Mazda MPV

javadoc

Dove tastes better than an Olay bar. lol!

--java

dmchyla

I did the 1st oil change on our MPV yesterday, I mentioned before that I'd post about this.

You'll need the obvious oil change utensils, 5.5 quarts of 5W-30 oil of your choice, and a filter. I used a Motorcraft FL-820S ($2.69 from AutoZone), it turns out that's what was on there from the factory.

The oil drain plug is a 15mm bolt, you'll need a combination wrench because of tight clearance with the exhaust pipe coming from the rear manifold. There is a shield in place to prevent oil from splashing on the exhaust pipe. Also, access to the filter is made much easier by dropping the plastic tray that's in front of the van (sort of below the radiator), there are 3 - 10mm bolts to take out. Also, if changing it for the first time, make sure you have a good oil filter wrench, that sucker is on there TIGHT from the factory.

Follow the usual oil change procedure. I'm glad I changed at 1000 miles - the oil from the factory wasn't really too dirty, but smelled pretty bad and had kind of a honey-like consistency, I'm assuming from the lube and various stuff they use during assembly.

Also, for refilling the oil, it helps to have a funnel with a long neck on it. The engine is placed far enough forward that it makes it inconvenient to get to the dipstick and oil filler.

Also, I'll have to look again underneath, but now I'm not too sure about mounting aftermarket fog lamps. I was going to use the Hella Micro FF lights, as they would fit pretty well in the factory openings, and have the same clear lens look as the headlights. However, there really isn't a great place to mount them. I could remove the factory cutouts and use the horizontal portion of the bumper just above and in front of the opening as a mounting point, but my concern would be that thay would be too far forward. There's nowhere behind the opening to mount lamps. I'll have to look again, maybe order the lamps and check it out.

auerbach

Perhaps a silly question - But did you have to put your MPV up on ramps?
I used to be able to reach under my 95 Legacy and change the oil and filter with no problem. No need for ramps or jacks.
Thanks!!

dmchyla

Yep, the van was on ramps. I'm pretty skinny, but there's no way I could have squeezed under there! :-) Plus, it's a long reach to the oil drain from the front of the van.

jbeck2

I've had my 2000 MPV since Sept. 99. It has never gotten better tha 15 mpg in town. The dealer has looked at it three time and says nothing is wrong.
Some folks out there claim they get 18-20 in town.
It's a great van but the gas mileage sucks!

javadoc

Thanks for the great description of the oil change. I might have a suggestion for the fogs. I too am looking at the Hella Micro FF lamps to put in, or a similar fog (like the FF50). I've been trying to figure out how to mount them so they don't shake, and I *think* this might work...

You could go to Lowes or Home Depot and buy a 1" stick of aluminum. They're about 2-3ft long, and cost a couple bucks. Then, you can bend it to fit so that you can bolt it to a couple of metal points behind the bumper. After that, you can mount the fogs securely on this aluminum piece.

I'm just brainstorming. I did this with my previous MPV, and it worked great. Took me about 45 minutes to make the mounts (35 for the first one...). Of course, I havent' looked under the bumper to see what I might bolt to, but there's hopefully enough substance to work with down there. Maybe I'll check this weekend.

--java

dmchyla

Thanks for the idea, java, I'll have to take a look. I think it's essentialy empty in there all the way back to the fender, though. However, there may be a way to extend a mount to the side. I'll take a look this weekend.

kranjec1

I've posted before on this subject. I called Mazda customer service and they called my dealer and told them to perform a fuel consumption analysis on my van (scheduled for 10/5). I cannot get 15 mpg in town and Mazda USA rep appears to agree that this is not acceptable mpg. I'll keep you posted.

jammer4

I'm sorry if this information is redundant, as I did not spend much time going through previous posts, but it is my understanding that the same basic V-6 engine currently found in the Tribute will be put into the MPV around mid-year 2001. This was confirmed by my local Mazda dealer (whom I trust) and also by word of mouth from the local Mazda rep. I trust this information.

