Tyre wear on UK Mazda5
#161
05-14-2007, 01:02 PM
RE: Tyre wear on UK Mazda 5
Well had a call from the dealer Brooklyn in Cheltenham to say car ( 2.0 petrol sport) was ready after they had messed around with it for 12 days. The car was now up to date with the mods - exhaust,doors and the suspension bushes, but no fault could be found with the sticking accelerator - we shall see!!
What about the tyres - ah well now - they have been checked by our regular tyre fitting company, but they have not sent the data back yet - the dealer asked for a copy of my invoice for the new rear tyres, evidently there is a two page form to fill in and return to Mazda and they will then offer their percentage refundagainst my bill.
When I asked about the fronts I was politely told there was not a problem with them, and I was to talk to Mazda Customer Service again.
On receipt of my keys and presented with the car I immediately notices a huge black scuff running from the drivers rear wheel arch and onto the sliding door ending with an 8 inch groove in the door.
Here we go again - denial from them - was it the recovery vehicle - are you sure it wasn't there before sirquestions.
I have given them until 1pm tomorrow to come up with the answers and the rectification - couple that with the wheel locknut just thrown in the car and only 20 miles of petrol left, when the car was over a quarter full when it was taken from me - I am livid!!!
Customer service - it does not exist - will I keep the car - as soon as Mazda hand over the maximum I can squeeze out of them, the car will be gone. I never ever want anything to do with the Mazda morons again.
Will keep you all informed regarding the tyre refund and the damage.
What about the tyres - ah well now - they have been checked by our regular tyre fitting company, but they have not sent the data back yet - the dealer asked for a copy of my invoice for the new rear tyres, evidently there is a two page form to fill in and return to Mazda and they will then offer their percentage refundagainst my bill.
When I asked about the fronts I was politely told there was not a problem with them, and I was to talk to Mazda Customer Service again.
On receipt of my keys and presented with the car I immediately notices a huge black scuff running from the drivers rear wheel arch and onto the sliding door ending with an 8 inch groove in the door.
Here we go again - denial from them - was it the recovery vehicle - are you sure it wasn't there before sirquestions.
I have given them until 1pm tomorrow to come up with the answers and the rectification - couple that with the wheel locknut just thrown in the car and only 20 miles of petrol left, when the car was over a quarter full when it was taken from me - I am livid!!!
Customer service - it does not exist - will I keep the car - as soon as Mazda hand over the maximum I can squeeze out of them, the car will be gone. I never ever want anything to do with the Mazda morons again.
Will keep you all informed regarding the tyre refund and the damage.
#162
05-15-2007, 11:46 AM
RE: Tyre wear on UK Mazda 5
CharlottenEddiesdad quoted treadwear 240, traction AA, temp A for the AvonZZ3. My Goodyear Eagles are 240, A (think we can forget temp, but also A). Pirelli P6000s not marked.
Looking at the Pneus website mentioned in my last post, the load and speed ratings are also important. The Mazda owner's manual (page 10.8) quotes 93 Vfor the 17 inch wheels: 93 is max load 650kg per tyre, ie 1300kg axle load. Maximum vehicle axle loads are quoted in the spec brochure as 975kgF/1200kgR for petrol and 1110kgF/1195kgR for diesel. When looking for alternatives it would seem unwise to go below 93, although the TS2 with 16 inch wheels is specified as 91 (615kg x2, sostill above max axle load).V is up to 150 mph (dream on), but these low profile tyres don't seem to be made in anything less. Some makes come in205/50 17size only in W speed rating (168 mph!), incl Pirelli and Goodyear (both 93 load rating). We seem to be drawn towards "ultra-high performance" ranges to get the size, where performance is perhaps achieved at the expense of wear resistance (and cost).
Dad's taxi said he'd bought Bridgestones. Presumably that's the Potenza (the sporty range)? That's 93Y (187 mph!!). The comfort range, Turanza, is only 89W, which is max 1160 axle weight, so hope it's not those (or travel light...).
CharlottenEddiesdad's Avon ZZ3sare likewise the sportiest range, XL (reinforced) 93W.However, the Avon website says use 7 inch rims and ours are 6.5, so don't know whether that will matter; generically, the Pneus site shows 6.5 as fine.
I've been finding the manufacturers' websites by Googling "[manufacturer] tyres". Some allow you to enter model and find recommendation. Do this on the Dunlop site and it recommends SP Sport Maxx, again the ultimate performance tyre, although the Sport SP2000 (the original fit)is listed in our size at 93V.
davmal735 was considering Michelin Primacy or Hankook. Primacy is 93W reinforced, and says "for high mileage". (Not sure whetherthe 93 load rating means it's reinforced or XL whether or not mentioned separately). Couldn't find anything on Hankook Optimo.
Someone mentioned Continental. It looks as though one would have to go for the Sport Contact 3, which is XL 93W. The Premium Contact 2 is only 86 load rating, although V.
Quite a number of these tyres are asymmetrical, ie different pattern on inside and outside edge. This would prevent them being turned round on rims at half life to even out wear (my earlier post, although youmay or maynot feel this is worth considering). A few are directional, for which turning round on rims and swopping left to right would be do-able, provided they aren't asymmetrical as well. Goodyear Eagle NCT5 and Pirelli P6000 are neither asymmetrical nor directional.
Regarding tyre pressures, recommending a higher rear pressure for max load seems pretty general. But drivers with other vehicles sometimes forget and don't haveinner edgewear problems; if anything, wear would be more on outer edges, and a bit of oversteer soon reminds you. Several pages back someone suggested running rear tyres at around midway between the 2 figures for everyday use - 38 psi -which seems a good idea. Regarding fronts, the manual recommends 32 psi for petrol and 33 psi for diesel; doesn't seem much of a difference for an extra 135kg on the front axle. the Pneus table default pressure for 50 section is 2.5 bar (36.26 psi). (The Pneus table says standard pressure for reinforced 50 section tyres is 2.9 bar (42 psi), but thatseems to correspond toMazda's fully laden rear figure of 2.8). I'm going to run at 36F/38R on my Sport diesel (Mazda say 33/35), so even if they lose a couple of psi over time they'll never be below the manufacturer's figures(measured cold, with a proper dial gauge, not the rubbish at the average filling station).
Sorry to bang on at such length, but hope it may be useful to somebody.
Looking at the Pneus website mentioned in my last post, the load and speed ratings are also important. The Mazda owner's manual (page 10.8) quotes 93 Vfor the 17 inch wheels: 93 is max load 650kg per tyre, ie 1300kg axle load. Maximum vehicle axle loads are quoted in the spec brochure as 975kgF/1200kgR for petrol and 1110kgF/1195kgR for diesel. When looking for alternatives it would seem unwise to go below 93, although the TS2 with 16 inch wheels is specified as 91 (615kg x2, sostill above max axle load).V is up to 150 mph (dream on), but these low profile tyres don't seem to be made in anything less. Some makes come in205/50 17size only in W speed rating (168 mph!), incl Pirelli and Goodyear (both 93 load rating). We seem to be drawn towards "ultra-high performance" ranges to get the size, where performance is perhaps achieved at the expense of wear resistance (and cost).
Dad's taxi said he'd bought Bridgestones. Presumably that's the Potenza (the sporty range)? That's 93Y (187 mph!!). The comfort range, Turanza, is only 89W, which is max 1160 axle weight, so hope it's not those (or travel light...).
CharlottenEddiesdad's Avon ZZ3sare likewise the sportiest range, XL (reinforced) 93W.However, the Avon website says use 7 inch rims and ours are 6.5, so don't know whether that will matter; generically, the Pneus site shows 6.5 as fine.
