better or worse than average.
About a year ago, they appeared to go back to normalizing the data. But they also declared that they would use non-normalized data for trouble spots where the problem rate was so low that it didn't make sense to give a car a black dot even if it was below average when the average was super low. For example, if the average failure rate as 0.5%, they didn't feel they should show a black mark for a car because it's rate was 0.3%. When you get down to numbers like this, just one random failure could cause a car to go from better than average to worse than average. So if the rates are below certain thresholds, they still give a car a red dot even if it's below average.
So.... as I read it, half a red dot for a 2004 Pilot transmission means that the transmission problem rate is EITHER: 1) less than 2%, OR 2) somewhat less than average if the problem rate for 2004 transmissions is high enough such that somewhat less than average is above 2%.
I suspect, transmissions problem rates are pretty low, so I would assume less than 2%.
Clear as mud, I know.
Looking at the data for both Honda and Acrua, it appears the transmission problems very much appears to be a 00-03 issue. Rates for 04 and later appear to be very low. And I think folks have said that 04 was a year when they made some major changes to the transmission.
IOW, I wouldn't worry about it.
- Mark
For individual category problem rates:
"Because problem rates in some trouble spots are very low, we do not assign a (black dot) or a (half black dot) unless the model's problem rate exceeds 3 percent. If a problem rate is below 2 or 1 percent it will be assigned a (half red dot) or a (red dot) respectively. In the charts, a model year in red identifies the year of a major redesign."
So, while the data may be normalized, you can still apply absolute values within 1% to the clear and red/half red dots, but not the black dots. The deficiency is that you can't tell how bad a problem really is. In there latest issue they mention a serious transmission problem rate of 25% for the 2001 Acura CL and it gets a black dot. |
|
|
| krygny |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
...
Looking at the data for both Honda and Acrua, it appears the transmission problems very much appears to be a 00-03 issue. Rates for 04 and later appear to be very low. And I think folks have said that 04 was a year when they made some major changes to the transmission.
...
I don't think they made any major changes; mostly refinements and incorporated the recall correction in the production line. A lot of people that participate in the survey might respond that they had a "problem" with the transmission because there was a recall and they had to bring it in. You're not supposed to do that. I've done dozens of these CU surveys and it can be tempting to respond negatively to a question about something you just don't like about the car. But it's pretty clear by the wording they are only interested in failures, not something that simply doesn't work the way you'd like it to (e.g., some of the things people pi$$ and moan about in this forum). :D |
|
|
| jl_ss |
quote:
Originally posted by krygny
I don't think they made any major changes; mostly refinements and incorporated the recall correction in the production line. A lot of people that participate in the survey might respond that they had a "problem" with the transmission because there was a recall and they had to bring it in. You're not supposed to do that. I've done dozens of these CU surveys and it can be tempting to respond negatively to a question about something you just don't like about the car. But it's pretty clear by the wording they are only interested in failures, not something that simply doesn't work the way you'd like it to (e.g., some of the things people pi$$ and moan about in this forum). :D
Acura/Honda redesigned their V6 transmission from a 3 shaft design to a 4 shaft design. It got incorporated in Honda/Acura's vehicles at different times so you will see different "bad" years for each vehicle. The Pilot and the RL are the only V6 models that escaped significant tranny problems. The 2001/2002 MDX experiences a lot of failures. The new tranny was incorporated into the MDX in 2003 and the problem rate went to less than 2%. I believe the Pilot got the new tranny in 2006, but since there were no significant failures, it was a transparent replacement. I do agree that the slightly worse 2003/2004 Pilot problem rate was influenced by customers seeing the recall as a problem. |
|
|
| whizmo |
quote:
Originally posted by jl_ss
So, while the data may be normalized, you can still apply absolute values within 1% to the clear and red/half red dots, but not the black dots.
We're splitting hairs, but that's not how I read the CR explanation of the dots. They are saying that the data is always normalized for both red and black dots EXCEPT when the problem rates are so low that it doesn't make sense. Essentially they put a floor under the normalization, switching to an absolute scale if the problem rates are low enough.
Did the floor kick in for a 2004 Pilot transmission rating? I don't think we can tell. Either the rate is low (below 2%) or it's below average.
That's my read anyway. It's not terribly clear, so I could be wrong as rain.
- Mark |
|
|
| jl_ss |
quote:
Originally posted by whizmo
We're splitting hairs, but that's not how I read the CR explanation of the dots. They are saying that the data is always normalized for both red and black dots EXCEPT when the problem rates are so low that it doesn't make sense. Essentially they put a floor under the normalization, switching to an absolute scale if the problem rates are low enough.
Did the floor kick in for a 2004 Pilot transmission rating? I don't think we can tell. Either the rate is low (below 2%) or it's below average.
That's my read anyway. It's not terribly clear, so I could be wrong as rain.
- Mark
Reading the paragraph before the one I posted more closely, I see what you are saying. I agree they need to be clearer. They should publish the real problem rates so that we can determine the real extent of a problem. The 2004 Pilot tranny problem rate is half a red dot - wouldn't that be better than average not below average? |
|
|
| krygny |
| ... who don't have a subscription or registration at CU's site ... |
|
|
| whizmo |
quote:
Originally posted by jl_ss
The 2004 Pilot tranny problem rate is half a red dot - wouldn't that be better than average not below average?
Yes, I misspoke. I meant "below average" to mean "fewer problems than average" which is good, not bad.
- Mark |
|
|
| whizmo |
quote:
Originally posted by krygny
... who don't have a subscription or registration at CU's site ...
When I get home, I'll try and post up the same chart for a Mercedes ML or VW Touareg just to show how bad it can get.
- Mark |
|
|
| mikesrc |
You don't have to tell me how bad it can get. I just got rid of a BMW 740IL and went to the Pilot. You would not believe what a piece of crap that BMW was. In the first 5k miles on the bmw was in the shop 6-8 times. 4K on the Pilot and forgot where I bought it. NICE truck!!
Mike in OKC |
|
|
| GreenMachine |
I wonder if the water leaks some have been reporting lead to the good rating for body integrity on the '06. Ours has been great. The slight front passenger window scrunch was taken care of when they adjusted the strike plate.
Sure is a LOT of red on that report! :cool: :4: |
|
|
|
