Mazda - Does it have a good future in US?

mazda6s · August 2005

I kinda like the Mazdaspeed Mazda5 idea. Do you think that would sell?

qbrozen · August 2005

In the small numbers that mazda usually releases their "speed" versions, I don't think they'd have a problem selling them.

mazda6s · August 2005

Yeah, and I think a 2.3 turbo AWD Mazda5 would be a hoot!

rational buyer · August 2005

I think part of the problem with Mazda in the States is that it is not working hard enough to fulfill the masses of potential for Mazda cars. Many cases in point:-

A) How many years late to the game was the MazdaSpeed Miata MX-5? And the Mazda 3 and 6 MazdaSpeed variants?

The advertising could be edgier - check out this UK advert (warning - not for the sensitive souls who got upset about Janet Jackson at the Superbowl)
link title

C) Product Launches - the MX5 was in Hawaii - a poor choice for a driver's car and the Mazda 5 has disappeared without trace.

C) The Mazda 5 has lots of great features not being utilized on the States but available in other markets
- Karakuri 6+1 seats (see link title)
- Sat Nav with rear camera (see link title)
- Parking Sensors

D) The Mazda 5 could have been better prepared for launch - checkout the gripes regarding Window Tinting and A/C and the lack of powertrain options (as per previous message - Opel/Vauxhall put 240hp Turbo in the Zafira and Chrysler the same in the PT Cruiser - it can be done)

If Mazda USA got it's act together they could go somewhere but they are always chasing the game and if they succeed it appears to be despite themselves. Waht a shame because the product is greated but not been exploited properly.

mz6greyghost · August 2005

A) How many years late to the game was the MazdaSpeed Miata MX-5? And the Mazda 3 and 6 MazdaSpeed variants?

MazdaSpeed versions of vehicles are specifically meant to be released late into the life cycle of a current model/chassis. With the exception of the MS Miata (which lasted 2+ years), the MS Protege lasted a year before the release of the 3. The MS 6 will be out in (supposedly) Oct/Nov, before a total revamp of the 6 (probably for late '07/early '08), and the MS 3 will follow suit. MS's are built to add attention (hence, more sales) to older models.

Is it right? Maybe, considering that Mazda doesn't have the $$ or capacity to build mass quantities of MS's, saturating the market and hurting sales in the long run.

Not for nothing, but I believe the exclusivity of the MS cars is a good thing.

The advertising could be edgier - check out this UK advert (warning - not for the sensitive souls who got upset about Janet Jackson at the Superbowl)

Blame the FCC and parent groups for that one, considering they'de be in an uproar if something like that was aired in the US. Their current advertising could definitely use more TV time in general, IMO. Their commercials are few and far between in my market (upstate NY), and it's a shame, really...

C) Product Launches - the MX5 was in Hawaii - a poor choice for a driver's car...

I can't think of a better way of launching a brand-new drivers roadster than in Hawaii. Great weather, no frost-heaved roads, excellent climate and culture, come on... It's better than Pikes Peak in February!

About all your Mazda 5 comments... You HAVE to remember that the US and European markets are night and day. Mazda is taking a risk with introducing a mini-minivan in a market with Grand Caravans, Odysseys, and Siennas running away with it. Face it, America likes it BIG! That's why the MPV isn't even an option on many minivan buyers lists. Mazda is alloting LESS THAN 10,000 5's to the US this year because of that. US buyers looking for a minivan will go big, while people looking for a smaller people mover will look to a Vibe/Matrix crossover vehicle, or go with, say, a Focus 5-door or a Mazda 3 (which the 5 shares it's platform and engine).

I give Mazda credit for being ahead of the curve. With gasoline prices continuing to rise, people will still need to haul stuff, but will need a smaller, more economical package to accomplish this. Therefore, wagons and mini-minivans will begin to thrive, while SUVs and "minibuses" will not. In terms of options, they'll take time to funnel down to the US market, but they will. I can't name another small car with a Navigation system or HID headlights like the Mazda 3...