I've been finding the manufacturers' websites by Googling "[manufacturer] tyres". Some allow you to enter model and find recommendation. Do this on the Dunlop site and it recommends SP Sport Maxx, again the ultimate performance tyre, although the Sport SP2000 (the original fit)is listed in our size at 93V.
davmal735 was considering Michelin Primacy or Hankook. Primacy is 93W reinforced, and says "for high mileage". (Not sure whetherthe 93 load rating means it's reinforced or XL whether or not mentioned separately). Couldn't find anything on Hankook Optimo.
Someone mentioned Continental. It looks as though one would have to go for the Sport Contact 3, which is XL 93W. The Premium Contact 2 is only 86 load rating, although V.
Quite a number of these tyres are asymmetrical, ie different pattern on inside and outside edge. This would prevent them being turned round on rims at half life to even out wear (my earlier post, although youmay or maynot feel this is worth considering). A few are directional, for which turning round on rims and swopping left to right would be do-able, provided they aren't asymmetrical as well. Goodyear Eagle NCT5 and Pirelli P6000 are neither asymmetrical nor directional.
Regarding tyre pressures, recommending a higher rear pressure for max load seems pretty general. But drivers with other vehicles sometimes forget and don't haveinner edgewear problems; if anything, wear would be more on outer edges, and a bit of oversteer soon reminds you. Several pages back someone suggested running rear tyres at around midway between the 2 figures for everyday use - 38 psi -which seems a good idea. Regarding fronts, the manual recommends 32 psi for petrol and 33 psi for diesel; doesn't seem much of a difference for an extra 135kg on the front axle. the Pneus table default pressure for 50 section is 2.5 bar (36.26 psi). (The Pneus table says standard pressure for reinforced 50 section tyres is 2.9 bar (42 psi), but thatseems to correspond toMazda's fully laden rear figure of 2.8). I'm going to run at 36F/38R on my Sport diesel (Mazda say 33/35), so even if they lose a couple of psi over time they'll never be below the manufacturer's figures(measured cold, with a proper dial gauge, not the rubbish at the average filling station).
Sorry to bang on at such length, but hope it may be useful to somebody.
#163
05-15-2007, 12:33 PM
RE: Tyre wear on UK Mazda 5
Just had a telephoneconversation with Peter at Dunlops Tec Dept.After I had emailed dunlops about this problem with the tyres. I informed him that Mazda had told my husband that it was a "faulty batch of tyres" dunlop have denied that there is a "faulty batch" However Peter was intrested by that comment.
He told me that Mazda were re-setting Camber and re-tracking the cars (although this was done on my car in August when i had second set of tyres fitted, and as i posted earlier need another set after 6k on them so it never sorted my car out) Anyway if Mazda say to you its the tyres and NOT THE CAR you need it in writting and on official mazda headed letter ! Contact dunlop again they will ask you then fax the letter to peter in the tec dept Then something will be done but only if mazda state its the tyres and NOT THE CAR.
Petertold me that he had got afurther 17 phone calls to make in reguards to mazda customers with this problem with tyres!
Hope this helps with any enquiries relating to dulop
He told me that Mazda were re-setting Camber and re-tracking the cars (although this was done on my car in August when i had second set of tyres fitted, and as i posted earlier need another set after 6k on them so it never sorted my car out) Anyway if Mazda say to you its the tyres and NOT THE CAR you need it in writting and on official mazda headed letter ! Contact dunlop again they will ask you then fax the letter to peter in the tec dept Then something will be done but only if mazda state its the tyres and NOT THE CAR.
Petertold me that he had got afurther 17 phone calls to make in reguards to mazda customers with this problem with tyres!
Hope this helps with any enquiries relating to dulop
#164
05-16-2007, 03:38 AM
RE: Tyre wear on UK Mazda 5
Haven't looked to see if my 5 is wearing abnormally but I did go to Tirerack.com to see what the specs of stock tires are.
The US models have Toyo A18's
Size: 205/50VR17
Serv. Desc: 89V
UTQG: 300 A A
A service description identifies the tire's load index and speed rating. It can be found on the sidewall of the tire after the size listing. The load index is the tire size's assigned numerical value used to compare relative load carrying capabilities. The speed rating is a letter denoting a fixed maximum speed capability.
On a side note, the price is $138 and are in a backordered state.....
I am going to check out the wear and PSI on my 5 tomorrow (1800 miles).
The US models have Toyo A18's
Size: 205/50VR17
Serv. Desc: 89V
UTQG: 300 A A
A service description identifies the tire's load index and speed rating. It can be found on the sidewall of the tire after the size listing. The load index is the tire size's assigned numerical value used to compare relative load carrying capabilities. The speed rating is a letter denoting a fixed maximum speed capability.
On a side note, the price is $138 and are in a backordered state.....
I am going to check out the wear and PSI on my 5 tomorrow (1800 miles).
#165
05-16-2007, 04:17 PM
RE: Tyre wear on UK Mazda 5
We took delivery of our Mazda 5 (Diesel) Sport in April 2006. We have hadsimilar tyre wear problems. After 9,000 miles both the rears are badly worn on the inside shoulder and both fronts are down to the canvas on both shoulders. After saying that there was a manufacturing fault with the Dunlop SP Sport 2050 tyres (Dunlop do not accept this and would like to see the allegation in writing from Mazda), Mazda accept that a geometry problem has caused the uneven wear on the rear tyres and is replacing them under warranty. Even though I check the tyre pressures regularly (we have three small children being driven around in the car every day), I'm told that I've underinflated the front tyres. Strange that I've managed to get the rears right and all four tyres on my car which was delivered at the same time as the Mazda. The fronts do look soft when correctly inflated - perhaps the extra weight of the diesel enginehasn't beentaken full account of andfronttyrepressures which are too low are being specified (and the geometry problem may well affect the fronts too).
Mazda has the car in for two days now to replace the tyres, sort the geometry and check (yet again) the DPF - the light for which is forever coming on despite us following the instructions and a service two weeks ago. Last year I was told that I had caused the DPF problem by putting too much oil in when I'd never put any in at all! Mazda has only communicated via the dealer - their Customer Services team has not responded at all to my letters about the tyre issue so I will be paying in full for two new front tyres. I will then be issuing an action in the County Court to get the money back from Mazda. It's easily done online (www.moneyclaim.gov.uk), will only cost about £80 and you get those costs back when you win plus interest. I think a few customers doing this will get Mazda to be a bit more responsive. I will also be taking the matter up with the SMMT (Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders).
On a separate issue, as it is unfortunately proving necessary to take legal action against Mazda, I will also be pursuing them for the difference between the £129 first service price advertised in the dealership and the £320 we were actually charged. Mazda provides a board which displays servicing costs in most dealers. When my old RX-8 was serviced, I paid the £119 shown on the board and reasonably expected that the price indicated on the board is what I'd pay for the 5. Whatthe boarddoesn't make clear is that the price quoted is for petrol models and not diesels (and the reverse in some cases).
So £320 for a first service and £600 worth of tyres every year combinedwitha customer service function that doesn't respond to customer requests for service! Astandard family car shouln't be costing this much to run. With so many people so clearly unhappy about the same problem, wouldn't it be better to acknowledge it and deal with it? It's a great shame because otherwise, the 5 is a good value, practical and nice handling family car.
Mazda has the car in for two days now to replace the tyres, sort the geometry and check (yet again) the DPF - the light for which is forever coming on despite us following the instructions and a service two weeks ago. Last year I was told that I had caused the DPF problem by putting too much oil in when I'd never put any in at all! Mazda has only communicated via the dealer - their Customer Services team has not responded at all to my letters about the tyre issue so I will be paying in full for two new front tyres. I will then be issuing an action in the County Court to get the money back from Mazda. It's easily done online (www.moneyclaim.gov.uk), will only cost about £80 and you get those costs back when you win plus interest. I think a few customers doing this will get Mazda to be a bit more responsive. I will also be taking the matter up with the SMMT (Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders).
On a separate issue, as it is unfortunately proving necessary to take legal action against Mazda, I will also be pursuing them for the difference between the £129 first service price advertised in the dealership and the £320 we were actually charged. Mazda provides a board which displays servicing costs in most dealers. When my old RX-8 was serviced, I paid the £119 shown on the board and reasonably expected that the price indicated on the board is what I'd pay for the 5. Whatthe boarddoesn't make clear is that the price quoted is for petrol models and not diesels (and the reverse in some cases).
So £320 for a first service and £600 worth of tyres every year combinedwitha customer service function that doesn't respond to customer requests for service! Astandard family car shouln't be costing this much to run. With so many people so clearly unhappy about the same problem, wouldn't it be better to acknowledge it and deal with it? It's a great shame because otherwise, the 5 is a good value, practical and nice handling family car.
#166
05-16-2007, 04:40 PM
Interesting about the service cost. My dealer tried to charge me £252 for the 1st service when the board advertised £150. The cost was reduced to the advertised amount when I objected. Had I not been on the ball, or it had been a company car it would have gone un-noticed.
Please keep us informed re the legal action. Should we all follow suit? Can we put in a combined case?
Apols for the length, but though I may as well post my letter:
Please keep us informed re the legal action. Should we all follow suit? Can we put in a combined case?
Apols for the length, but though I may as well post my letter:
Dear Mrs. Keep,
Thank you for your letter of 28th March 2007 and the offer contained within. I contacted your office by telephone today to discuss the matter, but despite assurances to the contrary, received no return call.
Judging by your offer and the detail contained within the letter, I can only assume that you are not fully aware of the facts surrounding this complaint. As such, and at risk of repetition, I will set them out again.
Last summer I purchased, at considerable expense, a new Mazda5 making the reasonable assumption that I would be buying a reliable vehicle from a responsible and well renowned manufacturer. Less than a year later my experience of ownership has been anything but satisfactory.
The vehicle has been returned to your dealer network on at least 4 occasions to attend the warranty issues. Given the fact that I work away from home during the week, getting back to a dealer on a weekend is both inconvenient and expensive.
Leaving aside other reliability issues with the vehicle, the concern with the steering issue was first raised on about 8000 miles with the dealership in Loughborough. Despite having the vehicle in the workshop, no problem was found and the vehicle returned to me.
On 12000 miles the vehicle developed a significant steering vibration under braking, and was returned once again to the dealer. This time the problem was acknowledged and the service department skimmed the discs to rectify the problem. When I challenged the dealer as to why a new car should require the discs to be skimmed I was informed that there was ‘corrosion caused by low use’ – though I am unsure as to how an average mileage of 800 miles per week could be deemed low use. I registered my unease with this solution at the time. Incidentally, the dealer also carried out the 12500 mile service at the time and attempted to charge me £252 rather than the £150 advertised price (I had to point out to him the correct price on the service menu board behind the counter). At this point in time, and according to the service record, the tyres had 5mm front and 6mm rear tread remaining (and no signs of uneven wear were recorded).
On 17000 miles the steering vibration had returned and for convenience the car was booked in to the main dealer at Levens in Cumbria. I informed this dealer of the previous issue and that under no circumstances did I want the discs re-skimmed without finding the cause of the problem. Despite this, the vehicle was returned with the discs skimmed and a message that the tyres were worn. When I queried how the tyres could have worn so significantly in only 4000 miles I was simply informed that they were and they would cost £740 to replace. Not surprisingly I declined this offer as for no other reason, a superficial inspection from the outside of the car showed the treads to be fine.
