BaseballGrassGy
Member
- :
- Mazda CX-5 Touring
So today is day 9. The dealer rep still does not have authorization from Mazda. He confirmed they had found paint chips on all but two panels but the estimates they sent to Mazda include the cost to blend the color into those two panels. So in fact, they are planning to put paint on the entire car, but repaint the entire car! Absolutely unbelievable.
We know the paint is going to chip on those two panels, it is only a matter of when. So when that happens they repaint those panels and "blend" the paint to the ones they already repainted?
I instructed the dealer to put Mazda's refusal to repaint the entire car in writing, and to not begin any panel repaints.
At this point it looks like I may have to get an estimate from a body shop to repaint the entire car and meet them in court over their refusal to make it right. The judge will take one look at the Soul Red Crystal Metallic touch-up paint disclaimer, and the pictures of the paint chips on my car to make a decision. Mazda will either be paying for a paint job, or more likely the judge will order them to buy our car back due to lack of fitness for merchantability.
While this may seem extreme to some, in California consumer protection from auto manufacturers is very effective. About 20 years ago the Chrysler Corporation bought my '98 Dakota R/T back for full purchase price, plus T & L, and the full cost of upgrades I made to it (spray-in bedliner) because they had overstated the towing capacity as being 5000 lbs. Apparently nobody in engineering had noticed that the lowered suspension on the R/T model did not work well with anything heavier than 1500 lbs. In the notification letter they sent me was a sticker to put in the owners manual changing the spec for max. towing. They also offered five different remedies for the inconvenience, the fifth of which was a repurchase of the vehicle.
While paint failing to adhere to the primer is not the safety issue towing capacity is, the legal concept of fitness for the purpose the product is intended to be used for is the same.
This entire process baffles me. Nine days to make such an obvious decision, and the refusal to even consider the only obviously correct remedy. In a world where corporate behavior is so easily shared with other potential customers, how do they think this experience supports the brand they have worked so hard to create and are spending millions to communicate to buyers.
I think everyone understands that if you bought an inexpensive car you might expect this treatment, but Mazda is seeking to play in the world of Infiniti, Lexus, Audi and BMW. Can you imagine any of those brands keeping your car for over a week before suggesting they repaint all but two panels because those two haven't got any chips in them yet?
We know the paint is going to chip on those two panels, it is only a matter of when. So when that happens they repaint those panels and "blend" the paint to the ones they already repainted?
I instructed the dealer to put Mazda's refusal to repaint the entire car in writing, and to not begin any panel repaints.
At this point it looks like I may have to get an estimate from a body shop to repaint the entire car and meet them in court over their refusal to make it right. The judge will take one look at the Soul Red Crystal Metallic touch-up paint disclaimer, and the pictures of the paint chips on my car to make a decision. Mazda will either be paying for a paint job, or more likely the judge will order them to buy our car back due to lack of fitness for merchantability.
While this may seem extreme to some, in California consumer protection from auto manufacturers is very effective. About 20 years ago the Chrysler Corporation bought my '98 Dakota R/T back for full purchase price, plus T & L, and the full cost of upgrades I made to it (spray-in bedliner) because they had overstated the towing capacity as being 5000 lbs. Apparently nobody in engineering had noticed that the lowered suspension on the R/T model did not work well with anything heavier than 1500 lbs. In the notification letter they sent me was a sticker to put in the owners manual changing the spec for max. towing. They also offered five different remedies for the inconvenience, the fifth of which was a repurchase of the vehicle.
While paint failing to adhere to the primer is not the safety issue towing capacity is, the legal concept of fitness for the purpose the product is intended to be used for is the same.
This entire process baffles me. Nine days to make such an obvious decision, and the refusal to even consider the only obviously correct remedy. In a world where corporate behavior is so easily shared with other potential customers, how do they think this experience supports the brand they have worked so hard to create and are spending millions to communicate to buyers.
I think everyone understands that if you bought an inexpensive car you might expect this treatment, but Mazda is seeking to play in the world of Infiniti, Lexus, Audi and BMW. Can you imagine any of those brands keeping your car for over a week before suggesting they repaint all but two panels because those two haven't got any chips in them yet?
