By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
denali said ... its twin -- the Ford Escape -- already has a hybrid version.
Makes sense in that the Tribute is probably the Mazda vehicle that will most benefit from better fuel numbers. Where in product sales lineup is the Tribute? The Mazda3 and Mazda6 appear more popular; are there more Tributes sold than Miatas?
Interesting that Mazda prototyped a hybrid RX8 last year but we have not heard much since; will there be a high end hybrid RX8?
In the latest Consumer Reports, Honda has thrown down the gauntlet by offering a more fuel efficient and more powerful option for the Accord, arguably one of the most popular sedans in North America. The price is higher, but not astronomically so (about 10%). If I were in the market for a 6 cylinder, the Honda Accord would be on my short list. In ten years, I predict most new cars will be hybridized (that is, most car engines will be assisted by powerful electric motors). Now all I have to do, is live long enough to find out.
many folks are aware that the extra cost of hybrids and the limited lifespan of the battery and the huge replacement costs of the battery pose an interesting dilemma. How do you dispose of the battery and it's highly caustic chemicals?? It's like nuclear waste...
so maybe it is only 70,000miles of free gas.
It explains why some people here complain about the low resale value. The rebates...
Any input would be greatly appreciated...
ghost - I bought the Husky mat and like them quite well. They fit nice. But I'm not sure they're any cheaper than the OEMs. Fifty for (just) the front set - if I recall. They're worth looking at.
S-plan: You have to work for Ford or for a Ford supplier or associate company or have a relative who does. You can also sign up with EAA (Experimental Aircraft Association) on the Net, but you have to wait 12 months to get a PIN number. If you are trading a car you have to accept what the dealer offers. The dealer is forbidden charging doc fees, which could save as much as $500 plus the S-plan discount.
fowler3
This is not correct. A letter was sent out to dealers on june 4 2004 from mazda stating that doc fees and or administrative fees may be charged on s-plan and e-plan deals......
I don't think it can go any cheaper for a set of good mats.
PF Flyer
Host
News & Views, Wagons, & Hybrid Vehicles
The Mazda Mania Chat is on tonight. The chat room opens at 8:45PM ET Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule
And I still think a $400 - $500 doc fee for the secretary to type up the bill of sale is a rip-off.
It should be part of doing business. Suppose you had to pay a store clerk $250 to write up a sale?
Think many people would shop there?
fowler3
Anyway, i was looking at the specs for the 2006 Mazdaspeed 6 and that thing has got 18' inch wheels with 215/45-18 tires on it. Considering the fact that the mazdaspeed's suspension is probably riding a little lower than my 6s' it would seem that getting 225/45-18s on my car should not be a problem. UNLESS mazdaspeed modified the wheel wells on their 6. Does anyone know if this is the case?
From what i can tell there is only a minor difference in the overall width and diameter of my "want-to-have" setup as compared to the 17" OEM setup. So little so, that i won't even have to get the speedometer recalibrated. However, the tirerack's little notation has put the fear of god into me. If anyone in this forum has any information... or preferably first hand experience with upgrading their wheel and tire package, i would greatly appreciate your input. Thanks for your help, i'll be sure to post some pics once its done!
Now audia8q - Mazda may offer the program but you're not required to participate in it - isn't that correct? It's not rammed down your throat - you can always say no.
I was under the impression it was up to the dealership if they wanted to participate in those programs. If it is so unprofitable, why get involved? Doing so sounds like a bad business decision.
Anyone replaced their brake pads recently? A message I read here suggested Kevlar types, but my brother in law suggested ceeramic. Any thought? I have an 03 6s with about 30,000 miles on. I absolutely hate the black brake dust on my front wheels. And luckily, it's about time I change those pads.
What I was saying is it isn't fair for dealers to offer a $500 discount and a $500 factory incentive up front, THEN on the bill of sale they drop one of the $500 incentives and substitute a $495 doc fee. That's dirty. Or like a Honda dealer I started to trade with who insisted I had to pay $495 for FREE car washes everytime I came in for service, whether the car was actually washed or not. I refused and they said they would not sell the car. This was in addition to their $495 doc fee.