I know this may not make your decision any easier, but I wanted to make sure you at least knew about the impending change.

jktax

wife and I are expecting our 3rd child May 01 and will need a minivan by then. I personally like the MPV over the Odyssey but would love to buy it with the bigger engine. Does any one know specifics about the new engine and a definitive time frame when it will be available.

modiecast

A Mazda USA executive that I know informs me that the 3.0L 200HP engine (same as Tribute) will be in the MPV sometime in the Spring of 01'. He said no later than June and likely by April. I don't know if any of you saw this months Car & Driver. They did a van comparison. Competing were the Chevy Venture, Nissan Quest, Mazda MPV, Toyota Siena and the new Chrysler T&C. All were the short wheel base. The Mazda placed solidly in the middle only one point behind the Sienna with the Chrysler placing number 1. Unfortunately, C&D's test numbers clocked the Mazda 0-60 time at 12.3 seconds, nearly a second worse than the Nissan Quest, and 2.4 seconds slower than the Sienna. C&D gave the Mazda raved reviews for handling and braking (the best in class), but knocked it for the engine and transmission saying it was slow and the tranny shifted around too much and too hard. They also knocked the Dunlops for being too noisy. They ended by saying that with the 3.0L engine, this van would have come in a the top. Pick yourself up a copy. It's an interesting read.

javadoc

I must be more brainless than usual today. Can someone point me to the couple of posts a few days ago about a rear seat support? I swear I read a conversation about a bar that you could use to support the rear seat, I think when it's in the tailgater position. Help? Football season is here, and I've gotta stay dry whilst cooking the Brauts and drinking Molsons (truly cultural food, right?).

--java

mpver

Check your owner's manual for the support bar. It show right where it's located and how to use it. It even has drawings that make understanding how to use it much easier than explaining it on here!

javadoc

**WARNING - JAVA RANT - WARNING**

I guess that just shows what Patrick Bedard, Barry Winfield and Csere must be smoking something...again. I've yet to see this article, but why on earth do these guys keep lauding the DC vans, or any DC product for that matter? Their vans historically fare poorly in crash tests, use ancient technology everywhere, they are known for using inadequate components and many people on this board can attest to their lack of reliability.

These guys are way too accustomed to testing and writing about the latest supercar or roadster. Everything they drive just has to lay rubber and send your organizer (or diaper bag) flying into the rear window from the acceleration. Don't get me wrong, I impatiently await the arrival of my next issue of C/D and E/C, but they focus on drag racing waaaay too much. How often do folk actually mash the loud pedal on their minivan? I admit, on a trip to Seward (through the mts.) a few weeks ago, fully loaded, the MPV didn't have the umph of my 300 hp turbo'd Volvo, but I wasn't hoping to make any 150mph runs either (Wow, that'd have been less than an hour each way...). I'd have taken the car instead of the van in that case.

So, would more power be better? Du-uh, it would be. So would traction control, all-wheel-drive, power doors, hydraulic rear suspension, ejector seats and a camping package. It's already an excellent van, esp. considering it's price. Be sure, the price won't be nearly as good with the 3.0 motor in the van.

I'm shutting up now.

--java

aling

Funny you should mention AWD. The MPV is available with the AWD system in Japan. Too bad Mazda feels that there's no demand for it in North America though. It would be a pretty interesting van if fitted both with the 3.0L V6 engine and AWD.

On another note, I read that Lincoln and Jaguar have suspended sales of the Duratec 3.0L V6 (which is what the Escape/Tribute use) due to the huge amount of engine failures.

Drew/aling
Townhall Community Leader/Vans Conference

javadoc

I saw the awd MPV in Tokyo last winter, and have ben salivating about the possibility ever since. I don't really understand Mazda's decision on the AWD unit for the US, except that SUVs are so popular here. Also, almost no one offers an AWD minivan for the States, except DC. Mazda used to (the 4x4 MPV). The DC vans are popular everywhere (Lord knows why. I have it in for them, huh? You have one, so I'll play nice), and the AWD DC vans are insanely popular here.

Probably some cost analyst at Mazda predicted low a percentage of demand on AWD. Probably the same reason there's no ejector seats, rocket launchers, detachable wings or an oil slick machine in the van either. (James Bond marathon on cable starting...)

Wow, surprising, your note re: the 3.0 mill. Where did you hear that? That'd probably end the plans of it being in the MPV. Ah, just put the Cobra motor in there, w/awd, and end this talk of an underpowered MPV. ;-)

--javadoc

tboner1965

I could probably hook you up with the oil slick machine...

TB

aling

One of the members in the Subaru topics mentioned the article about the Duratec. That's why I was a little surprised. Note that it is pertaining to Lincoln and Jaguar though (With the LS V6 and the S-type V6).

