Honda Nightmare

[accord_guy]

Re: Honda Nightmare

Well put again Elvin, <br /> <br /> People are here to give advice using their own experiences. They're NOT here to take sides or get their shoulders cried on. It seems the more someone is wrong, the harder they'll work to try to prove themselves right. If they know they're right, the less they care what others think. I would have had a new head on that engine or another engine completely and been fishing by now. LIFE IS TOO SHORT. If a problem can be fixed with money, it's really not a problem at all.

 

[Kanadakid]

Re: Honda Nightmare

I have read this post and beleive there is some bad advice. However i do think rodbolts point should be listened to.<br /><br />Small claims or special civil court is very inexpensive.....go !<br /><br />1) Thry to file this claim under the lemon law <br /> or just as a failed warrenty issue.<br /><br />2) Law is based on the reasonable person priciple. Everything you did was reasonable and even better you have witnesses to that fact.<br /><br />3) In order for Honda to win they must PROVE that what happened was YOUR FAULT.<br /><br />Someone made this statement: Honda can and will claim that you operated the engine with a low or no pressure warning. That relieves them of any liability as to engine damage. From their and any other engine manufacturer's perspective.<br /><br />sorry but they can claim whatever they want. They will have to PROVE what happened.<br /><br />4) Judge are very understanding when dealing with consumer issues.<br /><br />5) The only thing you have to prove is that the engine is not performing and that you , knowlegeable perfomred basic service. changing oil or putting grease in the fittings is simple and reasonable to expect folks to perform.<br /><br /><br />6) If honda is stu[id enough to walk into court without tearing the engine down and providing PROOF.....let em show up.<br /><br /><br />what will most likely happen ?<br /><br />It will cost Honda more that the cost of the engine to show up and have proof testimony about what occured than it would to fix or replace your engine.<br /><br />File the claim and then watch what happens. Take you friends and mecahnic to court.<br /><br />Oh, anf you can as long as it is withing limits add your costs tot eh claim if you are successful.<br /><br />Judges know that you are up against a large corporation and will make them do what is right.<br />Hope this helps,<br /><br />Kid

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Honda Nightmare

kanadakid<br /> you really would not like to face a tech like me as a professional witness. its something I do occasionally and have cost more plantiffs a case that when done the dealer counter sued and collected for attorney"s fees. the legal system works both ways sometimes.<br /> problem one is a relativly new motor with no previous problems failed within minutes of an untrained worker under the hood.<br /> problem two is try as I might I cant find a spec for the so called nipple height but several general training manuals call for the nipple to be checked and the sealing surface to be inspected. obviously neither were done by whomever changed that filter.<br /> third I would have that block or a mockup in cout to disprove the loose nipple theory.<br /> without the original filter there is no way to prove what happened at all.<br /> number four is its the dealers responsibility to retain any and all parts suspected of warrenty defects, most call for a minimum of 90 days. if I think it may be warrenty I will even save the old gasket parts. any part that you request a warrenty on you must retain the old stuff for a specified amount of time. that alone will let Honda INC off the hook. then it becomes a consumer to dealer issue. by this time its no longer in small claims court.<br /> arbitration may be a better route.<br /> if someone sues me in small claims I always counter sue to have it moved to general district court if at all possible.<br /> all I can offer is good luck and hope they dont feel like fighting back. if they do it will get messy.<br />warrenty is just that. its warrenty against defects in workmanship(assembly) or defective parts. without the original filter there is no way to tell if it was the wrong part for the application, if it was and it was installed by a consumer odds are against a warrenty claim. but were it at any of the marinia I contract for even what oil was left would have been saved and tagged in case analyisis was needed.

 

[accord_guy]

Re: Honda Nightmare

This is the kind of BS that clogs our courts <br />everyday. The attitude is 'Just sue someone and<br />sees what happens'. The facts are simple. The <br />original filter worked perfect. The new owner <br />changed the oil and filter. The oil leaked out and the engine locked up. Nipple schmipple, it <br />doesn't matter. The engine was run with no oil. <br />The pressure light was probably on and not noticed. Gross user error. Honda can prove all this because Rock will admit it. BUT, this<br />is America where our courts don't always follow common sense. OJ is free, remember.

 

[TOHATSU GURU]

Re: Honda Nightmare

Kanadakid,<br /><br />You really do not have a legal grasp about what a manufacturer's responsibility actually entails. I'm not saying your wrong morally, just legally. A warranty covers defects in material and workmanship. It is up to the plaintive in court to prove that it was one or both that was at fault. It is not, and I mean never, up to the manufacturer to prove that they did not make a mistake. Courts of Equity do indeed look at the "reasonable man" principal. In this case the only issue is whether it was reasonable to run an engine after the warning device came on. The answer will be no. That's why they have warning indicators. So people will stop and keep from damaging the product. Let's say you have a tire that goes flat and then you run on the rim and destroy the tire. You go back to the tire dealer because they have a 50,000 mile warranty on the tire. They look at the tire and pull out the nail and say....."Wow, I guess your buying a new tire." The intial reason for going flat was a nail...Not recoverable under warranty. The subsequent damge to the tire by driving on it while it was flat is also not recoverable because...You are not supposed to drive on a flat tire because it will ruin it. It is just not reasonable. The problem with the Honda is along the same line. The damage may have been a defect(unlikely), but possible. But, any damage arising from this problem, if there was a reasonable way to prevent it( read that as stopping the engine when the warning device came on), is not recoverable under warranty. <br /><br />It always possible that Honda might give in, that a court will find in favor of the consumer or that the whole thing was caused by a magic flying pig that urinated on the oil filter causing it to not seat. But that would be the exception that proves the rule.

