Hondas quality..

[JDMDriver]

A lot of assertions not backed by data here (I can start to provide that data if you like).

Airbags are unquestionably safer than without. Despite having increased the number of annual miles driven, the death rates have continued to drop, in some cases drastically. The MAIN feature that has allowed that is the airbag. I can explain how that works if you like as well, as it is all related to the physics of crash dynamics.

Airbags save lives, and even though they may require maintenance down the road, again, it is typically well beyond the intended life of the vehicle when the issue crops up.

The argument that airbags are no big deal is similar to the tired, old, "oh that car is an unsafe pile of shit because it crumples when it gets in an accident vs my (insert obsolete domestic car here) which just got a scratch." Or "Seatbelts just keep you from escaping the car in an accident" (which is actually the entire point). Although counterintuitive, the physics are sound and pretty much all studies (including those against airbags) acknowledge that your chances of serious injury and death drop exponentially starting at 25MPH (they are slightly worse below that, which is why airbags no longer deploy in low speed accidents).

In the end, consumers have gotten what they wanted (even if they didn't understand what they "wanted"). They want cars that have fewer issues, last longer with cheaper maintenance, are safe in all types of accidents and get better MPG and lower emissions. That is what has driven car design.

Unnecessary and irrelevant as I did not state airbags did not improve safety.

I think you should reread the context in which I made the statement about airbags.

[Night Wolf]

Ive long since noticed this. You can really see it on the 8th gen civics the most. With their cardboard carpet, fragile plastic sun visors, and known weak aluminum engine blocks. They scream cheap! But they dont look like it from a far, and theyre cheap. So people still buy it. And as long as automakers can mask the areas where they cheaped out, and still make the car pretty, and cheap, people will still bite that hook like a dumb fish.

[deevergote]

If my '15 CR-Z is any indication, Honda's overall attention to detail and quality materials is returning. My Fit had lots of cheapie interior bits. Cheap fabric, cardboard carpet, etc... Granted, it WAS the absolute cheapest Honda a person could buy brand new at the time. My CR-Z has an MSRP of $24,000 or something, so it's a good deal more expensive than the Fit (we got a fantastic deal, but still more than a Fit's base MSRP.) However, the CR-Z's materials are top notch. Soft touch materials on the hard surfaces. Quality cloth on the seats and door panels. I haven't really inspected the carpet, but I'll be sure to do so.
As a hybrid, the CR-Z fails. As a sports car, the CR-Z fails. As a well-built Honda, the CR-Z succeeds. It truly impressed me.

If Honda can keep it up with the quality materials, I'll be perfectly fine with the complicated electrical and mechanical stuff. Of course, I'm not a mechanic by trade. I can imagine the major beef in that area is by anyone that has to work on it!

[h22sparkle]

things are easier to diagnose but thats only if you have the right tools

[owequitit]

This statement to me does not make sense.

Are you stating:

1) The probabilities of "fix and repair stuff" as in mechanical bolt on hardware is less than "having to fix something with more joints and plugs" as in the wiring problems due to more plugs (to the exclusion of the actual electronic components)?

Are you saying Wiring related electrical problems > Mechanical problems? or

2) The probabilities of "fix and repair stuff" as in electrical problems is reduced by having less electrical joins and plugs?

If 1)

I disagree and wiring related issues will not be greater than mechanical issues in general.

As an example our CB's and most Honda that I know do not have electrical problems due to poor wiring quality construction (insulation, plug design, wire material) or fitment.

Thus from experience and observations there are less instances of rewiring or harness replacement than physical component repairs in general

If 2)

This statement does not hold true in practice as whilst in theory less plugs in principle = less problems, in practice we still need to replace bulbs and so the majority of the exposed plugs and connectors which occur in the ends (where most of the problems occur as lenses are prone to damage, water entering, moisture and dirt etc.) still exists to facilitate bulb replacements.

Your reasoning in support of a single harness effectively only reduces plugs usually hidden within the vehicle (or within the engine bay which is protected from the elements) which is rarely an issue in usage but is an issue for repairs and modifications which we are highlighting here.



Irrelevant as stated above being single harness approach does not address the elimination of plugs at the ends where most age related issues occur.

Single harness design only reduces inter harness connections usually well within the vehicle and not an issue.



Grounding locations will no doubt still exists to the chassis even if in single harness design. It still needs to connect to ground and chassis, so this is also irrelevant.




"Isn't a factor for most owners" is an assertion that I disagree and please show me the back up data.