The 4WD MPV is extremely popular in my area too (lots of hills, inconsistent snow removal). I estimate that at least 7-8 out of 10 of them are of the 4WD variety. It would be nice if Mazda did offer it for North America. My neighbour has a '00 Black MPV ES (with beige leather) and it didn't do so well last winter. Her husband had to bring her up the hill in their MB ML320 SUV.

Drew/aling
Townhall Community Leader/Vans Conference
P.S. I've been watching the TBS Bond marathon as well (right now, in fact).
P.P.S. I drive one of those Grand Voyager LE AWD vans :-) And no, my transmission hasn't fallen out onto the road ;-) Still on my first tranny actually, and at 90K kms. Lucky, I guess.

not40yet

While we're on the subject of the 3.0l Duratec and the driving biases of the car reviewers, I noticed in a review of the Tribute that it doesn't produce peak torque (201 ft.lbs.) until 4750 rpm. Seems a bit late for a 6-cylinder, doesn't it ? This review complained that the 3400lb Tribute felt sluggish because of the engine's lack of low range power. Does anyone know how much torque the 3.0l Duratec puts out at say 2500 rpm ?

javadoc

Hmmm. The Duratec makes it torque so high basically because it's a multi-valve engine, mainly. It usually also means higher specific output (200hp from 3.0l-vs-270 from a 5.0l V8). It gets complicated, really, and I'm resisting the urge to launch into a longer explanation.

I drove an LX-V6 AWD Trib last week. I didn't notice any sluggishness. It was downright punchy...laid good rubber, to the salesman's fright! Compare it to an ML55 or something, and it might seem timid.

Thx, Drew, for the good info. TB, hook a brother up! I think I'll be dead tomorrow, from watching Bond all night.

--java

tboner1965

I got a call at 3AM, why do people break their servers at night. But I gotta go in for an 8AM meeting

Have some answer, or some excuse in 24hours.

TB

jcrofts

Has anyone received their "Customer Service Action" for bumper reinforcement yet? Mazda's 1-800 customer service told me on Tuesday they were to be mailed on Thursday (yesterday). I called my dealer and it shows up now on their computer for my vehicle, but they have not received the parts required from Mazda, so they can't schedule me for an appointment. Anyone else have any information yet?

dnamartel

of your read on "huge amount of engine failures" article. This doesn't pass the common sense rule for me. This exact engine is installed in hundred of thousands of 1999? and 2000 model Ford Taurus. Have not heard of them having massive engine failures, nor is there much of anything of praise for the engine on Taurus boards here.

not40yet

Not to beat a dead horse (and I know this may be a sore topic to some, so please bear with me...), but I'm confused by the seemingly large differences in engine output delivered by similarly sized engines.

For instance, the 2.5l opposed 4-cylinder in my Subaru Forester apparently outperforms the 2.5l Duratec in both low-end torque and peak power (155 ft.lbs @ 2600 rpm, peaking at 166 ft.lbs @ 4000 rpm and 166 hp @ 5600 rpm) - this means that this engine delivers over 93% of peak torque between 2600 and 5600 rpm, and it does so while meeting NLEV passenger car emissions in all 50 states. I'm guessing that the Duratec can't make that claim, and the overall output numbers are lower to begin with.

Subaru's new 3.0 opposed 6-cylinder makes 174 ft.lbs @ 2200 rpm, peaking at 210 ft.lbs @ 4400 rpm and 212 hp @ 6000 rpm, again beating the 3.0l Duratec handily.

So is it just me, or should more manufacturers be looking at opposed engine designs ? Are the Duratec's getting long in the tooth ? How is it that mighty Ford Motor Company can't produce a competitive engine, when tiny Subaru can ? (I suspect I'm overlooking the obvious here, but I haven't put my finger on it yet...)

I understand that this is a necessarily complex topic, and some posters might rather not get into specifics, but if someone could offer some enlightenment I'd appreciate it... I know there's some guys out there who have a handle on all this.

Sorry for the long post.

atticusf

Looking to purchase 2000 LX with rear air, 4 seasons, security package, roof rack, 3 in 1 stereo, and bumper strip. I've got them down to 22,272 but would really like to see the price dip below 22K.

Thoughts?

Thanks.

aling

As mentioned earlier, this is what I read in one of the Subaru crew topics. That particular poster had read the article stating this (no specific source provided though).

I did think of the Taurus using a similar engine (but not identical to the Lincoln LS or Jaguar S-type) though.

