Blew My Engine!!!! Pix too!

[xbbmazda]

Then again... if you do your own oil changes (as I do), you can keep the receipts, but that just proves you bought the oil and filter. What proof is there that you actually changed the oil. See, I don't understand how they can ask for proof (real proof), if there is no way you can give it to them besides going to the dealership and having them do it.

He makes a lot of sense.

 

[EmRidMSP]

Exactly even if I HAD kept my receipts, they'd be pullin the line "Well that only proves that you bought it. It doesn't prove that you changed it." They are basically saying that the only way you can PROVE that your oil changes were done is if you paid the $50-$60 or whatever to have it done at the dealership - which I think is just retarted to do (especially considering labor ALONE at the dealership is $60/hr). The money I would have spent on oil changes upto now would have equaled the cost of a used motor.

This is just a load of bull. I love my MSP and I will always have good things to say about it - even if it does break down and it can be a pain to work on. But I will more than likely never buy another Mazda after a letter like that.

 

[BlkZoomZoom]

After the 1.8t Vw dealings I have seen, I now feel that the manufactuer has every right to want to see recipets. We had people that brought in in-consistant recipets showing they bought oil and filters. Not even enough to cover the mileage the vehicle had and they covered the engine. You have to show them some kind of proof. Period.

I now own a Dodge Ram. I do all my own maintenance, and I keep every recipet, buy the factory filters and gaskets everytime. I have alittle folder that I put everything in the glovebox. I suggest everyone that does their own maint. to do the same. It will only help you out.

 

[rednecks_r_us]

Did you find a new motor yet?

 

[98b/w pro]

you can go online and log in your mantinace records. i cant rember the site off hand though.

 

[ONRAILS]

whoa... that would be cool. Anyone know what the site addy is?

you can go online and log in your mantinace records. i cant rember the site off hand though.

 

[smo0f]

Yeah, they wouldn't replace my engine under warranty when it blew in december because of 'lack of maintenance' or 'lack of proof of maintenance'. Dealership wanted $10,000 for new engine and turbo, which mind you, the turbo turned out to be completely undamaged as inspected by Nick. Oh, and then they blamed it on me having a CAI on the car. Btw, they did not inspect the car, just looked at the mods (cai and exhaust) and left it at that.

 

[pasadena_commut]

Every manufactuer does the exact same thing. You need to show you maintained the vehicle.

Just for the sake of argument, imagine that this car was bought used. Unless it was purchased from a private party the odds of having oil change records are nil. Does that mean that Mazda won't honor the warranty on any used car?

Heck, let's REALLY play devil's advocate and imagine that the car was purchased from the same Mazda dealer, has been driven past whatever used car warranty they provided, and you do have records for the entire post purchase interval. What's to keep them from saying that the car was improperly maintained before you owned it, even though they sold it to you???

 

[MrDiggler]

Just for the sake of argument, imagine that this car was bought used. Unless it was purchased from a private party the odds of having oil change records are nil. Does that mean that Mazda won't honor the warranty on any used car?

Heck, let's REALLY play devil's advocate and imagine that the car was purchased from the same Mazda dealer, has been driven past whatever used car warranty they provided, and you do have records for the entire post purchase interval. What's to keep them from saying that the car was improperly maintained before you owned it, even though they sold it to you???

Interesting concept, especially since I bought mine slightly used from a Mazdaspeed dealer in Missouri...and they sold it to me with a BOV and boost controller installed! I gave them immortal hell about that but bought the car anyway. A few months later when I first took it to Mazda Knoxville for bushing replacement, they started to give me crap about the mods. I told them if they had a problem with them, they can call the very large Mazdaspeed dealer who sold it to me like that.

 

[EmRidMSP]

If am not mistaken, though, doesn't the Mangussen-Moss Act still apply even on a used car warranty? They should have to prove that the damage to the car was caused by what you have had done to the car.

I'm working some deals from friends. I may have a new engine bottom end for as much as $300. Woot!!

 

[pasadena_commut]

If am not mistaken, though, doesn't the Mangussen-Moss Act still apply even on a used car warranty?

It should. Still, this shows that it might be a good idea to have a "professional" change the oil and inspect the vehicle at the time a used car is purchased just to provide some relatively cheap insurance against later warranty problems. If you do your own routine maintenance and they don't accept your records as sufficient then for sure force them into court over it. They are calling you a liar so they damn well better have some evidence to back it up.

My understanding is that the manufacturer cannot void a warranty because of lack of proof of maintenance. Period. However, if they first cite lack of maintenance based on physical inspection of the trashed vehicle the ball is back in your court even if you know they have no basis for their claim. If maintenance records exist, you (or your lawyer) can more easily force them to perform the warranty work. If no such records exist it becomes he said/she said and the lawyers get to fight it out, possibly with a few expert witnesses thrown in for good measure.

Mazda's perspective on proof of maintenance seems to be somewhat at odds with the M & M act. See for instance:

http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=cpoWarranty

Which says:

Repairs resulting from lack of required maintenance (failures caused by the owner neglecting to perform the required maintenance services set forth in the maintenance schedule of the Owner's Manual for the vehicle). Costs of these routine maintenance services are not covered. Proof of maintenance may be required, which may include inspection of maintenance records.

Note all the "may's". Whether or not that would hold up in court is doubtful as they cannot write into a contract terms that are contrary to the law.

It might be interesting to contact Mazda and get them to spell out their position on used cars, other than the ones they sold, with respect to warranty work.

