MK2.5 owners, check your front chassis rails

General Discussion Forums MX-5 Chat
41

I’m going to throw my threepence worth into the ring here. Having followed Scottishfivers trials and tribulations and been shocked, gutted, angry and a few other emotions beside as a Mk3.5 owner, now planning to keep this one for the long term with a view to s/charging etc, I had a good look at the so called 12 year corrosion perforation warranty. Probably worth getting it out and having a good old read at it, basically it reads, the warranty covers perforation of any BODY PANEL. No mention whatsoever of warranty on chassis. This has prompted me to start considering the way forward with carrying out a full cavity wax injection process over the coming months. Like I say, all Mk3 & 3.5 owners, check what this basically worthless warranty states. Even if you have a stonechip on a panel that subsequently rusts through and you attempt to make a warranty claim, on paper anyway, close but no cigar, so be prepared for lengthy discussions with Mazda and possibly expensive legal fees if you were to press the point.

I for one was sadly dissilusioned when I actually read the full corrosion warranty for my 22 month old '5.

42

 This is not just local to the Face lift 2.5 version but the full range of the Mk 2’s with them being made from a thinner grade of metal which is called, cheese grade including the nuts and bolts.

This is a very common thing to find now with owners mx/roadsters, i am waiting to see just how the Mk 3 versions fairs over time.

M-m

43

 Steve, you’re right of course and many owners don’t keep up the inspections so lose the g’tee anyway. That always was the case though and g’tees and cars have generally got better. Our 1984 Astra had 3 years and holed its wings in 2 years. Vauxhall fixed it. Mk2 Mx5 was 6 years g’tee, Mk3 is 12 years. The point being, they will have improved some areas as these g’tees have always had similar conditions attached so the periods can be compared.

Wayne, I don’t know about thinner metal but I wondered if the double skin construction was to do with improving the crumple zone qualities? Sure they test new cars not 10 year old ones and I don’t doubt they missed something about salt.

44

 

 

Wait untill you have worked on as many as myself and the other full time menders and fixers across the country, they will i am sure tell you the same story, everything is made from a lower grade.

M-m

45

 

 

Hi Wayne, I’m not querying that at all.

I was wondering why they made the chassis rails from sandwich rather than solid sheet steel, as Scottishfiver says the replacement part is solid,

<< Here is an interesting point. The replacements are not sandwiched in exactly the same OEM design but solid,so go figureWink. >>

 

Hence I was wondering which came first, if both types were used, sandwich or solid, and if different types were on Mk1 and Mk2 (and, if the Mk2 rails are sandwich construction, it was possibly to change the crumple zone qualities for the newer car?).

If so it might give a pointer as to whether Mk1 (if they have solid sheet metal rails) may not be as rust prone as Mk2 (if they all have sandwich sheet rails) etc.

46

Oh!.. Thats a bit… expensive for me.Cry but i reckon it has to be done… :frowning: bloody mazda dealers! pardon my french :slight_smile: i basically have 2 5vers. call me greedyStick Tongue Out mk2.5 rhd black 2003 & mk2 lhd 2000. im in process of restoring mk2 to try to export it home and as i stripped it down a bit, i found out something wrong with them. thought i could easyly fix it but… as there is always some “but”… they are seem to be well rusted and first layer is split opened at bottom now showing that non metal layer of whatever it is… Just wondering… is something supposed to be present between chassis outer sheet and inner stiffening plate??? maybe it was already treated/messed about in there? my mk2.5 is showing some surface rust already but cant afford to abandon one project to start another one. one step at a time… :slight_smile:

another stupid question, sorry… how to attach pictures into post here? im doing it on my phone :-/

47

RichM.

This thread is specifically about premature, hidden, and till of late
previously underestimated structural chassis degradation rendering many
cars unfit to drive.

In our case plus that of others, dangerously
unroadworthy. It will do no good to the specific nature of this thread
to wave the 12 year warranty flag. Carrying out timely investigations,
followed by preventative measures to curtail structural and potentially
terminal rot is for many going to be no more than a precaution if
they can be bothered.