Two weeks later I was driving up the M6 in a snow storm and felt that the front end of the car felt unstable. Given that the next day I was intending to drive 6 people to Scotland, I telephoned the dealer once again in Levens to reconfirm the price ( I really couldn’t quite believe the first price quoted) and availability of suitable tyres. However, the price was requoted as previously so I decided to take the car to a local tyre dealer to get them checked out in my lunch hour. Once on a lift, both myself and the fitter were absolutely astonished as to the state of the tyres, particularly on the front of the car. The fitter informed me that, in his opinion, there was a ‘significant mechanical fault’ with the vehicle. The tyres were so damaged that on initial inspection it appeared they were coming into contact with some part of the body, the main surface of tread on both fronts had delaminated from the walls. However, further inspection showed this not to be the case as no wear could be seen on the body.
I was quite clear that the vehicle was in a totally unsafe condition. Given that I had to use the car the next day, I once again called the dealer in Levens and requested some advice on what to do. I was told that there was nothing that they could do to help, as far as they were concerned the defect had been fixed and that in any case they had no suitable tyres available. May I also add that throughout my dealing with this garage, the attitude of the service staff was quite disgraceful (in fairness, the Loughborough garage staff had been always courteous).
I was now in a very difficult position of needing the vehicle, knowing there was a serious problem but unable to use it in its current condition. Out of desperation I contacted Mazda customer services. I was informed that ‘any investigation would take 7-10 days’ and that I would ‘have to decide for myself what to do in the circumstances’
Given that fact that I really didn’t have any choice, I instructed the tyre fitter to replace all 4 tyres (at a total cost of £400 by the way). They also carried out a 4 wheel laser alignment, done to spec book data. As way of a final check I telephoned the Loughborough dealer to see if they could offer any other advice. At this point I was informed that there was a known and significant problem on Mazda5 vehicles as a result of wrongly aligned steering geometry. All dealerships should know of the issue, had been issued with amended geometry and should advise customers of an 80% contribution to the cost of replacement tyres.
I cannot begin to tell you how annoyed I was at this point. I re-called Mazda customer services to clarify this issue and was told that nothing could be confirmed until after any investigation. My wife also called and asked directly if you knew of this problem – to which your operator refused to answer.
I have subsequently had to drive around for a week with 4 stinking tyres in the back of my car, and this Saturday have to make yet another visit to the dealer in Loughborough to have the steering alignment adjusted to new specifications.
My complaint to you actually has very little to do with the wear on the tyres, the issues I have described above are far more serious that that. Whether a result of negligence or incompetence (or both) on your behalf , there are some serious questions which need to be answered:
1) Given the severity of the condition, why have vehicles not been recalled, or remedied at service for these known issues.
2) Why does there appear to be a complete lack of coordination with regard to information flow from Mazda to its dealer network.
3) How can Mazda alter steering alignment geometry settings at the dealer while leaving independent tyre retailers adjusting to old data.
4) How can Mazda tolerate such incompetence (at best) or deception (at worst) within its dealer network.
5) How does Mazda intend to rectify the other defective vehicles currently being driven.
Having worked in the automotive industry for many years, I am fully aware of the regulations regarding failures around steering and brakes. Given the problems which beset Ford, your parent company regarding the Firestone tyres (not to mention exploding fuel tanks) I am shocked by your present stance on this issue.
The Mazda5 is a family vehicle, designed for 7 people (families!) to be transported in comfort and safety. I am disgusted at the risks you are taking with peoples lives.
I sincerely hope as a result of reading this full account you reconsider your position. I would request that you respond to these issues within 7 working days. Given the fact that I will be moving house this week I request that you res
Thank you for your letter of 28th March 2007 and the offer contained within. I contacted your office by telephone today to discuss the matter, but despite assurances to the contrary, received no return call.
Judging by your offer and the detail contained within the letter, I can only assume that you are not fully aware of the facts surrounding this complaint. As such, and at risk of repetition, I will set them out again.
Last summer I purchased, at considerable expense, a new Mazda5 making the reasonable assumption that I would be buying a reliable vehicle from a responsible and well renowned manufacturer. Less than a year later my experience of ownership has been anything but satisfactory.
The vehicle has been returned to your dealer network on at least 4 occasions to attend the warranty issues. Given the fact that I work away from home during the week, getting back to a dealer on a weekend is both inconvenient and expensive.
