Fair play to you steveti for mailing the AA. In response to your quenstions. As soon as I saw the first nick with the rusty water I phoned mazda UK rather than going to the dealer to report it. To be fair I live 3 hours away from the dealer I got it from so used the local delaer thereafter whom I had purchased a new mazda 3 from 6 month earlier and they wre very helpful.
All Mazda Uk were interested in doing was getting the rust treated and sprayed. They would not acknoweldge any major faults. I got very shirty at one point after a women from the telephone cetnre was telling me that she was looking at the photos and it was superficial corrosion. I asked her if she was qualified to tell me this and she infered it wasn’t that hard to tell by looking a the photos and this is what their specialists had said. Even worse on the same call was when their was the old plumbers intake of breath, and that is no lie, and tehn the line, well that doesn’t normally happen, its a bit unlucky isn’t it!!! Like red rag to a bull. I complained aboutt her! If its not normal do you not think you should be finding out what the problem is?
I must say in all this that Arnold Clark in Liverpool were brillant from the get go. I kept them informed from day one and although it took time to get things passed through their chain of command there was in the end litte hassle with the buy back. Saying that it was my legal right however I can’t help think it could of been made a lot harder. They even took a car from what they thought as the same batch off their showroom floor to get it independently inspected - fair play. I actually wrote a letter on behalf of the garage to MAzda to support their compensation claim against Mazda as obvoiusloy they would now be out of pocket.
The law states that any buyer with a problme has to return the vehicle, if that is what is needed, to the seller, NOT the manufacturer. This is the key here. Do not waste time on Mazda if there is a problme. If you have major probs on a car you have had for less than 6 months it is deemed that the problem was there when you got it. I helpfully have a good mate who runs a dept in trading standadrs so he helped me on some phraseology etc! The way I see it, Mazda have a problem but aprt form a ‘sticky plaster’ until the warrenty is up, there is apparrently no legal comeback against them. All that happendssis that the dealers sell you a new car and then get all the rubbish and loose money when they have to buy it back. What about that is encourageing Mazda to fix it ways if it is somewhat untouchable???
I am now in my 6th week without a car until my replacement is built and delivered but you know what, I am happy in the long run that I don’t ahve a rusty car to contentd with. If anyone needs t=me to post the appropriate part of the trading goods act for them just let me know.
Certainly something extremely odd with this, sure, we all know that of late Maz have not been without their QC issues but I had never yet come across another car as young as this with so many body panel issues, this is not normal nor indicative of MX5s of this age, I think that really needs to be made clear.
The corrosion I showed on my brake calliper carrier was also highly unusual on a car of just over a year old but I put this down to in part the car being purchased as a low miler ex demo car that may well have been lying around for extended periods of time in the garage yard allowing this water to accumulate and sit on these parts, conversely the front calliper assemblies were clean as a whistle.
Yeah, as you rightly say the SoG act will tell you that your contract remains with the seller and not the manufacturer, this applies for any purchase you make, however, as I understand matters when it comes to cars you do not necasarilly have to deal directly with the garage you bought the car from, any warranty issues will and can be dealt with by any of the manufacturers franchised dealerships, they all have direct contact with MMUK and the ability to make warranty based decisions. However, when things start to go TU you have every right to start consulting with any consumer advice agency you see fit to seek guidance or even to act as an arbitrator, use as many parralel paths as you see fit to get a result in your favour.
Although not qualified in full to comment, I’m pretty sure at this early junctire, you would have had the right to refuse the car and return it. You bought it in November and spotted all this going on in March, 5 months tops after purchase and with only 3kmiles on the clock. The panell issues were neither normal, nor can I say, representative of a four month old MX5, there was a serious flaw in this particular vehicle this was even admitted directly by the woman you spoke to, I assume that at this stage you were noting dates times and names of those you spoke to?
I’m a bit surprised that you went straight to the buy back option, did you not consider just a simple rejection of the vehicle and a substitutio of a replacement vehicle? I’m sure if you had approached the various MX5 forums during all this hassle you would have got truthful assurances regarding issues that crop up time to time with the MX5, they aren’t perfect but your vehicle is no way representative of the cars and as you allude to, you liked the car to drive, your son and you seemed to derive great pleasure from the unique joy of a roadster. What was the outcome of the independent inspection carried out on a car from the same batch and who carried out the inspection. I’m not prying Chris but you have chosen to share this tale of woe and has been said there are many of us with a vested interest in this issue and as such to more info you are willing to share the better for all. Should we find ourselves with similar issues at some point down the line we can use your case as precedent.