If Mazda USA got it's act together they could go somewhere but they are always chasing the game and if they succeed it appears to be despite themselves. Waht a shame because the product is greated but not been exploited properly.

Is that why sales of the 3 and 6 climb EVERY month, despite themselves? I don't think so. Mazda is a small Japanese (with some controlling interest by Ford) car company that has developed a niche, a "zoom-zoom" niche, if you will. Cars that are a little more sporty and fun to drive compared to the competition. They strive NOT to be plain-jane, vanilla makers like Honda and Toyota, and are having success doing that.

Could they advertise more? Sure.
Should they cater to the market as a whole? NO WAY!!

They tried that experiment before, and failed miserably, to the point that if Ford didn't step in, they could have folded. The "sporty" niche is giving them good sales and decent success.

Mazda is on the right path. Let's hope they can maintain that.

autonomous · August 2005

You raise some good points.

1. Mazdaspeed models: These souped up versions should be coming in the slip stream of the regular production run. They should not be coming out if a line is being readied for replacement (Mazdaspeed Protege); that sends the wrong message. Like you, many of us have wondered why the Mazdaspeed Miata took so long considering its popularity and need for some additional oomph. If Mazda wants to project the zoom-zoom image this is an important component of that strategy.

2. Advertising: After reading The Rebel Sell by Joseph Heath and Andrew Potter I wonder what impact advertising really has.

3. Full-line up: Based on the current offerings, Mazda seems to be pursuing the creation of a full line-up of cars; some of us believe that a Mazda luxury car is on the horizon. Expanding into different segments is a survival strategy as well as a growth strategy (as in do not put all your eggs in the same basket).

4. Future zhock: In addition to zoom-zoom hopefully Mazda and other auto manufacturers do not lose sight of reliability and sustainability. Building bigger engines to guzzle more $3+ gas is like pressing the autodestruct button. Toyota and Honda are showing that building more efficient engines that both go fast and use less fuel has a future. That makes sense not only in the US but in the world.

smaria · August 2005

US buyers looking for a minivan will go big, while people looking for a smaller people mover will look to a Vibe/Matrix crossover vehicle, or go with, say, a Focus 5-door or a Mazda 3 (which the 5 shares it's platform and engine).

I think that the Mazda5 shines in comparison to the Matrix/Vibe options. My wife and I checked out the Matrix and ended up buying a Mazda5...the Mazda5 drives/handles much better and is more versatile for roughly the same price. I think that the Mazda5 will sell well to Matrix/Vibe cross-shoppers.

Compared to mini-vans, most people considering mini-vans really think that they need all of that space. So they won't be willing to sacrifice the space of large mini-vans without being rewarded with significant improvements in handling and MPG. The Mazda5 does well with the handling, but not the MPG. If the Mazda5 got 30 MPG highway (with the AT), I think that it'd attract a lot of the current mini-van shoppers. As it is (26 MPG highway), I don't think it will.

nippononly · August 2005

"If the Mazda5 got 30 MPG highway (with the AT), I think that it'd attract a lot of the current mini-van shoppers. As it is (26 MPG highway), I don't think it will."

Consider that the Sienna FWD gets the same mileage with its V-6 and significantly more space.

In these days of high gas prices, it is a shame they couldn't extract better mpg from this model - consider that this rating is the same as the one for the 4WD RAV4, which is a three-year-old model (with this powertrain) that weighs only about 100 pounds less, has more torque, and drives all four wheels all the time.