Some dealers have more ways to stick it to you than a porcupine.
fowler3
fowler3
You can get anything you want -- as long as you are willing to pay for it and the trouble it takes to get it. All businesses expect that.
fowler3
I think that's a good example of being hosed. :P
Be aware that these and most likely any alternate pad will likely be more noisy (occasional squeak/squeal) but IMO this trade-off is well worth eliminating the ridiculous black wheels in one day scenerio I experienced with the OEM pads.
Look, nothing is forever. Hopefully, your Alero will give you good service until you save enough money to make a move to a car you would be happier with. Since the MZ6 does not have great resale, perhaps in a year or so you will be able to afford a used one.
Meanwhile, the Alero isn't a bad looking car. If not for the quality issues you mention, I would have considered on for myself. Good luck.
And, the Mazda6 ain't perfect either. I'm hoping that they have all the problems worked by the time I get around to buying one .
I have 225/45R18 Dunlop SP Sport 8090s on factory RX-8 18"x8" wheels on my 6. I have seen comments on the web that the rear fender flanges need to be rolled for such an application. Normal driving is no problem, but last night I went to Costco and had a trunk full of stuff, including two 50 lb. bags of play sand for my daughter's sand box, and hitting some rough pavement on the freeway entrance ramp on the way I home I definitely got some rubbing from the left rear. No issues with just myself in the car going back and forth to work, regardless the pavement/speed, etc. It seems OK, just be careful when you load it up in the back.
Your Alero is nowhere near the dog-car a friend use to buy. She would never spend more than $500 to $700 on a car, cars that were long past junkyard candidates. Drove them for as long as they would go. Some didn't have radios, just the hole in the dash where they were. Then when she did buy a new car she paid cash saved up all those years. Pride of ownership took a backseat to being in debt.
Of course, one can't do that these days, old cars wouldn't pass inspection.
You buy what you can when you can, no need to apologize or to kick yourself. They are "between" cars which tied you over until you see one you like and can more easily afford. Just don't spend too much money on the "betweens" and unload them before they depreciate too low.
fowler3
Anyway, I really wanted a new Mustang, but no matter what I tried, I couldn't afford the payments. I wouldn't say I "settled" with the GA (my father owned two of them, both very reliable and ran well), but even though it wasn't exactly what I wanted, I took it.
For the time, and my financial situation, it worked out well. I even modded it a little here and there.
Given the choice, I would have picked the Alero over my GA (same platform, but much better styled and equipped.) Just do what I did, and put as much money as you can away each month. The 6 will be yours before you know it....
My last trip to the gas pump was a pleasant surprise: Just shy of 25 mpg, and that was 60 percent city driving. By the way, it is a 6s auto. Won't get that much longer when the Florida heat kicks in and the AC works more, but it's pretty good.
And, yes, I'm pretty easy on the gas pedal.
Anyway, having monitored CR for 15 years the conclusion is that they are not biased, just hopelessly inept at testing, surveying, and statistics. The old saying about ignorance and malice applies fully.
I remember when a rating of inkjet printers gave better marks to a Mac version of an HP than a PC version (this was like 10yrs ago, they were electromechanically identical). The problem with their testing is that their sample sizes are too small, that all they're comparing is manufacturing variations. Since their samples are so small you don't get any real scientific assessment. Also, CR does very little long term testing if I recall. For electronics testing, there are much better sites on the Internet these days that will give cold hard numbers for things like SNR, speed, and real relevant performance figures for electronic items. I suspect CR doesn't really know the science of their testing that well, and if they do, their editorial staff dumbs things to a level that it is impossible to make an informed decision.
The 5 bubble thing is a joke in general, it basically means "we can't do better than a 20% confidence". I remember certain years when reliability ratings for powertrain items and brakes varied by 2 bubbles between things like Dodge Caravan and Plymouth Voyagers, and Tauri vs Sables, Prizms vs Corollas. They're the same freakin vehicle made in the same plant, there is something dreadfully wrong with their data collection methods. At least, they didn't try to fudge the problems away.
The overall "by-brand" repair history bars are worthless. They are such a generic summary. Brands are meaningless anyway. They are also suspect since their are wide variations in summary values between brands that are made by the same manufacturer (Thomson, Philips, etc). This is indicative of either sampling problems or brand marketing variations (cheaper brands may be more likely to put into harsh service). It's probably both (we'll never know, since they don't give access to the data).
