shane02pro5
25ish_psi
- :
- New Caney TX
I don't even know if contacting the Better Business Burough would be helpfull??
Engine Failure... I think
- Thread starter s-retire
- Start date
I don't know about the BBB, but California has a mediation program through the New Motor Vehicle Board. I've gone that route.
Also, I've filed a complaint with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Given the number of failures with this engine, I'm wondering if anyone else has. If not, it is easy to do. The more reports, the more likely the NHTSA will look into the engine failures.
Last edited:
BBB won't do s***. I would complain very aggressively to Attorney General's office under lemon law statutes. Draft an e-mail laying out everything that has happened, e-mail the attorney general's office, and CC mazda corporate - be very clear you want action taken under lemon law, and that you're being given the run-around. Then follow through by calling AG. Meet with them if you have to. That might get something rolling. That's how I got Rogue Mover's to settle a big complaint with me.
The Proper Administrative Steps Must Be Followed
Looking closely at the California Lemon Law, it appears that the BBB Auto Line Process is pursued before civil action can be taken. It isnt immediately clear, but I believe that I have to wait 30 days until that process can be requested. Then I notify Mazda in accordance with the Supplement to the Owners and Warranty Information Booklet.
The award under the program would include collateral charges (tax, license, reg. fees), Incidental Charges (tow and rental) and earned finance charges.
Other loss recovery would require civil court action. I'll keep you posted.
Looking closely at the California Lemon Law, it appears that the BBB Auto Line Process is pursued before civil action can be taken. It isnt immediately clear, but I believe that I have to wait 30 days until that process can be requested. Then I notify Mazda in accordance with the Supplement to the Owners and Warranty Information Booklet.
The award under the program would include collateral charges (tax, license, reg. fees), Incidental Charges (tow and rental) and earned finance charges.
Other loss recovery would require civil court action. I'll keep you posted.
Well, California BBB might be more robust than in other places. If you have to do it, you have to. I would start the process though. Just getting it going might get you what you want, but be prepared to go the distance. You might be able to get advice from an attorney friend or online advocate to complete the process. When I was ripped off by rogue movers, an online not for profit group of attorneys gave me all the info I needed to start the right process - the brigands caved and cut me a check rather than hire their own attorneys to go through the process.
Update
Good advice, thank you to all. It is going to be a long road.
Well it has been a full four weeks since the motor went pop. I sent a letter to Mazda NAO requesting a review of the warranty denial the first week after the failure.
After a week and a half Mazda authorized a rental car and had the car towed to a local dealer. After three weeks Mazda sent a rep to supervise the disassembly of the motor to determine what failed.
Yesterday, I received the following e-mail from Mazda Customer Assistance.
Hello Mr. Fisk,
Thank you for contacting Mazda. This email is to inform you your letter has been received by Mazda. I was able to review your letter and records attached with supervisor Nathan Davis. At this time your concern is still being reviewed and Nathan Davis will contact you with Mazda's final decision. Again, thank you for contacting Mazda.
Regards,
Jennifer
Customer Assistance
Perhaps they hoping Ill give up.
The Lemon Law come into application on Friday.
Good advice, thank you to all. It is going to be a long road.
Well it has been a full four weeks since the motor went pop. I sent a letter to Mazda NAO requesting a review of the warranty denial the first week after the failure.
After a week and a half Mazda authorized a rental car and had the car towed to a local dealer. After three weeks Mazda sent a rep to supervise the disassembly of the motor to determine what failed.
Yesterday, I received the following e-mail from Mazda Customer Assistance.
Hello Mr. Fisk,
Thank you for contacting Mazda. This email is to inform you your letter has been received by Mazda. I was able to review your letter and records attached with supervisor Nathan Davis. At this time your concern is still being reviewed and Nathan Davis will contact you with Mazda's final decision. Again, thank you for contacting Mazda.
Regards,
Jennifer
Customer Assistance
Perhaps they hoping Ill give up.
The Lemon Law come into application on Friday.
Thanks for posting the update. I'm sure that many of us are still watching and are interested in what they will or won't do for you. You are probably right that they are hoping you'll give up. That seems to be a popular technique for business. This problem is just a job to them. At 5:00 they can go home and forget it, where to the customer it is their transportation and a good portion of their disposable income tied up in a broken car. On the other hand, if you gave up what would you have? I understand that it costs over $10,000 to have the enigine replaced. Believe me, I've spent a lot of time lately wondering what I'd do if I were in your shoes and they don't fix the car. Would I spend $10,000 getting a $16,000 (just guessing) car fixed? I don't know. I sincerely hope you're not left with that decision.
