1999 Mazda 626 Reviews - Page 12 of 12

1999 Mazda 626 LX from North America

Year of manufacture1999
First year of ownership2000
Most recent year of ownership2001
Engine and transmission Automatic
Performance marks 5 / 10
Reliability marks 1 / 10
Comfort marks 7 / 10
Dealer Service marks 0 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 5 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
3.6 / 10
Distance when acquired23000 miles
Most recent distance69000 miles
Previous carNissan Maxima

Summary:

A bad experience all around for the very first car that I purchased on my own

Faults:

I bought my Mazda about a year ago and it had just over 20,000 miles on it. The check engine light came on about 2 days after I purchased the car. I repeatedly took it back to the dealer and was told it was just a glitch with the light, there was no engine problem. In the past year I have had the engine serviced every 3,000 miles and taken care of the vehicle. I just had an oil change about 3 weeks ago and everything checked out. My transmission just died today. I can't find a relatively inexpensive replacement, I am a college student working my way through school. I now have no way to school, no way to pay for repairs and I am disappointed with the dealership I have been dealing with. The "it isn't our problem" attitude has been given to me at 2 different Mazda Dealerships today. I am very disappointed in Mazda and the product they sell. My experience with Mazda is that it is not a reliable car and no one at Mazda is even attempting to show any customer care or satisfaction.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? No

Review Date: 30th June, 2001

10th Aug 2001, 15:39

I've had the same check engine light problem with a new 2001 Mazda 626. It happened to me the first day I drove off of the lot. After only having the car for one week, I had to take it back to the dealer 4 times before they would fix the problem. Now that I read your account, I'm seriously thinking about invoking the lemon law!

Thanks.

DT - Phila., PA.

1999 Mazda 626 ES V-6 2.5 liter from North America

Year of manufacture1999
First year of ownership1998
Most recent year of ownership2001
Engine and transmission 2.5 liter Automatic
Performance marks 10 / 10
Reliability marks 10 / 10
Comfort marks 10 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
10.0 / 10
Distance when acquired110 miles
Most recent distance29990 miles
Previous carHonda Accord

Summary:

A great car that beats out my previous 1999 Honda Accord EX V-6 when it come to value and bargaining

Faults:

Nothing has gone wrong with my 1999 Mazda 626 ES V-6.

General Comments:

Sportier feel than my previous Honda.

A great bargain over Toyota and Honda.

This car is pretty quick with a nice sounding engine.

Makes one feel rich with the leather and wooden upholstry.

Nice thick alloy wheels.

Standard moonroof not found on the competition.

A well dressed to impress luxury car.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 15th April, 2001

4th May 2001, 23:03

Mazda North American Operations

P.O. Box 19734

Irvine, CA 92623-9734

Attn: David G. Thomas, Senior Managing Director.

May 4, 2001.

Dear Mazda:

I am writing this letter in response to your reply to the attached letter concerning my 1996 Mazda 626 ES. As described in the letter the "oil sending unit", a $20 part I'm told, breaks causing more than $3,000 in damage, the cost of engine replacement. While I do not hold Mazda solely responsible, to say that this is something that just happens to your automobile is unacceptable. I would think Mazda would feel some obligation to assist in rectifying the situation, if only for the sake of your product. Mazda has shown no care in the fact that this problem occurred in its automobile. I have also talked to 2 other people who have had the same problem, exactly. One owns a 1996 Millennia and the other a 1995 626. I would hate to think that this is true for all Mazda products, however, I am convinced that I would never purchase nor recommend a Mazda again.

Sincerely.

Damon M. Roundtree.

March 29, 2001.

To Whom it May Concern:

I purchased my 1996 Mazda 626ES from Len Stoler Ford in Owings Mills, Maryland, in February of 1999. When I test drove the car the engine light was on, and I was told it was an oxygen sensor, that was subsequently repaired one week after I purchased the car. I was told by my warranty company. National Auto Care (NAC) that Len Stoler called in this claim and it was covered.

During the week of August 13, 2000 I had the oil changed at the Owings Mills Shell service station. On September 3, 2000 my oil light came on, I stopped at Pep Boys and bought two quarts of oil. I drove home and the oil light came on again. The next morning I tried to drive to Owings Mills Shell because they were the last people to work on my car. After two minutes out of my driveway the car cut off. I pulled over and it would not start.

The car was towed to the Owings Mills Shell on September 6, 2000. After their diagnosis was complete they concluded that the "oil-sending unit" was broken which caused the oil to leak out. After further review they found that a camshaft was broken as well. Shell suggested that I have the car towed to Len Stoler, where I bought it from, to avoid the deductible on my warranty.

On September 8, 2000, my car was towed to Len Stoler Ford in Owings Mills. I told the Service Representative, the symptoms and I also told him there was something wrong with engine.

After Len Stoler's diagnosis I was told by the Service Representative that I had a bad distributor, bad wires and spark plugs. I needed to change my timing belt and the oil-sending unit was broke. I asked him if there was anything wrong with the engine and he said they checked the engine and nothing was wrong with the engine. I authorized them to change the distributor and replace the spark plugs.

