Honda: Still a Paragon of Reliability?

A huge part of Honda's appeal has always been their dependable, trouble-free nature. Sure, they've had hiccups along the way (mainly with with their automatic transmissions), but by and large they have maintained a level of reliability the past 3-3.5 decades that most other automakers must envy.

My question is, is that still true? Are Honda's more reliable than the average new car sold today? All I see whenever I visit the Honda or Acura forums are issues. Lots of them. Sure, people go online to complain, but their JD Powers/CR scores seem to have slipped on various models over the last few years as well. I am guessing that adopting a plethora of new turbo engines, transmissions and technology within the last 3-4 years is taking its toll. Perception hasn't quite caught up with this as I still see many people list reliability as a reason to get a Honda over a Hyundai, Kia or Nissan.

What say you? Anyone here have any personal experience based on ownership or from working at a dealership service center?

My last experience was with my 2013 Accord Sport. Some major went wrong with that car, electrical and engine problems. It also did have some infotainment glitches and weird annoyances along with some super cheap interior materials that started to wear noticeably after 18 months of normal use.

They never were. Muh Jap reliability is myth created by poorfags trying to justify their purposes.

If they manufacture the B16 and the K20 engine blocks I will have no problems with Honda

hmm... I see that. I will try KIA out.

JD Power thinks boomers not understanding infotainment is a reliability problem

And Hondas have always have issues with autotragics. Buy a manual, cunt

Good idea.

According to this you should buy a Porsche

you seem mad

>automatic transmission

Are they popular in Japan? Because the Japanese seem to be absolutely awful at making them.

Oh no, another automatic Honda. I'm so jealous.

You that dude who started the thread on the car lounge about this too op?

>that gap between Honda and Acura
THEY'RE THE SAME FUCKING CARS

Wrong again, you stupid American.

They are pretty popular, but they still sell a lot of cars with 4 speed autos.

>japan deliberately choosing antiquated methods

Why am I not surprised

Literally the same with minor differences

The only big mechanical difference is the SH-AWD system which has always been reliable

>SH-AWD system which has always been reliable

If it is true, then check out Acura forum.

>Because the Japanese seem to be absolutely awful at making them.
You have to be shitting me, right? Toyota makes perfect automatic transmission. One guy drove a Tundra for 1 million miles and only reverse gave out at like 700,000 IIRC.

The only Japanese makers that Consumer Reports seems to still like are Toyota, Mazda and Subaru. Take that for what you will.

Been reliable for my dad's MDX and mom's TL

Are you implying that it's not reliable? Must be poorfag fuccbois who can't change diff oil

new new generation CR-V is made in Mexico, with a CVT transmission and a ford-esque 1.5L turbocharged 4. You will get shit mileage with it due to needing to work that engine to do anything.

And yet, they still charge japanese price and claim the durability. I call fucking bullshit and they need to fuck off. Go buy a 3.5 or 2.5L 6 speed toyota now and don't worry about it.

It gets great mileage for a CUV though

Same engine in the Civic with a CVT is faster than the old Si and gets over 40mpg highway

Depends model to model.

They're above average but some models are doomed to run into certain issues at some point no matter what because the part they used was faulty or cheap.

Usually the problem is less severe or not a big cost (think $20 relay to fix a car not starting) so people still think it's"reliable", but they ignore that maybe 1 million cars are doomed to not start within the first 100k or some shit because Honda used shitty solder or something.

Some things are just shitty technology. I wouldn't dare buy a new civic with a 1.5L tarbo and CVT expecting it to be problem free for 200k. It's just not going to happen.

Honda's manual and traditional automatic transmissions are still bulletproof.
All of the widespread reported issues were with the CVT (and dual-clutch for Acura).

Honda made the mistake of taking the plunge to DCT and CVT at the same time.
Realistically, they should have stuck to their traditional automatics.

That's what people said about VTEC and variable valve timing in general, yet we have k series going well over 400k miles

The 3rd gen Acura TL was the pinnacle of Honda reliability.

If its a natuarally aspirated engine and use a slusbox or a manual trans but some older v6 accord are only good with the auto.

the CRV is rated at 28 city, 34 highway. I assure you that if the highway speeds are fast, or you spend a lot of time in the city, you will NOT get those rates. Auto Start/Stop and turbochargers make it really easy to miss on the mileage tests because the tests spend a lot of time idling, with no AC compressor, and very slow accelerations. Go test drive one. You'll be giving it heavy revs everywhere you go. The turbo gives it a good sense of pep, but you're not going to be near that rated mileage.

Go check out fuelly. These are hard to rely on because there's a lot of fuel-conscious people out there who autistically post their mileage, but in general it breaks out to an average of just under 28mpg, versus the 30 average the EPA says. You'll note with the curve that there's a lot more sub-30s than above-30 fill-ups.