Drew/aling
Townhall Community Leader/Vans Conference

jcrofts

I don't remember if my dealer said exactly what they pulled up on the computer, but back in March the press release called it a "customer service action" since it's a voluntary action by Mazda. I remember that Mazda customer service made sure they mentioned that the bumper meets Federal regulations; the reinforcement is just intended to lessen damage ($$$) from a 5 mph hit. I'll post again when I get the notice.

kkcymru

In response to not40yet's question on why Subaru can build while Ford can't. The answer is Ford can. Look at the 2.5 Duratec engine in Contour SVT. 200Hp vs. 170Hp, better gas mileage and better acceleration than the standard 2.5 in the Contour SE. The real question is why they don't.

Building an automobile engine requires several trade-offs. Most significantly there is a trade-off between Power, gas mileage, and cost (other areas of trade-off include durability, complexity, noise, required maintenance, etc., with some of these trade-offs closely correlated with others). In the case of the standard Duratec 2.5 it looks as though the trade-off was weighted toward cost, as neither mileage or power are anything special. The resulting engine works pretty well in some cars, but is arguably insufficient for the MPV.

Then why did Mazda/Ford use it? This is where it gets a little speculative. They may have thought it was good enough. This view is supported by a lot of posters here, but clearly there are a lot of potential buyers who don't think so. My guess is that they had a lot of extra production capability for this engine. When you tool up your factory for one engine, it's not cheap to switch to something else if demand is lower than expected, as it was for the Contour. Again, this is only speculation, but when Mazda decided they wanted to use a US made engine as a currency hedge, the obvious choice for Ford was the one with excess supply.

So, a short answer to the question is: They can, but they made a business decision not to. Now they are beginning to question that decision.

steeplejack

Regardless as to whether Mazda realizes that you did not make a $4,600 payment, YOU know you didn't make it. I'm not sure what you are questioning.
Put more energy into helping Mazda recognize their error and stop dreaming about ill gotten gains. You might get a rear bumper plate out of it but peace of mind in a moral choice is worth it!

tboner1965

First, I would go over the deal to see if there is a matching number or 4652.30. Was that your trade? Did the dealer "accidentlly" finance your whole van instead of giving a trade allowance.

If in fact there was no way this money was due you by the dealer or Mazda, I would inform Mazda at least three times, since it is a large amount of money, by registered mail. This will protect you if they come back and say you are trying to swindle them. I would also inform them one more time, when you finally pay off the vehicle.

If they don't respond, you are still not off the hook, but you have done due dilligence at letting them know you think they erred in your favor.

I personally don't look at something like this as a windfall, but as a potential problem down the road. Certainly not as much fun, but you will sleep better the night before you go to trade your van knowing this is resolved. Be that night next week or ten years from now.

TB

tboner1965

Ok in the last 24 hours I

Spent 2 hours commuting
Spent 9 hours at work
Spent 12 hours catching up on missed sleep (on call)
Spend 1 hour with my family.

See, I promised an excuse or results.

TB

jimforsale

200 Mazda MPV LX White with the following options (ENT)-rear seat entertainment system, (AC8)- raer air conditioning, (1GT)-GFX appearance package, (2LX)-touring package and a roof rack. Van was purchased new in August 2000 it has 1,700 miles on it. List Price $28,000 invoce $25,343 will sell fo $23,500 OBO. Reason for selling is that I have a bad back and the seats aggravates it. The van is located in the Nashville TN area. Email address letsingerj@aol.com

mwikle

Got my Mazda 2000 MPV Front Bumper Reinforcement [Special Service Program-SSP43] notice in today's mail. (I live in SF Bay Area) Will be calling dealer on Monday to get appointment next week for this and A/C bi-level fix.

david153

I also have a bad back. The first few times I drove my MPV I thought how uncomfortable. I tried different arrangements with the seat adjustments and now (after 2,500 miles) no problems. The MPV is very comfortable. Try arranging the driver's seat like the passenger seat as a starter.

dbs2001

I just talked to the assistant to a local dealership internet manager. I said I was waiting for the '01 because my wife was set on a particular color & none were available. He then asked me if I wanted the larger 3.0 engine! I said yes & asked when it would be available. He said the 2nd quarter, possibly April.

Dennis

bill124

If you really want to get the new van quickly, I think you can justify going with the numbers Mazda shows but be prepared to pay the money quickly if and when they find the error. There is little doubt under the law (NY) that notwithstanding the error was made by them, they are nonetheless entitled to the money. Having said that, their error should not deprive you of what you think is a good deal (i.e., you do not have to wait until they fix the mistake to act).