Let’s not befuddle the core issues contained in this thread with references to the showroom paper tiger bling of the “12 year G’tee”. It has nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread. If you know the way marketing minds work, as I do, you would know Mazda, together with other car makers, really don’t give a toss about the product once it’s past it’s mechanical warranty. They will have stats on their side. These stats tell them that after the first flush of youth, say a couple of years after the 1st MOT, subsequent owners will go elsewhere for servicing, and consequently won’t get the body inspection done. Bingo. Pontius Pilate reigns supreme in the land “warranties”

The numbers work for them, not you & I. They print size 2 font caveats & get outs. Caveat Emptor to those who neither read them properly, fail to understand them, or find themselves up the creek when they cite an issue.  Once and for all, the 12 year warrant is just as useless as the 6 year one. It has nowt to do with a marked increase in production quality, it has all to do with waving enticements to boost sales.They focus on panel perforation of panels/coachwork and in general non-structural bits. Not collapsing chassis waiting to invite the engine into your cockpit.

Can we just keep the thread on track please? I’d be obliged.

Thank you.

 

48

withdrawn

49

and yet we do love our motors - (well some of us) - and we cherish these all-consuming little cars
Yes tis only metal blah blah blah but for some reason they do get in to one’s very soul

Anyway, ScottishFiver is doing a good many people a service and it would be a shame to derail the main theme of the thread and have the content lost in matters that belong elsewhere Geek

Mk3 owner who saw no malice toward NCs by the OP

50

Is 10 years old an really old car in terms of the modern motor car? Not in my book and they certainly should not be rotted to the extent that some Mk2/2.5s are. That is simply unacceptable in a relatively new car. An analogy, my daugter is now driving her boyfriends cast of 12 year old Honda Civic, does it have rot to the extent of a car two years younger? Clearly not or she would not be driving ot end of. I have had several “old” cars of seventies, eighties nineties and noughties and not one of them had any more than surface rust on exposed surfaces.

It seems to me that as well as simply not applying suitable protection for the word market that Mazda aim the MX5 at, it looks like a major lapse in quality checks, the thing that Japan claims (incorrectly) to have invented, TQM et al, were they importing perhaps from China over that period? I have seen sight of forged quality documants for high pressure boiler parts for a large coal fored power station, so one has to perhaps consider this as a possibility.

Enough conjecture though, Mazda have failed their customers badly in putting cars that turn into death traps in a relatively short time and should certainly be held accountable for this failing. As a Mk3.5 owner I am certainly not going to be complacent as previous postings on this thread show, the Mk3/3.5 shell does not differ substantially in its actual structural make up, this certainly makes me nervous about keeping  my car until it is 10 years old and drawing its pension, as previosly said, the perforation warranty is not worth the paper its written on and is specifically aimed at body panels not any structural part. I will riding on the tails of Mazda’s considerably diminished credibility when it comes to corrosion, Waxoyl, Dinatrol etc will be purchased as will the required equipment to have all my cavities injected.

51

Hello, Just a thought, is this more of a problem for people living in places where there tends to be more snow (and then more salt used on the roads?). Or more coastal areas with salty water in the air?

My car has only just starting showing a tiny bit of rust on the rear sill at 9 years old. I live in the South East, 30 miles from the sea and from what I can see my Front chassis rails seem to be ok. I also use my car everyday and it is stored on the drive where the chassis can dryout each evening. Were these cars ever stored in a Garage? Great work though guys to highlight this to us. Rob

52

A bit of rather similar rust on one particular sporting model pretty much killed off the Lancia brand in the UK. Even now, new Lancias are rebadged as Chryslers for the UK market. Mazda take note; you don’t want to be saddled with this reputation, especially as the next MX5 will share production with a new Alfa Romeo.

53

It’s only 3 years older than your own.Wink

 

54

Good question. So many variables, so many possibilities…so many production runs? However, if your car is showing rust too, the accepted view is it will be fairly corroded inside by the time it erupts visually. Time to get in there I’d say.

