Actually, the brochure came out well after the pre-order plan was in place, but the brochure also contains the catch-all CYA phrase "specifications subject to change without notice."

 

Excuse me but how many Mazdas have YOU bought in your lifetime? This is my 5th. I consider that a loyal customer. I've also sent at least 20 friends and co-workers to the local Mazda dealership where they also bought cars.

I'm not returning it strictly for the horsepower issue. If it were truly a 9 hp deficiency I'd never bat an eye. I'm retuning it because (1) the deficiency is certainly more than 9 hp, (2) the engine heat in the cabin is unacceptable as well as the heat that pours off the car and into my garage, (2) the mpg is never any better than 17 no matter how I drive it, (3) the air conditioner is marginal at best in high sun, high heat situations. The horsepower issue is simply the mecahnism I must use to turn it back in.

As for tint reimbursement. Recall your Business Law 301 course.....I relied upon the data provided by Mazda in making the purchase of the car and therefore the purchase of the tint. If a person relies upon information that subsequently turns out to be erronious and that person suffered a loss as a result of the erronious information, that person is entitled to relief. Since I cannot peel the tint off and place in on another car the only relief I can expect is financial. I know that the letter said only Mazda certified parts will be reimbursed but in a court of law that letter means squat.

And no, I did not pay over $300 for the tint, it was $208. It's not the money, its the principle.

As for sales tax, again, I relied upon faulty information and traded in a car worth $30,000. Had I never bought the RX8 I would now possess a car that I could trade for another vehicle and would receive a tax break of $1,875. Court remedies seek to make the wronged individual whole in these matters and would direct Mazda to pay this amount. Mazda is banking on the fact that people will take the money and run rather than spend many times this amount to take them to court. I want nothing more from Mazda than what I had before I purchased this car. I am not trying to make off like a bandit here.

 

Nice logical fallacy there. The number of Mazdas I have purchased in my life (3 if you must know) is completel irrelevant to this discussion. At any rate, while I'm not at all surprised by your reaction, if you care to actually read what I wrote (my kid's Kindergarten teacher would say "Read with your thinking brain") you will see that I was merely pointing out that the Mazda folks probably weren't that convinced of your loyalty, as opposed to thinking that you were loyal but they didn't care.

As for the other problems you mention, I'm guessing that none of your five Mazdas were RX-7s! All of mine were/are, so engine heat, weak air conditioning, are pretty much par for the course.

And finally, if we get an office pool going for whether or not you get reimbursed for your tint or your tax...I'll throw my money in No pool. I see your point, but I also see theirs..and there's no way legally you'll collect this, no matter what they tell you in Business Law 301.

jds

 

If the brochure said "250 hp" then it could either mean imperial (SAE) or metric (PS) horsepower - it was ambiguous. Metric horsepower is sometimes written as "xxx PS" but not always. It is horsepower and you can quite legitimately just refer to it as "xxx hp".

Later Mazda removed the ambiguity by specifying it as "247 hp (SAE)" on the US website, thus confirming that the original figure must have been metric. 250 hp (PS) = 247 hp (SAE) so any other explanation would be a bit of a coincidence.

 

Here's a thought, you could have taken that $500 debit card, and put back the power that they could not give you.. be mad at the EPA, not Mazda..

OverLOAD

 

Picked it up from the dealer last week. Since it is at home I can not look to see if it has a printing date on it.

 

Dude, it's not a court settlement. Mazda is just offering you a deal to buy the car back from you if you want to, under their terms. Sure, the terms are better if you didn't trade in a car, but hey, they could have offered you a depreciated price also, since the car is not new anymore. They don't HAVE to offer you this deal, you know...

If you would have had the weak A/C, poor mileage, high heat on any other car where you were not offered this buy back deal, and you were told that it is "normal" what would you do then?

 

If you keep in mind they are NOT legally entitled to offer you *anything* maybe you really should 'take the money' and stop bitching? You are very lucky in this situation and perhaps you should realize that rather than complaining about what you are NOT getting. You ARE getting a pretty damned good deal given the situation. Legally you are not 'wronged' at all so no court is going to tell mazda to make you 'whole' in any way shape or form.

 

Wrong again.......Looking at my footnote will show you I owned a '93 RX7.

And of course loyalty = No. of Mazdas owned previously! How else would one define it?

 

I would have considered remedies under the lemon laws.

 

**** off moron! Of course this is a legal issue! The head of their legal department is the one who briefed the phone reps. This "offer" was made to stem a flood of lawsuits over false advertising. It's nothing more than an appeasement offer. Here in the U.S. you're not allowed to lie to consumers without consequences.

Why do idiots like you read threads you have no interest in? Just read the happy- happy, joy- joy threads concerning your beloved little toy. You can all have a big Kumbayah Fest. Leave the serious threads to serious people.

It's the bitchers and moaners who got you your $500 debit card and free maintenance. Your, "It's okay to screw me" attitude would have left you nothing but an underpowered car.

