Well, looks like my 5th Mazda purchase is going to be my last. I got my repurchase papers back and Mazda is refusing to make me whole. They will not reimburse the window tint, even though it clearly adds value to the car and they will not reimburse the lost sales tax credit. Had I not bought this car, I would have a car with a trade value of $30,000. Trading that car in on the purchase of a new car would save me $1,875 in Texas sales taxes. Now I have nothing.

When I told them that I clearly relied upon the published data released by Mazda in making my decision and, based upon that data I traded in my BMW and tinted the RX8, and that there is no way in Hell they could win this argument in court, the reps answer was, "Yes we can. Horsepower estimation is not an exact science and anything plus or minus 5% is reasonable and would stand up in court. This buyback is a courtesy offered by Mazda and is not intended to reimburse all monies one might be out".

Now I know why the new horsepower figure is down only 4%......it keeps Mazda in the safe zone and free from litigation. If I didn't trust the new horsepower figures before I CERTAINLY don't trust them now.

So, had I been a moron and paid $5,000 over MSRP for this car, Mazda would reimburse even the $5,000. I did my homework, paid $500 under MSRP and Mazda will not reimburse the $2,085 I am out in tint and sales taxes. Makes a whole Hell of a lot of sense. Worse, they would not transfer me to anyone higher up and were indifferent about losing a very loyal customer. Bad business.

Originally posted by TomsterRX8
Well, looks like my 5th Mazda purchase is going to be my last. I got my repurchase papers back and Mazda is refusing to make me whole. They will not reimburse the window tint, even though it clearly adds value to the car and they will not reimburse the lost sales tax credit. Had I not bought this car, I would have a car with a trade value of $30,000. Trading that car in on the purchase of a new car would save me $1,875 in Texas sales taxes. Now I have nothing.

When I told them that I clearly relied upon the published data released by Mazda in making my decision and, based upon that data I traded in my BMW and tinted the RX8, and that there is no way in Hell they could win this argument in court, the reps answer was, "Yes we can. Horsepower estimation is not an exact science and anything plus or minus 5% is reasonable and would stand up in court. This buyback is a courtesy offered by Mazda and is not intended to reimburse all monies one might be out".

Now I know why the new horsepower figure is down only 4%......it keeps Mazda in the safe zone and free from litigation. If I didn't trust the new horsepower figures before I CERTAINLY don't trust them now.

So, had I been a moron and paid $5,000 over MSRP for this car, Mazda would reimburse even the $5,000. I did my homework, paid $500 under MSRP and Mazda will not reimburse the $2,085 I am out in tint and sales taxes. Makes a whole Hell of a lot of sense. Worse, they would not transfer me to anyone higher up and were indifferent about losing a very loyal customer. Bad business.

They definitely have to reimburse your sales tax.

As far as the window tints, In my opinion, "unless you had them done by Mazda, they don't have to reimburse you for them. I consider window tinting a modification.

Think of it this way. If you put your own rims and tires on the RX-8 and got rid of the stock rims and tires, do you think that they should pay the difference between the value of the stock tires and the value of your new ones? I don't think so...

I would fight for the sales tax, not the window tint value

Caveat Emptor.

I see no reason why they should reimburse you the tint job. you didn't HAVE to have tint - it was your choice - it was not part of the vehicle the way you purchased it. And if i remember correctly, you were the one that pid $300 for a tint job? If that is the case, you paid too much anyway, even if you got high performance tint. Thinking you get this money back is ludicrous.

But you should get your tax back.

Originally posted by RX8Lover
I see no reason why they should reimburse you the tint job. you didn't HAVE to have tint - it was your choice - it was not part of the vehicle the way you purchased it. And if i remember correctly, you were the one that pid $300 for a tint job? If that is the case, you paid too much anyway, even if you got high performance tint. Thinking you get this money back is ludicrous.

But you should get your tax back.

I wouldn't say that $300 IS WAY TO MUCH. I think it's resonable, maybe on the high end? But it is resonable none-the-less.

I agree, I would think they should pay the sales tax. But I also agree, they shouldn't have to pay anything for the tint job. What if you had paid $10k for some whacky turbo system, I doubt you would expect them to pay for that.

Regardless, good luck in your battle.

Rotarymagic,

Not to steal his thunder, but his point on taxes is that he traded in a $30,000 can and PAID less tax when he bought the Mazda. Now he will have to buy another car without a trade in and pay FULL taxes on the NEW purchase. Mazda is paying him back the taxes he has paid, but will not pay him for the taxes he will have to pay DUE TO MAZDA.

And yes, I would say that someone who 'damaged' me (don't flame me for this, used for discussion purposes) should have to reimbure me for ALL costs of that damage. So if I had put tint on the car, selling it back is a cost of the damage. If I put new rims and wheels on the car, damage. Now, if I did not have the originals wheels then they should reduce the price by that amount.

Just an opinion of fairness.

but fairness is not the real issue here. the issue is how much is he owed by mazda and that is specifically spelled out in the buyback agreement- no reimbursement for non-mazda parts. the tint was not bought from mazda so that is out and so would any aftermarket wheels and tires. now the tax situation is iffy. it could be argued that he put himself in the tax situation by taking the buyback insstead of the free maintainance. but it actually comes down to the wording of the buyback agreement and i am sure that extra money loss incurred by purchasing a new vehicle are not included. they are giving back the value of the trade-in, correct? conclusion: make sure you understand any agreement before you sign.

