New owner (maybe?) + Recall Notice!?

[MikeM.]

The cheap no-parts solution is to remove the bolt, paint the now-unused mounting point, and rely on the fact that by the time rubbing or vibration has caused enough damage to be actionable, the car will be long out of warranty.

What "fact"? Have you even seen evidence there is "rubbing or vibration" with the bolt removed? Because I haven't. and I'm not saying the fix won't rub or vibrate. I haven't tested it. Have you? On how many vehicles?

I see a lot of unfounded assumptions here that may or may not be an actual problem, now or down the road. Personally, without evidence to the contrary, I'd say it looks like a classic case of making mountains out of molehills. I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it but the worse thing you could do is take matters into your own hands without knowing more than we do (regardless of the amount of common sense you think you have).

 

[wiley264]

What "fact"? Have you even seen evidence there is "rubbing or vibration" with the bolt removed? Because I haven't. and I'm not saying the fix won't rub or vibrate. I haven't tested it. Have you? On how many vehicles?

Mazda apparently thought there was a problem serious enough to alter their design during production to add that bolt. Now they've determined that they can't have that bolt for reasons described previously, but they put one fix into the new cars and a different, significantly cheaper one into the cars on the road. If I assume as you always do that Mazda engineers are infallible and certainly tested the original bolt-less design on an unlimited number of cars to determine that a bolt was needed, then re-tested on another unlimited number of cars to determine how the bolt should be replaced, the only logical explanation for fixing the cars on the road differently is that Mazda foresees a problem but believes it won't matter until their responsibility to fix the car has ended.

I see a lot of unfounded assumptions here that may or may not be an actual problem, now or down the road. Personally, without evidence to the contrary, I'd say it looks like a classic case of making mountains out of molehills. I certainly wouldn't lose any sleep over it but the worse thing you could do is take matters into your own hands without knowing more than we do (regardless of the amount of common sense you think you have).

The beauty of your posts on this forum is that the only entity with evidence is Mazda and you believe that they are completely infallible, so every assumption must be unfounded and every problem isn't an actual problem or Mazda in their wisdom would have foreseen it. In that context, I have no argument that you will ever accept.

 

[TimelessMazda]

Obviously not infallible or they would have caught this problem.

However, without you presenting your expertise it is hard to go against engineers working for Mazda.

 

[MikeM.]

If I assume as you always do that Mazda engineers are infallible and certainly tested the original bolt-less design on an unlimited number of cars to determine that a bolt was needed, then re-tested on another unlimited number of cars to determine how the bolt should be replaced, the only logical explanation for fixing the cars on the road differently is that Mazda foresees a problem but believes it won't matter until their responsibility to fix the car has ended.

Ummmm.....wow! I have NEVER assumed Mazda engineers are infallible. Where did you get that from? People make mistakes all the time. What I do know is the team members that worked on this fix have infinitely more data available to them than any auto enthusiast on the outside looking in. From my perspective, when you come to a conclusion beginning with "the only logical explanation", it is you who is making the unwarranted assumption that you are infallible. Which is hilarious considering you have virtually nothing to base your conclusion on relative to the Mazda team that had access to ALL of the available data and design intents and considerations.

The beauty of your posts on this forum is that the only entity with evidence is Mazda and you believe that they are completely infallible, so every assumption must be unfounded and every problem isn't an actual problem or Mazda in their wisdom would have foreseen it. In that context, I have no argument that you will ever accept.

Well you're half right. Mazda does have all the evidence. But I don't believe they are infallible. Still, 10 times out of 10, I will trust the entity that knows the design intent and has all the data over someone who doesn't have access to any more than I do.

 

[yrwei52]

Recall Notice!?

Obviously not infallible or they would have caught this problem.
However, without you presenting your expertise it is hard to go against engineers working for Mazda.

Yeah, obviously Mazda engineers are not infallible or they would have caught this excessive fuel spillage problem by themselves, not by NHTSA's compliance test!

However, Mazda engineers were under heavy pressure to find a quick and easy fix to resolve the issue as they're facing immediate stop-sale enforced by NHTSA. Hence a quick no-parts, bolt-removing short-term solution is implemented. But for permanent and long-term solution, they've added a rubber pad and a plastic fastener for new production after Feb. 1st, 2016. Since they're designing new parts, even a simple rubber pad and plastic fastener take time to get mass quantity into the production line. I believe this is why there're two options offered by Mazda for this recall: a quick and easy one with no parts involved for all existing CX-5's; and the permanent one with new parts becoming available for new production after Feb. 1st.

Everybody knows "quick and easy" fix most likely will have consequences or side-effects. Otherwise this quick-and-easy fix would become the permanent solution if the Mazda engineers had enough confidence this quick-and-easy fix was good enough for the long term! Why bother spending more money to design new parts and set up the production line for them?