Our Sport is used sparingly, and was never subjected to a long journey on salted motorways, but yes it’s garaged but always allowed to drain first as I cannot abide a flooded garage floor.

Bare in mind these cars also had a “no quibble” boot replacement…as they rotted out too. Ours wont. I took it off, inverted it, and flooded it with Dinitrol.

 

55

There goes Thought for the Day!Thumbs up

 

56

withdrawn

57

Hi Golders, 

in theory the answer to this should be a suscinct no. Mazda know their market and advertise in all corners of the world ergo the car should be fit for purpose in all corners of the globe come hail or shine.

Just my take on things.

 

58

Firstly I will say this, Rich-M helped me out with a good recomendation for gearbox oil for my sticky 6 speed gearbox and for that I say thank you once again. However, what on earth is going on here or is this just another bullpit of a forum rather than a helpful friendly place where like minded people can assist others and share views, the very forums I have abandoned in the past?

ScottishFiver has pointed out an issue that is currently being unearthed on not just a couple or three Mk2/2.5s, by all acounts the issue is rife and not just in the UK. The thread was started by a well respected individual, themx5restorer.co.uk, Mazda-mender has confirmed this issue not by hear say but by experience. Scottishfiver has shared quite graphically the experience he has had with his Mk2.5 sport, not to in an attempt to gain any kind of kudos, nor to try and put anyone down but to serve as a warning to other M2/2.5 owners that they could be driving around unknowingly in cars with rot to this extent. 10 years old is not “an old car” I gave the example of my daughter running around in a rot free 12 year old Civic to counter this statement as well as my own experiences with various cars from the eighties onwards.

I fail to understand why us Mk3/3.5 owners can sit back and stick our heads in the sand, prevention at this stage will be better than cure in as little as potentially 3 years time. The images posted of the Mk3/3.5 shell bear witness to the actual similarities in the “chassis” construction. IMHO, those front legs look no different from those on the Mk2/2.5s so what pray tell is going to prevent them form potentially going down the same route? As for the corrosion warranty, RTFM, it is quite explicit in what is not covered simply by omission. It would take a very clever individual/lawyer to actually make a claim on that particular aspect of the car’s warranty for chassis corrosion.

The MX5 is a superb little sportscar, no arguments on that I assume, this being an MX5 forum and all but that does not make even its latest incarnataion free from faults. Soft paint that scratches and marrs with a hard stare, the sometimes sticky six speed gearbox, the seatbelts that are reluctant to retract, I for one just had to have the chrome surround on my Mk3.5(15.5 k miles and 22 months old) replaced as it was bubbling up. Oh, I know it would be all to easy to suggest that if I for one am finding all these little niggles in the car, then why don’t I sod off and get a BMW or some other over priced roadster.

What we all to often forget is that the MX5 itself is not a cheap car for what it is, top of the range Sport Tech RC retails at £23k and is still in modern terms a pretty basic car. Love them or hate them my wife’s Ford Fiesta Titanium, think old Ghia spec +++ retails at arounf £14.4k miles, not quite apples for apples here but this car has all the toys and then some for some £8.5 k less than the MX5 example I have given. For either £23k or indeed £14.5k I would expect an investment that is not going to corrode out from under me and have me driving a death trap within another eight years, if you spent £23k on a small extension to your home, would it be acceptable for it to fall off the side of your house in 10 years? I think not.

Has anyone got evidence that Mazda have upped their game on the Mk3 or 3.5 in light of the revalations of what is happening with Mk2/2.5s. I for one would be extremely interested to see such evidence, hard factual evidence of course and not just hear say.

In the meantime, I genuinely hope all mk2/2.5 owners will make an effort to check out the areas that some people have taken time out to post details of on this forum and a few others. You mightnot like what you see, you might be perfectly ok, but is not looking worth the chance of having the car crumble in a minor shunt and perhaps causing serious injuy or worse to those on board??

59

I agree Steveti, I plan to get a MK3 in the future so this needs to be investigated for all MX5’s. Mazda might be about to have their reputation hit here if they are not careful.

60

withdrawn