Rich, All and with respect to IanH’ statement/request.
I agree with the statement about corrosion warranties to a point full of get
outs and caveats, it is after all a perforation only on body panels warranty
and then only if annually inspected by an appointed dealership, with stone chips requiring
instant attention etc etc, yes, comparable with other manufacturers warranties
on bodywork, aka, useless to you and me.
Although a clean sheet design, the actual construction of the shell is very
similar to the Mk2/2.5s with the exception of some so called “high strength”
steels. This is a minefield in itself as many misunderstand just what this
means. Mazda promote this material as a high tensile steel, fantastic when the
steel is in a tensile state but what about under compression? High strength in
tensile can often mean the complete opposite in compression, perhaps this is
useful in crumple zones to acquire the required shock absorption under impact to meet crash test standards.
Also bear in mind Mazda are using so called high strength steels in order to
make weight savings to improve emissions. These are in the main not overly exotic steels but a fiddle about with a few basic additives and the appropriate heat treatment will result in thinner steels with the same strength ergo, thinner sections can be used to make weight losses. Let’s not kid ourselves that this is
because they want our cars to be lighter for any kind of consumer matters, this
is purely emission driven because of fuel costs (governments lead this issue)
and vehicle tax, again a government led issue, squeeze the motorist dry and then
some more.
I also agree that it is perhaps not fair for an amateur to make assumptions
on looks alone. Thankfully as a qualified engineer, starting as an apprentice,
working on the tools for a good number of years, returning to college to get
some further engineering qualifications and moving on to project management and
subsequently a whole host of other engineering disciplines in a multi
disciplined engineering environment for some 35 years. So, fair to say that I
have a little experience in understanding some basics of design and materials.
In fairness the other issues raised by SF although not directly related are
showing that there are some growing concerns about the quality of the MX5 in
its current state, as you will see by my previous posts my very well cared for
2010 RC has a number of niggles, some have been warranty addressed, some others
such as the stupidly soft paint used by Mazda are being looked at directly by
MMUK. My front bumper is already in need of a respray due to the amount of
chipping on the paint, totally unacceptable on a car of its age and mileage, in
fact as a very keen and hopefully competent detailer it is fair to say that the
paint is generally in a poor condition due to scratching and chipping and I am
certainly not a tailgate hugger nor do I do vast mileages on motorways, a
couple of 1000 mile round trips via the M6 in the year other than that mostly
good A roads and of course some of the stunning B roads I have access to in my
locality. I am simply saying that the Mk3 and 3.5 are not perfect and if they
have these well documented niggles who is to say that tin worm might not be on
the horizon by the time they are drawing their pension at 10 yrs old? I s a car year equivalent to 6.6 human years?
As for having a go at Mazda, well, actually yes, I think someone needs to be
pushing them hard on a number of issues, least of all, not so old, 10 year old
cars becoming death traps and that is the reality of this situation, some of
these cars will crumble in a minor shunt. There is no manufacturer on today’s
market that should have been producing cars that rot to this extent in the last
20 years let alone a mere 10. Lancia taught the motor industry many a lesson
and that is why there are now so many cars of 20 years plus still sailing
through MOTs on a regular basis
Damn sure I’d be annoyed at Mazda for selling me a car that turns to dust and
a potential killer after 10 years! As far as actual £££££s on paper value, well
that’s a very subjective thing isn’t it. We just traded in a 5 year old Focus
in order to downsize my wife’s car, the best trade in we could muster,
£3600, this was an immaculate car, FSH and
35k miles, had we not been in the market for downsizing to make long term
savings then what was the worth of this car to us? Who can tell, it is as I say
subjective and as such I think it is
very unfair to attempt to put a value on a cherished motor car. The head would
perhaps say, get rid, get another one but you cannot equate that to what you
might be buying, SF knows the history of their sport and it is extremely sound
mechanically, who is to say that if you get rid of one to buy another you may
end up being lumbered with mechanical woes that could cause just as much
financial grief. How many Mk1s have had thousands thrown at them over the years
to keep them running? More power to those that have the commitment and the will
to keep the earlier models of this car up and running.
Nothing wrong with a dry garage either, ventilation is the key or if you
want to really go for it then get a dehumidifier.
I cannot really agree with the “unfairness” of dragging of the Mk3 /3.5 into
this, I think it is entirely fair that awareness is raised and Mk3/3.5 owners
can perhaps take time to inspect and if required take the very same precautions
you have taken. As far as Mazda’s reputation is concerned, yes it should be
taken to task over this matter, we as Mk3/3.5 owners are not immune to any of
the matters raised unless you have conclusive hard evidence that Mazda are
aware of the issues on some Mk2/2.5s and have fully addressed them in the new
model, I certainly can’t find anything to demonstrate that they have and yes,
this does concern me as both an owner and an engineer. I too was there and saw
the Lancia Betas crumble and when you do a little bit of digging I think AT’s
remarks are a relatively fair comparison when you see what has happened with a
disproportionate number of Mk2/2.5s.
As you say Rich, this has been a good thread with very important issues raised,
not just for the models currently affected but as a heads up for mk3/3.5 owners.
As for an insurance approved body shop, sorry Rich, that is simply a lowest
bid affair and these shops take advice from OEM the same as many other non-approved
shops. I have had personal experience of seeing my insurance company getting taken
to the cleaners by such an outfit when a £500 repair was all that was needed
and yes, they were taken to task over it and found to have replaced completely unnecessarily
a number of very expensive components so would not trust them as far as I could
spit.
Sorry if this appear a long ramble but I do bellieve in the light of the issues on Daddy, we Mk3 and Mk3.5 owners have every reason to be vigilant.
Cheers,
S
first pics are engine rails rust. They are on picassa, dont kill me for that… 