Last edited:
tiagotiago
Member
- :
- 2008.5 Mazdaspeed 3
Thanks for keeping us posted. Though honestly I'd expected that by this point they were going to be helping you get a new engine, not be running around in circles. I'm sure Mazda has it's own procedures and that's all fine and good but there is no excuse for making you wait this long for them to review such an apparently obvious case.
I'm glad you are well informed, and that the lemon law will very soon give you another possible road to follow. For Mazda's sake I hope they do something very soon to try and make you a happy customer.
I'm glad you are well informed, and that the lemon law will very soon give you another possible road to follow. For Mazda's sake I hope they do something very soon to try and make you a happy customer.
I know the frustration. My 07 Speed 3 ran great for the first few thousand miles. Then started the bucking surging BS. Back to the dealer 4 times for a week or so at a time. Dealing with getting a rental, and taking it back. Same old s*** everytime. I hated driving this car, the way it ran. I drive 160 miles round trip to work and back. I remember the last time I took it in, and had yet again had to get my stuff out. It was plugged into a computer and something smelled hot. Like wires burning. I figured f*ck it, let it burn. All still under warranty. There was an 08 Speed 3 on the showroom floor. I said just give me that one, and keep my poor running POS. Figured WTF? That went over like a lead balloon. Problem with mine was a bad fuel pressure regulator sensor. Runs perfect since.
Closing in on 56,000 miles.
Closing in on 56,000 miles.
Last edited:
Update
They didn't provide a resolution, but they also didn't waste much time. The hardest part was perparing the documentation required.
Good points. I have no intention of giving up. In fact at this point I'm hoping that my case will inspire others that have had warranty claims denied for unproven reasons the motivation to fight the denials. The fact that they can go home at 5 P.M. while I'm left to suffer the consequence of their inaction is very frustrating. I'm sure they use this as a tool in their tool box.
and We're talking about $18k worth of damage on a $23k car that is almost new.
Now a full seven weeks into this. The reps at Mazda NAO continue to promise return calls, then dont follow through.
Three weeks ago, I sent a letter to Mazda NAO, Customer Compliance (Interesting department title) as required by the California Lemon Law, Tanner Consumer Protection Act. In the letter, I informed Mazda NAO that I would be contacting BBB Auto Line on Friday, February 27 requesting arbitration. I did that by phone last Friday.
Within hours, I received a letter by e-mail on the case from BBB Auto Line. That letter requested documentation that was needed. I prepared that documentation and sent it to them via fax so they would have it by beginning of business Monday morning. Today (Tuesday), I received a letter that due to the fact that the defect cased property damage in excess of a $500 threshold, this case was outside BBB Auto Line jurisdiction.
What BBB did do, was handle my complaint as quickly as could be expected. What they didnt do was allow this step in the administrative process to drag out the allowable 40 days.
All along, I suspected that Mazda NAO, in an effort to drag this out, would eventually challenge the jurisdiction of the BBB Auto Line, but it was a required hoop. BBB beat them to the punch. Now I believe Im free to seek other remedy.
I may start attorney shopping very soon.
They didn't provide a resolution, but they also didn't waste much time. The hardest part was perparing the documentation required.
Good points. I have no intention of giving up. In fact at this point I'm hoping that my case will inspire others that have had warranty claims denied for unproven reasons the motivation to fight the denials. The fact that they can go home at 5 P.M. while I'm left to suffer the consequence of their inaction is very frustrating. I'm sure they use this as a tool in their tool box.
and We're talking about $18k worth of damage on a $23k car that is almost new.
Now a full seven weeks into this. The reps at Mazda NAO continue to promise return calls, then dont follow through.
Three weeks ago, I sent a letter to Mazda NAO, Customer Compliance (Interesting department title) as required by the California Lemon Law, Tanner Consumer Protection Act. In the letter, I informed Mazda NAO that I would be contacting BBB Auto Line on Friday, February 27 requesting arbitration. I did that by phone last Friday.
Within hours, I received a letter by e-mail on the case from BBB Auto Line. That letter requested documentation that was needed. I prepared that documentation and sent it to them via fax so they would have it by beginning of business Monday morning. Today (Tuesday), I received a letter that due to the fact that the defect cased property damage in excess of a $500 threshold, this case was outside BBB Auto Line jurisdiction.
