Mazda 6 Forums banner

21 - 40 of 47 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
IF OP ends up not paying out-of-pocket, it will be because the dealer goodwills the repair. It is 100% impact related, albeit the impact happened against water. If OP approaches the dealer with a sense of entitlement on this matter, he/she may as well not show up at all. Heck, the description of the accident is a total admission of fault. The destructive force of water is well known (i.e. tsunami against the coast of Japan). Personally, I would just buy the part, any missing/broken fasteners, and install it myself. I hate stealerships more than most, buy right is right. Nobody but the owner or his insurance should be expected to pay for physical damage to the vehicle.
No way...cars should be designed to work outside where you such things as sun, water, wind and snow occur.

If it broke that easily then the manufacturer must fix it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
370 Posts
The tear has straight edges as if one cut it with a pair of scissors. That cannot happen in an accident, it would be an irregular tear. I think that liner was defective, a weak spot or a straight line fracture was already present and it just separated when subjected to force of water.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
241 Posts
Perhaps all of the Einsteins here (myself included) can wait for a resolution from the dealer's perspective. Y'all have a nice day.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #25 (Edited)
Ok all, so here is the final verdict. I went into my dealer's service shop Friday morning. When I reiterated the issue to them (I had already emailed them the day prior) the shop manager said no problem, that rain caused a lot of problems the other day, you're not the first person to come in with this issue. Hmmm... OK. So they write it up and after they finish recording the work order into the system, the guy behind the counter says "Now just so you know, David charges for this." D'oh. OK. At this point I'm so burnt having stayed up crazy late the night prior, and now I'm trying to rush to work, so I don't even argue. I just shrug and say OK.

Wit that said, they get it up on the lift, check it out, and then David the shop manager comes out to the waiting room and says "No worries, we don't need to order a new part, our mechanic was able to just put a nut on it. He's got it tight and secure so it shouldn't happen again. No charge for today."

So I walked away happy. But I must admit, despite the good points in this thread, I'm still kind of surprised that they were GONNA charge me had they needed to order a new part. As previous posters have said, the car should be able to withstand a puddle. I know it was a big puddle but come on. I've hit puddles before with my previous 6s and other cars and nothing like this has ever happened. I still believe the pin wasn't fully secure to begin with (or the nut was loose, however it's fastened).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Ok all, so here is the final verdict. I went into my dealer's service shop Friday morning. When I reiterated the issue to them (I had already emailed them the day prior) the shop manager said no problem, that rain caused a lot of problems the other day, you're not the first person to come in with this issue. Hmmm... OK. So they write it up and after they finish recording the work order into the system, the guy behind the counter says "Now just so you know, David charges for this." D'oh. OK. At this point I'm so burnt having stayed up crazy late the night prior, and now I'm trying to rush to work, so I don't even argue. I just shrug and say OK.

Wit that said, they get it up on the lift, check it out, and then David the shop manager comes out to the waiting room and says "No worries, we don't need to order a new part, our mechanic was able to just put a nut on it. He's got it tight and secure so it shouldn't happen again. No charge for today."

So I walked away happy. But I must admit, despite the good points in this thread, I'm still kind of surprised that they were GONNA charge me had they needed to order a new part. As previous posters have said, the car should be able to withstand a puddle. I know it was a big puddle but come on. I've hit puddles before with my previous 6s and other cars and nothing like this has ever happened. I still believe the pin wasn't fully secure to begin with (or the nut was loose, however it's fastened).
The only good points in this thread were the ones where people told you shouldn't be charged...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
I absolutely would not think they should charge you.

Unless they could prove without a reasonable doubt that external forces (that of a puddle) which literally tore out the wheel well liner, I'd be furious if they said it wasn't warranty work.

Glad your situation was resolved, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14 Posts
Discussion Starter #28
Thanks all, yeah glad it's over and done with, knock on wood. I hate public confrontations at businesses. I'm the type of guy who will eat my soup cold because I don't want to hassle the waiter/waitress, so glad I wasn't forced into questioning the charges.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
Glad they were able to "fix" it for you with a larger nut. I'm guessing they put a larger washer under it as it was clearly torn to give it a larger area to grab.
Ya, I'm guessing your area did get a lot of water damaged cars those few days.