On September 11, 2000, the Service Representative called me to say that the car won't start after $1,700.00 of repairs covered by the warranty company (NAC). During the week they realized that a cam shaft is seized and they need my permission to take the engine apart for the warranty company to inspect the cam. If the warranty company, National Auto Care, (NAC) find that they won't cover the problem, then the engine being taken apart would be at my expense.

Wanting to resolve the issue, I authorized them to take the engine apart. Three weeks have pass and NAC needs to come out to inspect the car after the engine had been dissembled. In the meantime I have no car to drive to work. Therefore, I lost time from work ($18.00/hour plus.30 cents per mile). I also rented a care for 5 days, 3 from Len Stoler, and 2 from a Towson Rent-a-Wreck, of which the NAC will only cover 2 days and Len Stoler covered 1 day. After several calls to NAC and Len Stoler, no one would give me a rental car to drive, although my car had been tied up for 4 weeks.

On September 29, 2000, the Service Representative tells me that the Vice President pf NAC came out to see the damage and denied the claim because the car ran low on oil.

On October 3, 2000 I spoke with the Vice President at NAC and he further denied the claim on the grounds that the car ran low on oil.

In summary, I can't say who to point the finger at, Shell could have broken the oil-sending unit during the oil change, but if so, they should have noticed the leak. Len Stoler gave an incorrect diagnosis and had the warranty company NAC, pay for $1700 worth of repairs that did not get the car running. The warranty company, although I paid for my warranty for 3 years or when my car reached 100,000 miles, has been of no help at all.

"If a covered part broke which caused something else to fail, that failure should be covered as well".

My car is my livelihood, and this situation has caused a major inconvenience in my life and family. Any assistance you can give me to help settle this matter amicably would greatly appreciated.

Sincerely.

Damon M. Roundtree

2203 Whitcomb Circle, Apt F

Baltimore, MD 21234

E-mail: RGELLC@AOL.COM.

Cc: MVA - Maryland

Len Stoler

Mazda Corporation

Better Business Bureau.

8th Mar 2006, 22:26

Well I am taking my 99 Mazda 626 to the dealership again and I have had the same problem again. The car won't stay started. Last year I replaced the pressure regulator and spark plug wires. This car has been the worst car I've ever owned. Unreliable, expensive to fix, rumbles when you go over bumps, loses pick up with AC on (all cars do, but this one is bad) and just plain not worth the money. And I only have 55,000 miles on a 99.

Back to Toyota for me.

1999 Mazda 626 from North America

Year of manufacture1999
First year of ownership2000
Most recent year of ownership2000
Engine and transmission Manual
Performance marks 7 / 10
Reliability marks 7 / 10
Comfort marks 4 / 10
Dealer Service marks 0 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 8 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
5.2 / 10
Distance when acquired22000 miles
Most recent distance24500 miles
Previous carNissan Quest GXE

Summary:

Good gas mileage and plenty of back seat space

Faults:

Bought it used from Chapman Nissan in New Castle, DE. NEVER BUY A CAR FROM THIS DEALERSHIP!!!! They claim to "re-condition" all used cars before selling them. HA! The dealership told me it was a V6 (turned out to be 4 cylinder) and that it had ABS (it does not).

Car came with bad rotors - had to have them re-cut within 1 week of ownership. I've only had it 3 months and was told it needs an alignment. I've already had to replace the front brakes.

General Comments:

Mazda should take note: Emergency brake is angled to the left - not comfortable for the driver when entering/exiting the car. Make the front bucket seats a little wider.

If you use a cell phone with a cigarette lighter adapter/holder, don't bother to buy this car! If you plug it in, you cannot shift into 5th gear.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 22nd October, 2000

1999 Mazda 626 LX V6 2.5L V6 from North America

Year of manufacture1999
First year of ownership1999
Most recent year of ownership2000
Engine and transmission 2.5L V6 Manual
Performance marks 9 / 10
Reliability marks 8 / 10
Comfort marks 8 / 10
Dealer Service marks 8 / 10
Running Costs (higher is cheaper) 6 / 10
Overall marks (average of all marks)
7.8 / 10
Distance when acquired100 kilometres
Most recent distance25000 kilometres
Previous carHonda Civic

Summary:

A family sedan for those who like to drive

Faults:

Power window squeak - fixed by the dealer.

General Comments:

Combination of 2.5L V6 and 5 speed manual gives the car a sporty feel not usually found in this class.

Downside - high compression ratio means that premium gas is recommended.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 22nd August, 2000

13th Mar 2006, 20:44

I purchased my 1999 mazda 626 LX-V6 on November 2004 with 102k kilometers (70k miles).Since that time (now odometer read is 170k kilometers (100k miles) had no problems except plastic radiator overfill container cracked and starter, both replaced. One can feel changing automatic gear from 1st to 2nd one, but this is not a problem and remain the same even after 65k kilometers or 2 years. Otherwise is very fun to drive. Fuel consuming numbers is near those provided in owner's manual. Excellent emission test results!

So far I consider it a good investment.

Average review marks: 6.0 / 10, based on 37 reviews