Response from Mazda USA re: warranty

[Larone]

After reading the thread about a warranty claim that was denied, I decided to write Mazda to get some clarification on the issue. This was their response:
__________________________________________________________________
Thank you for contacting Mazda North American Operations. I appreciate
the opportunity to respond to you.

In regards to your inquiry, please keep in mind that a warranty only
covers defects in workmanship or materials, not items related to
maintenance, normal wear and tear, or outside influences. If there were
damages or complications caused by a non-Mazda product, for example,
that could not be considered a warranty matter and would not be
covered. You're welcome to customize a vehicle per your discretion,
just remember that any problems that could arise due to their placement
could not be covered by warranty.

Again, thank you for contacting Mazda. It has been my pleasure to
assist you. Please feel free to reply to this message with any further
questions or comments.

Regards,

William Zdan
Specialist, Customer Assistance E-Business

___________________________________________________________________

I basically understand that to mean that simply installing any item doesn't void the warranty. Only if the installed part causes damage, then that damage wont be covered - pretty much what the Magnusson Moss Act says.

 

[Nightmare]

my dealership told me that to my face when i asked them about aftermarket parts

 

[Natey]

That's the law.

If the part that you install has anything to do with the reason you're trying to get your car fixed, your warranty's void.

 

[rktktpaul]

I don't think that there's any argument here as to how warranty is affected by aftermarket parts, and how it should be reasonably enforced. The statement ". . . just remember that any problems that could arise due to their placement could not be covered by warranty." is a little too open ended for me - it seems like entire systems could very easily be placed out of warranty for a very simple modification.

Ask Dexter - when his sub burned out, the dealership wouldn't honor his warranty because he had installed a turbo timer. They claim that the timer caused a spike in his electrical system which burned out his sub. Nothing else, just his subwoofer. That to me is not reasonable.

 

[Nightmare]

Thats an example of what they say, what they Mean is a totally diffrent idea

 

[low_psi]

Thats an example of what they say, what they Mean is a totally diffrent idea

exactly.

 

[Hercdriver]

That's the law.

If the part that you install has anything to do with the reason you're trying to get your car fixed, your warranty's void.

It's not really "law" is it? I mean really a law.

 

[Wha'Happened]

what if the TT actually DID cause a spike?? I know its highly unlikely but you have to look at it from Mazda's point of view sometimes. That response from Mazda is perfectly fair, now if only all dealerships would follow up on that, and not void at the first sight of anything aftermarket.

 

[Nightmare]

if the TT caused a spike, it would have been absorbed by the amp. the only way you could create a spike that large i imagine would be when your innocently driving your car in the local lake, and get hit by lightning. if mazda wanted a few brownie points, they'd reserch the problem and the causes before labeling the aftermarket part that has nothing to do with the situation a cause.

 

[t3ase]

Um, it's a federal law at that. Please visit www.enjoythedrive.com or www.sema.org for more information. Or google "Magnusson Moss Act".

 

[JHew84]

Um, it's a federal law at that. Please visit www.enjoythedrive.com or www.sema.org for more information. Or google "Magnusson Moss Act".

laws were made to be broken, OJ for example , most average people (people who would own an MSP) dont have the time or money to take MazdaUS to court over something like warranty work (especially on an amplifier)... it would be pretty cool if someone actually did stand up to them though, and won in the court of law, it would give attourny's in the future a case to quote in later court dates for other owners, to show that mazda has some pretty stupid reasoning behind voiding peoples warrantys...

warranty's are cool, having a warranty upheld is rare, i've known this since before i could drive ...

 

[t3ase]

Money? If the damages truly are a result of Mazda's mistake, the money would be coming from them in the end, so that's not a real hold up.

I was very close to taking Mazda to court over a somewhat recent transmission issue. However, despite what the dealership may say initially, a well written letter that touches on legal issues will, more than likely, cause them to change their mind.

Also, you have to decide who's at fault, the dealership or MazdaUSA. Dealership's don't want bad publicity, period, and will do anything to keep that from happening. Their whole business is about convincing new people to buy one of their major life purchases from them. That's how it was explained to me by two lawyers and it makes quite a bit of sense.

If it's MazdaUSA, well, I can't really talk about that seeing as though my issue was with a dealership.

You just have to know you're right, not think you're right or try to seem right. If you start making a scene about something that shouldn't even be their issue at all (ie: blown engine) then they'll bite right back and you'll be screwed. If you try to pass that blown engine off and they can see where you had an electronic boost controller soldered in to the ECU, then you're not screwing Mazda, you're screwing yourself because they won't play that game.

In the end, regardless of if you don't even ever have to use them, it's a very good thing to know the laws that pertain to what it is you do and enjoy. That's regardless of if it's cars, raves, boating, cigar making(?), etc.

On that point, during Thanksgiving, my grandmother was complaining to another family member that works at the department of public safety about her friend having new state issued license surcharges because of his past DWI convictions. After the two kept arguing about it and how she didn't know that law even existed, I butted in and jokingly said "It's part of your job as a Texas driver to know and stay up to date with any new laws that are passed. They don't have to send out fliers to warn people, it's a law and you're supposed to know those, regardless of how public they make them."

Same goes with cars, you've gotta know your rights as to what's covered, why it is or is not, and who's protecting those rights. There are people that have no idea about these laws, there are those that do and try to abuse them by trying to pass off things they shouldn't, and there are those who know them and correctly know what may be and what may not be covered.

Blah, that was a long rant... !@#*!@&#!@

*uNF*

 

[Dr.Sound]

good post

 

[t3ase]

I still have your wreckage pics... Look at em every now and then... (2thumbs)

good roll!@

 

[Dr.Sound]

thanks
i must say i did enjoy it ever so much

 

[moore0226]

mazda told me they wouldn't "fix" my clunk nosie due that i have a sub box in the back which caused it? thats bull. it would have happened either way.