Now if Mazda wants the 5 to be the sporty option to a regular minivan, that is great, but it is one more reason not to try to market TWO sport minivans (including the MPV). Perhaps "sporty" gearing is the reason for the lower mpg.

isda65 · August 2005

Yes the Sienna has more space but it DOESN't get the same mileage. In the highway yes. But a difference of .1 L/100 kms. Geez. On the other hand, in the city the Mazda 5 is better by 1.2 L/100 kms. Sorry I don't have time to convert to MPG. But you get my point. Here's their fuel economy ratings:

Mazda5 AT (City/Highway) 11.2/8.3 L/100 kms
Sienna (City/Highway) 12.4/8.2 L/100 kms

Please consider that not all drivers drive the highway everyday. And you can be sure that there are a lot of drivers living and working in the city. I'm sure Mazda has the stats here. I'm one primary example. I do 98% city driving. So why would I drive a lumbering Sienna in the city streets? I've also got two kids. I'm sure Mazda's research department is fully aware of the fact that there are more smaller families in the cities than otherwise.

Don't forget one big important thing too. The price. Here in Canada the base Sienna FWD costs $32,500 while the top model Mazda5 costs $26,410. So in 5 years at let's say $1.10/liter which is what the price is here now with my average of 13,000kms/year at 98%city and 2%highway my total cost of savings over the Sienna? Can $6,929.41.

The question now is would it be worth spending $6929.41 more because Sienna is bigger in 5 years? Not in my case. So before we go about making hasty judgements about how foolish and silly Mazda is for not knowing how to read the market, know that there are more people than you know who has different needs and requirements. I am one of these and I know a few more.

nippononly · August 2005

you misunderstand me - I am fully aware that the Sienna and Mazda5 are very different vehicles for different markets, in different price ranges, and barely compete at all. That was NOT my point.

My point was, the Sienna weighs about a ton more than the Mazda5, has a V-6 with close to 70 more hp, and yet has the same highway EPA rating as the Mazda5, and a city rating that is only less by about 10%.

Mazda could surely do better. Fuel economy looks to be an important factor in car buying decisions for the foreseeable future, much more so than it has been in the last decade or two.

But again, perhaps they were emphasizing sport rather than practicality when they designed it. If THAT is the case, I wonder how sporty it is, given that it weighs more than a 4-cyl Accord EX by 200 pounds plus, with an engine that has less torque. And it has a higher center of gravity.

I know Mazda is the zoom zoom company, but it would do well to keep just half an eye on the fuel economy/cost of operation side.

isda65 · August 2005

>you misunderstand me
Not in the way that you're probably thinking. Maybe I'm just getting ahead a little bit on the topic but I know this is where we're heading anyway - that Mazda doesn't get it. Right? I know Honda and Toyota have got it where engine efficiency is concerned. I should know. I had a 2003 Honda Accord and CRV before. Still, for these two vehicles I've never got the EPA ratings. It had always been 15%-20% worse than what they stated. While my new Mazda 5 has hit it right on the spot. After 2000kms so far my fuel economy figures were right what EPA has stated. But this is beside the point. Actually the first time I read the specs I was dumbfounded. My 2005 CRV manual had an EPA rating of 11.1L/100Kms for the city. How can an SUV with a bigger engine (2.5L) had better fuel economy than Mazda 5 which had only 2.3L? I couldn't get it either. And Mazda5 was supposed to be car-based! I've waited for the Mazda 5 since it came out with the concept the year before and you could imagine how disappointed I was. I belong to those people where fuel economy is at the top of the list. But look at me now. I've never felt so better driving my 5 now. It makes so complete sense to me. And as it turned out I actually got better fuel ratings than my CRV. Go figure.