Do they publish their raw data and methods? Of course not.
My parents used to be subscribers and I know that their "surveys" leave WAAYY too much room for subjectivity in assessing problems. Furthermore, since their surveys are sent only to subscribers that actually must have a feedback effect on their data.
Overall, CR is a joke.
You raise an important issue about testing and standards.
How did you come to your conclusion without reviewing CR "testing, surveying and statistics"?
What test standard/survey/statistic are you proposing that consumers use? For example, do you think J.D. Power or the IIHS or the U.S. Government are more competent? Surely you're not implying that we rely on automobile commercials or automobile shows which use these commercials.
The issue in an open market is that the seller can make many claims, the regulator sometimes is not completely impartial (i.e. industry-regulated) or is not well-equipped to assess the volume of products (i.e. government-regulated) leaving the consumer to negotiate through a barrage of often conflicting information.
I think your skepticism is well-founded but impractical : we should be vigilant in the marketplace including taking advice from well-intentioned consumer groups, but I would rather have this advice than not. I have not found a better source for consumer information than Consumer Reports and would appreciate your help if you know of these sources.
Sure, but the manufacturers aren't exactly handing out the information we need for that.
For example, one of the biggest problems with the credibility of their reliability ratings is the source of the information itself - the owners.
Make that owners who subscribe to CR. If you don't subscribe then you don't get a survey to fill out. How many Ford, Chevy, Mazda, etc. owners do you think are out there that subscribe to CR? Then that leads to sample size, and as we like to say around here, comparing apples to apples. The list goes on from there.
Don't get me wrong, CR isn't completely worthless. At least you can see which vehicles are available all in one place (something that MT does yearly now too) and compare features, prices, and specs all at once. Just cover up those little circles with your hand or a piece of construction paper. :P
Curious argument. It appears that you are saying the owners who drive the vehicles are not trustworthy representatives of the reliability of their machines. If an owner who has had a vehicle for several years is unqualified, do we turn to an auto reviewer who has driven the machine for a half day or perhaps the salesman who is smiling at you?
For some reason that you claim is human nature, vehicle owners would rather protect a company like Toyota then tell the truth about a problem they are having with their vehicle. Why would they protect Toyota but not Mazda? I think the answer is much simpler than that. People value certain characteristics in automobiles and reliability is one of the leading ones. Toyota has made it it's mission to deliver reliability and the proof is in the pudding, they deliver reliable if somewhat bland automobiles. If more proof is needed, the other automakers are following them.
CR may not be perfect, but it presents enough useful information in one place for one to get a sense of the marketplace and various products. CR routinely says that most new vehicles are good products; they review them in order to give you an idea of what the characteristics of each vehicle are, they rate them to give a sense of relative value and finally, they ask the vehicle owners once a year to let them know how they like their vehicles after purchase. It may not be perfect but if you can propose a better method I would be interested in hearing about it.
Finally, industry experts, including auto reviewers and auto manufacturers that appear on Autoline from Detroit, are not oblivious to CR, in fact they rate it as one of the important benchmarks for evaluating automobile products.
I'm not saying they're not trustworthy representatives, I'm just saying that they're not unbiased and their perceptions of their own vehicles affect what they report. If you talk to the owners of some brands (i.e. Honda, Toyota) you would think their cars are the most reliable machines ever built by man, and all other brands are junk. The truth is that while there are certainly differences in quality and reliability between brands (and between models within a brand), these differences are much smaller than the owners of some brands would have you to believe. And, the large differences in resale values of between an Accord and a Mazda6 can't totally be explained by the differences in quality and reliability. There are some human perception factors in play here, and at times it even appears to resemble an urban myth.
If an owner who has had a vehicle for several years is unqualified, do we turn to an auto reviewer who has driven the machine for a half day or perhaps the salesman who is smiling at you?
No, neither. It's not a matter of the owners being qualified or unqualified. It's just that the data collected from them by CR may be misleading or exaggerated.
For some reason that you claim is human nature, vehicle owners would rather protect a company like Toyota then tell the truth about a problem they are having with their vehicle. Why would they protect Toyota but not Mazda?