Sometimes it takes time for these consequences or side-effects to show up. Unfortunately we can't afford to do any tests to prove this already wobbling filler neck and pipe will have issues after a holding bolt got removed, and NHTSA won't do the test for us unless there's enough complaints and they're safety related.

Why could Mazda engineers just simply go back to the same attachment design used in 2013 MY which isn't included in the recall? The filler pipes are the same as showed by Kedis82ZE8's posts. The parts are readily available. Or is it just Mazda way to hide something else we don't know?

 

[MikeM.]

Yeah, obviously Mazda engineers are not infallible or they would have caught this excessive fuel spillage problem by themselves, not by NHTSA's compliance test!

If Mazda engineers were infallible, there would have been no fuel spilled for anyone to find!

But for permanent and long-term solution, they've added a rubber pad and a plastic fastener for new production after Feb. 1st, 2016.

The crux of your illogical argument is that since the fix for new production is different than the fix for existing cars, Mazda must be taking shortcuts. But your logic assumes the 3 foot long rubber filler hose doesn't need any support to hold it in place during assembly. Neither of us are privy to the assembly sequence and assembly line details but, typically, a long floppy rubber tube would need to be secured in place to insure it didn't foul the assembly of other parts. On cars already built, this is not a consideration. Initially a small metal bolt was used. Now that testing has shown the hose can rupture due to hard collisions, a break-away plastic bolt has been implemented to replace the original metal bolt. Without knowing more, it is a huge an unwarranted assumption that the hose needs to be affixed at all once the top of the hose is secured to the filler neck. Certainly, Mazda engineers determined it did not need to be affixed mid-point or they would have specified a break-away plastic bolt for the recalled vehicles as well. Without evidence to the contrary, I'm not sure why anyone would assume differently.

Or is it just Mazda way to hide something else we don't know?

Break-away plastic bolts are inexpensive enough and easy enough to install that I doubt Mazda is hiding anything. But your comment does highlight that Mazda knows a lot more than you do about why the hose is secured midpoint on the production line (but not on recalled vehicles).

Why would you presume to know more than the ones who have actually studied the problem? Please don't say it's because your common sense is so uncommonly good! (screwy)

 

[Kinghardcor]

Today I changed out my winter tires/wheels which allowed me a good look directly at the area. I'm not really sure how this bolt could cause the problem. The bolt is about 2" behind the filler pipe and bolted to the body of the car. Unless the bolt is attached to a part of the body that is supposed to crumple forward in a rear crash. There is another bolt about 2" in front of the pipe that looks like it could be a problem in a rear crash if the pipe is shoved forward into it. In fact that front and rear bolt seem to be attached to the same "strap" around the filler pipe.

As to the fix, it appears that they removed the rear bolt, covered the hole with a round sticker and then sprayed the area with undercoating. There is now a gap behind the strap because the bolt pulled it into the frame. It's not floppy loose but I can see it vibrating during normal use. Ideally the wheel should be removed so the spray can get all around but I don't think rust will be an issue as it appears the sticker covers the area where the strap touched the frame and spray covers the sticker if they do correctly.

Pictures attached.

 

[yrwei52]

+ Recall Notice!?

I fixed orientation of the picture I took. Left rear shock is on left.

Appears to be above #11 in schematic which seems to be the same among all model years I have seen.

How did you get this shot without removing anything, at least the whole plastic wheel well liner? The filler pipe seems to hide behind the liner. Did I look at the wrong place although I used the left-rear shock absorber as the reference point? Of course the bolt in question could never be found during my failed attempt.

 

[sillyxone]

The bolt is near the bottom in your first pic.

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

You need to come around more from the back left of vehicle looking under the bumper near ground level. The filler pipe is in front of the plastic wheel liner. I'll try to get a better shot later today. It is around the back side of the shock.

That lit up piece on the right is the spring.

 

[yrwei52]

+ Recall Notice!?

You need to come around more from the back left of vehicle looking under the bumper near ground level. The filler pipe is in front of the plastic wheel liner. I'll try to get a better shot later today. It is around the back side of the shock.

That lit up piece on the right is the spring.

I think I found the bolt from my picture. I always though the bolt is located at or after the rear axle. But apparently it's at front of axle. But Kinghardcor has explained it in detail that one of the two bolts for U-shaped bracket ("strap") which holds the filler pipe to left rear side member was removed. The result is the bracket lost its purpose holding the filler pipe tight as I originally predicted. And the filler neck is already wobbling even before the bolt removal. This is simply trying to fix one problem but may introduce another problem the bracket was originally designed for, as the bracket now has lost its function!

I still say why could Mazda engineers just simply go back to the same attachment design used in 2013 MY which isn't included in the recall?