So the Sienna has the better setup. It has a better and more efficient packaging. So has the Dodge Caravan. I know all these. And yet Mazda still built the Mazda5. Don't you think Mazda doesn't know this fact? I'm pretty sure Mazda 5 is more than just it's not-too-good fuel economy. You say,"perhaps they were emphasizing sport rather than practicality when they designed it". How wrong can you be. This car is the epitome of practicality! It's small yet it can fit 6. It's engine is small and "inefficient" yet it can zoom up the big hill everyday without even straining - without even touching 3000rpm at 80kph which is more than one can ask driving in the city. It's a minivan yet I've never heard a negative feedback from people that I've met so far including people in the 20's age range. Yes it doesn't have AWD but who cares. Here in Vancouver I've never needed it. Do all the other best-selling minivans have it? Does the base Sienna have curtain airbags, rain-sensing wipers, daylight-sensing headlights (and I may say very bright ones at that), tiptronic transmission, moonroof, 6-speaker audio system with steering-wheel controls, automatic climate control A/C, 17-inch alloy wheels, telescoping steering wheel, sliding-door power assist on both doors all of these for the price of CAN $27000?

My point here is that before we say this thing lacks this thing or that or that Mazda should have done this or that maybe we should first consider the picture as a whole. And the whole picture here is affordability and practicality. The fuel efficiency is a little price to pay for getting this type of car. They just used Mazda 3's engine tweaked it a little bit to move a heavier body. That's all it probably was. Do you think we could have gotten this at this cheaper price if they had developed say like a 2.5L running at a fuel efficiency like Honda's or Toyota's? Don't think so. If this car had been just a bit near the CAN $30K range I would have dropped it without even thinking.

You say, "I wonder how sporty it is given that it weighs more than a 4-cyl Accord EX by 200 pounds plus, with an engine that has less torque. And it has a higher center of gravity." You know what all of us who were awaiting this car had the same question in mind the first time they released the specs. But all of us had the same reaction when we test drove it. "Man this car can actually move!".

So go out and test drive it first. You'll be surprised.

ateixeira · August 2005

The MPV should have received more updates. For all the talk of zoom-zoom, why isn't there at least 250hp available? While I understand that zoom-zoom is about more than HP, let's face it, HP is what sells, and people looking for a sporty van have been buying Odysseys, not MPVs.

It's like they sort of let it die off, instead of continously updating it.

Mazda5 sure looks fun but it will have such a limited appeal in a country hungry for HP and spacious interiors.

CX7 can be sold alongside the Tribute because it will cost more and be more luxurious. I don't see much overlap. It's like a base Highlander compared to a Lexus RX330.

-juice

jaserb · August 2005

The '00 redesign had the way-too-tiny 2.5 from the Contour. The 3.0 would have been more competitive back then, and if Ford hadn't been so late to the game with the Duratec 35 they could have dropped that in as an option in '02-03 and remained in the game. The 3.0 is adequate in most situations, but compared to the Sienna and Odyssey it definitely is lacking.

I like our MPV a lot, but if transaction prices were on par with the Ody it would have been a tough sell.

-Jason

ateixeira · August 2005

That should have come years ago. Look how long Honda's had it.

Yes the MPV is lighter, but that's the whole point - it should be quicker and sportier than the Odyssey.

-juice

jc9799 · August 2005

I like our MPV a lot, but if transaction prices were on par with the Ody it would have been a tough sell.

Jason, I'll agree with you on that. Same with your take on the 2.5 and 3.0.

dan bitman · August 2005

check this out.
And I heard one of the engines is gonna be a 2.8L DIESEL !!!!!!
http://www.cnn.com/2005/AUTOS/08/22/vw_chysler.reut/index.html

w9cw · August 2005

We are finally looking for a vehicle to replace our 1994 Dodge Grand Caravan ES with the 3.3L V6 and 4-speed ECT. The Mazda5 meets our requirements, as both our children are now grown and out of the house. The Grand Caravan has nearly 160K miles, and still no engine or transmission problems (amazing), but I've used Mobil 1 since purchasing it new with changes at every 3K and ATF changes every 30K. The best mileage we've recorded is 26.5 MPG on the highway with the A/C on, and we consistently get 17 to 18 MPG in town - not bad for such a large and heavy vehicle.