I mean it's a moot point because it's A) a CUV and B) even 6mpg isn't a real big deal on the wallet considering the rest of your costs. But when I look at last generation's 2.4L and I see 27-28 average versus the 28 average of the 1.5, it begs the question of 'why'? The answer is that it's not there to benefit you, it's there to benefit Honda for CAFE credits. You get an arguably less reliable high strung engine to accomplish what you could with the classic, long-lived N/A 2.4L.

>Buick that high
What the fuck?

Everyone knows it's all about CAFE standards. The turbo still overs way more usable torque.

As for reliability you don't know how these engines will hold up, but Honda k ow how to make engines. Compare VTEC to VANOS

I had an accord fall apart on me and I will never drive a jap econobox again

You had an Accord and never maintained it

More like he never owned an Accord and thinks that American cars are still built in America

Meanwhile the Accord is built in Ohio and Alabama

>I assure you that if the highway speeds are fast ... you will NOT get those rates
Check out the reviews that Car and Driver does. They do a GPS-verified 75mph on cruise control for 200 miles on the highway to simulate real driving scenarios.

They often end up with better results than the EPA estimate, by 3-5mpg.

because it is rebadged Opel (aka german car).

Because Buicks are bought by senior citizens who are more likely to take them to a dealership for maintenance all their lives. They also still believe in 3k oil changes and shit

Opels are rebadged Buicks

>cars are reliable if you take care of them
who woulda thought?

Not most people sadly

Opel gets it first, then Buick get it later on.

Opel Insignia - 2008, next gen: March 2017
Buick Regal - 2009, next gen: July 2017

Still a GM product with GM parts

Honda uses shitty AC compressors so those die and AC stops working. Their reliability hits aren't so much mechanical but convenience things. Even the dealer told me their AC compressors are shit and that's why I should get the extended warranty.

I have a jap-built Honda.

Do you think their reliability is different than the US-built Hondas?

Meh not really, the parent company enforces the same quality control globally

Honda went to shit when they started manufacturing outside of Japan

those charts are shit
1 year is not long enough to test reliability
Based on customer reported issues
That and Old people are FAR less likely to report issues, that's why Buick scores so high.

I'm a chevy guy, but there's no way they scored so well

Then what about those charts from last several years?

Were they invalid?

>Special snowflake case

Yeah it's true but c'mon. A truck vs econobox?

>autotragic cuck problems

According to that my Boxster is the most reliable car someone can own

yes, very expensive to own. you know high upkeep.

Meh, isn't that much more expensive than something like a 3 series

Most of the expense comes from labour costs which is a non-issue is you aren't a tard and do the work yourself
No you don't need to drop the engine to do basic work

>japan choosing time-tested methods
>not putting their based Shinto faith in newfangled 10-speed trashboxes that break

Making bad decisions is something only Americans do

>problematic cars

Lexus was one of the first manufacturers put with a 7 speed for the LS and Acuras have 8 speed DCTs

If you want old school look at Subaru who used a fucking 4 speed in the Forester for the longest time

plebs

>That and Old people are FAR less likely to report issues

They may also be more likely to keep up with routine maintenance which goes a long way to improving reliability. See Porsche at the top: seldom driven + frequently cleaned / maintained = reliable car (as far as these metrics are concerned)

A more interesting metric would be problems per 10k miles and maybe even further differentiated as quality of life problems (poor stitching, audio system issues, etc) vs functional problems (transmission, engine, diff, etc)

A lot of those metrics should be separated by serious faults versus minor annoyances. The infotainment system being slow against a squeak/rattle due to improper fastening technique are two totally different things. It's never made much sense why some boomer who can't figure out a basic radio is counted as a fault with the same weight as a head gasket failure in the warranty.

Not surprised, Honda is an engine manufacturer first and foremost

Funny enough Porsches that aren't driven are the most prone to having problems

Link?

>Most Problematic Cars

Goddamn SJWs get out of my cars reeeee

But according to OP's post, his 2013 Accord Sport had electrical and engine problems. Hmmm!

True of any car that sits for a long period but there'll be a difference in reliability over time in a car that's driven once or twice a week vs a daily driver.

Always been a shit study
>blown transmission is given the same status as broken wiper blades.

>FIAT

too bad their electronics fail an you don't even get to start their engines

Any proof?

Theres a reason that a lot of really old shitboxes on the road tend to be honda or toyota.
Newer cars, idk. I'd still take one of those two over korean or nissan.

Had no failures in the 2010 Accord I drove, but it just handled like crap. Bought a junk 2005 Crown Victoria and surprisingly enjoy driving it a lot more. Now that I think about it, I've never been inside a Japanese car that drives properly.