1999 Mazda 626 ES V-6 from North America - Comments

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

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.

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.

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.

I have a 2001 Mazda Protege, with only 19,000 miles on it and 4 days after the 3 year warranty my transmission went up! I was completely devastated. This was the 1st new car my husband and I have ever purchased. The deal was we have always bought used with cash to avoid a car payment, but thought that with a brand new one at least we wouldn't have to worry about repairs. Anyway, Mazda did offer to pay for the transmission, but we still had to shell out the 825.00 for installation to the dealership. After my new transmission was installed I was told that I also needed tires. I went to Good Year for 4 new tires and upon installation I received a phone call stating that my boot clamp was not secured on the front axle and all of the oil had been leaking out, a big mess under the car. I had the tires installed, then immediately took the car back to the dealership since they were the last ones to work on my car and explained to the service department what Good Year had told and showed me. They claim that the boot clamp was now back on (some how) and that it must have just went up for no reason. So, I now have to pay for a new front axle! So now the car is 5 years old and still only has 34,000 miles, but I have replaced the transmission, front axle, exhaust system, tires, brakes, oh and don't forget my drivers seat belt clamp that was the only thing covered under my warranty. So, my reasoning for buying a new car was to only have a car payment, but no costly repairs...I'm sure you can see that I ended up paying payments and repairs!!!