Sorry TomsterRX8 about your disappointment.

I knew that they would not reimburse for tinting. They would only reimburse Mazda accessories. (additions)

As far as sales tax is concerned I believe some people here are not understanding you. They have to give you the sales tax paid in the sale but they do not have to give you the sales tax not paid by the reduction of price due to your trade-in (difference) - tax savings. That cannot be re-created either. When all this first happened I checked this out. I traded a 2001 Millennia S in excellent shape - not a scratch and saved about a $1000 in taxes from the reduction in the cost or balance to be taxed. What you walk away from in this deal is your total monies from the deal. The savings on the next car is lost BUT YOU DID DRIVE A NEW CAR FOR NEARLY 2 MONTHS. THat is kinda how you have to look at it. YOu are still getting your money back but not your old car.

When I bought the Millennia S, the night I took delivery I drove it home (about 38 miles) and noticed wheel shake in the interstate. That simple problem began a 7 month vigil that I became furious at Mazda over the situation - tires not covered under warranty - not our fault - nothing we can do - hourse were spent on my behal and 2 days of driving the car around to specialists - days off work since no one seemed to be able to balance the tires or fix the problem. Finally Mazda stepped in an bought me 4 new tires - this after 2 were certified bad and 14 visits to various places including two dealers. I swore I would never buy a Mazda again and missed MY BMW (like you had) greatly but here I am again with a Mazda. The Millennia was fine after the tire replacement and rode like a dream after the fact. Where does this put you now? Are you going to keep it or still get your money?

Oh, some may say why didn't I lemon law the car. Well, I could have. Florida has a almost always win on these things (I am told) but I truly wanted to work it out - did not expect it to take 7 months but it did.

I'm sorry to hear your experience
sucks they wouldn't give you anyone higher

TomsterRX8,

the 238 hp number is exactly 4.8% less than the initial 250hp announced by Mazda. Even 1hp less -> 237 hp -> is 5.2% less than the initial 250 hp announcement and over the 5% limit.

Now who gave the 238hp number? A dyno machine? Or Mazda North America's legal department? ;)

thats an interesting point you bring to the table

Consider yourself lucky that you live in a state where you pay sales tax only on the difference. In California you have to pay sales tax on the full amount, with or without a trade-in.

I have to agree with the majority of posts here, They should not have to reimburse you for the tint, but they should reimburse you for the sales tax. The differential here has already been succinctly explianed by rod, so you are being made whole, in one capacity in that regard. There are two sides to that issue, I do recognize that. Sorry for your disapointment, hope you have better luck with your next car

Originally posted by mazdabob
Consider yourself lucky that you live in a state where you pay sales tax only on the difference. In California you have to pay sales tax on the full amount, with or without a trade-in. Which I would think would make a lot more people sell their cars themselves in CA.

Here in CO most people trade for the tax reasons mentioned above...

i can understand your frustration
but i have no idea why you would expect mazda to pay you for losses you HAVEN'T accrued, or any losses for that matter.
why should they give you EXTRA money to buy another car? i cant see why you would expect that

anyway, this entire issue is just plain sucky for a lot of people
________
Dominican republic cooking (http://www.cooking-chef.com/dominican-republic/)

Um for the record, 238 is 3.64% less than the published number of 247 hp. :)

The bad marketing and PR department of mazda says nothing on the quality of the cars and those who engineered them. so dont go finding business elsewhere unless they start offering crappy products.

Sure their other departments may be a pain in the ass... bottom line is, youre getting a great car. In the rx-8's defence, it can put out 250ps if it wasnt for your country. i really dont understand why people would sell back the car for such a small difference while knowing that its not because of the mazda engineers but because of US emissions laws. if you were to clear up this problem, the additional price would be brought on by the Government, not mazda delivering a bad product. unfortunately, mazda has to take on this problem themselves.

Originally posted by aussie77
Um for the record, 238 is 3.64% less than the published number of 247 hp. :)


Even though there are a lot of people who dispute it, it started at 250 HP. I am reading directly from the Mazda USA brochure and it states "..this RX-8's propulsion comes from a smooth-revving 250-hp RENESIS rotary engine...". Now, this IS a USA brochure and it is not any ps etc etc. So, they have to protect themselves from THIS starting point, not the revised 247. So one less horsepower is more than 5%.

Originally posted by mazdabob
Consider yourself lucky that you live in a state where you pay sales tax only on the difference. In California you have to pay sales tax on the full amount, with or without a trade-in.

In California, it's the same way--you pay the difference between the value you receive on your trade in and what you pay for the new car.

I talked to my tax guy last week about the lost tax benefit (from my trade-in on the 8) on a new car purchase if I returned the 8. He said, I shouldn't expect any breaks from the tax system. Based on that, it would be nice if Mazda could (be made to?) step up on this piece.