What BBB did do, was handle my complaint as quickly as could be expected. What they didnt do was allow this step in the administrative process to drag out the allowable 40 days.
All along, I suspected that Mazda NAO, in an effort to drag this out, would eventually challenge the jurisdiction of the BBB Auto Line, but it was a required hoop. BBB beat them to the punch. Now I believe Im free to seek other remedy.
I may start attorney shopping very soon.
My experience with this is limitted to Washington state, where I no longer live (thank God), but there the BBB was pretty much useless and accepted and logged complaints but had no enforcement power. The lemon law was administered by the attorney generals office, which did have power and plenty of it. I bought a used Mustang 5.0 from a Ford dealer in Seattle that "forgot" to tell me it had been taken back under the lemon law and to have me sign the form acknowledging that I was informed of that fact. They later contacted me and wanted me to sign the form and date it prior to the purchase of my car. They did that because the attorney generals office was following up on what they did with lemon law returns. I ended up having to write some letters and it took a few months, but I got a settlement of $5,000 (about half what I paid for the car) without having to involve a lawyer who no doubt would have relieved me of at least 30% of it. As part of that process I learned the history of the car. The previous owners had the car in the shop for three or four extended stays due to excessive oil consumption. The lemon law up there required that the car be replaced at that point and it was. It's hard to believe that California doesn't have a law that is at least that strong. I'm sure you've seen this, but if you haven't check out http://ag.ca.gov/consumers/general/lemon.php.
Sorry I haven't updated this in a good long while. Sadly, I've discovered that there are something more demanding of my time that the loss of a $25k car. That doesn't mean that I'm not going to see this through, I'm just going to take a while.
Latest is that the Mazda RSM inspected the car and claims his inspection proves that it was an oil related failure. (of course he is hanging his hat on the oil drain plug) He pulled one rod bearing cap and took a picture stating that there was evidence of lack of oil on the bearing surface.
An inspector for the dealer provides proof of his opinion that there is no evidence that lack of oil caused the damage.
Mazda had the car towed back to my home. Telling me that they will not honor my warranty and that I should go away.
I’ve rolled under the car to take a look. This is an excerpt from the letter I’ve written to Mazda NAO indicating what I found.
"Any surface imperfections on the bearing surface in that cap are similar to those that would be seen upon initial startup and break in of a new motor. The bearing and cap show no signs of exposure to high heat associated with lack of lubricating oil.
One would expect that if there was a systemic loss of lubricating oil sufficient to cause a connecting rod to break, at a minimum the other components that require pressurized oil delivery would show significant signs of heat related discoloring due to lack of lubrication.
When I inspected the underside of the open motor I saw that the connecting rod is broken in two places. One break is near the narrow cross section of the connecting rod below the wrist pin. The other is where the connecting rod cap secures to the connecting rod. The broken connecting rod and cap are wedged between the crankshaft throw for the failed journal and the engine block. One connecting rod cap bolt was recovered from between a casting web and the broken connecting rod and cap.
In all likelihood the connecting rod broke at the narrow end close to the piston before braking free from the connecting rod bearing journal.
This conclusion is supported by the considerable damage evident on the engine block, the girdled main bearing web and the top side of the balance shaft assembly. There is hammer damage to the sides of the engine block and the bottom of the cylinder bore most likely caused by the connecting rod swinging freely while the motor was still turning. The main bearing girdle web connections are broken on both sides between the center and center left main bearing caps. The steel balance shaft case shows extensive hammer damage. The recovered connecting rod bolt is broken approximately 3/8 inch from the end and the tip of the remaining portion has been formed to a point by some type of impact.
Most likely, the portion of the connecting rod swung freely on the bearing journal while it was still secured to the crankshaft, allowing the loose end to strike the aluminum engine block, the aluminum girdled main bearing web assembly breaking the web connections between the third and fourth main bearing and the top of the steel balance shaft assembly causing considerable damage. Eventually, the repeated impact caused the connecting rod bolts to fail, releasing the rod assembly from the crank shaft. The connecting rod and cap came to rest, wedged between the engine block and the crank shaft throw, causing the motor to seize.
I expect that any individual qualified to make a determination as to the cause of this motor failure would be able to recognize the importance of reporting on these observations to support their theory of this particular failure."
Sorry this is so long, but I’ve been without a car for five months. Fortunately I am able to come up with a replacement it while I fight with Mazda. Looks like I'll need to go to court.