 

[MajBach]

Re: Honda Nightmare

I'm not sure if I agree with the above two assessments, but I'm also not sure of the law. Rodbolt states the facts pretty clearly ( no doubt from experience ), but I would like to believe in small claims court, a judge factors in ethics as well - as long as it's reasonable. All I know is, if I was in this guy's shoes, I'd be going to court, and not because I believe I have nothing to lose but because I really do believe there is a case here - one for a judge to decide. I'm anxious to hear the outcome.

 

[Kanadakid]

Re: Honda Nightmare

International, here is where we differ. My understanding was/is that there was no warning light / sound. If there was then I'm with you. The engine should have been shut down immediately.<br /><br />Rod....I never disagree with you. your the expert on this forum.<br /><br />I would like to share a couple thoughts though.<br /><br />I have read many presumptions about what might have happened. In order for Honda to walk away they need to be sure of what caused the engine seizure. They have some theories but no proof.<br /><br />The guy changed his oil and filter. What did he do that would be any different that what the tech would have done at any one of a dozen marine dealers. <br /><br />No way does any of the marine dealers tank test the engine for 10 minutes after chaging the oil ! Let's get real ! <br /><br />Their is a manufacturers warrenty and an implied warrenty. The engine must perform for a specific length of time under reasonable conditions. It is not performing at this point. Nothing unreasonable was done to the engine.<br /><br />any one of us on this board has changed our oil dozens of times. Its not a very technical procedure.<br /><br />There is a theory that the oil filter leaked. may be true may be not, however that is not proof that there was not some sort of part or engine failure.<br /><br />Perhaps the guy didn't tighted the filter down enough.....i don't relly know. But if we take his word for what happened, Honda should be fixing his engine.<br /><br />As far as clogging our courts. That is the way we resolve otherwise unresolvable issues. Not buy shooting each other.<br /><br />Someone is in the wrong here. Either Honda for not stepping up to their engine failure or Richard. <br /><br /><br />If we beleive Honda is not at fault we are sayign that what he is telling us in his post is not truthful.<br /><br />I think he should take his freind and mechanic to small claims court under the principle that the engine is not performing.<br /><br />In the end I know we all here to help one another. Rodbolt youv'e helped more than anyone and please understand there is no intent ot offend you or international.<br /><br />Just giving my opinons.<br /><br /><br />Kid

 

[Kanadakid]

Re: Honda Nightmare

No intent to offend you or internetoutboard (not International)....or any of you guys.<br /><br />Kid

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Honda Nightmare

no offense taken.<br />but it would not be the first time i have seen a simple procedure get muffed, i have even seen techs with 20 yrs experience do it. but the nipple theory is out, without the original filter no one can say. so if no one can say and the man did his own labor who is most likly at fault?

 

[DHPMARINE]

Re: Honda Nightmare

Here I am just diving in.As usual.<br /><br />Did this motor leak oil externally,or just 'bypass' at the filter and not circulate thru the engine,causing the failure ?If the adapter between the block and filter unthreaded,I'd like to know.It's not something you check,by most manuals.<br /><br />Also warning lights are vauge on tiller motors.Do Hondas have warnig horns ?<br /><br />I'm not sure,but in panick situations the warning horn is the last thing I hear. ??<br /><br />There has to be a reason Honda hasn't good willed this.<br /><br />DHP

 

[TOHATSU GURU]