No they don't. When did that come out? I'm sure it was long before there was even a pre-order mechanism in place. They can say anything they want before the car is available for purchase.

jds

Originally posted by 350 Formula



Even though there are a lot of people who dispute it, it started at 250 HP. I am reading directly from the Mazda USA brochure and it states "..this RX-8's propulsion comes from a smooth-revving 250-hp RENESIS rotary engine...". Now, this IS a USA brochure and it is not any ps etc etc. So, they have to protect themselves from THIS starting point, not the revised 247. So one less horsepower is more than 5%.

If you're taking them up on the buyback over the horsepower fiasco then to be completely frank...I doubt they consider you such a loyal customer.

jds

Originally posted by TomsterRX8
Well, looks like my 5th Mazda purchase is going to be my last. ... Worse, they would not transfer me to anyone higher up and were indifferent about losing a very loyal customer. Bad business.

I can't see mazda returning a sales tax credit, but I can see the state giving you one. I would check directly with the state and see if you can get the taxes you paid on the 8 to go twords a new car. I can't imagine a state so backwards that the only way to get this benefit is if you trade a car in at the dealer - what about private sales? of course I live in a state with no sales tax, and no income tax either, so what do I know.

Originally posted by bureau13
If you're taking them up on the buyback over the horsepower fiasco then to be completely frank...I doubt they consider you such a loyal customer.

jds



Very good point. :D

Avoid all the hassle and keep the car.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but a good argument can be made that considering all the issues at play, a few numbers on paper isn't much of a reason to return the car anyway.

This is not an invitation to rehash the pros and cons of accepting the buyback, just offering another reasonable option.

Originally posted by bureau13
No they don't. When did that come out? I'm sure it was long before there was even a pre-order mechanism in place. They can say anything they want before the car is available for purchase.Actually, the brochure came out well after the pre-order plan was in place, but the brochure also contains the catch-all CYA phrase "specifications subject to change without notice."

Originally posted by bureau13
If you're taking them up on the buyback over the horsepower fiasco then to be completely frank...I doubt they consider you such a loyal customer.

jds



Excuse me but how many Mazdas have YOU bought in your lifetime? This is my 5th. I consider that a loyal customer. I've also sent at least 20 friends and co-workers to the local Mazda dealership where they also bought cars.

I'm not returning it strictly for the horsepower issue. If it were truly a 9 hp deficiency I'd never bat an eye. I'm retuning it because (1) the deficiency is certainly more than 9 hp, (2) the engine heat in the cabin is unacceptable as well as the heat that pours off the car and into my garage, (2) the mpg is never any better than 17 no matter how I drive it, (3) the air conditioner is marginal at best in high sun, high heat situations. The horsepower issue is simply the mecahnism I must use to turn it back in.

As for tint reimbursement. Recall your Business Law 301 course.....I relied upon the data provided by Mazda in making the purchase of the car and therefore the purchase of the tint. If a person relies upon information that subsequently turns out to be erronious and that person suffered a loss as a result of the erronious information, that person is entitled to relief. Since I cannot peel the tint off and place in on another car the only relief I can expect is financial. I know that the letter said only Mazda certified parts will be reimbursed but in a court of law that letter means squat.

And no, I did not pay over $300 for the tint, it was $208. It's not the money, its the principle.

As for sales tax, again, I relied upon faulty information and traded in a car worth $30,000. Had I never bought the RX8 I would now possess a car that I could trade for another vehicle and would receive a tax break of $1,875. Court remedies seek to make the wronged individual whole in these matters and would direct Mazda to pay this amount. Mazda is banking on the fact that people will take the money and run rather than spend many times this amount to take them to court. I want nothing more from Mazda than what I had before I purchased this car. I am not trying to make off like a bandit here.

Nice logical fallacy there. The number of Mazdas I have purchased in my life (3 if you must know) is completel irrelevant to this discussion. At any rate, while I'm not at all surprised by your reaction, if you care to actually read what I wrote (my kid's Kindergarten teacher would say "Read with your thinking brain") you will see that I was merely pointing out that the Mazda folks probably weren't that convinced of your loyalty, as opposed to thinking that you were loyal but they didn't care.

As for the other problems you mention, I'm guessing that none of your five Mazdas were RX-7s! All of mine were/are, so engine heat, weak air conditioning, are pretty much par for the course.

And finally, if we get an office pool going for whether or not you get reimbursed for your tint or your tax...I'll throw my money in No pool. I see your point, but I also see theirs..and there's no way legally you'll collect this, no matter what they tell you in Business Law 301.

jds

Originally posted by 350 Formula
Even though there are a lot of people who dispute it, it started at 250 HP. I am reading directly from the Mazda USA brochure and it states "..this RX-8's propulsion comes from a smooth-revving 250-hp RENESIS rotary engine...". Now, this IS a USA brochure and it is not any ps etc etc. So, they have to protect themselves from THIS starting point, not the revised 247. So one less horsepower is more than 5%.
If the brochure said "250 hp" then it could either mean imperial (SAE) or metric (PS) horsepower - it was ambiguous. Metric horsepower is sometimes written as "xxx PS" but not always. It is horsepower and you can quite legitimately just refer to it as "xxx hp".

Later Mazda removed the ambiguity by specifying it as "247 hp (SAE)" on the US website, thus confirming that the original figure must have been metric. 250 hp (PS) = 247 hp (SAE) so any other explanation would be a bit of a coincidence.