I worked at a dealer for 15 years. That's why I came to my earlier conclusion.
1 week old, 1 year old, makes no difference when something gets hit with an outside object. As they stated, if it needed replacement it was clearly caused by your actions, not a factory defect. It would of been a customer pay job.
As is, they gave you free labor to "rig" it back up.
Mechanics are usually paid by job, so the dealer had to pay the mechanic to fix it.
Not Mazda. (Warranty)

Sorry, not trying to sound like a dick. It's just the way warranty works. And in this case, Mother Nature caused your problem, as did you when you drove through an unknown depth puddle.

Dealers have to be super careful when it comes to warranty work. When Mazda requests the old part back and sees that it was an outside force that caused the damage they charge the dealer back for the full cost of repair. Happens a lot in the dealership world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
72 Posts
Glad they were able to "fix" it for you with a larger nut. I'm guessing they put a larger washer under it as it was clearly torn to give it a larger area to grab.
Ya, I'm guessing your area did get a lot of water damaged cars those few days.

I worked at a dealer for 15 years. That's why I came to my earlier conclusion.
1 week old, 1 year old, makes no difference when something gets hit with an outside object. As they stated, if it needed replacement it was clearly caused by your actions, not a factory defect. It would of been a customer pay job.
As is, they gave you free labor to "rig" it back up.
Mechanics are usually paid by job, so the dealer had to pay the mechanic to fix it.
Not Mazda. (Warranty)

Sorry, not trying to sound like a dick. It's just the way warranty works. And in this case, Mother Nature caused your problem, as did you when you drove through an unknown depth puddle.

Dealers have to be super careful when it comes to warranty work. When Mazda requests the old part back and sees that it was an outside force that caused the damage they charge the dealer back for the full cost of repair. Happens a lot in the dealership world.
Um no sorry but that just doesn't work...

If something is designed poorly or has a fault then just because it was driven through some water, as it should be designed to do, then it should and would be covered by warranty.

If the car is that delicate then it should not be driven outside.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
458 Posts
Um no sorry but that just doesn't work...

If something is designed poorly or has a fault then just because it was driven through some water, as it should be designed to do, then it should and would be covered by warranty.

If the car is that delicate then it should not be driven outside.
Ok enough. . obviously we have two sets of opinion one who said it should have been cover and one who thinks it shouldn't... Let's agree to disagree.. But ultimately the dealer said he would have been responsible have they replace the part.. So in my 10 year old voice... I win, I win!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
Um no sorry but that just doesn't work...

If something is designed poorly or has a fault then just because it was driven through some water, as it should be designed to do, then it should and would be covered by warranty.

If the car is that delicate then it should not be driven outside.
Obvious you've never worked at a dealership or dealt with factory warranty procedures.

OP received a "fix", super happy for him,,,,
But,,,, I'd keep an eye out for it ever loosening up or tearing again.

Sadly, factory's used to fix just about anything under warranty. They've become very stringent lately and now look to blame anything on customer abuse. Sadly that forces dealers to have to comply with their rules.
Parts are made lighter (read cheaper quality) to save weight and get the best fuel economy these days.
Sadly, that means they break easier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
Glad they were able to "fix" it for you with a larger nut. I'm guessing they put a larger washer under it as it was clearly torn to give it a larger area to grab.
Ya, I'm guessing your area did get a lot of water damaged cars those few days.

I worked at a dealer for 15 years. That's why I came to my earlier conclusion.
1 week old, 1 year old, makes no difference when something gets hit with an outside object. As they stated, if it needed replacement it was clearly caused by your actions, not a factory defect. It would of been a customer pay job.
As is, they gave you free labor to "rig" it back up.
Mechanics are usually paid by job, so the dealer had to pay the mechanic to fix it.
Not Mazda. (Warranty)

Sorry, not trying to sound like a dick. It's just the way warranty works. And in this case, Mother Nature caused your problem, as did you when you drove through an unknown depth puddle.