Leaving aside other reliability issues with the vehicle, the concern with the steering issue was first raised on about 8000 miles with the dealership in Loughborough. Despite having the vehicle in the workshop, no problem was found and the vehicle returned to me.
On 12000 miles the vehicle developed a significant steering vibration under braking, and was returned once again to the dealer. This time the problem was acknowledged and the service department skimmed the discs to rectify the problem. When I challenged the dealer as to why a new car should require the discs to be skimmed I was informed that there was ‘corrosion caused by low use’ – though I am unsure as to how an average mileage of 800 miles per week could be deemed low use. I registered my unease with this solution at the time. Incidentally, the dealer also carried out the 12500 mile service at the time and attempted to charge me £252 rather than the £150 advertised price (I had to point out to him the correct price on the service menu board behind the counter). At this point in time, and according to the service record, the tyres had 5mm front and 6mm rear tread remaining (and no signs of uneven wear were recorded).
On 17000 miles the steering vibration had returned and for convenience the car was booked in to the main dealer at Levens in Cumbria. I informed this dealer of the previous issue and that under no circumstances did I want the discs re-skimmed without finding the cause of the problem. Despite this, the vehicle was returned with the discs skimmed and a message that the tyres were worn. When I queried how the tyres could have worn so significantly in only 4000 miles I was simply informed that they were and they would cost £740 to replace. Not surprisingly I declined this offer as for no other reason, a superficial inspection from the outside of the car showed the treads to be fine.
Two weeks later I was driving up the M6 in a snow storm and felt that the front end of the car felt unstable. Given that the next day I was intending to drive 6 people to Scotland, I telephoned the dealer once again in Levens to reconfirm the price ( I really couldn’t quite believe the first price quoted) and availability of suitable tyres. However, the price was requoted as previously so I decided to take the car to a local tyre dealer to get them checked out in my lunch hour. Once on a lift, both myself and the fitter were absolutely astonished as to the state of the tyres, particularly on the front of the car. The fitter informed me that, in his opinion, there was a ‘significant mechanical fault’ with the vehicle. The tyres were so damaged that on initial inspection it appeared they were coming into contact with some part of the body, the main surface of tread on both fronts had delaminated from the walls. However, further inspection showed this not to be the case as no wear could be seen on the body.
I was quite clear that the vehicle was in a totally unsafe condition. Given that I had to use the car the next day, I once again called the dealer in Levens and requested some advice on what to do. I was told that there was nothing that they could do to help, as far as they were concerned the defect had been fixed and that in any case they had no suitable tyres available. May I also add that throughout my dealing with this garage, the attitude of the service staff was quite disgraceful (in fairness, the Loughborough garage staff had been always courteous).
I was now in a very difficult position of needing the vehicle, knowing there was a serious problem but unable to use it in its current condition. Out of desperation I contacted Mazda customer services. I was informed that ‘any investigation would take 7-10 days’ and that I would ‘have to decide for myself what to do in the circumstances’
Given that fact that I really didn’t have any choice, I instructed the tyre fitter to replace all 4 tyres (at a total cost of £400 by the way). They also carried out a 4 wheel laser alignment, done to spec book data. As way of a final check I telephoned the Loughborough dealer to see if they could offer any other advice. At this point I was informed that there was a known and significant problem on Mazda5 vehicles as a result of wrongly aligned steering geometry. All dealerships should know of the issue, had been issued with amended geometry and should advise customers of an 80% contribution to the cost of replacement tyres.
I cannot begin to tell you how annoyed I was at this point. I re-called Mazda customer services to clarify this issue and was told that nothing could be confirmed until after any investigation. My wife also called and asked directly if you knew of this problem – to which your operator refused to answer.
I have subsequently had to drive around for a week with 4 stinking tyres in the back of my car, and this Saturday have to make yet another visit to the dealer in Loughborough to have the steering alignment adjusted to new specifications.
