2019 Honda Ridgeline Sport on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Honda issues bizarre non-recall on Odyssey over badge placement

Without looking under the hood or at a vehicle history report, one of the easiest way to tell if a car has had body work done is to check the location and placement of the exterior badges. A crooked, misplaced or missing badge can be a telltale sign that there has been some sort of body or paint work. For this reason, Honda is suggesting that some owners of the 2014 Odyssey take their vans into the dealership for a little rebadging.
The topic was brought to light after Consumer Reports received a notice from Honda saying that the "Odyssey" badge on its test vehicle was incorrectly installed at the factory. The badge is supposed to go on the driver's side of the liftgate (as shown above), but the customer vehicles had it placed on the passenger side of the car. Not a huge deal unless an owner is trying to sell the vehicle and the improperly installed badge leads potential owners into believing the vehicle may have been damaged in some way. Here's what Honda said in its letter:
On some 2013 Odyssey vehicles, the Odyssey emblem was incorrectly installed on the passenger's side of the rear tailgate. The emblem should be installed on the drivers' side of the rear tailgate. American Honda Motor Company highly recommends that you participate in this Product Update. The placement of the emblem may indicate that the vehicle has had repairs performed that are consistent with it being in a crash. This could affect the resale value of the vehicle.

Weekly Recap: Ferrari looks to reclaim old success with new manager

Clearly, Ferrari doesn't race for fourth place, and this week, major changes continued at the Scuderia. It was a rough year for Ferrari, and the Scuderia conducted its season-ending tests in Abu Dhabi this week with a view toward a fresh start in 2015 with new leaders and a new ace driver. Though plenty of other Formula One teams were disappointed with their finishes in 2014, Ferrari was perhaps the most eager to put this season in its rear-view mirror. The Scuderia finished a distant fourth in the Constructors standings with 216 points, well behind No. 1 Mercedes (701 points), and Ferrari failed to win a single race as the Silver Arrows dominated the grid. It was an especially bitter pill for a team that claims 16 Constructors championships and 15 Drivers titles – the most in history – and is the only surviving team from F1's first season, 1950. Clearly, Ferrari doesn't race for fourth place, and this week, major changes continued at the Scuderia. Ferrari named Philip Morris executive Maurizio Arrivabene as team principal. He replaced Marco Mattiacci, who held the job for only seven months after taking over for Stefano Domenicali, who resigned in April amid the Scuderia's early-season struggles. Phillip Morris (through its Marlboro brand) is a key Ferrari sponsor, and that played a role in Arrivabene's ascension. Still, he's no stranger to F1, and has been intimately involved in the Ferrari-Marlboro partnership. He also has served as the sponsors' representative on the FIA's F1 Commission since 2010. In a statement, new Ferrari chairman Sergio Marchionne said: "We decided to appoint Maurizio Arrivabene because, at this historic moment in time for the Scuderia and for Formula One, we need a person with a thorough understanding not just of Ferrari, but also of the governance mechanisms and requirements of the sport." Arrivabene's background is primarily in marketing and communication, and most recently he held the title of vice president of consumer channel strategy and event marketing for Philip Morris. He has been with the company since 1997. Arrivabene now leads a team that's rife with change. Marchionne took over in October when longtime boss Luca di Montezemolo quit in a disagreement about Ferrari's future, and the company itself will be spun off from parent Fiat Chrysler Automobiles in 2015.

It turns out Takata isn't willing to expand airbag recall nationally after all

There have been "approximately 0.000006 failures per air bag deployment, which is far below the failure rate" of most recalls, Takata claims. Takata has seemingly made an about face following reports that it would expand its regional airbag recall into a nationwide repair effort, issuing a scathing, four-page letter rebutting allegations by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and its Office of Defects while simultaneously attacking the government's handling of the situation. The Japanese supplier claims in its letter that the "currently available, reliable information does not support a nationwide determination of a safety defect," arguing that there were "approximately 0.000006 failures per air bag deployment, which is far below the failure rate in the vast majority of the thousands of recalls," The Detroit News reports. Takata then breaks down the two specific incidents mentioned in NHTSA's original recall request letter, a 2005 Honda Accord and 2007 Ford Mustang. Referencing the two crashes, NHTSA Administrator David Friedman said last month "one incident is an anomaly, but two are a trend." The supplier, though, argues the Honda issue is already being covered by that company's soon-to-be-national recall (more on that in a moment). The company then goes on to point out that neither Takata nor NHTSA has been able to analyze the Mustang's airbag inflator, saying that such a lack of examination meant there was "no way to ascertain what actually occurred during the incident, whether any inflator ruptured, and whether any inflator rupture that may have occurred was related to the incidents that led to the current regional campaigns." Takata alleges that NHTSA has disobeyed its own statutes. Takata also took the opportunity to take a few swipes at NHTSA's behavior during the airbag scandal, saying it was "very surprised to receive" a recall request letter because the ODI had yet to even receive the company's responses to a pair of special orders. It also alleged that NHTSA was disobeying its own statute, which says only manufacturers of vehicles and replacement equipment can "decide in good faith whether their products contain a safety related defect," and that the government can only "issue an initial decision that a safety-related defect exists" to those same entities.