I've previously owned Mazda products and have had great luck. Thus, the consideration of the Mazda5.

nedc2 · August 2005

The MPV was sold worldwide by Mazda and only in horsepower mad North America & Australia is it available with the 3.0l V6. I wouldn't say that the MPV was a failure her because it was too small or had too small an engine, it's simply a niche vehilcle in the NA market. It will fit where a larger minivan like the current generation Odyssey, Sienna, etc. will not. The MPV being shorter, and narrower Is easier to park and garage, the Mazda 5 is even more compact. Identifying and filling niches is a good stategy for a smaller maunufacturer with limited production capacity. there is a very real, if small, demand for smaller or sportier alternatives to mainstream offerings. Now if Mazda would only find a 5 or 6 speed automatic for the Mazda 5...

kronogoose · August 2005

Thanks for the update. Was there any information on the MazdaSpeed6 or MazdaSpeed3?

Thanks,

Greg

PF_Flyer · August 2005

kronogoose, trying to consolidate the discussion of this into one topic. This topic is really for a discussion of the future of the Mazda company. The discussion of the event is better placed here:
frank4cars, "Mazda Owners: All Owners Forum" #56, 31 Aug 2005 8:06 am

Frank also posted over there, so just follow that link to continue.

frank4cars · August 2005

So sorry everyone. I'm still fairly new at this. I guess I could have put a link to that instead of reposting. Mea culpa.

PF_Flyer · August 2005

We LOVE showing our new users the ropes! In fact, you should come to the Tuesday night Mazda chats and meet the gang Frank! Every Tuesday at 9PM ET.

sukispeed · September 2005

http://www.geocities.com/jlf97.geo/mazda.html

biggus3 · September 2005

I hope to god that mazda never ventures to create a "Avalance-style" CX-9.

sukispeed · September 2005

I am not say it should look ike the Avalance but it should have the function of the Avalance. cargo wise.

PF_Flyer · September 2005

Hope to see more of you tonight for our weekly chat session!

PF Flyer
Host
News & Views, Wagons, & Hybrid Vehicles

The weekly Mazda Club Chat is on tonight. The chat room opens at 8:45PM ET Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule

biggus3 · September 2005

Looks were not why I was complaining. Mazda has built there little niche on fun and economical cars to drive. Mazda would be going against that niche by building a full size truck. Furthermore, does or has Mazda ever built a V8 engine? To the best of my knowlege they havent, but they would definately need one to compete in that segment. Between Ford, Chevy, Dodge, Nissan, and Toyota, I think Mazda delving into the full size truck segment would be a serious mistake.

raychuang00 · September 2005

...I'd like to see two things done:

1. Put in the five-speed automatic now available on the Mazda3 equipped with the 2.3-liter I-4 engine. That will improve acceleration and likely improve EPA highway MPG ratings.

2. Have Mazda bring over a clean-burning turbodiesel--complete with a beefed-up version of said five-speed automatic--for the Mazda5. The result will be much better fuel economy and with today's turbodiesel engine technologies, air pollution shouldn't be a significant issue.

nippononly · September 2005

would, I am sure, borrow heavily from Ford if it were to try to market a larger truck. Something it definitely should NOT do, IMO.

mz6greyghost · September 2005

Why not?

I don't think that Mazda should build a full-size truck, but what's the problem with using the F-150 as a starting point? IMO, it's the best thing out there. The platform is well-engineered, styling is second-to-none, and the sales figures don't lie.

That is, if Mazda does go this route...

sukispeed · September 2005

I think Mazda delving into the full size truck segment would be a serious mistake too, That why have mid size for all the trucks. I do not think they need a V8. all the truck engines should be V-6's. Mazda must make cars and trucks that sell large numbers so they can make the niche fun to drive cars.

autonomous · September 2005

what's the problem with using the F-150 as a starting point? IMO, it's the best thing out there.
That may have been true until yesterday's news about Ford and one of the largest recalls in American auto history. Unfortunately, this setback may impact Ford's ability to move forward.