I understand what you are saying Chris but to a degree this backs up what I have aid about your case being such a rarity, doesn’t make it right mind you but, if this issue was so widespread then the dealers themselves have the clout to question exactly what potential ■■■■ they are being tasked with selling. Let’s assume the ridiculous and say 40% of MX5s have the issues you have had, 10% of that 40% are owners who don’t pick up on these matters, that still means that out of every 100 MX5s sold, 36 would be getting returned with issues of the nature you have encountered (if I have my basic arithmetic wrong, please excuse me), now, if you were a retailer of any product, would you consider a 36% return rate of your chosen goods to be acceptable? Of course you wouldn’t and you would be kicking up an almighty stink with your supplier or simply moving to an alternative supplier because of the hassle factor, the costs incurred and the reputation you as the supplier would get and in turn lost business.
As I say Chris, I am not making any excuses for the issues you have encountered with your MX5 and it doesn’t make it anymore palatable for you but it must be taken as an isolated incident over the hundreds of these cars sold in the UK every year. The MX5 brand is not without its quality issues, many of us are up front about this, some prefer to play ostrich, personally I am an enthusiast with a 60/40 petrol/blood mix in my veins and whilst it isn’t right, I do spend a bit of time improving the car from that which Mazda supplied me with, that’s my thing.
Ultimately though whilst I feel that there is a little bit of scaremongering going on here, I will certainly be keeping myself alerted to paint issues in the areas you have pointed out despite never having seen these on my pervious Mk3 variants of the car.
I know you will get great pleasure from your new car the only thing for me is that the sheer pleasure of roof down rear wheel drive motoring will not be there for you and that is a great loss to any petrol head.
no top down fun for me and that was a big decisiosn I can tell you. I loked into rejection but that was not a legal option at that stage. The only reason I did not get another MX-5 was not due to the rust to be fair but due to the attitude of Mazda, nothing more nothing less. I think thoses with metalic and perlescent pain should be aware as these have less coats of paint (sig) than solid and also the perlescent has a weird laquer on it that can be a bit rubbish. This info is from someone very in the know. Thoses are the cars I would look out for.
I think with mine either a machine went wrong in the factory during the primer stage, best case, or theey have used metal from the tsunami and cannot now take responsibilkity. Most of the rust was under the laquer and had not broken through so it was a clear internal corrosion issue and not surface - food for thought perhaps
This was not meant to be a dig at the MX-5 or MAzda, more just a hey guys, this has happeneed to me, be aware and hopefully its isolated.
After your previous quote I got the impression people were writing this off as a one off, bit like MAzda UK and to be honest its annoyed me as my first post and trying to help people not moan. When you saw it in person it really made your think believe me. To settle this I was aware of another identical perlesecewnt white Kuro in my town and had an idea where the person worked. So today I went to visit them. She was a littel surprised but very open when I told her of my plight. We went to look at her car (62 plate as well). She had not been outwardly looking HOWEVER, there was rust on the weld marks under the boot, outside of the boot lid, right front wing (a collection of 3 in an ich area), at least two on the bonnet, a 5mm long one on the horiztal pillar above the winscreeen - and all that took about 60 seconds and a brief glance. Needless to say she is contacting Mazda as we speak.
My last 4 cars have all been Mazda’s two of which were MX-5’s so I was a mazda man through and through but this has worried me. I’m not saying its across the board as my wifes 12 month olf mazda 3 appears fine. If you have a Kuro however, or even perhaps a 62 plate, please just look closely. I can’t believe that of the 500 UK cars that were released in this limited edition that I just happened to have come across teh only two that have body wide panel rust!!!
Get another MX-5 by all means but don’t be left with a car that in 12 months will have rust repairs all over the digital servie record which is going to make the residual plummet. Would you buy a car less than 2-3 years old with serious rust?
I’m also interested in how rejection of the car was not a legal option. This link lays out quite clearly how and when it is legal and appropriate to reject your vehicle.
Looking at the faults you had on your vehicle, even if MMUK did not accept them as faults the SoG act would clearly have supported that the fit and finish were not of acceptable quality, in the evant that MMUK were not accepting this and refused to repair the flaws then rejection was a clear and legal option for you. It also sounds like your local dealer was quite supportive towards you so they should have accepted your legal right. Whilst MMUK had been their usual beligerant selves to this point a rejection would most likely have brought them to their senses particularly if in the letter you would have written along with your rejection you had quoted the SoG act and that goods must be of an satisfactory fit and finish, clearly by any standard the faults you had on your Kuro were not acceptable by these standards and as such there would have been a high likelyhood that the rejection would have been accepted just to make their problem go away.
Incidentally, what dealership was it that took the car back and what was the chassis number or reg number of the car? This would all be worthwhile knowing so that some unsuspecting punter does not buy your problems on a re-sale.
On this point, if there is a systemic problem rather than some painful isolated instances for as yet unknown reasons please post details (with pictures) on this thread to collect them in one place. This way as with the Chassis Rails problem we can understand the extent (from those who frequent this forum) of any issue.