 

[MrDiggler]

It should. Still, this shows that it might be a good idea to have a "professional" change the oil and inspect the vehicle at the time a used car is purchased just to provide some relatively cheap insurance against later warranty problems. If you do your own routine maintenance and they don't accept your records as sufficient then for sure force them into court over it. They are calling you a liar so they damn well better have some evidence to back it up.

My understanding is that the manufacturer cannot void a warranty because of lack of proof of maintenance. Period. However, if they first cite lack of maintenance based on physical inspection of the trashed vehicle the ball is back in your court even if you know they have no basis for their claim. If maintenance records exist, you (or your lawyer) can more easily force them to perform the warranty work. If no such records exist it becomes he said/she said and the lawyers get to fight it out, possibly with a few expert witnesses thrown in for good measure.

Mazda's perspective on proof of maintenance seems to be somewhat at odds with the M & M act. See for instance:

http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=cpoWarranty

Which says:

Repairs resulting from lack of required maintenance (failures caused by the owner neglecting to perform the required maintenance services set forth in the maintenance schedule of the Owner's Manual for the vehicle). Costs of these routine maintenance services are not covered. Proof of maintenance may be required, which may include inspection of maintenance records.

Note all the "may's". Whether or not that would hold up in court is doubtful as they cannot write into a contract terms that are contrary to the law.

It might be interesting to contact Mazda and get them to spell out their position on used cars, other than the ones they sold, with respect to warranty work.

Thank you! I'm so glad I'm not the only one that...at the very minimum...wants Mazda and others to clarify their warranty limitations.

If I had known what kinds of loopholes they would use to avoid replacing a legitimately failed engine within the warranty period, I would have kept more receipts for my own maintenance. Thankfully, I'm almost at 50k and it didn't happen to me.

I've been wondering if it wouldn't be better if the warranty was a contract between the automaker and the car buyer (be it first, second, etc.) The contract would have to be (hopefully) read and signed by the car buyer prior to the warranty being in effect on that vehicle for that buyer. If they want to use vague language and skirt responsibility, fine. At least tell me in no uncertain terms what I need to do to make sure that I'm covered on my end. I had no idea I needed to document every oil change, or I would have done it.

I still say that, while within the warranty period, the burden of proof is on them to prove that you DIDN'T maintain the car properly and that the damage is a direct result of that problem. Otherwise, if the car is stock, the engine is clean inside, and various bearings don't show signs of wear due to lack of maintenance, then it's the manufacturer's f***ing problem and not mine.

I'm not an advocate for lazy worthless-ass dickheads getting their engines warrantied because they slapped on a boost controller or didn't change their oil. Mine now has a few minor mods, but it's just enough to affect the A/F ratio and I don't expect my engine to be covered under warranty. I'm man enough to accept that. I know plenty of people popped their motors because of their own stupidity and wound up gettting them covered one way or another...which screws those of us who have the occasional legitimate warranty claim.

Here's a simple solution: If you're going to build a hi-po motor, especially an easily modified turbo motor marketed and sold to young gearheads...at least overbuild it a bit. Mazda can do it, as evidenced by the B6T and BPT motors. Other than a crank snout issue on the early B6 (which should have been recalled), those motors held up under twice the factory boost. The FS doesn't lend itself well to being boosted in the factory configuration, and it shows. If the factory FS is so great, why did I shell out for a fully forged spare race motor to put in the MSP for when the time comes to start cranking up the boost? I knew better. Meanwhile, the 18 year old 323 GTX runs all day at 11-12 psi from a VJ-16 turbo (pretty stout cfm) on a stock B6T engine. In summary, Mazda could (and should) have done it better, and we all know it.

 

[EmRidMSP]

I couldn't have said that better myself, man. Mazda really should have overbuilt these motors a little. I mean hell, look at the old Mitsubishi DSM motors. My buddy runs 16 psi on his Eclipse with stock internals and he says that's pretty standard for DSM'ers. Geez.... someone on here runs 16psi on stock internals and they're briefly questioned about their sanity.... ::shakes head::

 

[BlkZoomZoom]

Thank you! I'm so glad I'm not the only one that...at the very minimum...wants Mazda and others to clarify their warranty limitations.

If I had known what kinds of loopholes they would use to avoid replacing a legitimately failed engine within the warranty period, I would have kept more receipts for my own maintenance. Thankfully, I'm almost at 50k and it didn't happen to me.

I've been wondering if it wouldn't be better if the warranty was a contract between the automaker and the car buyer (be it first, second, etc.) The contract would have to be (hopefully) read and signed by the car buyer prior to the warranty being in effect on that vehicle for that buyer. If they want to use vague language and skirt responsibility, fine. At least tell me in no uncertain terms what I need to do to make sure that I'm covered on my end. I had no idea I needed to document every oil change, or I would have done it.

It is impossible to have a warranty contract spelled out like that in the automotive industry. There are way too many variables. Between maintenance, abuse, un-factory parts, weather conditions, idiots working on it, etc. etc. Nothing can be set in stone.

Usually if you can show more than half the records they give you a fighting chance. But if you show up with none, and haven't been to a dealership very often, if at all. You are pretty much screwed.

 

[girth]

Simple solution to your problem - they want receipts?--- go buy a $50 inkjet printer and print off some fake ones. A lot of stores just have small generic looking receipts that are easily duplicated at home if one chooses to do that. If they're retarded enough to take a receipt as "proof of maintainance" they're surely not smart enough to determine that the receipt is a fake.

As I've always said - the first car manufacturer that lets me buy a car WITHOUT forcing me to buy the f*cking warranty too, they will get my business. The amount you pay for the warranty is not worth the hassle they make you go through to have them honor it.