Here's a thought, you could have taken that $500 debit card, and put back the power that they could not give you.. be mad at the EPA, not Mazda..

OverLOAD

Originally posted by bureau13
No they don't. When did that come out? I'm sure it was long before there was even a pre-order mechanism in place. They can say anything they want before the car is available for purchase.

jds



Picked it up from the dealer last week. Since it is at home I can not look to see if it has a printing date on it.

Dude, it's not a court settlement. Mazda is just offering you a deal to buy the car back from you if you want to, under their terms. Sure, the terms are better if you didn't trade in a car, but hey, they could have offered you a depreciated price also, since the car is not new anymore. They don't HAVE to offer you this deal, you know...

If you would have had the weak A/C, poor mileage, high heat on any other car where you were not offered this buy back deal, and you were told that it is "normal" what would you do then?

If you keep in mind they are NOT legally entitled to offer you *anything* maybe you really should 'take the money' and stop bitching? You are very lucky in this situation and perhaps you should realize that rather than complaining about what you are NOT getting. You ARE getting a pretty damned good deal given the situation. Legally you are not 'wronged' at all so no court is going to tell mazda to make you 'whole' in any way shape or form.

Originally posted by bureau13
Nice logical fallacy there. The number of Mazdas I have purchased in my life (3 if you must know) is completel irrelevant to this discussion. At any rate, while I'm not at all surprised by your reaction, if you care to actually read what I wrote (my kid's Kindergarten teacher would say "Read with your thinking brain") you will see that I was merely pointing out that the Mazda folks probably weren't that convinced of your loyalty, as opposed to thinking that you were loyal but they didn't care.

As for the other problems you mention, I'm guessing that none of your five Mazdas were RX-7s! All of mine were/are, so engine heat, weak air conditioning, are pretty much par for the course.


jds

Wrong again.......Looking at my footnote will show you I owned a '93 RX7.

And of course loyalty = No. of Mazdas owned previously! How else would one define it?

Originally posted by O.R.A.
Dude, it's not a court settlement. Mazda is just offering you a deal to buy the car back from you if you want to, under their terms. Sure, the terms are better if you didn't trade in a car, but hey, they could have offered you a depreciated price also, since the car is not new anymore. They don't HAVE to offer you this deal, you know...

If you would have had the weak A/C, poor mileage, high heat on any other car where you were not offered this buy back deal, and you were told that it is "normal" what would you do then?

I would have considered remedies under the lemon laws.

Originally posted by aussie77
If you keep in mind they are NOT legally entitled to offer you *anything* maybe you really should 'take the money' and stop bitching? You are very lucky in this situation and perhaps you should realize that rather than complaining about what you are NOT getting. You ARE getting a pretty damned good deal given the situation. Legally you are not 'wronged' at all so no court is going to tell mazda to make you 'whole' in any way shape or form.

Piss off moron! Of course this is a legal issue! The head of their legal department is the one who briefed the phone reps. This "offer" was made to stem a flood of lawsuits over false advertising. It's nothing more than an appeasement offer. Here in the U.S. you're not allowed to lie to consumers without consequences.

Why do idiots like you read threads you have no interest in? Just read the happy- happy, joy- joy threads concerning your beloved little toy. You can all have a big Kumbayah Fest. Leave the serious threads to serious people.

It's the bitchers and moaners who got you your $500 debit card and free maintenance. Your, "It's okay to screw me" attitude would have left you nothing but an underpowered car.

I work in Advertising/Marketing/PR for a large company. Advertising is often selling something that is not yet ready to go, and won't be for months out. For example, I could see designing a brochure that states certain specifications, getting it proofed, changes made, then off to the printer, and then distributed, only to find out that "some" figure was printed wrong. I'm not in a car manufacturer, but I have simular issues with our new products. It is difficult to match pre-production data to what actually rolls off the assembly line.

This is part of the joys of new product launches. Lots of stress! I bet that the CEO of Mazda has had a few choice words to say. But who does he blame? It's a number of departments that share in it. And that's why you have a legal department to sort it all out.

The guy that is seeing over the RX8 in Canada told me that because it was 4% not 5% (yes we know the issue here) mazda wasn't legally required to do anything. Of course this can be debated that it is actually more but let's not go there.

What he did tell me was that the reason they offered the deal was because this is Mazda's flagship. This would tarnish mazda's image and they are better off looking like the good guy. I totally agree here.

I feel for your situation with the tax on the next car, but I believe this is a situation that cannot be covered by the buy back. You have a choice to make. You could keep the car and use it as a trade in to save the tax later.

Sorry I can't really help, but I do agree with you it sucks.

Originally posted by TomsterRX8


Piss off moron! Of course this is a legal issue!

Is the vehicle fit for the purpose for which it was designed?

Is the vehicle safe?

Did you get an opportunity to test drive the vehicle before purchase?

Were you satisfied enough with the vehicle's performance during that test drive to make a decision to purchase?

These are some of the questions that would be raised, in a legal sense. In my most humble opinion the answer to all of them would be "yes", making any claim of false advertising difficult, or impossible, to prove. Does Mazda have an obligation, then, to make you "whole"? No. They gave you two options, and the terms and conditions for those options.

