rx88er

I had my 40k service today and I queried them about the new flash and they said they didn't know what flash it was other than to say they used the latest disk, 'Disk 38'. Can anyone tell me what flash this is?
I also noticed that they used Mobil Type S 10W40 oil instead of the Rotary oil. I questioned them about it and they said they wouldn't use it if it wasn't suitable. I told them that it said in the manual to use the Rotary oil not Synthetic or Semi Synthetic as she put it. I hope this doesn't affect my car. Can anyone tell me if this oil is not suitable or recommended?
cheers,
rx88er

Gomez

It doesn't say that in the manual. It says nothing about Synthetic at all. Mazda Australia recommend you don't use synthetic. On the other side of the coin, plenty of people have been using modern synthetics in rotarys for years without problems. Make your own decision after reading this bulletin below.....

Gomez.

timbo

Oh stop it, Gomez! This is like the Pug thread...oil just rises to the top

Gomez

What Pug thread? I didn't see a Pug thread. Where's a Pug thread?

Hey, I kept it short and sweet. I didn't start it, he did......

timbo

Ok, here's the deal...I won't mention the Pug, if you don't mention the oil

rx88er

Now now.....I realise there was a thread on this ages ago, I just got thrown by what I was told and had to let someone know. Never to be repeated. :D
cheers,
rx88er

rx8au

Just had my 10,000km service at McGrath Sutherland. Check, check, check as per handbook. 1L extra oil. Updated PCM (PCM-N32K-18881). $291.25 inc GST. Seems a bit on the high side as far as price goes. But happy with the service. The idle seems a lot smoother and zero flat spot since PCM update. I travel a lot - 10,000km in less than 10 weeks!! Luv the car!

Richard

NicoRx8

Just had 10K service (Melville Mazda) Perth W.A

TOTAL LABOUR $120 (checked all **** features, replaced engine oil and filter, PCM update, removed stones from under shield??, )
PARTS $78.29 (Gasket sump plug, oil filter, fuel treatment, motor oil rotary 5L)

clean and vacuum of car performed (LOOKS BACK TO NEW!!!)

TOTAL (including loan car -M2 NEO) = $261

Happy with service

BVD

Apologies if I missed some facts quoted above, but why would anybody get their car serviced on a time basis (i.e. every 6 months) rather than on the basis of distance and conditions?

In my experience, cars don't suffer from sitting in the garage, unless the weather conditions are extreme or the time between drives is particularly long.

There are good reasons to change engine oil reasonably regularly in terms of engine usage - particularly if the condition are poor - i.e. very dusty, prone to condensation, lots of stop/start city motoring etc. But time - what's with that? I've not heard that oil is likely to fail in less than a year, just on basis of time - it has no use by date on the can after all.

I've always serviced my cars on the basis of usage alone, and ignored the time factor. I've believed that the time thing was due to manufacturers being extra cautious due to the wide range of conditions (and owner competence) that their cars will encounter. Perhaps some owners may not have the confidence, or experience, to trust their own eyes and ears to check for unexpected wear or developing failures?

Does anybody have any technical reasons why they believe that a car needs servicing every six months? Have I missed something?

timbo

I thought you answered your question above and elsewhere. Depends on the nature of the driving. If it's low use, city, stop-start, with lots of cold starts, you might want to do it on time basis, even though the mileage is nowhere near recommended. Why even risk the oil degrading to near failure?

IMHO, oil is cheap. Everything else being equal, a car with cleaner oil should last longer and perform better.

Gomez

BVD, some manufacturers (and I don't know if Mazda is one of them...) run off the principle of "whatever comes first". Those ********* at Peugeot, for example. Peugeot informed me that the services had to be scheduled at six month intervals if the km figure had not been passed, otherwise my warranty could be voided. Now with a car as crap as the Peugeot turned out to be, I was not going to do anything that might risk the warranty.

My Mazda has not had a single thing go wrong in the 18 months I have owned it, and I am unaware of the MA policy on this.

Gomez.

Revolver

I agree with Timbo on this.

Mine gets a lot of city use and only occasionally gets out on the open road. For the sake of a $100 or so I'd much rather just do it every 6 months and not worry about it.

BVD

Timbo, you say "why risk the oil degrading to near failure?" but my question is what has time got to do with oil degrading? In my experience - nothing! It doesn't degrade sitting in the sump any more than it does sitting in a can in the garage. Can you explain exactly how oil would "degrade" after six months and why?

I'm all for changing oil regularly because of conditions (i.e. type of driving or extreme climate) but I've never yet heard a convincing argument for spending money on services every six months if the car hasn't done the work.

I might be wrong - and if so I'll happily change my ways in the face of a persuasive technical argument - but I've always thought that owners are simply being conned or frightened into unnecessary visits to the service department for no really good reason.

BVD

So why not get an oil change (or whatever you think the useful factor is) every 3,000kms or 5,000, or whatever you think is appropriate?

Every answer I've ever had to this question smacks of voodoo belief. I..e. "I don't know any logical reasons, but sacrificing this chicken (...paying this service cost...) might just appease some god or other....