In light of the recent fuel prices, is it not obvious that auto manufacturers need to design engines that balance higher output with improved fuel efficiency? Chrysler, Ford, Honda, Toyota and others have shown what's possible. Mazda seems to be offering an alternative way with its turbo versions; witness the new CX7 SUV, the Mazdaspeed6 and the Mazdaspeed3. Is this Mazda's short term solution to addressing the fuel efficiency+ performance balance? I'd be interested in seeing the real world numbers once these vehicles are on the road; my suspicion is that these vehicles can be a move in the right direction but much more needs to be done. In my opinion, this is where Ford needs to step in for the long term survival of its "family" (Ford, Mercury, Jaguar, Mazda, Volvo). Hopefully, Ford can take the Ballard fuel cell solution to market sooner rather than later. We need to see more innovation in creating a powerful and efficient engine using more long term, future-oriented technologies.

nippononly · September 2005

well lessee, Mazda couldn't sell any copies of the rebadged Ranger during the 90s when it was the hottest compact truck around, and now they should try to sell a rebadged F-150? Mazda is a SPORT company. I continue to push my sport truck idea: HERE is a niche Mazda could exploit I think, for minimal investment. Ford makes a sportyish version of their Ranger, so Mazda could do the same with the B-series truck, only make it truly sporty, rather than just sporty-looking. Toyota and Nissan both have sport versions of their midsize trucks.

Not to mention, people aren't going to go to Mazda for work trucks, they just won't, and with regard to the "family transport" crowd that has been buying a lot of the full-size trucks for the last decade, I think those sales will now drop dramatically in favor of smaller vehicles, with the gas prices higher and higher all the time.

mdaffron · September 2005

Ford makes a sportyish version of their Ranger, so Mazda could do the same with the B-series truck, only make it truly sporty, rather than just sporty-looking.

Actually, Mazda already does that, and they've been doing it for years.

It's called the B3000 Dual Sport. Only available with the 3.0-liter V6, it also offers:

- Raised suspension
- Body-color grille, bumpers and door handles
- Power windows, locks and mirrors
- CD, cruise control and rear sliding window
- 15-inch alloy wheels, bed liner and fog lights
- Rear fender flares

It's basically Mazda's version of Toyota's Tacoma PreRunner (2WD sport version made to look like the 4WD version)

But I do agree. Mazda truck sales are very, very slow. (Anyone ever seen a B-series truck commercial?) Anyway, you know, Mazda still builds its own pickups and other trucks -- all the way up to cargo vans -- for other markets. I sure wish they'd bring their own trucks back here.

Meade

mz6greyghost · September 2005

That may have been true until yesterday's news about Ford and one of the largest recalls in American auto history. Unfortunately, this setback may impact Ford's ability to move forward.

I still stand behind what I said, recall or not. GM, DC, Toyota, Honda, Nissan, etc. have ALL had a recall on their porducts at one point. The amount of vehicles only show how popular they've been year after year.

mz6greyghost · September 2005

well lessee, Mazda couldn't sell any copies of the rebadged Ranger during the 90s when it was the hottest compact truck around, and now they should try to sell a rebadged F-150?...

Not to mention, people aren't going to go to Mazda for work trucks, they just won't...

If you read my earlier post...

"I don't think that Mazda should build a full-size truck..."

You can see that I'm in TOTAL agreement with you. I just think that the F-150 wouldn't be a bad starting point for such a vehicle.

The whole full-size truck/SUV "family transport" fad will indeed fade as fast as fuel prices rise, as you said. People will realize that a smaller SUV or wagon would suit their needs, while saving $$$ on gas in the process. The Mazda 6 wagon, Tribute, and upcoming CX-7 are perfect candidates for this already. Why build a truck?

mdaffron · September 2005

The Mazda 6 wagon, Tribute, and upcoming CX-7 are perfect candidates for this already.

You're forgetting ... the Mazda5, which already is selling better than Mazda projected over here!