Stop whining.

I love to read Tomster's posts ;) He is such a negative person with little self control and always wants to project his opinions on others -- as fact.

He should feel lucky Mazda didn't reduce the buy-back by the cost to remove his tint :p

His desire to get back something he didn't pay for in the first place reminds me of all the people who want to get the child tax credit check -- that didn't pay any taxes! Just because they have kids and would have paid taxes if they had made sufficient income they should get back something they never paid.

Tomster -- why don't you just ask the dealer to trade you your RX-8 for your old BMW (if it's still on the lot). Heck I bet they would trade you your lemon RX-8 for a new Tribute straight-up and then no sales tax!

Do you really think they know how many Mazda cars you've owned? Do you really think that matters to the folks behind a phone? Do you really think you're that special? You're a number to them and they're going to give you the same blanket deal they give to the next guy on the line. All that will really matter to them in the end is the total amount on the piece of paper you signed at the end of sale. You may get them to bend their "rules" a little on the sales tax issue but only after going up the chain a bit. As for expecting reimbursement on the window tint, you're being totally rediculous. They clearly state (and that you recognized) they would not compensate for non-Mazda upgrades/accessories. To expect them to repay you on principal is being idealist to the extreme.

Piss off moron! Of course this is a legal issue!

Nice. Now considering the fact that they are allowed up to a 5% variation in the hp numbers. Their correction to the originally posted hp number was within that 5%. Hence, legally they could do nothing and you could sue them, but you would probably lose.

Mazda has made the offer out of loyalty to their customers to keep them happy. To promote customer loyalty.

You have decided to take a buy-back offer. It is a very fair offer given the circumstances, and again one that they are not LEGALLY REQUIRED to give you.

Now, if I were to take the buy-back offer, I would take the damned thing and be grateful. I'm not going to ask Mazda for the interest I would have earned if I had invested the $30,000 in XYZ stock on the Nasdaq instead of spending it on their car. You've made a decision, so live with it and stop whining.

So, why don't you piss off... moron.

Originally posted by TomsterRX8

So, had I been a moron and paid $5,000 over MSRP for this car, Mazda would reimburse even the $5,000.

Ouch.. be nice, I'm one of those morons.. Just no dang way around it where I'm at. Maybe the buyback might help me fix that.

Weird.. my repurchase price from the ISG showed I will be getting paid for Sales Tax, license fees, and doc fees... Hmm. Havent turned in the car yet though.. still waiting for the word and am still on the fence bout that.

Originally posted by RX-Nut


Weird.. my repurchase price from the ISG showed I will be getting paid for Sales Tax, license fees, and doc fees... Hmm. Havent turned in the car yet though.. still waiting for the word and am still on the fence bout that.

Its not that Mazda is not reimbursing for sales tax (they are) -- Tomster wants to be reimbursed for sales tax he didn't actually pay -- but would have paid if he didn't trade-in his previous car.

Ahh.. I see. Thanks..

Originally posted by feelthesweetbea
In the rx-8's defence, it can put out 250ps if it wasnt for your country. i really dont understand why people would sell back the car for such a small difference while knowing that its not because of the mazda engineers but because of US emissions laws. if you were to clear up this problem, the additional price would be brought on by the Government, not mazda delivering a bad product. unfortunately, mazda has to take on this problem themselves.

Wow! You mean the US created the EPA and all those emissions laws AFTER Mazda advertised the US horsepower? I must have missed that in the papers. Or maybe their poor engineers are so sheltered they had no idea that the US had emissions or gas mileage standards at all. That's probably it. Hmmm, wonder why they even bothered to put catalytic converters on, what with being so surprised at the our draconian government regulations...

Steven

"Piss off moron! Of course this is a legal issue! "

May I suggest anger management courses? I think they could really help you deal with life a little better.

As an attorney, I'm tempted to say that everything is a legal issue, but in this case it's hard to sympathize with you.

You owned a '93 RX-7 and you expected the RX-8 to have a strong AC and cool-running engine??? That old saying about fool me once, shame on you..fool me twice, shame on me comes to mind.

jds

Originally posted by TomsterRX8


Wrong again.......Looking at my footnote will show you I owned a '93 RX7.

And of course loyalty = No. of Mazdas owned previously! How else would one define it?

Originally posted by LesPaul
"Piss off moron! Of course this is a legal issue! "

May I suggest anger management courses? I think they could really help you deal with life a little better.

As an attorney, I'm tempted to say that everything is a legal issue, but in this case it's hard to sympathize with you.

I think we are the only two on this board! I can practice in PA, but do not get there very much. (I like my court rules to be statewide!:). Just did a 8 hour dep in philia, cozen and oconner. Where do you practice?

Originally posted by klegg


(I like my court rules to be statewide!:).

where's the fun in that?:p

Originally posted by zoom44


where's the fun in that?:p

PA is a lawyers nightmare!!! Literally the rules of court vary from county to county. And their "magistrates" DO NOT have to have legal training! I could tell you horrer stories about traffic court there. Once I was held in contempt for reading the constitutions full faith and credit clause to a magistrate who tried to order a competancy hearing for a NJ LINCENSED DRIVER, due to the fact he was hard of hearing!! The court officers were laughing their butts off as we traded barbs. In the hall way, they thanked me for knocking the "GRADE A BITCH" off of her high horse!