Most owners are not NEW buyers in my view which is why USA has an ageing average of cars over 11 years old.

So whilst not an issue to the the NEW car buyers this is a factor for 2nd and future owners point of view who are enthusiasts, wishes upgrade, modify or hold onto or turn it into classics. Much like the CB7 tuner community and other enthusiasts (of out of production vehicles) if they knew the design will not enable them to easily diagnose, repair and modify the vehicle it would certainly play a role in purchasing or keeping that vehicle.



I fail to see your logic.

Are you saying since there is a significant amount of damage and costs involved adding another few hundred more as a result of the single harness approach is insignificant?

Any dollars saved no matter how little is significant. Especially as and when the market value of drops the cost of repairs rises in proportion which can be the fine difference between an insurance company making the vehicle economically feasible to repair or deeming it a financial write off.

Incorrect and you are really trying hard to twist my statements.

1) Every connection, joint, pin, plug or connection to a harness is a potential failure point. I never claimed you wouldn't still have grounds or harness ends, so that is an irrelevant argument on your end, not mine.

That said, CB7's don't just have issues at harness ends. They have been known to have issues at every section of the harness and every single harness connection is a potential failure point, just as it is with ANY wiring harness. Since connections, joints, solders, etc can't be sealed 100% or protected 100% the probability of encountering a problem down the road increases the more joints you put in the harness. Simple physics.

That said, you will still have problems at ground ends and harness ends like you always have, but you more or less reduce the risk to zero at every joint you eliminate in the harness. I.E. A solid harness with 1 plug at the end has 1 failure point. A harness with 1 plug at the end and 4 others where it connects to other harnesses has 5 failure points.

2) I didn't say anything about mechanical failures, nor was it relevant to the original discussion about harnesses and failure points, although yes, the more mechanically complex something is, or the more moving components it has, the more likely it is to fail. This is why airplanes require several hours of maintenance for every hour they spend in the air, as well as frequent rebuilds on certain components. Things wear out. The more things there are to wear out, the increase in the number of failure points and the higher risk of mechanical failure. Again, simple physics. This is why the drive is always towards doing the same job with fewer components because the fewer components there are, the fewer components can fail (see our discussion on harnesses above). An FITV, or IAC can't fail if it doesn't exist. You replace 2 failure points with one throttle body stepper motor, which can still fail, but is statistically less likely to.

3) Using an actual scientific, data driven approach, you can track the number of statistical issues cars have had (on average) over the years, and the data clearly and unquestionably suggests that cars are more trouble free now than they were even 10 years ago. This has been achieved largely in 2 ways: 1) Removing failure points and 2) refining mechanical design to be simpler and stronger.

4) As for Honda's quality, I have already stated that I agree that Honda has DECREASED quality on their cars in the recent past. Having owned a large number of them of various years and models, I have seen the quality come out first hand. However, that doesn't change the fact that if all else remains the same, a solid wire that is held stationary is less likely to fail or have problems in X timeframe than a wire that has multiple joints, connections, terminals and plugs in it.

[owequitit]

Sure removing the airbag is not "as safe" but SRS was only an option not too long ago and it is not like people are dropping like flies without it.

SRS warning lights staying on are becoming common now (much like the infamous ABS warning lights). I would definitely remove an SRS (and ABS) if it means passing the annual registration (by passing it off as non fitted option) and having a car to drive to work, feed myself and family and continue affording to live when I otherwise would have my car defected by the inspection station and looking at a debt to purchase another vehicle.

I will tell you all that no one will be able to maintain all their electronic safety equipment years after production since safety equipment are usually proprietary and no aftermarket hardly if any exists.

Would you be talking about these two statements?

The first one of which marginalizes the effectiveness of the airbag and the second of which implies that you would just rather disable it?

The intent of your statement seemed pretty clear to me. The problem with it is that, again, it isn't based on any sort of data based or substantiated argument. It is simply your opinion based on limited observation of data.

If I told you that your family was up to 5x times more likely to be injured fatally in a crash of about 55MPH, you might think twice about disabling them because the reality is that you can't replace them no matter the cost (airbag maintenance be damned). And of course, I operate under the reality that majority of fatal car accidents are caused by reasons other than normal people going about their normal lives. Imagine the value of the inspection or repair savings when a drunk driver creams your car on the way home from school, or a distracted driver texting on their cell phone suddenly changes lanes on top of you when you have nowhere else to go...