 

I work in Advertising/Marketing/PR for a large company. Advertising is often selling something that is not yet ready to go, and won't be for months out. For example, I could see designing a brochure that states certain specifications, getting it proofed, changes made, then off to the printer, and then distributed, only to find out that "some" figure was printed wrong. I'm not in a car manufacturer, but I have simular issues with our new products. It is difficult to match pre-production data to what actually rolls off the assembly line.

This is part of the joys of new product launches. Lots of stress! I bet that the CEO of Mazda has had a few choice words to say. But who does he blame? It's a number of departments that share in it. And that's why you have a legal department to sort it all out.

 

The guy that is seeing over the RX8 in Canada told me that because it was 4% not 5% (yes we know the issue here) mazda wasn't legally required to do anything. Of course this can be debated that it is actually more but let's not go there.

What he did tell me was that the reason they offered the deal was because this is Mazda's flagship. This would tarnish mazda's image and they are better off looking like the good guy. I totally agree here.

I feel for your situation with the tax on the next car, but I believe this is a situation that cannot be covered by the buy back. You have a choice to make. You could keep the car and use it as a trade in to save the tax later.

Sorry I can't really help, but I do agree with you it sucks.

 

Is the vehicle fit for the purpose for which it was designed?

Is the vehicle safe?

Did you get an opportunity to test drive the vehicle before purchase?

Were you satisfied enough with the vehicle's performance during that test drive to make a decision to purchase?

These are some of the questions that would be raised, in a legal sense. In my most humble opinion the answer to all of them would be "yes", making any claim of false advertising difficult, or impossible, to prove. Does Mazda have an obligation, then, to make you "whole"? No. They gave you two options, and the terms and conditions for those options.

Stop whining.

 

I love to read Tomster's posts He is such a negative person with little self control and always wants to project his opinions on others -- as fact.

He should feel lucky Mazda didn't reduce the buy-back by the cost to remove his tint :p

His desire to get back something he didn't pay for in the first place reminds me of all the people who want to get the child tax credit check -- that didn't pay any taxes! Just because they have kids and would have paid taxes if they had made sufficient income they should get back something they never paid.

Tomster -- why don't you just ask the dealer to trade you your RX-8 for your old BMW (if it's still on the lot). Heck I bet they would trade you your lemon RX-8 for a new Tribute straight-up and then no sales tax!

 

Do you really think they know how many Mazda cars you've owned? Do you really think that matters to the folks behind a phone? Do you really think you're that special? You're a number to them and they're going to give you the same blanket deal they give to the next guy on the line. All that will really matter to them in the end is the total amount on the piece of paper you signed at the end of sale. You may get them to bend their "rules" a little on the sales tax issue but only after going up the chain a bit. As for expecting reimbursement on the window tint, you're being totally rediculous. They clearly state (and that you recognized) they would not compensate for non-Mazda upgrades/accessories. To expect them to repay you on principal is being idealist to the extreme.

 

Nice. Now considering the fact that they are allowed up to a 5% variation in the hp numbers. Their correction to the originally posted hp number was within that 5%. Hence, legally they could do nothing and you could sue them, but you would probably lose.

Mazda has made the offer out of loyalty to their customers to keep them happy. To promote customer loyalty.

You have decided to take a buy-back offer. It is a very fair offer given the circumstances, and again one that they are not LEGALLY REQUIRED to give you.

Now, if I were to take the buy-back offer, I would take the damned thing and be grateful. I'm not going to ask Mazda for the interest I would have earned if I had invested the $30,000 in XYZ stock on the Nasdaq instead of spending it on their car. You've made a decision, so live with it and stop whining.

So, why don't you **** off... moron.

 

Ouch.. be nice, I'm one of those morons.. Just no dang way around it where I'm at. Maybe the buyback might help me fix that.

Weird.. my repurchase price from the ISG showed I will be getting paid for Sales Tax, license fees, and doc fees... Hmm. Havent turned in the car yet though.. still waiting for the word and am still on the fence bout that.

 

Its not that Mazda is not reimbursing for sales tax (they are) -- Tomster wants to be reimbursed for sales tax he didn't actually pay -- but would have paid if he didn't trade-in his previous car.

 

Ahh.. I see. Thanks..

 

Wow! You mean the US created the EPA and all those emissions laws AFTER Mazda advertised the US horsepower? I must have missed that in the papers. Or maybe their poor engineers are so sheltered they had no idea that the US had emissions or gas mileage standards at all. That's probably it. Hmmm, wonder why they even bothered to put catalytic converters on, what with being so surprised at the our draconian government regulations...

Steven

 

"**** off moron! Of course this is a legal issue! "

May I suggest anger management courses? I think they could really help you deal with life a little better.

As an attorney, I'm tempted to say that everything is a legal issue, but in this case it's hard to sympathize with you.

 

You owned a '93 RX-7 and you expected the RX-8 to have a strong AC and cool-running engine??? That old saying about fool me once, shame on you..fool me twice, shame on me comes to mind.

jds

 

I think we are the only two on this board! I can practice in PA, but do not get there very much. (I like my court rules to be statewide!. Just did a 8 hour dep in philia, cozen and oconner. Where do you practice?

 

where's the fun in that?:p