heres what I think. If we sign the agreement, we basically now hold Mazda to 238 HP. OR...+or- 5% as allowable by law. The Real HP is probably 225-228, which is within the 5% margin. Therefor releasing them from any legal liability.

They basically lowered the HP figures to WITHIN 5% of the ACTUAL figures. which is legal. They Know that the car actually makes 225....but saying 238 makes them look better and keeps their head above the law.

Very deceptive.......think about it.

 

From dcfc3s's post - "- The first dyno tests were around 2-3 weeks after that, and there was another week of discussion, backing up the test, etc."

Wow, I really thought Mazda might have one of those new fangled dyno things at the factory. :D

 

The auto mags have to know about this by now.

Shouldn't we expect some mags to do some test of there own.

If Mazda really wants to put there customers minds at ease they should have some INDEPENDENT testers rate the hp of there car.

If I can get an official independent test that says 238, I'm happy. I just find it a little harder to trust Mazda and their numbers at this point.

 

although the service and 500 bucks is good.. I'd still like to get what I "paid for". I still think that there is some tweaking that needs to be done to this car to get it where it should be../ I don't know if the oil/ gas problem has something to do with it, possibly, but I'd like to have the credit PLUS the problem fixed.

 

Hey Wing...

Do you have any contacts that could pull the thread on the Canadian cars?

 

I second Gyro's thoughts.

 

Can someone scan the form in? I'm curious to see exactly how the release is drafted. If it is limited to any claim related to or arising out of the difference between 247 and 238 hp, that's one thing; if it just says "any claim," that literally encompasses claims that have nothing to do with the hp issue. Now, a court would not necessarily enforce the full, literal scope of the release, but it might. That's a question of contract interpretation.

 

here you go....

 

oops....here it is

 

it qualified me. same exact situation.

 

I third what gyro said:

"heres what I think. If we sign the agreement, we basically now hold Mazda to 238 HP. OR...+or- 5% as allowable by law. The Real HP is probably 225-228, which is within the 5% margin. Therefor releasing them from any legal liability.

They basically lowered the HP figures to WITHIN 5% of the ACTUAL figures. which is legal. They Know that the car actually makes 225....but saying 238 makes them look better and keeps their head above the law.

Very deceptive.......think about it."

 

This concerns me too. Here's the scenario:
1. Mazda advertises 247 hp
2. After US introduction and emissions tuning, and after people dyno it, they revise the figure to 238 hp.
3. We take the offer and release them from liability.
4. In November, Mazda revises the hp down to, say 215, which more closely matches the dyno results we are seeing.

Those of us who took the this offer are SOL. I'm no HP junkie, but it would sound like they're limiting their exposure here. 9 hp is not much, but 30?

I also wonder if we take the service offer, now we have to take it to the dealer for an oil change, and they can mess with the ECU. I don't know why they would - increase HP, increase MPG, whatever.

"Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."

 

Be scared. Be VERY scared! There's no context here, they aren't linking this legal restriction to the power loss. If you sign this then you can't sue them for ANYTHING or indeed a dealer. Like I said: be scared!

 

Mommy!!!

 

Another option here is the "Do Nothing" option. What are the scenarios if we go by the October 1 date?

1. The first is that we lose out on a guaranteed $500 and free maintenance.

2. What if something else comes to light later on in the year. Does that position us differently than those who opted out for the deal?

3. Is something like this likely to occur?

 

Yes, those who took the deal can't sue, or otherwise hold MNAO liable. Do nothing, and you can.

Are there any lawyers here? There must be a law against them trying to bribe us out of holding them liable. I'm sure it would vary by state/province/country. It would just cost us too much to find out.

 

What it comes down to for me is this:

I planned on choosing the Free Servicing option prior to the letter.

In order for me to go forward with that signed legal commitment, I would need more technical data provided by Mazda (MNAO). I would like to request Dyno charts that back up Mazda's new data regarding flywheel HP.

I'm leary of the new data coupled with a vague "sign here" letter...releasing them from future legal action.

So....its fair (I believe) to ask for hard data from the reported 11 test vehicles. I will except 238 HP...after all the car feels plenty fast to me. But any less than that is pushing it. Mazda posted HP and Torque curves from the prior 247 HP setup.......now lets see the new ones.

I love the car and plan on keeping it.......All I want is a little more proof than a short blurb stating the "revision". Surely they can produce this.......who else is not satisfied with the dumbed down letter eager for signatures. We should have a few requests for them prior to letting them off the hook indefinately.

 

I'm no lawyer, but the context in which the statement is written could be interpreted as related and ONLY regarding this HP revision. IF any other issues arise, such as other deffects or further HP revisions (or downgrades), it would not fit within the clause in question and its context; therefore rendering it worthless to Mazda.

Any lawyers out ther willing to give some advise?

 

Not a lawyer, but that's how I interpreted that clause too.

If you're concerned about it, amend the letter with the addition of a clause that spells out that you are signing away your rights to this issue only, before signing and returning it. If they accept your amended form, they are accepting the contract as amended, as I understand it. But I would like to see a real lawyer comment on that, too.

 

I'm no lawyer either but from reading the document I get the same thing out of it as you do. So I'm sure if push came to shove a lawyer could argue this one in court.

 

It seems to me that based on what has been stated here that Mazda could argue that it very well covered any claim. It could be interpreted either way. If someone had a claim later, they would have to put up the money to litigate the issues. I am no lawyer either, I don't even play one on TV but who is going to win if you have to go to court later, with a smaller group of people? The little guy......... not!!!!!!

Another issue is this, here in Florida there is a pretty strong lemon law. Will this settlement effect that? I am only getting 13 miles per gallon, I did not expect to get hybrid car mileage but this is a bit low. Are there other issues we don't know about?

Just a thought but as this letter begins to circulate is this car going to continue to sell for MSRP? Would someone be better off getting the buy back and then purchasing an 8 later at a better discount. Not that I would do such a thing but isn't it possible?:D

 

I am a Lawyer, in Louisiana. eccles is right (under Louisiana law, and, I believe, the law of most other states). Personally, I would not sign the waiver as is - NOT a legal opinion, just me.

 

It is my understanding, that with repurchase option, you have to sign a contractual agreement NOT to buy another RX-8.

 

Negative. I asked the MNAO rep about this very thing this morning on the phone, and he says you can buy another RX-8 right away if you like. There is no reference to a buy restriction in the letter, either. Seems odd to me that Mazda didn't place such a restriction, but I suppose they'd rather get the sale than see it go to the Nissan/Subaru/Infiniti dealer down the street.

 

If you're decide to go after Mazda because the HP rating is actually lower than what they're stating in this disclaimer, then you have a case. I'm having a similiar issue with Delta Airlines where they make a disclaimer stating that they are not reponsible for their actions if they do something like lose your cat. However, a good lawyer can prove that Delta was blatently negligent. Similiarly, a good lawyer could prove Mazda may be misleading customers (even more so) if we sign that agreement and find out later on the power is even lower.

On a more personal note, I, like many, am not having my car bought back. We bought a car for a certain level of performance and I believe we are recieving that level of performance. That is, to me, the most important factor. This is still the same car that outdid the G35C and Cobra Mustang in a recent comparo by a big-name magazine. This is still the same car that was viewed by another big magazine as a more preferable choice over the 350Z and BMW 330i. And on another important note, we will probably see huge gains by simple aftermarket modifications such as intake, headers, exhaust, and most likely, a reflashed ECU. I know where my 500.00 is going to be spent .