2003 HONDA GL1800 Complaints

CONSUMER HAD PROBLEM GETTING FRAME WELD RECALL PERFORMED. *PH THE VEHICLE WAS SENT TO SEVERAL REPAIR FACILITIES BUT HAS NOT BEEN REPAIRED YET. *NM

CONSUMER HAD PROBLEMS GETTING RECALL WORK PERFORMED ON THE MOTORCYCLE. *PH THE DEALER REFUSE TO PROVE RECALL SERVICE FOR THE CONSUMER MOTORCYCLE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT PURCHASED AT THAT LOCATION. *NM

THE MOTORCYCLE EXPERIENCED A PROBLEM WITH THE WELDING OF THE FRAME. THE MOTORCYCLE WAS TAKEN FROM TUCSON, AZ TO PHOENIX FOR WELDING. THE CONSUMER RECEIVED A RECALL INDICATING THAT WELDING DID NOT HOLD. THE CONSUMER WAS FURIOUS DUE TO GETTING THE RUN AROUND. *AK THE CONSUMER REQUESTED MONEY BACK. *SC

CONSUMER TOOK MOTORCYCLE TO DEALER FOR RECALL REPAIRS. AT THE SAME TIME ASKED TECHNICIAN TO REPLACE FRONT AND REAR TIRES. A WEEK LATER, PICKED UP THE MOTORCYCLE, AND WHILE DRIVING AT 62 MPH FROM THE DEALER TO HOME, VEHICLE VIBRATED AND SHOOK. CONSUMER PULLED OF THE ROAD AND FOUND ALL FIVE LUGS NUTS WERE LOOSE. *AK

THE CONSUMER DISCOVERED A CRACK IN THE WELD ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE FRAME. *LA THE VEHICLE WAS TAKEN TO THE DEALER FOR REPAIR BUT THE MANUFACTURER WANTED THE BIKE SHIPPED TO THEM FOR REPAIR. THE BIKE HAS BEEN AT THE MANUFACTURER FOR 28 DAYS AND IS NOT CLOSE TO HAVING IT REPAIRED. THE CONSUMER FEELS THIS IS AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF TIME FOR WHAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. *PH *NM

LTR FM [XXX] (WI) OWNER OF A HONDA GOLDWING MOTORCYCLE HONDA REFUSED TO REPAIR THE MOTORCYCLE'S DEFECTIVE FRAME. THE OWNER INSTALLED A TRIKE KIT ON THE MOTORCYCLE WHICH VOIDED THE WARRANTY. *MR *SCC *JB *CB INFORMATION REDACTED PURSUANT TO THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552(B)(6). *TR

RECALL NOTICE ON THE FRAME WELD OF MOTORCYCLE. DEALERSHIP WELDED ONLY ABOUT 45 PERCENT OF THE FRAME INSTEAD OF 100 PERCENT. *LA RECALL#03V350000 *SC THE CONSUMER ALSO STATED THE DEALER SOLD HIM THE MOTORCYCLE KNOWING THAT IT HAD AN OVERHEATING PROBLEM AND EVENTUALLY A RECALL WAS ISSUED. *JB

RECALL REPAIRS HAVE NOT BEEN PERFORMED ON VEHICLE DUE TO REPAIR KITS NOT BEING AVAILABLE.*MR AFTER RECEIVING A RECALL NOTICE FOR THE FRAME REPAIR, THE CONSUMER CONTACTED THE DEALER SEVERAL TIMES, BUT WAS TOLD THE PARTS HAD NOT ARRIVED BECAUSE IT WAS A SMALL DEALERSHIP AND ONLY THREE MOTORCYCLE'S WERE SOLD THERE WHICH INCLUDED THE CONSUMERS BIKE. *CB *JB

PROBLEMS WITH VEHICLE'S FRAME BREAKING.*MR CONSUMER WOULD LIKE HONDA HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR PROPERLY REPAIRING THE FRAME. *PH

UPON REINFORCING THE WELDS ON THE FRAME AS STATED IN RECALL 03V350000 FOR THE FRAME WELD DEALERSHIP NOTICED LARGE CRACK IN THE FRAME. MANUFACTURER INSTRUCTED THE DEALERSHIP TO STUFF CRACKS WITH METAL INSTEAD OF REPLACING THE FRAME. THIS WAS A TEMPORARY FIX, AND THE FRAME COULD CRACK AGAIN AT ANYTIME.*AK