My complaint to you actually has very little to do with the wear on the tyres, the issues I have described above are far more serious that that. Whether a result of negligence or incompetence (or both) on your behalf , there are some serious questions which need to be answered:
1) Given the severity of the condition, why have vehicles not been recalled, or remedied at service for these known issues.
2) Why does there appear to be a complete lack of coordination with regard to information flow from Mazda to its dealer network.
3) How can Mazda alter steering alignment geometry settings at the dealer while leaving independent tyre retailers adjusting to old data.
4) How can Mazda tolerate such incompetence (at best) or deception (at worst) within its dealer network.
5) How does Mazda intend to rectify the other defective vehicles currently being driven.
Having worked in the automotive industry for many years, I am fully aware of the regulations regarding failures around steering and brakes. Given the problems which beset Ford, your parent company regarding the Firestone tyres (not to mention exploding fuel tanks) I am shocked by your present stance on this issue.
The Mazda5 is a family vehicle, designed for 7 people (families!) to be transported in comfort and safety. I am disgusted at the risks you are taking with peoples lives.
I sincerely hope as a result of reading this full account you reconsider your position. I would request that you respond to these issues within 7 working days. Given the fact that I will be moving house this week I request that you res
Last edited by virgin1; 11-25-2009 at 06:40 PM.
#167
05-16-2007, 05:01 PM
RE: Tyre wear on UK Mazda 5
I have also had problems with my DPF light coming on and when this comes on the turbo cuts out (I have A Furano purchased Sept 06).My dealer tells me that the problem is down to the fact the diesel cars sre not designed for town driving but for motorway use i have had my car in for this twice now and also because the engine oil filling up too quickly with diesel.I dont know if you know but every time you drive the diesel car a certain amount of diesel is injected into the engine oil so that it burns cleaner to get the cat 4 standard for ommissions but there is mods for this now and my car was in to gat this done 13 days ago not sure what was done but before when diesel tank was full and you pressed info button it said 532miles to go to refill now when pressed it says 611 miles to refill but my oil dipstick is about 1 inch above max and heading towards the x mark again so i need to pay another visit to garage
#168
05-18-2007, 08:50 AM
RE: Tyre wear on UK Mazda 5
Just to keep anyone updated. MMUK have now agreed to pay for an alignment check and for 50% of my rear tyres only. I too have had a conversation with Peter from Dunlop who was as helpful as he could be given that Mazda must be a multi million pound customer. He'd heard the "faulty batch" line and I suspect he'd like Mazda to put this into writing...
Whilst Ibeleive that it is a set up problem and not down to the Dunlops, as I'm changing the set, I thought I might as well try to get opinions on the best tyres to fit. I'm considering
Avon AV ZZ3 93W R/F (quoted at £90 online)
Dunlop SP MAXX 93Y XL (£101)
Continental Sport Contact 2 (£92)
or the SPORT SP2050XL (£101) which I understand is an updated version of the original.
Anyone out there with experience or opinions on these or other makes ?
Any help would be appreciated.
Whilst Ibeleive that it is a set up problem and not down to the Dunlops, as I'm changing the set, I thought I might as well try to get opinions on the best tyres to fit. I'm considering
Avon AV ZZ3 93W R/F (quoted at £90 online)
Dunlop SP MAXX 93Y XL (£101)
Continental Sport Contact 2 (£92)
or the SPORT SP2050XL (£101) which I understand is an updated version of the original.
Anyone out there with experience or opinions on these or other makes ?
Any help would be appreciated.
#170
05-18-2007, 03:09 PM
RE: Tyre wear on UK Mazda 5
Hi davidv
The Conti Sport Contact 2 is only load rating 86, according to Conti website. You need 93, or at least 91 - see my post on previous page. May be illegal to fit lower load rating than original - not sure.
The Conti Sport Contact 2 is only load rating 86, according to Conti website. You need 93, or at least 91 - see my post on previous page. May be illegal to fit lower load rating than original - not sure.