My sympathy would go out to those who would otherwise be left stranded by Mazda NAO.
Latest is that the Mazda RSM inspected the car and claims his inspection proves that it was an oil related failure. (of course he is hanging his hat on the oil drain plug) He pulled one rod bearing cap and took a picture stating that there was evidence of lack of oil on the bearing surface.
An inspector for the dealer provides proof of his opinion that there is no evidence that lack of oil caused the damage.
Mazda had the car towed back to my home. Telling me that they will not honor my warranty and that I should go away.
I’ve rolled under the car to take a look. This is an excerpt from the letter I’ve written to Mazda NAO indicating what I found.
"Any surface imperfections on the bearing surface in that cap are similar to those that would be seen upon initial startup and break in of a new motor. The bearing and cap show no signs of exposure to high heat associated with lack of lubricating oil.
One would expect that if there was a systemic loss of lubricating oil sufficient to cause a connecting rod to break, at a minimum the other components that require pressurized oil delivery would show significant signs of heat related discoloring due to lack of lubrication.
When I inspected the underside of the open motor I saw that the connecting rod is broken in two places. One break is near the narrow cross section of the connecting rod below the wrist pin. The other is where the connecting rod cap secures to the connecting rod. The broken connecting rod and cap are wedged between the crankshaft throw for the failed journal and the engine block. One connecting rod cap bolt was recovered from between a casting web and the broken connecting rod and cap.
In all likelihood the connecting rod broke at the narrow end close to the piston before braking free from the connecting rod bearing journal.
This conclusion is supported by the considerable damage evident on the engine block, the girdled main bearing web and the top side of the balance shaft assembly. There is hammer damage to the sides of the engine block and the bottom of the cylinder bore most likely caused by the connecting rod swinging freely while the motor was still turning. The main bearing girdle web connections are broken on both sides between the center and center left main bearing caps. The steel balance shaft case shows extensive hammer damage. The recovered connecting rod bolt is broken approximately 3/8 inch from the end and the tip of the remaining portion has been formed to a point by some type of impact.
Most likely, the portion of the connecting rod swung freely on the bearing journal while it was still secured to the crankshaft, allowing the loose end to strike the aluminum engine block, the aluminum girdled main bearing web assembly breaking the web connections between the third and fourth main bearing and the top of the steel balance shaft assembly causing considerable damage. Eventually, the repeated impact caused the connecting rod bolts to fail, releasing the rod assembly from the crank shaft. The connecting rod and cap came to rest, wedged between the engine block and the crank shaft throw, causing the motor to seize.
I expect that any individual qualified to make a determination as to the cause of this motor failure would be able to recognize the importance of reporting on these observations to support their theory of this particular failure."
Sorry this is so long, but I’ve been without a car for five months. Fortunately I am able to come up with a replacement it while I fight with Mazda. Looks like I'll need to go to court.
My sympathy would go out to those who would otherwise be left stranded by Mazda NAO.
Last edited:
Speed3Rookie
Member
Sorry for your lost Bro.
Good luck and Godspeed!
Good luck and Godspeed!
SomnoSpeed3
Member
- :
- 2007 Mazdaspeed3 G/T
WOW! Sorry about your whole ordeal. You are truly a patient man. I would have taken legal action 4.5 months ago. This thread makes me want to sell my car IMMEDIATELY!
As much as I like my Speed3, every time I read the latest on this or one of the similar threads I think of trading it in on a new 370Z. Back in 1985 my soon to be ex-wife insisted on keeping our 1983 RX7 for her and our two teenagers and shoved the 4-door Volvo off on me. I traded it for a 1979 280Z. The RX7 was fun and probably as fast as the Z, but there was a huge difference in build quality between the two similarly shaped cars. It was pretty obvious that the Z was the one that was built to last. When I bought the Speed3 I thought I was getting a car that would last 10 years. Now I'm really starting to wonder, although I've had no problems yet myself.
Can you tow your car to a dealer and get the Obama $4500 incentive toward a new one? Not sure if it has to be running to qualify. If not, that might be your best option at this point unless you want to hire a lawyer and spend a couple more years fighting with Mazda. Anyway way you look at it, it sucks. Good luck.
Can you tow your car to a dealer and get the Obama $4500 incentive toward a new one? Not sure if it has to be running to qualify. If not, that might be your best option at this point unless you want to hire a lawyer and spend a couple more years fighting with Mazda. Anyway way you look at it, it sucks. Good luck.