Excellent question. They are not protecting the car makers, they are protecting their own egos. If someone buys a Toyota instead of a Mazda primarily because Toyotas are more reliable, reporting a problem with the car is like admitting you made a mistake, or at least that your decision maybe was not as justified as you thought. Who likes to admit they made an incorrect or flawed decision? I don't.
I think the answer is much simpler than that. People value certain characteristics in automobiles and reliability is one of the leading ones.
True, but human psychology isn't that simple, so the answer isn't either.
Toyota has made it it's mission to deliver reliability and the proof is in the pudding, they deliver reliable if somewhat bland automobiles. If more proof is needed, the other automakers are following them.
Don't forget it was an American (W. Edwards Deming) that taught the Japanese about quality improvement. I would say rather that manufacturers are following the goal of quality improvement in general, not just Toyota.
CR may not be perfect, but it presents enough useful information in one place for one to get a sense of the marketplace and various products. CR routinely says that most new vehicles are good products; they review them in order to give you an idea of what the characteristics of each vehicle are, they rate them to give a sense of relative value and finally, they ask the vehicle owners once a year to let them know how they like their vehicles after purchase. It may not be perfect but if you can propose a better method I would be interested in hearing about it.
I'm not saying it's useless or that I have a better method, just that readers should consider the limitations and inherent flaws of such data collection methods. It's not possible to do a scientific study of auto quality and reliability, so it's all we've got.
Finally, industry experts, including auto reviewers and auto manufacturers that appear on Autoline from Detroit, are not oblivious to CR, in fact they rate it as one of the important benchmarks for evaluating automobile products.
Hmmm, maybe I should have a talk with these "experts".
You said:
Anyway, having monitored CR for 15 years the conclusion is that they are not biased, just hopelessly inept at testing, surveying, and statistics ...Overall, CR is a joke.
and later you said:
I'm not saying it's useless or that I have a better method, just that readers should consider the limitations and inherent flaws of such data collection methods. It's not possible to do a scientific study of auto quality and reliability, so it's all we've got.
I think we both agree that as consumers we need as much reliable information as we can get our hands on and that we need to be skeptical about all our sources. It would be a shame to slander some honest efforts to get at the "truth" especially if we don't have an alternative to propose.
Finally, you made a lot of good points and it was fun debating with you, Gary!
I probably would have done the same thing....in fact, I did do the same thing 2-years ago. I leased a Jetta in 2003 because I couldn't afford a MZ6. and I loved that car, but the roads are really bumpy in the new city I moved to, so now that I am a little more stable, I decided to eat a little money on the Jetta lease, and buy the MZ6 - I am very glad I did.....I am sure it will come out that way for you too.
However, when tested against these other more popular brands, the Black and Decker stood up just as strong, if not stronger. So, what did Black and Decker do? Well, they dind't re-image the brand. Instead, the Rebranded the tool and expanded one of their more successful brands.
Today, you can see them as the market leader on the shelf under the name DeWalt. I am sure you have all heard of that (or at least some of you).....bottom line, word of mouth isn't the same as statistical significance.
Another article I saw that was interesting was in the USA today where they compared Percieved Quality, versus Actual Quality (the sources I am not sure, but it hits the point pretty good). In this study there were 4 vehicles I distinctly remember. Volkswagen, Ford, Honda, and Kia. Some are suprising, and others are scary.
It showed that the actual quality of a VW was much worse with respect to its percieved quality. In fact, the only one that was worse was the Kia....I found it scary to think that a car I already think would have poor quality (Kia) would have significantly worse quality than my perception of the quality. Whereas, the VW, people likely percieve rather well, but in long term tests don't hold up.
The other two - honda and ford were relatively spot on for actual vs. percieved quality. Both were within 1-3% of actual vs. percieved. However, to me, that says the Honda is actually much better quality becuse my perception is much higher than that of a ford.....Unfortunately, I bought a glorified ford in some respects...but not in all. Don't get me wrong - the last ford I owned was a Probe and I loved that car - but It pretty much was really downgraded at about 120,000 miles.
Speaking of perceptions, I thought the Probe was supposed to be one of the better Ford products. Wasn't it one of the joint Mazda projects also?
I read recently that Ford is going through some real tough times in spite of having the killer Mustang. It seems that their US operations have lost significant market share. It makes one nervous about the American auto marketplace.