It's usage fellers, usage, not the mere turning over of pages on the calendar - unless you can come up with something a bit more logical than this "um... why not, it might help..." stuff. :D

Maybe it's because there were many years when I serviced my own cars, and also years spent on the "inside" seeing just how much (or little) gets done on unnecessary intermediate service visits.

Revolver

Tightly held superstitions are hard to break down BVD! :D

Seriously, there is a lot of force in what you say but during a warranty period I'm happier to go along with service requirements (within reason). As I said, a $100 or so bucks every 6 months is no huge expense for my ignorant but content state of mind!

Gomez

Hey, didn't I do that ? BTW, This doesn't affect me, I do the km's easily.

BVD

Do you mean the warranty frightener aspect?

I say let them who are frightened by such things do the trembling. :p

BTW I’m not trying to encourage owners to flout their service recommendations just for the sake of it. If people don’t know much about cars, or don’t have the time or interest, then I’m all for them doing whatever they feel comfortable with (as I said above). And I'm a firm believer in adequate and appropriate maintenance.

I’m mainly referring to people with some knowledge of how their cars actually work. Perhaps I’m not the norm here, but I have had a fair amount of experience with automotive issues. Unlike many “weekend warriors” (or even the sort of inexperienced workshop apprentices who routinely get given the “change oil and kick tyres” type of service to do) I have, for instance, stripped engines down to bare blocks and done complete rebuilds, both privately and as a job. Ditto for gearboxes, suspensions and various other key components.

I’ve also worked as Area Manager for a large truck and machinery manufacturer - as the link man between the company and a network of ten dealerships. I was involved in all manner of things, from sales, parts, finances, and of course service and warranty issues. Naturally I did not have the final say on many of these matters, but I did gain a fair bit of experience. Unfortunately my memory is well out of warranty so I can’t claim to be razor sharp on all the detail.

To the best of my knowledge, basically time alone is usually a very low importance factor. Now some owners – for one reason or another – may buy a vehicle and then park it for an extended period of time (e.g. they might buy an exotic model as an ‘investment’ or be posted overseas, or whatever.). Under these circumstances seals may stick onto shafts, various “rubber” or plastic type compounds may suffer, some pitting or oxidation may occur in areas that haven’t seen any oil in months, etc, etc. As a manufacturer I might well decide to fight a warranty claim by someone who parked a car for two years and then complained of oil leaks, or whatever. I believe that, broadly speaking, it's this kind of 'abuse' that the time factor is designed to cover.

But for cars that are used regularly (i.e. at least several times a month) and serviced correctly with regard to the mileage and conditions, I would consider the time factor to be of no real relevance.

Some dealers (or even manufacturers reps) may try to bluff us into following every detail of their “recommended service intervals” but I doubt very much that they would take it to court unless the time factor demonstrably contributed to a problem. Warranties are there to protect us all – maker and owner alike – and the issue is taking reasonable care of the car, not just conforming to every detail purely for the sake of conforming. The set of service guidelines have been designed to cover a very wide range of circumstances.

Just my 2c worth - no wait - make that just my $5000 worth (a rough guess at what I've saved over 45 years of not wasting money on unnecessary "services") :D

timbo

I violently agree with you My response was about the degradation of oil due to driving conditions, eg, stop-start, lots of cold starts. Hey, if it's just sitting in the garage, let it be!

The reality is that most low mileage cars are going through this type of stop-start driving, which typically results in faster carbon and other contaminants in the oil. So I would recommend oil changes at least in line with the time intervals if nothing else. As to whether the rest of the service items -- brakes, electrical, coolants and so-on...that might be another issue. But, as Revolver said, you'd need to keep warranty issues in mind.

Me? I do the k's, and I change the oil/filter every 5,000k

Gomez

In the case of Peugeot, it wasn't a frightener....it was policy. Pure and simple. I'm sure they're not on their Pat Malone there.....

Might be worth a call to Mazda to find out their view.

BVD

Mate, in my experience policy is just another way of saying "this is what we want you to do". It is not law. Do you have any instances of Peugot actually making their "policy" stick in regard to denying a warranty claim on the basis of time interval? By that I mean a case where they successfuly defended a claim in court, purely in the time issue, rather than simply using it to scare off a potential claimant?

Alas, I have only one real world instance to offer. My one and only warranty claim - but it was with the RX8. No, I had NOT serviced the car every 6 months (and I still haven't). Was the claim denied - no. Was I ticked off and warned - no. Was the subject even mentioned - no. Why? because the issue had nothing to do with service intervals and it would have been frivolous and pointless to raise it. (At least that's the way it seemed to me ).

Had the issue been related in some way to time, and I had done something that might reasonably be expected to have contributed to the problem, then I would have expected some discussion or negotiation on that point. Otherwise not.

I'm not saying that no manufacturer would ever be bloody minded enough to try and refuse a warranty claim purely on the basis of time between services. I just have no specific knowledge of this happening. If certain manufacturers are prepared to go all the way on that point then I'd certainly like to take it into consideration when buying one of their cars.

