The rear window saga begins (again?)
 

Hello all,
Before even taking delivery of a 0 mile 2001 in February 2002, I have had the rear window replaced - or so it appeared...
1st nice day with the top down ~8 hours, and the rear window is creased as it was in the showroom. 10 days of calls and delays before receiving an official Honda bulletin explaining that I must purchase and use 'the roll' or 'the noodle' as so frequently described within these boards.

I'm smoked. Figure this: my 6 second up or down feature is now gone - looking like at least one trip out of the S to install the 'noodle', maybe a second to make sure it's installed correctly. I now have to transport my 'noodle' (ya, it sounds funny) within my already limited storage space. Now the clincher: Perhaps I'm driving in busy traffic from wherever, well dressed and with the top down and my 'noodle' installed. It starts to rain. Certainly I will pull to the side of the road, 'apply the handbrake' and raise the top. Now both the S interior and myself are dry...but wait! My noodle! Does Honda actually expect me to get out of my car - perhaps on the shoulder of a busy highway - in the rain - ruining my clothes AND endangering myself, in order to retreive 'my noodle'?

I don't understand how this 'Honda recommended' solution can be accepted by anyone - by any of us as anything more than an insult. Not only is it a band-aid solution, in my eyes, it's a potential safety issue. Maybe I just say 'so much for the noodle' - let it roll off the trunk and leave it where it falls. Does it fall in front of someone else? Do they panic? And now no more topless until I spend for another 'noodle'?

I was infomed today from a little inside source I have that a 2002 roof assembly runs around C$7000,00 which means if Honda gives in it would be less expensive to hand me the keys for a fresh 2002 versus updating this 2001 'product defect'.

Sum it up: Has anyone else considered to approach Honda with intent to pursue full recourse for not only their own but ALL 2000, and 2001 S cars on the grounds that their recommended solution poses a potential safety concern to the operator and confirms the product defect?

Can we vote on this?

Rather unhappy,
Gord :angry: