After 16 days I was notified Mazda wants to do a partial repaint. All panels to be repainted except roof, rear door and back bumper. Very interesting decision since the Service Manager at the dealer saw chips on the roof. They plan to "blend" the paint onto the panels they aren't painting.
So I asked if since Mazda agrees the paint is flaking away on multiple panels on the car, why do they think the other panels are immune? Of course they aren't, which is obvious. So when they start chipping are they going to blend that repaint on the panels they already painted? This logic is frankly incredible. I have refused authorization to do a partial repaint and requested contact from Mazda. So far, radio silence.
So here's a grin for you: You know those cheap cars from Korea? They have a problem with one of their paint colors (the same problem as Soul Crystal Red Mettalic) and check out how they are handling it:
https://www.motorauthority.com/news/1118007_kia-recalls-sunset-yellow-stingers-to-respray-cracked-paint
Mazda should be ashamed of themselves for dragging their feet, grinding it out with each owner. Kia, the lowest-end brand of Hyundai, is not only standing up to the problem, they are offering cash compensation for the aggravation to their owners. Apparently someone in the car business understands the value of their brand is much bigger than a few repaints.
Within the Song-Beverly Act, there is a presumption guideline
wherein it is presumed that a vehicle is a *lemon* if the following
criteria are met within 18 months of delivery to the buyer or
lessee or 18,000 miles on the vehicle*s odometer, whichever
comes first:
* The manufacturer or its agents have made two or more
attempts to repair a warranty problem that results in a
condition that is likely to cause death or serious bodily
injury if the vehicle is driven;
* The manufacturer or its agents have made four or more
attempts to repair the same warranty problem; or
* The vehicle has been out of service for more than 30
days (not necessarily all at the same time) while being
repaired for any number of warranty problems; or
* The problems are covered by the warranty, substantially
reduce the vehicle*s use, value, or safety to the consumer
and are not caused by abuse of the vehicle;
* If required by the warranty materials or by the owner*s
manual, the consumer has to directly notify the
manufacturer about the problem(s), preferably in writing.
The notice must be sent to the address shown in the
warranty or owner*s manual (for bullets 1 and 2).
If these criteria are met, the Lemon Law presumes that the buyer
or lessee is entitled to a replacement vehicle or a refund of the
purchase price. However, this presumption is rebuttable. The
manufacturer may show that the criteria has not been met (for
example, because the problems are minor) and therefore, the
buyer or lessee is not entitled to a replacement vehicle or refund.
*Source: California Civil Code Section 1793.22(b).