Re: Honda Nightmare

I'm not offended...But, I have seen so many consumers so filled with the "TRUTH" of their cause that they really do not see what is really reasonable. In this case the consumer had no problem until he changed the oil and filter. The filter that he used could have been defective, the nipple or seat may be out of spec on the engine or he could have made a mistake when he put the filter back on. Regardless of which one of those are correct, the problem was/is/will be that the Honda warning light and/or buzzer(depends on the mounting), if it was operational, is the stop/loss point for the warranty. Manufacturer warning devices are on engines to warn of a dangerous engine condition that could result in engine failure. It is inconceivable that a court would find in favor of someone who ignored that warning thereby causing a catastrophic engine failure. That doesn't mean that some judge wouldn't find in favor...It just means that it is very unlikely...I still think the magical pig theory would play better to his insurance company than getting the legal system to work for him. <br /><br />In the end it all will come down to the warning device. Can he prove that it didn't work? Can Honda prove that it did? When he took the engine into the dealer after the problem, was it noted that the device did not work? The legal presumption will be that it was working at the time unless otherwise noted. All the relevant posts indicate that he heard no buzzer...but the warning light issue was repeatedly sidestepped. Not noticing the light will not put Honda on the hook. Only the light failing to come on during the oil pressure loss will put Honda on the spot.<br /><br />Also, for the record I was a Honda dealer for seven years. They make a good, reliable, slightly overhyped, engines. They honor their warranty's. But, what they will not do is act as an insurance company against everything that can happen to one of their products. They are also extremely rigid when it comes to a policy adjustment to cover something that they are not 100% convinced is their fault. A dealer going to bat for a consumer will usually be the deciding factor in that kind of situation. In this case, it looks like it went to open warefare at the getgo. Most company's will always entrench themselves when they feel they are being attacked. They have a goodwill budget...but the minute you say "lawyer"....they say "so do we and we pay them a lot to handle people like you."<br />It is always better to write them firm, pestering, letters asking them to do something for you. Write often enough, have a dealer on your side and don't get personal with them and most company's will offer to do something for you.<br /><br />PS And there is no implied warranty. The manufacturer warranty statement specifically points out what the warranty will and will not cover. Implied warranty's only have a bearing when there is ambiguity as to what a warranty will cover.

 

[rodbolt]

Re: Honda Nightmare

what I find funny is if that had happened with yamaha it would have been investigated, if I could not find a filter problem it would have been sent to kennesaw GA. yamaha is about the most lenient I ever delt with on warrenty, suzuki and maybe merc about the worst.<br />I have not delt with honda warrenty since 95 so I cant say how they work it now.

 

[peterc38]

Re: Honda Nightmare

Im just wondering what will end first<br /><br />1.)rock bottom's original warranty on this outboard<br /><br />2.)rock bottom vs. Honda marine court battle<br /><br />3.) this thread<br /><br />

 

[TOHATSU GURU]

Re: Honda Nightmare

Honda is the toughest to bend over. Suzuki is firm, but can bend. Yamaha and Nissan/Tohatsu are about the same, fair and willing to bend if you can give them a reason. I have always found Mercury to be pretty easy to get along with...for normal warranty. Outside of policy seems to be hit or miss based on the volume of business a dealer does with them. I also know that some Mercury dealers have a hard time getting Mercury to do anything...not for any apparent reason either.

 

[Rick-Mi]

Re: Honda Nightmare

Sorry to bump the "War & Peace" thread again, but that is a FANTASTIC post below Alvin. Excellent summary using experience, knowledge and wisdom on the subject..... <br /><br />

Originally posted by INTERNETOUTBOARDS:<br /> I'm not offended...But, I have seen so many consumers so filled with the "TRUTH" of their cause that they really do not see what is really reasonable. In this case the consumer had no problem until he changed the oil and filter. The filter that he used could have been defective, the nipple or seat may be out of spec on the engine or he could have made a mistake when he put the filter back on. Regardless of which one of those are correct, the problem was/is/will be that the Honda warning light and/or buzzer(depends on the mounting), if it was operational, is the stop/loss point for the warranty. Manufacturer warning devices are on engines to warn of a dangerous engine condition that could result in engine failure. It is inconceivable that a court would find in favor of someone who ignored that warning thereby causing a catastrophic engine failure. That doesn't mean that some judge wouldn't find in favor...It just means that it is very unlikely...I still think the magical pig theory would play better to his insurance company than getting the legal system to work for him. <br /><br />In the end it all will come down to the warning device. Can he prove that it didn't work? Can Honda prove that it did? When he took the engine into the dealer after the problem, was it noted that the device did not work? The legal presumption will be that it was working at the time unless otherwise noted. All the relevant posts indicate that he heard no buzzer...but the warning light issue was repeatedly sidestepped. Not noticing the light will not put Honda on the hook. Only the light failing to come on during the oil pressure loss will put Honda on the spot.<br /><br />Also, for the record I was a Honda dealer for seven years. They make a good, reliable, slightly overhyped, engines. They honor their warranty's. But, what they will not do is act as an insurance company against everything that can happen to one of their products. They are also extremely rigid when it comes to a policy adjustment to cover something that they are not 100% convinced is their fault. A dealer going to bat for a consumer will usually be the deciding factor in that kind of situation. In this case, it looks like it went to open warefare at the getgo. Most company's will always entrench themselves when they feel they are being attacked. They have a goodwill budget...but the minute you say "lawyer"....they say "so do we and we pay them a lot to handle people like you."<br />It is always better to write them firm, pestering, letters asking them to do something for you. Write often enough, have a dealer on your side and don't get personal with them and most company's will offer to do something for you.<br /><br />PS And there is no implied warranty. The manufacturer warranty statement specifically points out what the warranty will and will not cover. Implied warranty's only have a bearing when there is ambiguity as to what a warranty will cover.