However, all my real world experience (on both sides of the fence) suggest that the main aim of manufacturers is to reasonably protect themselves from dubious claims by people who have genuinely contributed to the neglect or abuse of their cars

I'm not an expert on Mazda's behaviour, but the RX8 manual is suitably guarded and apparently reasonable - with use of terms such as "recommended" , and words such as "could" and "may".

I regard warranties as a framework for negotiation rather than set in stone. Owners can (and do) claim for the cost of work at any time - including well out of "warranty" if it can be shown that the failure was due to a defect and not reasonable wear and tear.

BVD

And on the subject of 'reasonable behaviour'....

I recently asked a friend who is a car salesman for his opinion about honesty and 'reasonableness' in the industry.

He said that of course there were true stories about shonky dealers, dishonest salemen and harsh treatment from manufacturers. But he said that in general their behaviour paled in comparison to that of their customers.

He said that the frequency and degree of willingness to lie outright about the condition of cars they were selling, how they had treated cars they were claiming for on under warranty, and every other aspect of trying to shamelessly rip off companies was staggering!!

I remember an instance where one of our own dealers made a successful claim for a complete new engine for one of his own trucks. I later found out privately that the engine had failed because he'd negelected to tighten the sump plug and all the oil ran out, causing it to seize. Of course he refilled it, freed it up, got it going and then backed his own warranty claim!

Very difficult for a company to later successfully sue for the cost of being ripped off on that one, and a surprising number of people would just laugh at the story and think the guy had a good win there, or somesuch!

I've generally found that if I'm being honest and reasonable (and in these matters I am) then I get reasonable treatment in return.

Perhaps I'm old fashioned, or just rich enough now to be able to afford to have principles. :D

Gomez

If Mazda were to get shirty with you for not doing your service based on elapsed time, they would win in court...IMO. Here is why I hold that opinion.

Page 4 of the yellow warranty booklet says....."You must maintain evidence that proper maintenance has been performed on your Mazda vehicle blah blah.... Claims made during the warranty term will not qualify under warranty if resulting from lack of maintenance......"

Now, referring to the Owners Manual page 8-6 Scheduled Maintenance Australia/New Zealand....table 1.

"Maintenance Interval (number of months or kilometres (miles), WHICHEVER COMES FIRST )....

The defence rests, Your Honour :D .

Now, having said all that, I agree it probably wouldn't come down to Mazda refusing warranty for a squeaky seat. But read the Tech forum as much as I do and see the horror stories going on in the States. Claims denied left, right and centre. Whole car warranties voided because of gearbox failures. Check Slims8 or abbid's warranty horror stories.

Hopefully Mazda Australia don't get that heavy at any stage.

Cheers,
Gomez.

BVD

Hi Gomez,

I bow to nobody in my admiration for the quality and quantity of your posts (and your sense of humour) and I mean that without any trace of sarcasm, or tongue in cheek. But I'm going to have to keep disagreeing - at least in part.

But first a concession (always a good tactic... ) You suggest that if Mazda did get shirty with me then they'd win in court. You may well be right. It has been said by others that "a court case is an event whereby two parties get together to see who can afford the best lawyer" and when crunch time comes I think that Mazda could outspend me fairly comfortably. :D

But to get back to the point of where I started with this, I still don't believe that Mazda would attempt to enforce the time part of their service recommendations in a warranty situation, unless it clearly had some pertinent contributing effect. As the wording also says, claims that "result from failure to execute the maintenance..." etc. with "result from" being the key point. I don't automatically see dealers or manufacturers as unreasonable bastards.

What we would be arguing about is whether the problem in any way "resulted" from my having a service at say eight months instead of six. In my experience, most problems that I might be claiming for would not fall in that category.

I repeat - I am NOT advocating ignoring the intents behind the terms of your warranty - I am especially NOT advocating spinning out the kilometres between oil changes or proper services. I AM saying that, as an engineer by training, I'm perfectly confident in making my own choice about when to service my cars in terms of weeks and months.

And if I'm wrong I'm prepared to pay the cost. Perhaps it's my age, perhaps it's my engineering background, or perhaps it's the fact that I've had many years of self employment in my own businesses, but making my own decisions and being prepared to live with the consequences is normal for me.

I don't believe that I'd ever be facing Mazda in court, simply because I believe that they and I are broadly in agreement about what sort of behaviour constitutes negligence or abuse, and what constitutes "defects in materials and workmanship". And, as I said, in my real life experience of a warranty issue with Mazda, they actually DIDN'T seek to enforce it. So "What - me worry?" nah.... :D

Cheers, Chris.
(And how about the cricket eh? Phoar....
Just trying to be non controversial and blokey... )

sco

Well ain't this a debate and a half. I'm surprised no-one has mentioned the longer service intervals in Europe.

Well the services are definitely a huge money spinner for some dealers... my last 30k service (done at 20k because of the time interval and the fact I do lots of short trips in the city) was $154 - parts, oil and labour. I noticed the difference after the service, the engine definitely ran a little smoother.

Gomez

Yeah, how about that McGrath spell??!!

Okay Alfred E Neuman....you win. I have crumbled under the sheer weight of your logic and experience. That, combined with the fact you charmed me with the first few lines of your last missive was enough for me to surrender .