Meade

mz6greyghost · September 2005

My apologies...

No kidding! The Mazda 5 is selling well? That's good news...

nippononly · September 2005

LOL! Your listing makes my point perfectly - the only FUNCTIONAL change or addition on that dual sport you detailed was the suspension, which is...RAISED??!! I understand they were going for the PreRunner market, which is smart because PreRunner is I think the best-selling trim of the Tacoma. But raising the suspension just makes the truck LESS sporty, not more.

No, to complete the Tacoma analogy, think XRunner. LOWERED suspension, 18" rims and summer tires, extra reinforcement for less body torquing and fat stabilizer bars, and a V-6/6-speed manual combo as the only powertrain.

Now why couldn't Mazda do THAT to a Ranger, and call it the Mazda sport truck? (well OK, they should be more inventive with the name than I have been)

Better yet, go one step further, I dunno. That type of vehicle appeals to a certain crowd - Toyota sold every XRunner it could make in the earlier generation, and seems to be selling them well again now. And Mazda has the advantage that the Ranger is the only truly compact truck left - all the others got supersized last year - which should aid handling.

mdaffron · September 2005

But raising the suspension just makes the truck LESS sporty, not more.

Hey, wait a minute. Pickup truck buffs are different than car buffs when it comes to the definition of the word "sporty." (I know, I used to be one.) I think in the truck world, raising up the suspension is considered sporty. (Just look at all the truck shops that specialize in this kind of stuff.) Bedliners are the epitome of sportiness too, as are box rails and hitches. And I'm sure Mazda did a little market research before deciding how to "supe up" the truck.

Caveat ... Maybe lowering and all that is the big thing over there in Califormia, but over here in the Southland (where pickups rule -- literally), you see TONS of raised-up trucks with all sorts of chrome stuff hanging off them. Very rarely do I see one that's been chopped.

Meade

nippononly · September 2005

there is a big market for raised trucks, no question. Like I said, the PreRunner has been the best-selling Tacoma many of the years they have been making it. But that is the kind of "sport" where you can go fooling around in the dirt and not worry about dragging your guts on the ground. It is not the kind of sport where you can challenge Mustangs at stoplights. :-)

I am talking about an urban truck for urban users. They could advertise it as the truck that can run with a Miata on the track. But I'm NOT saying they should stop making the "dual sport". They could do both. And they could probably just quit a lot of the more pedestrian versions of the B-series - no-one is buying them.

carguy58 · September 2005

Well its looking better. I've seen posts about people wanting Mazda to put an Acura RL competitor. What? Mazda doing a pick-up truck? No. They need a bigger 6 and a bigger MPV which they will be getting both in a couple years. I can't wait to see the new 6 in a couple years. I will be in the market for a new car at that time. My experience with the 1998 626 that I had on a lease was ok. No problems with the car that were major in 28,300 miles. Had a recall, water leaked onto the passenger seat floor(I suspect from the air conditioning unit, )and the brakes were starting to go. Brakes starting to go after 3 years is acceptable I think. I did not have any problems with the tranny, or engine however. Maybe I'll take a look at Mazda again. My concern with Mazda is quality however. Consumer Reports did not give the 03 6 a good reliability rating. The RX-8 had a bad first year as well. The 98-02 626 had a sterling reliability record by Consumer Reports anyway.

mazda6s · September 2005

As you may know the reliability of Consumer Reports ratings is a subject for ongoing debate and discussion. I used to believe everything they said, but I now have serious questions about their methods and biases, which have been mentioned many times by others as well.

carguy58 · September 2005

Well I do know the 6's reliability was hurt by the fuel recall in 03 and issues with the brakes. The brake issue seems like an industry wide problem for first year cars. The 2002 Lexus EsS300/330 and 2003 Honda Accord all had issues with the brakes. The staining on the 6's exterior which goes under paint/rust/trim category in CR hurt as well. I am hoping Mazda took care of their first year bugs with the 6.

mz6greyghost · September 2005

I am hoping Mazda took care of their first year bugs with the 6.