Dealers have to be super careful when it comes to warranty work. When Mazda requests the old part back and sees that it was an outside force that caused the damage they charge the dealer back for the full cost of repair. Happens a lot in the dealership world.
Totally understand your point about factory warranty vs dealers just eating the cost and doing good customer service.

However, being in the engineering world and working many failure analyses, you also have to account for poor design as a defect.

Ignoring fatigue failures (which clearly wasn't the case here) parts generally fail for two reasons. 1. The part had a material defect (such as a pre-existing crack) or 2. the part saw too much load. The second part is the tricky part you're discussing. Did it see too much load due to misuse or was it designed poorly so that normal operations could cause too much load.

I don't know what the diameter of the hole is compared to the flange of the fastener, but I'm sure it can't handle much load. No, one would assume it shouldn't see a lot of load, but obviously cars drive in snow, rain water, etc and it is possible the fabric like material could be under some sort of load. How much did they design for?

I'd use the car seats as an example. If before the warranty runs out you notice the cushion in the side bolster was cracked (i.e. the shape was weird now), they wouldn't likely deny warranty work because the driver is too heavy (unless maybe it's obscene). Same for the "oh crap" handles. if you were 240lbs and used it to help yourself out of the seat and it snapped, that's crap design.

you'd have to fight it, of course. Not like the dealership has an office of engineers, but Mazda does. It just may be more hassle.

I'll say my experience that material defects are rare. Usually it's bad design (or not realizing a failure mechanism), or misuse. The question is this.. is driving through a puddle in a car misuse or not?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
382 Posts
Really wish we had pictures of the nut, or whatever stud the nut screwed into on that original failure or a more close up of that tear near the hole. I'd be able to tell you a lot more.

Quick glance at that small tear is that it looks pretty typical of an overload failure. But why was the nut missing? Unless it stripped the stud, it should have remained. If it vibrated off, you wouldn't have the crack in the fiberous material.

Gosh, makes me want to look at mine more closely.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
462 Posts
Either way, I've had both wheel wells packed with slush and blasted our with a hose with no issue,,,, so far.
We will all agree there are to many unknowns here but either way the part (over stressed/ under engineered) would not of been covered by Mazda/the dealer as already stated by the OP.
I dislike that the liner is two pieces and split in the center. Should of been one piece.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
241 Posts
There's plenty to dislike regarding how this "Skyactiv" initiative translates into build robustness (or lack thereof). Personally, I feel Skyactiv=Cheap, and even at 3232 lb. (GT configuration), this car is no lightweight. Cheap liners, super thin bumper liners, etc, etc. How about more lightweight high tensile steel, and an aluminum hood versus the heavyweight traditional steel hood that still vibrates at highway speeds in many of these vehicles, particularly the CX-5 but also the 6.

I (not you, any of you) have managed just under 38 mpg on long highway drives, but in the city, I'm lucky to keep it over 23 mpg. To me, the tradeoff in cheap for a little bit of highway mpg is unacceptable. I know I'm in the minority, so maybe you can talk to a mod to get me thrown out, because I'll keep saying it the way I see it. Hopefully, each of you will do the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,047 Posts
I don't see how you're getting 23mpg unless you're driving in a fashion that is incompatible with any concern for fuel economy; my combined-cycle mileage has a very solid "3" handle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
99 Posts
I don't see how you're getting 23mpg unless you're driving in a fashion that is incompatible with any concern for fuel economy; my combined-cycle mileage has a very solid "3" handle.
25 MPG is the highest I have been able to achieve. Combination of roughly 75/25 city/freeway driving.

Maybe we just have more traffic and traffic lights... who knows?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,000 Posts
I concur, my highway driving can average over 36mpg but city is 21-23mpg.
 
21 - 40 of 47 Posts
Top