Miata Mailing List: July 1994, Message #167
sponsored by



     


   From: 
Subject: mazda not standing behind their warranty?  I think so
   Date: Fri, 8 Jul 1994 09:59:07 -0400


The following is the text of a letter that I wrote to Mazda America after I
had gotten unsatisfactory results with the local Mazda dealer on a problem
that I felt should be covered under warranty.  This letter was mailed on 5/16.

As of yesterday, I had not heard back from Mazda.  When I called, their answer
was "we stand behind our original decision" (ie: go to hell)

To say the least, I', disappointed, and wanted to let other Miata owners know
where Mazda stands.  They have replaced the wheel locks (which are different
now by the way) and suggest that the wheel locks are removed and lubed on a
regular basis to prevent what happened to me.  


Attached letter:

							William M. Jackson
							8 Belmont Street
							Newton, MA 02158


Mr. Mark Martin
Mazda Corporation
PO Box 19734
Irvine, CA 92713-934



Dear Mr. Martin,

I am  writing  this  letter  in  response  to what I believe is unacceptable
treatment regarding service for my 1991 Mazda Miata.  Not only has the issue
not  been  resolved,  but  your regional representative and customer service
representative  appear  to want to blame any responsibility on me, no matter
how often they have to change their story.

On May 2nd, I walked out of work to find that my left rear tire was flat.  I
was  pressed for time since I am the coach of a softball team, the equipment
was  in  my  car  ,the  field  was  20  miles away and the game started in a
half-hour.   No  big deal though, I got my jack and tools out and started to
change the tire.  Unfortunately, the factory Miata wheel-lock broke as I was
trying  to  remove the tire.  I was now faced with a flat tire that couldn't
be  removed  from  the  car,  a softball team that would forfeit a game if I
didn't  show  up, and no way to get there.  I certainly didn't have the time
to  call a tow truck to tow the car to the nearest dealer (about 30 miles in
the other direction) and wait for a ride to my game.  

I walked  to  the closest gas station and bought a fix-a-flat can, put it in
the  tire,  but the tire was still leaking.  I was able to drive on the car,
stopping  for air at every gas station that I passed and eventually the leak
stopped and the tire held air.  

The next day, I took the car into Wellesley Mazda to have the tire repaired.
I  suspected that the tire may be damaged and asked that it be inspected and
repaired.   A  nail  was  removed and the lug nut locks were removed and new
ones  ordered.   However, the next morning on the way to work, the tire went
flat  again.   This  time,  I was able to install the spare.  A day later, I
again  dropped off the tire at Wellesley Mazda for repair, but was told that
the  tire had sidewall damage " resulting from hitting a curb" and could not
be repaired.  

It was  my  opinion  that  the cause of this damage was my driving on a tire
that  was  not  fully  inflated,  and went flat several times before I could
remove  the  tire.   However,  the  folks at Wellesley Mazda said that their
assessment  was  that  I  had  hit  a  curb  and  damaged  the  tire.  I was
unsatisfied  with this, and therefore asked the dealer to escalate the claim
to their regional representative.  

Wellesley Mazda  called the regional representative, Dana Refuse, who denied
my claim.  When I spoke to him, he said that Mazda does not cover tires, and
that  I  should  speak  to the tire manufacturer.  I tried to explain that I
felt  that  the  damage  to  the  tire  was  not  caused by any fault of the
manufacturer, but by a fault in the Mazda automobile, thus Yokohama will not
cover  the replacement.  I asked Dana where I could escalate my case, and he
referred me to the 800 service number in Irvine.

When I  spoke  with Karen Burgess at the 800 number, she said that she would
make some calls and get back to me.  Imagine my surprise when I was informed
that  the  calls  she  had made were to Dana Refuse! (talk about getting the
run-around)  Dana's  position however had changed slightly and he told Karen
that  it was MY FAULT that the wheel lock had failed since I had put them on
when  changing  snow  tires  in  April  and  could have cross threaded them.
(Karen says that he claims to have heard this from my dealer, who absolutely
denies   this.   I  have  the  removed  locks  which  show  no  evidence  of
cross-threading damage) When I complained that Dana had sent me to Irvine to
escalate  my  case,  Karen  informed me that there "is no appeal process for
these decisions."

This past Friday, I picked up my tire from the dealer and took it to a local
tire  store who sells Yokohama tires.  Their assessment of the damage to the
tire  is very different from Mazda's, probably because they took the time to
take  the  tire off the rim and examine it.  It appears that the nail was in
such  a  position  that when the tire got low, it rubbed on the back side of
the bead, wearing it away.  The more I drove, the more the tire was damaged.
In  fact,  the  tire  dealer said that if Wellesley Mazda had done their job
right,  they  would have never patched the tire and would have recommended a
replacement  immediately.   (even though the dealer told me that they had in
fact  dismounted  the  tire,  my tire dealer says that the damage would have
been impossible to miss) 

So, now  I  am here with you pleading my case.  I really enjoy my Mazda, and
have  had  trouble-free use of the car since purchase almost 3 years ago.  I
am terribly disappointed by how Mazda handled this by:

 o not  removing the tire to check for internal damage after being told 
   that I had driven on it

 o blaming the tire damage on me hitting a curb when the evidence clearly 
   shows that isn't the case

 o trying to shift the burden to the tire manufacturer when the broken 
   wheel lock was clearly at fault

 o claiming that the broken wheel lock was my fault


What I  see here is a clear pattern by Mazda to avoid paying for things that
should  be covered under the terms of their "bumper to bumper" warranty.  By
the way, I find it hard to believe that none of your representatives know of
any  problems  with these wheel locks since there have been several articles
on the in the Miata club magazine about broken locks

Karen did  inform  me that Mazda would have paid for a tow for my car to the
dealer,  which  would  likely  have  been considerably more than the cost to
replace  a single tire at Mazda's cost.  However, that was not an option for
me  in  this  situation.   I still believe that Mazda is responsible for the
replacement  of  the  damaged  tire.   The damage was a direct result of not
being able to remove the tire from the car because of the broken wheel lock,
an item covered under the bumper to bumper warranty.

As of  this date, I have "borrowed" two Dunlop Miata tires from a friend who
just  had  her tires replaced.  My cost to have these two tires installed so
far  have  been  $20/tire.   (the  tire dealer recommended that I didn't use
different tires on a single axle, thus the use of two tires) I still believe
that  Mazda owes me a replacement Yokohama tire, remounting of my other tire
and  reimbursement  for  the  costs  incurred  to  date.  (including the $10
initially paid to Wellesley Mazda to repair the defective tire)  

In closing,  a  short  anecdote about automobile service.  I've had an issue
with  service  on  both of my vehicles in the last month.  One domestic, one
Japanese.   I  find it ironic that the domestic manufacturer has followed up
and  made every effort to see that my problems are being resolved, while the
Japanese  manufacturer has given me the run-around, changed their story, and
tried to blame me for the problems.  This is, of course, exactly opposite of
the  common  perception  in the marketplace today.  With my warranty running
out,  I find it hard to justify continued business with a Mazda dealer based
on this incident.  



	Bill Jackson