boowana

What if everyone who decides to take the offer added to the paragraph ....."the offer is full and complete resolution of any claim he/she may have against MNAO and any of its authorized dealers"..."provided that the actual horsepower is 238 HP SAE and that no further adjustment to horsepower claims will be made at anytime in the future". That should satisfy those who belive the current claim of 238 HP is not acurate and true.
If everyone did it, Mazda would have a hard time not accpeting hundreds of letters worded identically. If this were to be done, I would suggets having any lawyers amongst us provide proper and legally binding wording.
If Mazda is being honest with us, this should not pose a problem for them. What do you think?:o

ProtoConVert

In this case, wouldn't Mazda have that much more incentive to be negligent and not submit to another HP review? I think it might be better to get a lawyer to look into this

TXs are Rex ate

What if Mazda way over on the other side of the world is keeping the dealers in line... the ones who overcharged like ...way overcharged... .

I was charged 952.00 Over MSRP; some paid as much as 5000. & 7000. Over, to get the first cars, ... IF I was Mazda I would be pissed if dealers were making close to the same profit as I was… dealers not partners


What if Mazda is upset and this keeps the Vultures in line..- seems like what happened with that other little car made by Mazda – and some dealers were way overcharging for their cars.


If you got MSRP or better OK--- but --\
If you paid to much because they were the only place in town to get a car ----then

you get a free loaner car from the vultures that tried to rip you off…
and can get a new car with more options from an honest dealer…….
honest guys will get the business they would have had in the first place ...if they had more cars.
I only bought my car from the place I did because all the other guys were out of cars with the GT pkg, and the wait was another 30 or more days

Why else would they encourage you to sell it back and buy another with more options?

r0tor

iTrader: (1)

lets see... I'm blindly taking their word *again* about a power output, and this time its legally binding!! That just makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about MNAO. :o


I still firmly believe they should fix the problem and not try to buy us off.

Gyro

What I'm waiting for is the car mags to start catching wind of this. I would like to see mass production RX8's tested by independent organized entities......Like Car and Driver. Do you think they are upset that their credability might be looked at twice. Alot of people assume that they do their own Dyno testing before publishing numbers that people will believe as true. Also what reaction will Mazda have when a HUGE magazine like Car and Driver shows undesirable test figures.

Mazda put alot on the line with this new "revised" HP figure. I'm sure they assumed the RENESIS would be under the microscope after this blunder.

Program Manager Noboru Katabuchi knows this engine upside down and sideways, I doubt he was surprised to find out the output of the mass production engine was lower. Precisely what the letter would like us to believe.....it was a surprise.

8thSin

If people are choosing to return their 8's, why would you want to buy another one?? It's like going to wal-mart and buying a chicken, tasting it, say you don't like it, and buy the same one a day later. - The issue will still be the same on these cars. Whether or not you return it and REBUY the car - Can a Manufacturer produce cars at a later date fixing all known problems, and leaving those of us whom chose to take the credit as an option suffer from loss of power, and poor gas mileage?? I highly doubt it would go on in that manner, IMO - In order for MAZDA to want to continue to sell this car, the problems that people are complaining about need to be addressed.

Skyline Maniac

If enough people return their RX-8 and the whole false advertisement word gets out, the price of the RX-8 is going to drop pretty fast. There also is no clause in the refund agreement to prevent you from buying another. (according to other forum members) Returning the car by October 1st and buy another one could save buyer thousands on discounts and what not. I think we can all agree that regardless of the reason behind the power drop, a 238hp (or lower) car should not be worth the same as a 247hp car. This is strike 2 for Mazda, so public and media interest regarding this issue could be harsh and fast. Price will drop either way, how many other Mazdas can sell for MSRP more than 2 months?

Dealers who charged stupid premiums over MSRP should learn their lesson from this ordeal. Just return the car and buy another one from a different dealership at discounted price.

r0tor

iTrader: (1)

Problem is that there is a several month lag time in magazines from the time a magazine is drawn up to the time its released. For instance, the September issue of car and driver has been out for several weeks already, and that magazine was probably put together back in April/June. The only hope is for Autoweek to get ahold of it, but they are far from mainstream.

By the time this hits most magazines, the Oct 1 deadline will be long since past.

loco4rx8

This is just my opinion, but the way I read the letter is that by signing the letter and accepting the $500 and free service, you are agreeing not to seek damages on THIS issue, i.e. the 247 to 239 horsepower re-rating.