The fact that you have tried to correct the mistake is a good fact and the prospect of them ever claiming you tried to defraud them is non-existent (they will only want the money). I wouldn't spend the money, though, because the chances are good they will catch it but I certainly know of instances where things like this go unnoticed (a $2,000 table delivered but never billed --- not me). In all seriousness, be sure you will be able to sleep at night if you close the deal without them having fixed the error. The prospect of dreams of collection men banging on your door may give you second thoughts but shouldn't prevent you from getting your deal on your time frame.

bft5j7l

Any current MPV owners having problems with child seats? Any suggestions? The two bucket seats in the middle are at an odd angle and the buckle stock is difficult to maneuver (not on flexible strap). The rear, middle seat is awkward as well with the hinge for the fold down bench placed right in the middle (not to mention needing to fold-down the rear seat for long trips/space).

Overall - we love the van - but this is becoming a nuisance with two kids and hopefully more.

tboner1965

I'm going to ask a couple folks I know at Furd (er Ford) so if I get somewhere, I'll post the images.

TB

jcrofts

I have the notice in hand now -- as was mentioned it's called Special Service Program SSP43. I found it interesting that it applies to MPV's built from March 31, 1999 to March 13, 2000. That must mean the MPV's built after that have modified front bumpers. My dealer says he doesn't have the parts yet. Has anyone else contacted your dealer yet?

tboner1965

So the crank readings are probably about 10% higher.

tboner1965

Try this for the 2.5L

Still working on the 3.0L

See more details at: www.contour.org look in the FAQ.

TB

javadoc

That's what I call a table flat torque curve!!! My take (estimate) is about 85% of torque from 2500 to 2750 rpm. A little dip where the intake plenums switch, and on to warp power. And h-power all the way up to redline to boot? Nice. Who's complaining about this work of art? '-)

I'd say that Fjord (um, FoMoVoRoBMJagCo) actually did a swell job on the motor, technology-wise. Now to explain the virtues (and anti-virtues) of a boxer engine vs a conventional (inline or "V") engine.

--java

javadoc

Okay, I've gotten my raspberry mocha I/V setup and I'm ready to roll. I'll take a stab at your question about Uncle Henry's reluctance to use a boxer engine. Someone contradict me if I misstep.

To make torque numbers, you are looking for pure gunt from the engine. To achieve this, you usually do this with an "Over-square" cylinder configuration. Over-square means that the cylinder's shape has a larger height measurement than width (yes, pistons are still round, haha), meaning the piston's diameter is smaller than the crank's stroke. Conversely, "under-square" is having larger piston diameter than stroke.

So, what does this do? Longer stroke, gives you a longer time that the crank on the "Power Stroke." You can have higher torque values, but this is usually at the expense of being able to rev the engine. High torque motors (see truck motors) generally aren't happy at higher revs, since the longer stroke is heavier, and slinging that piston on the end of that long crank and rod creates lot of forces at odds w/one another. So, with a boxer engine, you have two banks of cylinders firing 180 degrees opposite each other, which makes sense for making smooth low end torque.

Here's another example. Mercedes makes engines for their cars, as well as for teams on the CART FedEx series. So, they make a super V8 engine for both applications. The FedEx engine, is only like 1.8 liters, makes 800+ hp (they don't say the real number, prolly 1000+) at 13k rpm, but only 200ftlbs torque. The car engine, a 5.3l motor, makes 380hp and 390ftlbs torque (I'm rounding...). One might say the CART car would feel doggy, but I doubt that could be said truthfully. But, the CART's 0-60 time isn't all that good, considering it makes 4 digit horsepower numbers. (I love the sound of CART engines in the morning!)

The point is, the CART engine has a very very short stroke, so it can rev till oblivion. The car engine has a longer stroke, so it can have good of torque. A car manufacturer designs the engine for a certain appication. Ford prolly wanted a rev-happy engine, as most folks like their European cars to be. That was the point of the Contour, so it fit. This same engine is criticized in the MPV, not because it's a bad, underpowered unit, but because the MPV is 700lbs heavier than a Contour, and would need torque to feel more powerful. I think the van has fine power, it just needs torque.

As to why you don't see boxer engines (such as Subaru, Porsche, old VWs) in every application, is simply that, it doesn't fit every application. For the most part, a boxer engine is a niche engine. They take up more space, width wise, they generally weigh more and can be troublesome due to oiling issues (Porsche boxer engines have dry sump oiling systems). But, boxers are neat and very good motors. They give you a nice low center of gravity, they can let you have a low hood line, and they are said to be safer in a frontal collision.

