[txmatt]

Originally Posted by crankshaft

I'm looking at the April 2008 Consumer Reports "2008 Best and Worst Cars" issue. The following are results from the "Used-car reliability" section that starts on page 86. Here are the "Used Car Verdicts" for all Honda's on page 90, and 91. I will list the model, first year of most recent generation that they have data for, then verdict.

Accord (4 cyl.), 2003, Better than average
Accord (V6), 2003, Better than average
CR-V, 2007, Much better than average
Civic Hybrid, 2006, Much better than average
Civic, 2006, Much better than average
Element, 2003, Much better than average
Fit, 2007, Much better than average
Odyssey, 2005, Average
Pilot, 2003, Much better than average
Ridgeline, 2006, Better than average
S2000 (not applicable because Consumer Reports only reports six years back, and the S2000 was introduced prior to 2002)

By the way, Much better than average is the highest rating a car can earn. So as you can see, your argument has no merit. There is no reason to believe that first year Honda's should be avoided.

Although if you go look at an individual Honda model's reliability record over the past 10 years, the 2nd year of a redesign nearly always has better ratings than the first model year. It's obvious that Honda is addressing design issues because within 1-2 years of introduction, any initial trouble areas have been corrected.

So I still think that old adage that you're more likely to have trouble with 1st year models is still correct, even with a Honda. In the case of Hondas, though, even their first year models are "better than average" or "much better than average" when compared to comparable cars from other manufacturers. So the first year of a redesigned Honda may statistically be more reliable than a not-recently-redesigned GM product, but I bet the 2nd or 3rd year of the Honida redesign will be more statistically reliable than the first year Honda.