They did.

The staining is all but gone on '04 and newer cars, and there have been less complaints about the brakes. The only problem I have with brakes is the brake dust that seems to accumulate pretty fast on the alloy wheels, but that's an annoyance at most.

As far as I'm concerned, the reliabilty "surveys" that CR runs are to be taken with a grain of salt. Overall, I think CR does a good job, but there are other publications and surveys that do the same thing, and they should ALL be taken as a small measure of how good or reliable a car really is, and NOT the final word. Unfortunately, the first-year model myth still holds true for a lot, but not all, automakers, and you'll still find one or two duds in any make or model car, be it an Accord or 6.

As for my personal tastes, I take much more reassurance as to how the car drives, handles, and thrills much more than any quality survey could. I bought the 6 because it puts a smile on my face every morning on the way to work, every evening on the way home, and every time I run errands or drive across the state. Oh, and I've had it for a year and a month, put 17K miles on it, and I haven't had a problem yet...

Is it typical, or did I just get lucky? Ask me if I care... :shades:

autonomous · September 2005

the reliabilty "surveys" that CR runs are to be taken with a grain of salt. Overall, I think CR does a good job, but there are other publications and surveys that do the same thing, and they should ALL be taken as a small measure of how good or reliable a car really is, and NOT the final word.
Any survey/review is open to criticism, however, Consumer Reports' surveys tend to be better than most. Most publications use advertising which can influence the objectivity of a report; CR does not accept advertisement. Many reviews are done by an "expert" auto journalist who gives a personal view of the car based on his/her experience; CR uses a team which includes engineers, technicians and others. For reliability studies, CR surveys thousands of readers for their opinions of satisfaction and problem areas; in other words it's not CR that says the vehicle is problematic or not, it is us - the audience in the real world. In my experience, CR helps consumers like us by highlighting a range of good and poor choices in the marketplace and educating us in how to deal with some bizarre and opaque business practices such as "holdback".

Unfortunately, the first-year model myth still holds true for a lot, but not all, automakers, and you'll still find one or two duds in any make or model ...
Actually, it's not only the first year but the first couple of years of many models that is problematic, check out the latest issue of CR for some interesting examples.

stickguy · September 2005

The CR results also need to be put into context. THey compare cars to each other, so the ratings are relative. So, if most cars have 1% of the model with brake problems, but car X has 2%, they can get a big black circle as being much worse than average.

Even if they use an absolute scale, it might nly be 10% as the worst catagory, which means that 90% of people never report having a particular problem.

As noted, CR is good for pointing out areas where a particular model might not be strong, but is ar from meaning that you will (or won't) have problems with your car.

mdaffron · September 2005

Zoom Happy!

:shades:

PF_Flyer · September 2005

No chance to be confused as to the day of the week because of the holiday THIS week

PF Flyer
Host
News & Views, Wagons, & Hybrid Vehicles

The weekly Mazda Club Chat is on tonight. The chat room opens at 8:45PM ET Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule

carguy58 · September 2005

"Actually, it's not only the first year but the first couple of years of many models that is problematic, check out the latest issue of CR for some interesting examples."

Yeah I saw a stat on that. For example a 2000 a Toyota RAV 4(last year of that particular bodystyle) had 13 problems per 100 cars I think. 2001 Toyota RAV 4(first year model) had 39 problems per 100 cars. The 2002 RAV4 had 18 problems per 100 cars and the 2003 Toyota RAV4 had 13 problems per 100 cars. I also saw a stat on the Mazda Tribute Ford Escape Twins. It took them about 2 years to work the bugs out of Trib/Escape Twins. The 02(second year model)Trib/Escape still gets an average mark by CR in reliability though.

Mazda - Does it have a good future in US?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles