Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Mazda MPV



  • kkcymrukkcymru Posts: 48
    So now it's the fault of the automotive press that the Mazda engine has a bad reputation. Do they other minivan manufacturers get reviews from a different press? Reviewers who have no problems with the engines in most other sedans and minivans have commented on the lack of power and lack of "refinement" in the MPV engine. Despite some of the nonsense on this forum, no one is expecting the Mazda MPV to be a hot rod or a sports car. Many would like it to perform as well as a mediocre family sedan, and it doesn't, either in acceleration or fuel efficiency.
    So the owners you know of don't think the power is as much of a problem as the press says. Well no kidding. Talk about unrepresentative samples. The owners are by definition those people who didn't think the power is acceptable, or they wouldn't have bought it. That still leaves a lot of people, many who have commented on this or related forums, who have postponed buying or have bought another vehicle because they didn't like the MPV engine.
    Rather than being mad at these "naysayers" and the evil press, you should be thanking them. They have apparently done enough damage to the MPVs reputation that demand has been reduced to the point that people can buy them for under invoice, instead of at or above list like the Honda. The real losers in this are Mazda and its dealers who has lost out in potential profits of thousands per vehicle because the company decided to save a few hundred dollars per vehicle on the engine.
  • bill124bill124 Posts: 242
    The owners of the MPV are absolutely a reliable sample. They are the people who drive the van every day. I submit that in terms of whether the power is adequate, they are the only ones who are able to accurately so state. Sufficient power to "pass" a reviewer's test is not what is relevant. Sufficient power for everyday driving is. If virtually all of the everyday drivers say it has sufficient power, who are you to say it doesn't, unless you own one and drive it everyday? Not having more power is not a problem just like not earning a few million a year is not a problem. We do quite well with what we have and are happy with it. You want more but have to wait.
  • The engine in the MPV does not have a bad "rep". The comment about the motor is that it should have been a 3.0 or larger. Well that is something to take into account when purchasing a "minivan" a larger engine is always available in a winstar or caravan. If the engine size is your main criteria, then by all means buy a winstar. As for me I choose the MPV for the obvious reason, which is apparant to anyone that has driven one. As for my 2.5 DOHC 24 valve engine, it has no problem moving, merging and breaking the speed limit every day. And none of the passengers complain that we are running late because the engine is not large enough. The only people that seem to be upset about the size of the engine are men who were forced to buy a "minivan" instead of a big truck, or reviewers that think all products should have the same hp under the hood. You must realize the reviewers also never mention the Head gasket or transmission epidemic of those other minivans. I personally dont mind if my "minivan" takes 2 more seconds to hit 60mph,when the ride is smooth as silk, but thats just me.
  • gagpgagp Posts: 32
    MPV sales, in 2000, have gone up by 321 % compared to 1999, despite the "bad press" regarding its engine...

    Silver (Yeah, I know it's not a hot rod but was it meant to be ?) Driver
  • brmudabrmuda Posts: 50
    Check the "cruisers board" for my orig reply on ordering an ES w/specific options (no roof or rack).
  • cinka1cinka1 Posts: 30
    Wow, we are not defensive around here, are we. I don't think the engine is 'bad'. It is one of the best, but I think the minivan has a little too much weight for this motor to perform like it was intended. I am the owner of a Windstar. I have been driving it for years and have enjoyed it's power. I am not a hot-rodder - I am a mother of three teenagers and five big white dogs! I don't want a powerful truck, I'm not mad at having to buy a minivan, I can hardly wait. What I do know is, after test driving several MPV's, it will be worth the wait to have an engine that will not have to work so hard and I don't think the mileage can get much worse. I LOVE the MPV - I will enjoy it like all of you, I will be happier, though, if I wait. So don't get defensive, reality is the MPV is not quite perfect, but it will get there very soon. And if the engine improvement isn't worth it, I can always buy the used 2000 from the "man that wanted the truck" so he bought the 2002. See - I win either way :)
  • An MPV was not manufactured in 1999, per Edmunds. Any sales are carry overs from 1998 inventory put into service in 1999 and are irrelevant as a comparison to anything....

    The 2000 sales of the MPV are low. So it will be in 2001 and the bargains will probably continue, including into 2002. Why? Mazda needs to gain badly needed market share.
    Reality check. I bought a recent model used Quest van 4 wks ago because of precise reasons (after extensive test drive) posted by kkcymru. I will probably buy an MPV when the engine situation is addressed to my satisfaction. Current MPV buyers benefit from this decision, (you're welcome.) Yes, I'd rather had the fold away rear, better handling and looks, however, those considerations lost out to ~$9,000 saved postponing buying an MPV.
  • bill124bill124 Posts: 242
    In all seriousness, what is an "extensive test drive" and what year Quest did you buy?
  • and knock ~$500 off of that price due to some other factors.

    The test drive at Putnam Mazda in Burlingame, CA will pale in contrast to your rich insight as a happy, satisfied owner and defender of the engine. I not going to engage in that, I lose.

    Regarding my purchase, it was a reasonable compromise, IMHO. This isn't the comparison site and I've tried to keep comments re same to a minimum.
  • gagpgagp Posts: 32
    This info is based on sales from YEAR 1999 (of course I know there were no 1999 MPVs)...

    Silver (I guess everybody else understood that, IMHO) Driver
  • Ummmm, here we go again with the power issue, performance adequacy and all that...

    bill124: I'm happy that the MPV still meets your expectations after owning it for a while. Really. As to the representativeness of a given sample, that depends on what question you're trying to answer.

    If the question is "How does the MPV compare to other vehicles in its class ?" then objective measures such as 0-60 times are going to be most informative. By these measures, the MPV is underpowered, period. The average 0-60 time for mini-vans is about 10 seconds give or take a half second or so - the MPV is therefore about 20-25% slower than the average for the class, which most people are going to find significant. Sorry. This is irrespective of whatever personal bias the auto reviewers may or may not have.

    If the question is, "Does the MPV meet my needs?" - well, only you can be the judge of that. No need to get defensive. Ultimately day to day performance is what matters most, I wholeheartedly agree, but everyone is going to have a personal sense of what's adequate for them, and everyone's going to be "right" from their personal perspective. So let's not argue about it.

    Finally, if the question is, "Will most people find the performance acceptable ?" the only representative sample capable of answering that question must include both people who find it acceptable and people who don't. I believe this is what kkcymru was referring to, and if so, he's right. Sorry.

    gagp: I believe you've missed the point - there was no model year 1999. Quoting sales of my1998 vans made in calendar year 1999 (there are precious few of them for obvious reasons) compared to my2000 sales is, quite frankly, misleading, because the artificially low sales numbers for 1999 will inflate the growth figure for 2000. Sorry. You could compare my1998 figures with my2000 figures if you're so inclined. I haven't checked, but my guess is sales are up significantly on that basis.

    The question that Mazda is probably asking itself is "What would sales have been if we'd gone with the 3.0 liter engine?" Based on all the negative feedback that customer service has been getting (I called and asked, the engine is a deal killer for many potential buyers), they're convinced that a change would be good for them, and it's in the works.

    OK. So now that I've invited flaming responses, may I apologize for ruffling any feathers in advance and politely request that we get back to being nice to each other ?
  • javadocjavadoc Posts: 1,167
    I've donned my Nomex racing suit, hood and long Nomex underwear now, after reading this recent exhanges on this thread.

    I'll go back to my recent lurking, albet with beter flame-retardant now.


  • bill124bill124 Posts: 242
    My posting never said the MPV was suitable for the needs of everyone, it addresses every day needs. As to that point, the MPV owners/lessees are undeniably qualified to address that since they are only ones who drive it every day. I would probably include renters who rent for an extended period. It goes beyond "my needs". Yes, you and only you know "your" needs but if you don't own an MPV you are not in any position to tell anyone whether it is suitable for everyday driving, which is what I addressed.

    My posting was not, and I don't think this is, at all about performance. No one that I know has bought a minivan, ANY MINIVAN, for performance. It is about a minivan that is functional, safe, pleasing to the eye and pleasant to drive.
  • kkcymrukkcymru Posts: 48
    I don't think anyone would question whether the daily drivers of the MPV are qualified to judge whether it meets their daily needs, but they obviously make up a skewed sample of potential buyers. It's a self selection process. Anyone who finds the engine totally unacceptable is not going to buy one.
    I also dispute the notion that no one buys any minivan for performance. Everyone expects performance, the only question is what level of performance. Would you buy a minivan with a top speed of 55 and took 20 seconds to get there, or one that only got 8 miles per gallon. Probably not unless it was very cheap. Many people pay extra money in some lines of minivans to get a bigger engine. They do that to get BETTER PERFORMANCE. The MPVs performance may be fine for many, but there are clearly others would like more for their everyday driving.
    The engine power is not the only consideration for me, or I could have bought a competing brand already. I like the size and handling of the MPV. I like the styling. I like the functioning windows in the door. I like the fold down third seat. I think I might even be satisfied with the low power if it came as a trade-off for good mileage. If my current car gives out before the MPV gets a better engine (a good possibility) I'll probably buy an MPV anyway. But if I do I'll be settling for the performance rather than being happy with the performance. When I spend $25,000 or so on a car, I'd prefer to be doing so enthusiastically.
  • The owners of the MPV can own any minivan. The price is comparable. We are not defensive but rather informative. I can live with the 2.5 DOHC, what I cant live with is side door windows that dont roll down and a back seat that has to be removed. Just where do you put the winstar or caravans back seat when you are out and find a large item you wish to take home with you? And what do you tell the passenger in the back seat when he ask if he can roll down a window? In regards to mpg my MPV gets 18mpg in town and 25mpg on the highway(a little prolong goes a long way). All I know is when I test drove the winstar I really like its specs on paper but it rode like a VAN and its engine noise was loud and it had the feeling of being on a ship with all of its mushing rocking while driving. I guess all minivans have some faults. That is why I picked the MPV it had the least of them. Check the boards on the caravan and the winstar. They have hundreds of posts with complaints, serious issues. Read the MPV boards and we love them or quibble that we would love it more with a little bigger engine. The honda odessy is also great if you can get one. Customer satisfaction is very important when considering a vehicle. Reviewers love the caravan and the winstar but neglect to mention the standard transmission and head gasket problems.
  • kkcymru: well said...I'm in much the same position, and have arrived at many of the same conclusions, with the exception that my current vehicle is still pretty reliable.

    In my particular case, we live at altitude, where engine output (on non-turbo cars) is reduced about 15%, and tend to "play" at altitudes where the loss is more like 25% or more. On top of that, I have hankering for a small pop-top tent trailer that I wish to tow into the mountains with an MPV.

    I'm not looking to drag race my mini-van, but clearly I have needs that the current engine will NOT meet. And no, I'd really not rather have a truck...

    So I'll wait until Mazda addresses the engine issue, because it is an issue for me.
  • I would like to see more info on gas mileage, and also actual price paid. Not $ over or under invoice.
    Tha SC dealer advertises DX with dual air for 19,990.
    I think Atlanta dealers do also.
    Anyne bought one at that price? PLus SC sales tax of $300 of course.
  • gagpgagp Posts: 32
    Since some of us could not take an info for what it is: INFO, I decided to add some precision regarding my last post just to make it clearer:

    MPV sales, in 2000, have gone up by 321 % compared
    to 1999 (1998 model), despite the "bad press" regarding its engine...

    Silver (Now, does that make it clear enough ?) Driver
  • alexv1nalexv1n Posts: 248
    I've bought MPV in August this year after I had been on different boards studying all possible choices. I can say I was aware of all (or, at least, most) of cons and pros of the vehicle. When I finally decided to buy I didn't have a single doubt as to what I want to buy and was very very happy when I finally get into my MPV. It's my first car ever so I cannot really compare how it handles relatively to other makes/models but what I really feel is that I'm very pleased of what I have.

    As to engine power... Many people have already commented on it. The HP is OK. But it needs some torque for sure. Passing a vehicle on a 2 lane country road at 80-100 km/h is a little nervous with approaching traffic. I try not to do this maneuvre at all but one I had to do (I had to crawl behind a truck on a road and had only one chance to pass with a good straight stretch of road - MPV had to downshift two gears and rev almost to 6000 rpm to take over and there was a momonent I though I couldn't make it...). But the van has no problem cruising at 150 km/h with 6 adults inside. It certainly could go faster but the speed limit is only 100 km/h, right? :-)

    There's two thing missing in the interior design: a trash can or some sort of container to trow away little things such as fast food receipts, etc. The second one is a compartment to put a paper towel/facial tissue box. Glove box isn't a good alternative... Did you notice how many cars are there with tissue boxes hanging around the dashboards and foalling to the floor at each traffic light? Why don't automakers create some sort of paper tissue dispenser in a dashboard/door/seat/wherever?
  • tim104tim104 Posts: 3
    I bought a green LX with 4 season package, 3-in-1 audio, security package, luggage rack for 21801. That was invoice price in July.

    Go to the Edmunds or websites and brush up on invoice price for all the option packages. You should learn this. The reason is I was offered invoice price over the phone, but when I received an itemized quote via fax it included the delivery charge of $480. The salesman insisted destination charge is part of the invoice and I insisted it wasn't. He dropped the quote to the true invoice price. Since there was a $1000 rebate to the dealer at the time they sold it to me for $520 over their cost.

    I hope this is helpful.
  • For the person comparing '96 voyager and MPV.
    We had a 1995 (4 cyl) Caravan that we traded for the MPV and the MPV has more power than the Caravan did. It's MUCH more maneuverable. And so far, has not had expensive, extensive repairs, as our Caravan did with alarming regularity. We've not yet taken it on a long trip, but my sense is that packing will not be a problem. Because of the cargo well, it holds more behind the third seat than the Caravan did. We have 2 kids and the minivan is perfect for us. Occasionally one or both of them will bring a friend along and everyone is comfortable. We now have just under 7K miles and we get between 17.5 and 19 mpg in town. On the road, we've gotten up to 24. But we tend not to go way over the speed limit. Hope that is somewhat helpful.
  • howdy all,
    First off, I love this forum, My wife and I have been following for a while. From my experiecne, I like the sienna, nice and smooth (read like a toyota). Honda (neighbor has), is great but is extra wait and price worth the price. Now for the MPV. I love this vehicle for these reasons, I'm in the military, so I move a lot. And I'm going to Bosnia this Spring to defend our countries beliefs and miss my baby's birth. Long story short, I feel the MPV has decent power (Although the 2001 up grade will nice), the space one might need for one to two kids is great, three a little cramped. It's all on your needs. I'm simply glad to be a able to partake in these sites while I fly security missions over Bosnia so that My wife and new born, and everyone else are a "okay"
  • Have been away for awhile. Have not really checked MPV conferences since the start of the Olympics, then work got busy, then went to Florida for a week, then work got busier, etc, etc. Seems like there has been a fair amount of "discussion" regarding engine power. We have owned our MPV LX since mid May and have put 10,000 miles on it. We (wife, 2 kids, and me)make lots of weekender trips (300 to 350 mile round trips) as well as making some biggie trips (1200 to 2400 mile round trips). Here are some comments:

    1. We love the MPV, but it ain't perfect.
    2. Great features, styling, and build quality.
    3. Mediocre engine performance and transmission.
    4. City gas mileage is poor. No problems with 23 or 24 mpg on the highway, but I have gotten as low as 13 mpg in the city a time or two and several tanks at 15 to 17 mpg.
    5. Great interstate cruiser and city runabout in terms of handling.
    6. 2 lane highway passing under certain conditions can be little anxiety provoking.
    7. Did I mention, we loved our MPV, but I can see where some would want more power or room, but you can't beat the price.

    OK, I'll shut up.

    Take care,

  • Looked at the tribute and drove the Escape. I felt that the engine in these vehicles would be ideal for the MPV. Will Mazda upgrade the MPV 6 cyl anytime soon?
  • I like the MPV features, but I'm concerned about the horsepower. Will it take Monarch Pass in Colorado in snow and ice loaded down with 4 people and all their junk? How is it on long trips? Also, is it noisy because of the tumble under seat well?
    If I do decide to get one--the dealer has several leftover 2000s...any advice on features and price? I'm probably looking at an ES or LX.
  • jimjpsjimjps Posts: 146
    Seems like most contributors to this topic think
    the power is OK. I have driven quite a few and I would say the top end HP is perfectly adequate (ater all it is OHC and 4 valves per cylinder) but
    if any thing it may be a little lacking in torque.
    See the most recent Car & Driver comparo.

    The 3.0 from the Tribute is supposed to available somewhere between April 2001 and September 2001. Personally, I am waiting patiently for the 3.0 because I am absolutely sold on the van but I want it all.
  • I have an MPV LX with 15" wheels. My Yokahoma tires are shot at 16,000 miles. Does anyone have any advice or suugestions as to the type of tire I should purchase to replace these? We have never owned a van before, and aren't really sure what type tire to look at.
  • cmunizcmuniz Posts: 604
    I have used Michelin LTX M/S tires in a Trooper and they were great. Very comfortable, quiet, great treadwear and trouble-free. When my MPV needs tires (I have the 16" Dunlops w/15,000 mi and they are still ok) I will definetely use Michelins. You may pay more, but they are worth it.
  • I do not find the MPV to be noisy at all except under certain conditions (e.g. certain road surfaces or full-throttle acceleration). In the recent Car & Driver comparison, they commented the MPV is noisy, but I have not found that to be the case. It's easy to hold a conversation at 70 mph on a smooth road, so I don't know what more to ask for.

    Interestingly, although the Odyssey has lower measured noise level than the MPV, I've read a number of reviews (notably Edmunds and C&D) that have complained about the nature of the noise in the Ody: lots of headache-inducing road rumble.

    It's interesting that you are wondering whether or not the rear well would make the MPV noisier than otherwise. I remember reading several months ago that DaimlerChrysler was saying that they did not implement this feature for that specific reason. Personally, I think that DC simply missed the boat on this one and is just using a lame excuse for leaving out the folding rear seat. I use this feature a LOT, so I can't imagine having to put up with removing a heavy rear seat, and I would be surprised if DC didn't incorporate it soon. They'll probably say that they've "solved" the nonexistent noise problem.
  • Since everybody else is weighing in with their opinions on the MPV's power, I thought I'd throw in my own $.02. In general, the power is fine. The only time I've found it to be slightly inadequate is while accelerating uphill (i.e. on-ramps) on a hot day with the A/C running. That constitutes less than 1% of our driving, so I can live with that, especially considering how many thousands of dollars I saved over the competition.

    Interestingly, while the engine seems more powerful now that it's broken in, the mileage has not gotten any better. We've gotten as low as 15 mpg on a tank (all city driving in very hot weather), so it's disappointing the small engine isn't paying any dividends in fuel economy.

    BTW, Those of you waiting for the 3.0 should not expect to pay quite the bargain rates that we 2.5 owners have, so keep that in mind while considering whether or not to wait.

    In terms of roominess, I've found the MPV to be the perfect size for my family of four (wife, toddler, and baby). With the rear seat folded, you can put an enormous amount of stuff in it, and you can actually put a lot behind the rear seat because of the deep well. For comparison's sake, the space behind the rear seat is bigger than the trunks of a Taurus, Maxima, or Camry. For most of our road trips, we've left the rear seat up so that one of us can sit back there to tend to the periodic needs of our kids. We seat-belt the cooler on one side of the rear seat and there's still plenty of room in the rear well for all of our luggage.

    The downside is that all of the seats behind the front row are fairly small and don't have much leg room, so you probably don't want to regularly haul around a bunch of teenagers or adults on any long trips. I recently had to ride in the third row on a short trip, and I would not recommend it for anyone over the age of 12. I'm only 5'10", and I had almost no leg room. Fortunately, since we only have two kids who are very young, we won't outgrow the MPV for a long time, but it's something to consider if you have more than two older kids.

    The biggest benefit of the smallish interior (compared to other minivans) is the great maneuverability. I can easily parallel park the MPV, which I probably would not attempt in a full-sized minivan (hmm, that's an oxymoron). Also, we have a narrow driveway, but I can actually park the MPV next to my Sentra due to the narrowness of both vehicles.
Sign In or Register to comment.