 

[JHew84]

Money? If the damages truly are a result of Mazda's mistake, the money would be coming from them in the end, so that's not a real hold up.

I was very close to taking Mazda to court over a somewhat recent transmission issue. However, despite what the dealership may say initially, a well written letter that touches on legal issues will, more than likely, cause them to change their mind.

Also, you have to decide who's at fault, the dealership or MazdaUSA. Dealership's don't want bad publicity, period, and will do anything to keep that from happening. Their whole business is about convincing new people to buy one of their major life purchases from them. That's how it was explained to me by two lawyers and it makes quite a bit of sense.

If it's MazdaUSA, well, I can't really talk about that seeing as though my issue was with a dealership.

You just have to know you're right, not think you're right or try to seem right. If you start making a scene about something that shouldn't even be their issue at all (ie: blown engine) then they'll bite right back and you'll be screwed. If you try to pass that blown engine off and they can see where you had an electronic boost controller soldered in to the ECU, then you're not screwing Mazda, you're screwing yourself because they won't play that game.

In the end, regardless of if you don't even ever have to use them, it's a very good thing to know the laws that pertain to what it is you do and enjoy. That's regardless of if it's cars, raves, boating, cigar making(?), etc.

On that point, during Thanksgiving, my grandmother was complaining to another family member that works at the department of public safety about her friend having new state issued license surcharges because of his past DWI convictions. After the two kept arguing about it and how she didn't know that law even existed, I butted in and jokingly said "It's part of your job as a Texas driver to know and stay up to date with any new laws that are passed. They don't have to send out fliers to warn people, it's a law and you're supposed to know those, regardless of how public they make them."

Same goes with cars, you've gotta know your rights as to what's covered, why it is or is not, and who's protecting those rights. There are people that have no idea about these laws, there are those that do and try to abuse them by trying to pass off things they shouldn't, and there are those who know them and correctly know what may be and what may not be covered.

Blah, that was a long rant... !@#*!@&#!@

*uNF*

very articulate and well thought out post, very impressive i must admit (thumb)... although i'm not sure if we are quite on the same page here. my comments on money were in regard to hiring a lawyer to take up a lawsuit against MazdaUS, most average people dont have the financial backing to take up a large lawsuit against a big company like mazda, nor the time, personally i work almost 40 hrs a week, and i go to school full time, squeezing in a court hearing here and there would be kinda tricky ... mainly what i was trying to point out in my post, was that until someone stands up against them, and wins, mazda will probably just keep dicking people around, and bringing up false reasons as to why they dont want to do the warranty work, but if there truly is a legitimate reason they bring up, as to why they wont do the warranty work, like a boost controller raising the boost to high and blowing the motor, then they do have every right to deny someone warranty work, because that particular person caused the malfunction of the car, NOT mazda... i *think* we are basically in agreeance, just a small mis-understanding, but again i'm not sure ...

and yes, that was quite the long rant (blah) ...

 

[rktktpaul]

You also have to look at the value of filing a lawsuit. For arguments sake, let's say that the average cost of having a motor rebuilt by the dealer is $6,000. A lawyer of any value is going to charge you an average of $200 to $250 per hour. At that rate, you're only getting 24 to 30 hours of legal services from that attorney - not nearly enough time to take this to court. In all likelyhood you'd be spending $15 to 20K to get $6,000 worth of work in return - not exactly a great return on investment. And I think that MNAO and the dealerships count on that aspect when they deny warranty service.

 

[JHew84]

You also have to look at the value of filing a lawsuit. For arguments sake, let's say that the average cost of having a motor rebuilt by the dealer is $6,000. A lawyer of any value is going to charge you an average of $200 to $250 per hour. At that rate, you're only getting 24 to 30 hours of legal services from that attorney - not nearly enough time to take this to court. In all likelyhood you'd be spending $15 to 20K to get $6,000 worth of work in return - not exactly a great return on investment. And I think that MNAO and the dealerships count on that aspect when they deny warranty service.

assuming you win, you can then go back to court and sue for court charges, or have it brought up during the initial case, either way if you win basically you are garunteed that mazda will pay your court fee's, but thats if you win, if you lose, haha, well now you just spent a s***-load of money on lawyer and court fee's, and you STILL have to drop money into your car... this is basically why i said most average people dont have the money to do this, its not so much about actually having the physical money, but more so about what it would do to their lives financially if they actually lost all that money, could they really recover gracefully from a huge hit like that?? maybe, but if you look at the people that own MS proteges i'm sure the list will consist largely of middle class citizens that dont have a large amount of money that they could afford to just *lose* at any given moment, i realize that is probably a bad stereotype, but that is basically who the car was aimed at as far as pricing/advertising/etc...

i also just wanted to throw in, that I COMPLETELY agree with you about the "people need to know their rights" aspect of this t3ase, if you dont know your own rights you are basically shooting yourself in the foot, i dont know how many tickets i have gotten out of because the cop tried writing me up for some bulls*** reason, and i knew what he could, or couldn't write me a ticket for, and its kind of sad that they were suprised that i knew what i was talking about, just goes to show how many people dont know even their most basic rights...

 

[rktktpaul]

assuming you win, you can then go back to court and sue for court charges, or have it brought up during the initial case, either way if you win basically you are garunteed that mazda will pay your court fee's, but thats if you win, if you lose, haha, well now you just spent a s***-load of money on lawyer and court fee's, and you STILL have to drop money into your car...

Agreed. But there is no way that MNAO would let that happen, because if that one consumer won their case it would open the doors for anyone denied warranty service a run at them in court. It could become a very expensive proposition for MNAO.