MikeInMass
Member
- :
- 2003 Protege5
why recall 3005C should extend to more P5's
My take is that they were required by the Feds to do a recall only because an identified manufacturing defect (incorrectly torqued screws) can cause excessive emissions by messing with the seating of the valves. The destruction of the engine was not a cause for the recall. That's why if they check compression and it's okay, they don't need to do more. It's not because the problem doesn't exist, but because it's not causing an emission problem. Furthermore, Mazda has limited the recall to the time period with the incorrectly torqued screws - the other ones were torqued right, so it wasn't a manufacturing defect, it was a design defect causing engine failure earlier than would be expected, but usually beyond the warranty period, so it might be considered a long-term reliability issue.
If the car makes it past the warranty period, Mazda can charge full price for repair, rather than having to eat the cost for all cars, many of which may not suffer any noticeable damage. How many examples are there of cars with multiple lost screws before the problem was correctly identified?
I think there are going to be a lot more of these issues as cars age, because it's a vibration problem, so maybe it's time to update the recall, because if the screw causes the engine to seize while on the highway, then that becomes a safety issue, not just an emissions problem. And I don't think that they have "remove, thread-lock, then retighten intake butterfly screws" every 30,000 miles as a standard maintenance procedure.
My P5 was built the month before the recall (s/n 171980), just outside the recall range. It exhibited the classic recall 3005C symptoms and is in the shop now. #4 plug was the one that was bashed in. The internal rattling went away on the trip to the parts store to get some new plugs. While in the lot looking for the best brand, I found info on this recall.
I can't believe that Mazda isn't considering that self-destructing engines may be an image problem for having unreliable engines, at least compared to the modern-age lifespan of engines. They should at least offer some discount for people trying to prevent total engine destruction and potential engine seizure (and resulting lack of control) while driving. If they make me pay full price to get the issue fixed, I don't know that I want to buy another vehicle from a manufacturer that doesn't stand behind its work.
---mike...
My take is that they were required by the Feds to do a recall only because an identified manufacturing defect (incorrectly torqued screws) can cause excessive emissions by messing with the seating of the valves. The destruction of the engine was not a cause for the recall. That's why if they check compression and it's okay, they don't need to do more. It's not because the problem doesn't exist, but because it's not causing an emission problem. Furthermore, Mazda has limited the recall to the time period with the incorrectly torqued screws - the other ones were torqued right, so it wasn't a manufacturing defect, it was a design defect causing engine failure earlier than would be expected, but usually beyond the warranty period, so it might be considered a long-term reliability issue.
If the car makes it past the warranty period, Mazda can charge full price for repair, rather than having to eat the cost for all cars, many of which may not suffer any noticeable damage. How many examples are there of cars with multiple lost screws before the problem was correctly identified?
I think there are going to be a lot more of these issues as cars age, because it's a vibration problem, so maybe it's time to update the recall, because if the screw causes the engine to seize while on the highway, then that becomes a safety issue, not just an emissions problem. And I don't think that they have "remove, thread-lock, then retighten intake butterfly screws" every 30,000 miles as a standard maintenance procedure.
My P5 was built the month before the recall (s/n 171980), just outside the recall range. It exhibited the classic recall 3005C symptoms and is in the shop now. #4 plug was the one that was bashed in. The internal rattling went away on the trip to the parts store to get some new plugs. While in the lot looking for the best brand, I found info on this recall.
I can't believe that Mazda isn't considering that self-destructing engines may be an image problem for having unreliable engines, at least compared to the modern-age lifespan of engines. They should at least offer some discount for people trying to prevent total engine destruction and potential engine seizure (and resulting lack of control) while driving. If they make me pay full price to get the issue fixed, I don't know that I want to buy another vehicle from a manufacturer that doesn't stand behind its work.
---mike...