Mazda is once again officially claiming the RX-8 horsepower to be a certain number. It's no different than when they originally said it was 247. If they were to re-rate it again, then it would be a whole new set of circumstances, and we would be entitled to sue, receive another offer, or whatever in that case.

Furthermore, if the horsepower is somehow INDEPENDENTLY proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be less than 238 at the flywheel, I would think they are completely open to any claims owners might want to make against them. They'd be in real trouble then. It is to their advantage to get the right numbers out now and not ever have them change again.

Gyro

I would initially agree with Loco4rx8. It makes perfect sense. They are simply revising the number. if it were found to be different later.....we wouldnt be held to an old "revision".

However.....I posted this earlier today. As much as I dont want to believe it.......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Gyro
heres what I think. If we sign the agreement, we basically now hold Mazda to 238 HP. OR...+or- 5% as allowable by law. The Real HP is probably 225-228, which is within the 5% margin. Therefor releasing them from any legal liability.

They basically lowered the HP figures to WITHIN 5% of the ACTUAL figures. which is legal. They Know that the car actually makes 225....but saying 238 makes them look better and keeps their head above the law.

Very deceptive.......think about it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

klegg

Well, I am a lawyer (New Jersey), and here is my (personal) opinion: The release is aimed at the HP issue only. It could be phrased to be more on point, but the letter specifically talks about one issue, the hp adjustment. It is pretty much the most basic rule of contracts, that a document is construed against the drafter. In other words, even if we believe that the clause is ambiguous, it is strictly construed in the buyers favor, and against mazda. On a personal note, I have owned the car for a week, and love it. I did not buy it as a racer, that clearly was never mazda's point. It was always portrayed as a sporty performance oriented 4 seater, and not as a "vette beater". I drove the car before I signed, and feel I received good value for my dollar.(6speed, grand touring). There are plenty of cars priced considerably higher, with far less content (audi tt, for example). Clearly, mazda screwed up, but they are acting fast, and it is not a bad deal. If you brought the car to race, then take advantage of the buy back. otherwise, really nothing has changed. The real problem here is that a few very active posters seem to want to force mazda to turn the car into something it is never going to be, or perhaps pay them more then a $500.00 cash settlement . Really, think what is realistic here. They made a mistake, they are offering to make it right the only way they can. The people who are really stuck are those who traded or sold their old car for the rx8.

Squidward

This is my opinion on the matter:

be scared, be very scared? HAHAHA

whatever man, who cares... take the offer or don't..

as for the legal waiver, big deal, take the money now while you can. If anything that comes up outside of the context of this agreement, the waiver wouldn't hold up fer crap in court. I actually believe in our legal system, as flawed as it may be, I'll take that chance.. I personally don't care to stress over something that might not even happen, so I'll just sit back and watch them service my car for free, while the rest of you are worried about signing away your "life" so to speak...

Life is a box of chocolates, eat it before it it starts looking like ****.

klegg

Oh, If the horsepower gets revised again, it is a new claim, since they have posted the new numbers. Old release should then be invalid.

mmm

I'm a lawyer, too, and I would recommend that those of you who want a legal opinon go retain a lawyer. The legal opinions of various anonymous lawyers, whose backgrounds you know nothing about, and who may not ever have practiced law in your state (contract law varies from state to state, and in some respects those differences are quite substantial) aren't something you can take to the bank.

That said, some general rules that generally apply in one form or another in most (and perhaps all) parts of the US include: (1) generally, the goal of contract interpretation is to determine the intent of the parties; (2) in doing that, the important thing is the parties' objective manifestations of their intent (that is, something you or the other party secretly believe to be true, without any indication to the other party, generally will not carry much weight); (3) ambiguities are generally construed against the drafter (here, MNAO); (4) the foregoing typically applies with greater force when the contract is take-it-or-leave it, and/or when the drafting party is the one with greater bargaining power.

Other thoughts to keep in mind: some contracts are so-called "integrated" documents -- the contract itself says that it supersedes any prior negotiations, that the parties aren't relying on anything that isn't stated in the contract itself, and so on. If you have an integrated contract, it is harder to rely on statements outside the contract (exactly how much harder varies considerably from state to state). MNAO's release doesn't appear to include an integration clause, which would generally make it easier to rely on other docs (such as the letter) to provide context.

Still further thoughts: contract law may not be the be all and end all here. Various states may have special consumer protection statutes, and those statutes could change the rules. Likely, they would make things better for the buyers and worse for MNAO, but that isn't necessarily so.