AHHH, I was much younger then, full of piss and vinegar.........

Originally posted by bureau13
No they don't. When did that come out? I'm sure it was long before there was even a pre-order mechanism in place. They can say anything they want before the car is available for purchase.

jds



Now am home and have the results!!

The Mazda brochure states very clearly on the specification page:

Horsepower, SAE Net 250 @ 8500 rpm

The book is printed in April 2003.

It does have the disclaimer "..that certain changes in standard equipment, options, prices and the like,... may have occured and would not be included in these pages."

No kidding! It actually says SAE Net 250? Damn. You got me on that one then.

jds

Originally posted by 350 Formula


Now am home and have the results!!

The Mazda brochure states very clearly on the specification page:

Horsepower, SAE Net 250 @ 8500 rpm

The book is printed in April 2003.

It does have the disclaimer "..that certain changes in standard equipment, options, prices and the like,... may have occured and would not be included in these pages."

It does have the disclaimer about changes, though, so Mazda could have even dropped in a 4 cylinder and not had to reprint the brochure...

I personally solved this problem by having my dealer include the tinting as part of the deal. However, I want to point out 2 issues I see that most of us are ignoring:

1) Following MAZDA's recommended break in rules prevented (or should have prevented) any of us from actually fully exercising an RX-8 during a test drive. If we did not want to negatively impact the vehicle we were about to buy, testing it at the top end of it's performance curve was not an option. Hence we had to take Mazda's word on it. In my non-lawyer opinion the whole, "you tested it and liked it" argument is CRAP.

2) Tinting in Texas and Arizona was just about mandatory to resolve the piss poor performance of the Air Conditioner. I've got to say I have NO idea why this car did not come already tinted in any location where the temps typically exceed 90 degrees. It should be considered a defect in the car and we should be beating down Mazda's door for them to tint the cars for free. It could not hold it's own against temps over 95.

the folks who like the car as is need to get the hell out of the way and stop trying to shove their opinion down our throats. I LIKE the car. I OWN the car. I'm KEEPING the car. But I'd like all my horsepower (that I refused to test on the testdrive) and still feel is lacking. Hell, if I'd noticed a shortfall on the testdrive and reported it, all you happy folks would have told me to ignore it because 10,000 miles from now I'd get it! What a bunch of crap! That's 10% of the life of my car I get to wait around for the rest of my horsepower. Then when it doesn't show up I've got no recourse but to write STUPID on my forehead.

You don't like what I've got to say, great, ignore me, you've got that option.

Hey Edge,

Time to take a deep breath and go to your "HAPPY PLACE"!

Originally posted by TomsterRX8
Well, looks like my 5th Mazda purchase is going to be my last. I got my repurchase papers back and Mazda is refusing to make me whole. They will not reimburse the window tint, even though it clearly adds value to the car and they will not reimburse the lost sales tax credit. Had I not bought this car, I would have a car with a trade value of $30,000. Trading that car in on the purchase of a new car would save me $1,875 in Texas sales taxes. Now I have nothing.

When I told them that I clearly relied upon the published data released by Mazda in making my decision and, based upon that data I traded in my BMW and tinted the RX8, and that there is no way in Hell they could win this argument in court, the reps answer was, "Yes we can. Horsepower estimation is not an exact science and anything plus or minus 5% is reasonable and would stand up in court. This buyback is a courtesy offered by Mazda and is not intended to reimburse all monies one might be out".

Now I know why the new horsepower figure is down only 4%......it keeps Mazda in the safe zone and free from litigation. If I didn't trust the new horsepower figures before I CERTAINLY don't trust them now.

So, had I been a moron and paid $5,000 over MSRP for this car, Mazda would reimburse even the $5,000. I did my homework, paid $500 under MSRP and Mazda will not reimburse the $2,085 I am out in tint and sales taxes. Makes a whole Hell of a lot of sense. Worse, they would not transfer me to anyone higher up and were indifferent about losing a very loyal customer. Bad business.

Why are you returning the car? Is it because you feel its slow or just people saying its slow makes u think its slow?

Here is one question!

IF mazda hasn't recalled HP down would you return the car or sell it?

If not, then you shouldn't do it now... Car is same as when u test drove it.... You shouldn't buy a car if you test drove it and wasn't good or fun or fast... etc.

Originally posted by Edge

2) Tinting in Texas and Arizona was just about mandatory to resolve the piss poor performance of the Air Conditioner. I've got to say I have NO idea why this car did not come already tinted in any location where the temps typically exceed 90 degrees. It should be considered a defect in the car and we should be beating down Mazda's door for them to tint the cars for free. It could not hold it's own against temps over 95.



Maybe it's because our government was designed to leave more power at the state level so each state can decide what's best for its citizens. So you have California ("where the temps typically exceed 90 degrees") which has a 70% tint law, Texas with a 35% tint, and Arizona with a 33% for the front windows. Which state are you supposed to follow?

Yeah, it's a defect that Mazda doesn't factory tint the windows 50 different regulations for all 50 states because you want everything your way and don't think there are people out there that don't like their windows tinted because they can't see at night. Not to mention the police officers that put themselves on the line everytime they stop a car with dark tint and can't tell if the people inside have guns ready to shoot a cop because they didn't want a speeding ticket.