But the really important part is what the death toll would look like if people didn't have the effect of airbags working against the death rate while the number of average miles driven expands to the point it has in the last 20 years.

Not to mention that modern airbags have no official maintenance requirement and the average owner possesses a car for less than 7 years after new. I am willing to bet a fair stack that the number of airbag lights you see on a car that is less than 7 years old is pretty far and few between. As for the second or third owner, they MIGHT see that issue (plenty of 5th and 6th gen Accords running around with no airbag lights, as well as Toyotas from that era), so I still find it hard to believe that there is any logical reasoning behind advocating for the removal of SRS systems on a larger scale. Finally, there is no guarantee that an SRS system with a light on will either work at all, or work improperly. As I recall, their logic is disable the airbag and not deploy it in the event the fault would render the airbag unsafe, therefore putting you essentially in a non-SRS car anyway.

As for Honda's recall, that is a separate issue entirely because that was a known negligent cover up of a fundamental design flaw, which hasn't proven to apply to most known airbag sources or users.

[JDMDriver]

Incorrect and you are really trying hard to twist my statements.

Not trying to twist it but rather I was trying to understand it.

As I mentioned, it didn't make sense to me hence why I sought clarification and provided the 2 ways I had understood your statement to be.

1) Every connection, joint, pin, plug or connection to a harness is a potential failure point. I never claimed you wouldn't still have grounds or harness ends, so that is an irrelevant argument on your end, not mine.

Well it IS relevant as it highlights the shortcomings of a single harness design. In that it still doesn't overcome the common problems which is the ends (grounds, plug ends) which will still be the source of most problems and still exists even in that single harness approach.

That said, CB7's don't just have issues at harness ends. They have been known to have issues at every section of the harness and every single harness connection is a potential failure point, just as it is with ANY wiring harness.

If I understand correctly, what you are saying is not only the connections develop problems but also the harness itself is known to have issues.

In which case a single harness design would not be exempt from this flaw as it entails that a single harness design can also develop problems anywhere in the harness.

Since connections, joints, solders, etc can't be sealed 100% or protected 100% the probability of encountering a problem down the road increases the more joints you put in the harness. Simple physics.

I agree in logic.

However as stated above in practice the single harness design only reduces what is essentially a low risk and low problem area (the inter harness connections usually well within the vehicle).

CB7's or actually Honda of that era (late 80's to late 90's) even with sectional wiring design from my experience was not one to have a reputation of inter harness electrical wiring problems.

Of all the cars in my signature (all of which I still own) none of them have wiring problems, and that is after on the average over 20 years of existence.

That said, you will still have problems at ground ends and harness ends like you always have, but you more or less reduce the risk to zero at every joint you eliminate in the harness. I.E. A solid harness with 1 plug at the end has 1 failure point. A harness with 1 plug at the end and 4 others where it connects to other harnesses has 5 failure points.

So the single harness design eliminates low risk connections (intermediate harness connections) but still retains all the high risk connections (grounds, bulb, plug ends).

At the cost of the following:

Eliminating otherwise easy wiring isolation and diagnosis as no more plugs.
Higher parts cost as sectional replacement parts is eliminated.
Higher installation costs for rewiring more wires.
Adding complexity in repair/maintenance.
Adding complexity in modifications

2) I didn't say anything about mechanical failures, nor was it relevant to the original discussion about harnesses and failure points, although yes, the more mechanically complex something is, or the more moving components it has, the more likely it is to fail. This is why airplanes require several hours of maintenance for every hour they spend in the air, as well as frequent rebuilds on certain components. Things wear out. The more things there are to wear out, the increase in the number of failure points and the higher risk of mechanical failure. Again, simple physics. This is why the drive is always towards doing the same job with fewer components because the fewer components there are, the fewer components can fail (see our discussion on harnesses above). An FITV, or IAC can't fail if it doesn't exist. You replace 2 failure points with one throttle body stepper motor, which can still fail, but is statistically less likely to.

I was seeking clarification which is why I mentioned it.

But along the reasoning of failure, designing something to not fail but at the cost of sacrificing the ease of which to fix it should a problem occur (and it will) spells disaster for the owner, but a win for the motor industry who will benefit with more parts and labour charges and/or purchase of a new vehicle. Which is where I am leaning towards as the reason for their adoption.

3) Using an actual scientific, data driven approach, you can track the number of statistical issues cars have had (on average) over the years, and the data clearly and unquestionably suggests that cars are more trouble free now than they were even 10 years ago. This has been achieved largely in 2 ways: 1) Removing failure points and 2) refining mechanical design to be simpler and stronger.