And, again, I am a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. In fact, like many lawyers, I am licensed to practice law only in one state. In any event, I'm not trying to draw any conclusions here, just offering some general statements about contract law, which may or may not apply in your state.

Elara

I'm going to take the lawyers' advice and talk to one of the lawyers at my company. They work specifically with automotive law, and should be able to at least give me an idea if I should hire another one. I'm not too worried about this, and I'm definitely not taking back my car, but I do agree that if Mazda does intend this to be a waiver of rights in case of future issues, that's a big no-no.

Has anyone tried to get in touch with the Mazda North American Legal Department? They've got to have one, and I'm sure if we whined long enough to get this clarified they'd respond.

Skyline Maniac

Personally I think it's a shame to have to seek lawyers for legal advice just to buy a car...... come on Mazda, you can do better than that.

Speed Racer

I called the number listed on the letter and spoke with Clarita. She was tolerant of all of my questions and she also pointed out that there are a lot of people from the forum who have called and expressed concerns. She was polite but was not able to shed any light on this ordeal. The only thing that she knew for sure was that Mazda will not revise the Hp again but there in lies the rub. As Gyro pointed out earlier, if our cars are really only capable of generating 226 Hp, while meeting CA emissons standards, then Mazda does not have to revise the figures again because that falls within 5% of the claimed output. That leaves us 21 Hp short and if we signed the waiver we have almost no leverage to get them to fix the problem.

I think that there really should be a third option and that is to release cars with different emission standards (i.e. CA and general US). That would allow the people who live in states with lower emission standards to have their ECUs flashed with the original program and receive the Hp that they paid for. Unfortunately those that live in states with higher emission standards would still have to chose between the buy back and free maintenance. I tried floating this idea by Clarita but I was stoned walled with the corporate line that we have our two choices and we need to either take it or leave it. To be honest that attitude irritates me more than the revised Hp numbers.

khoney

I for one am glad they gave us over a month to make the decision - that's plenty of time to learn more about the HP issue and also to see what problems crop up, if any, on our vehicles. Right now I'm very happy with my purchase, although $31,100 and 238HP with no 6-disc changer and no auto climate control doesn't seem quite as good a deal as 247HP did!

canzoomer

Quick? not really. They already did it with the Miata, as you mentioned.
Heck, they barely had to rewrite the letter.

They figured what it cost on the Miata and went for it.
Plus, if you DO accept the offer you waive recourse when the real numbers are proven by somebody putting just an engine on a dyno and testing it.

The deadline of October is the giveaway as to what they are trying to pull off here.

canzoomer

Sorry, but it is NOT the same car. Those were Japan spec cars, with different ECU setups.

This car is like the UK and Euro car, which as advertised over there has a rated output of 230ps, or 228hp.

canzoomer

You are forgetting one thing:
It takes a print magazine about 4 to 6 months time from writing to publication of an article.
By then the October deadline will be long gone.

canzoomer

Yeah, we can tell you are a lawyer, as you are putting a "spin" on this to favour your personal viewpoint, and to try and discredit those who disagree with you.

Most of those who are not happy with the offer want to get the car we paid for, including the 247hp and the stated gas mileage figures.

So far both of those claims have gone up in flames.

What many of us want is for Mazda to do the same thing Ford did, and FIX the problem.
If that entails more ECU work, a revised air intake, a better muffler, or something else, I am certain they can improve on this.

One may ask why they have not done so, instead of offering what they did, and to me the answer is simple:
It costs them less this way.

They are counting on the fact that the majority of RX-8 owners will be apologists, like you.

So, why do so many people want to accept this offer?
Being a lawyer you are likely to have a pretty good grasp of human nature.

It is a lot easier to try and downplay this than it is to accept the idea fact that Mazda screwed you.

I have flown to and from Las Vegas many times, and I know that I must attract lucky people.

It seems that at least half the people I sit next to won more money at the tables and machines than they lost.
At least if I believe their claims..

eccles

Has anyone actually dyno'd a JDM RX-8 to give us a comparison baseline yet?

roachman

I have not seen any disscussion on the "buy back offer". Do they pay the 3% tax I paid back. I paid MSRP, but most people paid $995 over MSPR at my dealer.

Any comments folks on tax in the buy back?

roachman

lamigre

I live down here in Miami and am getting about 13 MPG as well. When I called MNAO they stated that they did not have other owners having a similar problem. I am still thinking of keeping my car as well.