Alright, here is the answer I was looking for.

I had lunch Saturday with one of the preeminent litigators in Houston. Senior partner of his own very distinguised law firm specializing in the DEFENSE of large corporations, NOT low-life plaintiff's attorneys.

I laid out the same argument I have given here in my first posting in this thread, how I relied upon faulty information from Mazda in making a purchase and how they should make me whole. Bottom line is he agreed 100% with my conclusions and said that Mazda is certainly liable and could not win in a court of law. The sales tax credit lost as well as the money spent on tinting would certainly need to be reimbursed.

He agreed the only argument Mazda could make is what the Mazda rep told me over the phone. That measuting horsepower is an inexact science and that anything +/- 5% would be deemed reasonable. Hence, the newly revised hp rating comes in at slightly less than 5% of the original. You guys really think that's a coincedence?

All this said, I have no intention of suing Mazda. My lawyer friend says that Mazda is offering this deal in the hopes that we all sign it, thus waving our rights to future suits against the company for actual damages. I'm out a little over $2,000 as a result of returning the car so the cost of ownership was about $1,000 per month. Pretty much what I suffered in monthly depreciation with my '93 RX7. If RX8's keep stacking up at the dealership like they are here in my home town, $1,000 per month ownership cost for only TWO months will seem like a bargain.

Hmmmm, bit of a different perspective here in the UK, tho the 'sue at the first opportunity' culture is getting worse and worse.

Don't any of you believe in good faith?

It seems to me Mazda made a bit of a small mistake. Then went out and offered more than enough to their customers, even buy back etc.

The drop in hp is tiny and I defy anyone to tell the difference even in a back to back test.

Unless you are going to race your car the loss of a few hp beats me.

Maybe some of you guys like comparing cars bhps, 0-60 times, etc. Not sure it's worth anything unless you are really going to beat the shit out of your car all the time.



I'm wondering if Tomster would want compensating if he had spent a fortune on his car: body kit, engine mods, etc....


btw, measuring hp is an exact science, it's just gettin all the calibrations and corrections done properly. Most dynos are way out for actual measurements but more than adequate for tuning.

Originally posted by TomsterRX8
Alright, here is the answer I was looking for.

I had lunch Saturday with one of the preeminent litigators in Houston. Senior partner of his own very distinguised law firm specializing in the DEFENSE of large corporations, NOT low-life plaintiff's attorneys.

n.

Well, I have to take this off topic a bit. I do not like to generalize, because I know fine plaintiffs and defense attorneys, but, you have it a bit ass backwords.

Remember the pinto? remember 19 year old kids burnt to death because it was cheaper to pay the claim then fix the problem(A gas issue)

Remember asbestoes? There are documents, public record, showing that the corps knew that thier product was killing people, and they did not even warn for 20 years!!

How about tobacco, who lied for years about thier product, all the time selectivley breeding their plants to maximize their addictive qualitys?(OH, to hold off some flames, I agree that once warnings were on the label, suits should be barred.)

All of this was exposed by the "lowlifes" you attack
your right to say your opinion is protected by them.

Something to think about, no?

Originally posted by klegg


Well, I have to take this off topic a bit. I do not like to generalize, because I know fine plaintiffs and defense attorneys, but, you have it a bit ass backwords.

Remember the pinto? remember 19 year old kids burnt to death because it was cheaper to pay the claim then fix the problem(A gas issue)

Remember asbestoes? There are documents, public record, showing that the corps knew that thier product was killing people, and they did not even warn for 20 years!!

How about tobacco, who lied for years about thier product, all the time selectivley breeding their plants to maximize their addictive qualitys?(OH, to hold off some flames, I agree that once warnings were on the label, suits should be barred.)

All of this was exposed by the "lowlifes" you attack
your right to say your opinion is protected by them.

Something to think about, no?

You're right.......you're off topic.
But I think you know about the low-life plaintiff's attorneys I'm referring to. The ambulance chasers. The one's who pass out business cards every time a bus is nudged from behind. The one's who care nothing about justice, care nothing for their clients, care simply for their 40% fee.

Had I not put that phrase into my response you know the retort I would have received. "Yeah, that's just some slimy plaintiff's attorney telling you what you want to hear".

Originally posted by TomsterRX8


You're right.......you're off topic.
But I think you know about the low-life plaintiff's attorneys I'm referring to. The ambulance chasers. The one's who pass out business cards every time a bus is nudged from behind. The one's who care nothing about justice, care nothing for their clients, care simply for their 40% fee.

Had I not put that phrase into my response you know the retort I would have received. "Yeah, that's just some slimy plaintiff's attorney telling you what you want to hear".

No. IN my state, fees are capped between 20% and 1/3. It is illegal to hand cards out at accidents, and NJ is very strict on this. Runners are also illegal here also.

Actually I trust the small "street" lawyer more then the corp type, as they are in the trenchs, fighting the good fight for the little guy. And trust me, they are not getting rich.

I suspect that your real problem has to do with a power/submissive complex, or an ugly marrage situation?

Funny, if you have never practiced law, how can you form a basis to have the rather strong opinions you have?