I do not believe today's reliability of a vehicle is just due to the car industry themselves. The statistics and above statement should be taken with a grain of salt.

Statistically also costs of materials decreased, allowing better materials (that had already existed) to be used such more liberally such as the simple move from vinyl seats to cloth, vinyl floors to carpet etc. This greatly improved interior life.

Better consumer practices and care having dash covers, seat covers, steering wheel covers, tinted windows also improved interior life.

The proliferation of garages, underground covered parking etc has also occurred with cheaper availability of aluminum and therefore car ports reducing paint deterioration and rust, improving again exterior life and reducing electrical issues (less water problems), facilitating more timely and frequent maintenance.

Better materials that are UV resistant plastics, longer lasting plastic seals, longer lasting synthetic paint, oil additives and fuels are a credit more to their respective industry rather than the actual motor industry.

People are also more aware of how to take care of a vehicle and spend more after purchase in proportion to the past (extended warranty agreements, capped service costs agreements etc.)

Availability of powered tools, including powered washers.

In terms of fuel efficiency and safety, in my view that is a credit to the motor industry.

4) As for Honda's quality, I have already stated that I agree that Honda has DECREASED quality on their cars in the recent past. Having owned a large number of them of various years and models, I have seen the quality come out first hand.

Agreed.

The reason why I chose to own 20 year old cars rather than newer cars.

I feel the technology and quality of parts and construction of cars a decade ago already meets and exceeds the requirement of vehicle transportation (durability, reliability, low maintenance etc). The only areas of limitation is being economy, safety and entertainment (which gives rise to distraction and negates safety in a way that cannot be measured).

Economy is debatable (concept of cost saving) since a newer car though more economical depreciates more negating difference in fuel costs saved.

Safety equipment to a large extent can be retrofitted particularly safety cameras, sensors, Hands free, voice activated tech, tyre sensors etc. whilst retaining less technology distraction, less blind spots giving better low speed crash avoidance and infant driveway fatalities.

However, that doesn't change the fact that if all else remains the same, a solid wire that is held stationary is less likely to fail or have problems in X timeframe than a wire that has multiple joints, connections, terminals and plugs in it.

True, but a I believe a moot point in the single harness approach.

[JDMDriver]

Would you be talking about these two statements?

The first one of which marginalizes the effectiveness of the airbag and the second of which implies that you would just rather disable it?

The intent of your statement seemed pretty clear to me. The problem with it is that, again, it isn't based on any sort of data based or substantiated argument. It is simply your opinion based on limited observation of data.

My statement was in response to

Airbags aren't something I'd ever remove from a street car, so I don't understand the gripe.

In my response I gave an example of a time that I would remove the airbags.

If not evident in my response I will state it here that I would only do so as an exception. That is when I am in a particular tough circumstance of needing to pass a road worthy inspection in financial difficulty or trying to keep my otherwise perfectly healthy vehicle indefinitely on the road as there is no longer any possible means of passing the road worthy test due to replacement parts being no longer held in stock, made available by the manufacturer or otherwise.

Examples of such parts are new OEM 1991 Prelude ALB Accumulator or even a 1992 Accord ALB pump assembly.

I will not disable safety equipment just for the sake of running without it. If it works it is definitely safer and better with it.



My gripe is with the safety inspection laws (which appears to be happening around the world) which makes it mandatory to have ABS and Airbags working when 1) they were only optional equipment at the time 2) other vehicles are allowed on the road without ABS and/or Airbags

If ABS and Airbags are fundamentally required and mandatory ( in the same way as seat belts, working headlights, wiper blades and indicators are essential) then ALL cars on the road without ABS and Airbags should not be allowed to be registered as being road worthy.

I will understand and see the fairness (like seat belts, headlights, wiper blades and indicators) if ALL are required.

However, why should people who have paid extra for the "option" when they purchased the vehicle new, did the good thing of being safer for all these years than the rest, only to now be FORCED and held ransom to treat these "options" as "mandatory"? Particularly when it is not "Mandatory" for manufacturers to keep supplying these safety equipment indefinitely as they do with seatbelts, head light bulbs, wiper blades etc.

These owners did the good thing and their cars had been safer than most. Now they are severely penalised and defected, all while other vehicles that has NEVER had ABS and Airbags are given easy road worthy checks and trouble free registration.