Yes, there are other factors that determine torque, such as VTEC (Honda/Acura), variable intake runners (ie Duratec), VANOS (gotta love the Germans), VVT (Toyota/Lexus), but these technologies are just augmenting the engine's dynamics; trying to make more power out of smaller displacement.

Not to dispute any claims, but horsepower and torque are different things. TB's graph shows that. The Subaru boxer engine you describe in post #510 actually makes it's peak torque at 4000 rpm, and it's all downhill from there. It is making it's 93% max from 2600 to 4000rpm, which is a markedly narrow curve. I don't know what it looks like on the high side of 4000rpm, so it might hang on a while longer. The 5600rpm number is horsepower, and the two are completely different. The 2.5 duratec's torque curve is actually very flat. Any flatter and it'd have to be an electric motor (max torque at 1rpm and so on).

Whew, sorry. Gotta change the Mocha solution now.

--Java

javadoc

I meant to say the engine looks to have 85% of it's max torque from 2500 to 5750 rpm. Sorry.

--java

not40yet

Thanks for the technical explanation, I appreciate it. As for the torque specs on the Forester 2.5l, I understand the difference between hp and torque - they're related mathematically as I'm sure you know. I converted the hp spec at 5600 to torque and found that it's 154.7 ft.lbs if memory serves. So I fudged a bit and stated that the engine's producing 155 ft.lbs or more from 2600 to 5600 rpm, assuming that there aren't any dips in the curve.

By the way, how do you hide a response on this board ?

aling

To hide or scribble (delete) a message, simply post your message as usual, and then click on the number of the message that you just posted (ex. the message number would be #534 for this message). This will bring up a seperate dialogue box with the "hide" or "scribble" options. Note that you can unhide the message by following the same steps, but you cannot unscribble/undelete a post.

Hope this helps!
Drew/aling
Townhall Community Leader/Vans Conference

javadoc

Shucks, I ran at the mouth before ripping out my HP85 and doing the calculus for the tq to hp convert (my apologies). And I thought calc was useless when I was in college! Yuppers, I get 155ftlb. too. Must be some brain freeze as I saw the *S* word in the forcast for tonight. Anyone in Louisiana or Florida want to trade habitats for, oh say, six months?

-j

aling

Lucky, lucky!! All we're getting here in the NorthWest is the "r" word. Send some of the white stuff over here! Just not before Saturday, please. I don't want to be taking my advanced driving classes in the snow tomorrow and on Friday. Not this time :-)

Drew/aling
Townhall Community Leader/Vans Conference

javadoc

You wouldn't look forward to some low traction, high performance driving? (picture of a pat of butter on a hot skillet comes to mind) You should try some good ol' ice racing on a lake, with screw-tires...studded tires on steroids! Yeehaw! Gearing the race car up for the ice racing season. Should be fun!

I mowed the lawn one last time tonight, desparately holding onto "summer." I'll be sure to pack 60 or so quarts of white fluffy rain in an ice chest and overnight it to you.

Obligatory MPV content...need a mochavan w/awd. Ultimate swap...complete drivetrain swap from a Trib.

Luck to you at your course! I attended a Skip Barber school at PIR way back. Still love that track.

--javadoc

otish

Other people have posted about this before - I have found most vehicles hard to install a child seat in. It is usually a combination of the car and safety seat not being a good match. First of all I would suggest that you go to one of the free child safety seat checks and have a certified tech install it for you. They are great and can usually get a good fit. They will also check for any problems that you may not be aware of. I did this and have a great fit with my Fisher Price Safe Embrace convertible seat. We used a piece of a pool noodle to get a good secure fit because of the sloped seats and some shelf liner to keep it from sliding on the leather seats. I currently still have her rear-facing but got my tether bolt anchors installed (by Mazda for free except for $7.40 for the parts) for when I turn her forward facing. That really helps to get a secure fit so I encourage you to try using a tether. Parents Place has a great car seat discussion board that has a lot of info out there including a database of seats that work with different brands of cars (people send in how the seat fits). Many Chrysler dealers are also participating in the Fit For a Kid campaign where you can schedule an appt. and they will check/install your seat at no cost and on any make of vehicle. I did that and it was wonderful. Hope this helps you (and anyone else!)