But again, maybe we should stay on topic.

Originally posted by klegg


No. IN my state, fees are capped between 20% and 1/3. It is illegal to hand cards out at accidents, and NJ is very strict on this. Runners are also illegal here also.

Actually I trust the small "street" lawyer more then the corp type, as they are in the trenchs, fighting the good fight for the little guy. And trust me, they are not getting rich.

I suspect that your real problem has to do with a power/submissive complex, or an ugly marrage situation?

Funny, if you have never practiced law, how can you form a basis to have the rather strong opinions you have?

But again, maybe we should stay on topic.

In MY state I understand the typical arrangement to be one-third to 40%. The only reason passing out business cards at accident scenes became illegal in NJ is the fact that low-life ambulance chasers brought it to epidemic proportions and a law HAD to be passed. And the reason they are not getting rich is the fact that, like cockroaches, there are simply way too damn many of them.

So instead of them passig out business cards at accident scenes they now advertise during the Jerry Springer Show........huge step up there!

But I digress.......

Now you're gonna get this thread closed.

Naaahhhh. I am not going to change your opinion, so there is no point. Wayyyy of topic anyway, and the real problem is unhappyness with how the buyback is going, which in understandable.

When you are not in the other persons shoes it is easy to think they are whiners, but I would be upset if I were you.

But, for gods sake, stop watching springer!!!!! It will rot your mind, and you may find yourself buying wankel engined products!!:)

Tomster wrote: "Bottom line is he agreed 100% with my conclusions and said that Mazda is certainly liable and could not win in a court of law."

1. Your attorney friend is wrong.
2. You must have been spinning your facts to him.
3. If you didn't pay a fee for his advice, you got what you paid for.
4. I suspect you get into a lot of pissing contests, don't you?

Here is some friendly advice that will really help you in life. It's called diaphramatic breathing. To a slow count of four, breath deeply and fill your stomach with air, letting it extend way out like you are pregnant. Then release the air to a slow count of four. Do this five or ten times and your body will release wonderful calming chemicals. It really works for stressful times, in arguments or whenever you are about to lose your sense of reason. I offer this in a sincere effort to help.

Thank you les. I just became weary of trying to rationalize with this guy. Pearls before swine, I suppose.

Klegg, I suspect that you are kind enough to offer free legal advice to people, but would you ever ask your friend the doctor "hey, look at this thing on my leg. What should I do about it?" or your friend the landscaper "would you mind planting these trees for me" etc. While I support helping, when reasonable, legal advice over lunch is not likely to be too helpful. Did this guy research the relevant statutes? Has he found cases in the right jurisdiction with the same facts that ruled in his favor? Or did he swallow his corned beef and say "Yeah, Tom, you're right."?

My suggestion about the breathing is not intended to be a jab, either. I really mean it. That stuff helps people. Hopefully, in a quiet moment, with no one watching Tomster will try it. I'm attempting to practice compassion and wisdom.

By the way, in answer to your query a while back, I'm a PA attorney and officer for a Fortune 500 financial company.

Originally posted by 350 Formula
Rotarymagic,

Not to steal his thunder, but his point on taxes is that he traded in a $30,000 can and PAID less tax when he bought the Mazda. Now he will have to buy another car without a trade in and pay FULL taxes on the NEW purchase. Mazda is paying him back the taxes he has paid, but will not pay him for the taxes he will have to pay DUE TO MAZDA.


Ther is something else going on here.
When I asked Mazda Canada about this specifically, they told me they WERE re-imbursing the difference on GST.

For those who don't know how GST works:

GST is 7% federal tax on goods and services you buy

Let's say you want to buy a car for $30,000.

When you trade in your old car, and they give you a $20,000 trade-in for it, the difference is what you pay taxes on. So, in this case 7% taxes on $10,000, or $700 in taxes.

If you took the buyback, you are out your old car, and the trade in tax savings.
I asked Mazda Canada about this and they told me they would re-imburse on the tax for the full amount, not just the part after trade-in.
So, in other words, the full $2,100 of GST, plus the $30,000

Originally posted by aussie77
Um for the record, 238 is 3.64% less than the published number of 247 hp. :)
Yes, but the original figure was 250HP. That is what it said in the brochure the dealer gave me.
But you are still right.
238 is 4.8% less than 250

But wasn't it also widely publicized that the HP figures were first revised to 247 (down from 250) before the first NA customer delivery? I think the timing was pretty close anyway.

It's called diaphramatic breathing. To a slow count of four, breath deeply and fill your stomach with air, letting it extend way out like you are pregnant.

"way off topic"
Dear doctor Les Paul, stick to guitar lessons, your breathing exercise gave me a hernia. You gulp air into your stomach for a burping contest, you breath air into your lungs for a relaxation exercise.

Watch out, giving medical advice on a world wide forum could get you sued. HaHaHa

Chuck wrote" You gulp air into your stomach for a burping contest, you breath air into your lungs for a relaxation exercise."

Sorry for my impresise explanation. Hopefully, people know the difference between their lungs and stomach.

This is not medical advice. It's a technique taught for stress management, bio-feedback, meditation and other applications.

More to the point, I suspect people have read enough of my posts to generally just ignore me, anyway.