It may have been an option to reject the car, infact thatt my my intial throught, but my contacts within trading standards indicated is wasn’t and that I would be much better using the saese of goods, which worked well. At the time Mazda were not even interested in testing the car so if I’m honest, rather than a drawn out battle when I was already meag stresses and just wanted rid of the car, I went for my money back through sales of goods which worked well for me.
Not sure of chassis as all paperwork returned with car I think but it was part of Arnold Clark. they were sending it to auction anyway I think. As all histories are now digitally linked to a car via Mazda there is no way you could buy it from a main dealer without being told un less it was unlawfully withheld. The dealer was very upfront about this. They were prepared to take the hit with the auction and are currently trying to bill Mazda for the difference, which frankly I think they should get as not their fault. You but at auction at your own risk whatever the past.
I am thankfully on the other side of this now but if I can help any other jsut let me know. Will also pass on your thread to the other lady I helped yesturday so thanks for that.
Will keep an eye on the thread and hopefully some good will come of it now.
An 8 year old Seat Ibiza with a largely galvanised body and kept outside very close to the coast almost all its life - not a single sign of corrosion except light dusting on some exposed rear suspension parts and rear brake calipers.
It is still as solid as a rock and being the 130bhp Fr Tdi goes like a bomb.
My MX5 I found out after buying it had FAILED an MOT at six years old due to sill rust.
That ladies and gentlemen from a modern manufacturer in this day and age is an absolute disgrace.
Much as I like the car I’m not going to buy another, or another Mazda, and wait the short time for it to disintegrate.
I agree and that is why I have bought my fourth MX5 with my eyes wide open, caveat emptor if you will. I know where the potential rust hot soots are and will monitor accordingly having also treated them with Dinotrol.
I still feel that the OPs vehicle was far from being representative of four moth old MX5s though. The OP was fairly asked to provide this car’s VIN or reg number but couldn’t do so. If you had just got rid of a car in such poor shape and come onto an MX 5 forum only after the fact, would you not want to help other enthusiasts avoid buying this lemon?
I kno that doesn’t help you with a six year old carthat has failed on sill corrosion but I still can’t get my head around much of the original tale.
Plenty of MK1 and 2 about with MOT fail levels of corrosion and hidden corrosion rather than obvious as in the case of the OPs old car. Are you suggesting we build up a database of VIN and Reg numbers?
Not particularly with the exception of mk2/2.5s that have the chassis rail rot having the issue logged with with VOSA, as a number alreasy have, if enough people do that Maz could be forced into a recall situation.
In this case we have a four month old car that has been reported as being Iin a bad way, for its age, with premature corrosion. I simply feel the OP could be doing the rest of the community a big favour by providing more details. Would you want to buy this car if you were in the market for one and a fellow member of the community could have provided detail that would have prevented you from doing so? It isn’t as if the OP would be in a position where they would be financially compromised.
Damn sure I would post in all the forums I frequent telling as many fellow MX5 owners to avoid at all costs. Suppose it’s just my way to help when I can though.
FAO mr Steveti I have loked for the vin and have yet to locate it on any paperwork, most of which like I have previosuly said was returned to the dealer with the vehicle. I have been on A/L which is why I have been absent from the forum, not because I am not doing anything.
I came on here to try and help but getting all this abuse from steveti has really peed me off so to be honest I can’t be bothered anymore. If anyone actually wants to be curteous and know any more then contact me indvididually. I went out of my way to find to other local owner of an identicle car, which had suffered a similer fate, and have helped her. I am just not going to waste my time to be given all of this rubbish by a single spoiler.
Nobody is having a pop at you. This is a tight community in which cars are bought & sold “internally” if you will in good faith because they have OC Forum provenance.
Purely on a superficial basis, and please do not take offence at this, it will seem odd to some that you cannot provide the most basic identification to a vehicle in which you no longer have any interest, nor can it impact you in any manner again.
On the other hand this vehicle, from your own descriptions & justifiable angst, is going give somebody else major grief…potentially an OC Forum member for all we know.
As you pointed out, there allegedly is another similar example causing issues.
Sorry you have taken things this way, but even the registration number of your car would have been helpful for some “innocent” shortly. Do you have that at least?
To give you an idea of the open honesty here, I was happy to have the registration of my rotting Mx5 in full view during it’s rebuild…and I am still the owner!
It’s just the way it works.
As it happens, I’ve nothing to worry about now as I’ve likely got one of the most rot-free examples in the UK now with a full photo-rebuild album.
The person who does have something to worry about is the one who buys your former car. They are about to, if they have not done so already, part with a not inconsiderable amount of wages for a potential trouble making lemon and that has to be a shame.
“Simples” really. No offence was ever meant I’m sure.
