RJD

Background: purchased a "new" 2005 RX-8 in 2006. Ran into engine problems (car was stalling on me while driving on several occasions) and after paying for several fixes that didn't work (throttle body cleans, spark plugs, etc.) Mazda finally replaced the engine in 2008 at around 35,000 miles. This past week, several years later after moving to another part of the country, my new local Mazda service tech advises me that my engine has been replaced twice, to which I am surprised and tell him that it was only replaced once. The service tech further advises me that the original Mazda dealer that had the car for sale replaced the engine at the dealership with 11 miles on the odometer. It was then sold/traded to another Mazda dealer from whom it was sold to me as "new."

After having to pay for several fixes that fixed nothing and breaking down in traffic several times, I requested that they purchase my car back. Both Mazda North America and the dealer from whom I purchases the car advised me that the '04 & '05 RX-8s with the engine problems were not having any further problems on their 2nd engines, gave me a new engine (after trying to make me accept a "new" remanufactured engine), and gave me an extended warranty after catching Mazda North America lying about no "new" non-reman engines existing or otherwise being available.

Unlike many of you on this forum, I do not do my own auto work, but I always took the advice of the manual and service techs with regards to warming up and not shutting down the engine cold, revving it, and keeping the oil at a good level. Still, I was afraid to drive my car a lot after the engine problems, am only at 62,000 miles now, as I predominantly drove my wife's car after getting married. I am now in need of a family car due to the arrival of our first child, and I took my car into the Mazda service dept to have them fix anything that might be wrong to maximize my resale or trade-in value (one dealership, when offering me a lower-than-expected trade-in value, said my car had a history of engine problems and this prompted me to go to the Mazda service dept).

My question then is what would you do if you were me? I have a pretty short window to find a more family friendly car and will be trading it in. But I want to know whether Mazda North America and either of the two Mazda dealerships (both of which are no longer operating, but both auto groups still own other brand dealerships) were in the wrong in: (1) selling me a car as "new" that already had major value repairs done and without that disclosure, and (2) persuading me that a 2nd engine would be placed in my car and that 2nd engines weren't having problems (when my car unbeknownst to me already had 2 engines that failed)? My nose is bent out of shape at this point, and part of me wants remedy for what in my mind is fraud, and if nothing else would like to get the story out.

9krpmrx8

iTrader: (46)

Legally you don't have any recourse as the lemon law does not apply in this scenario and typically civil suits for fraud carry a statute of limitations. Even if you could file, fraud is a difficult thing to prove after all this time has passed. Just cut your losses and sell or trade the car in for the most you can get.

Disclaimer: I am not a licensed attorney so to verify what I stated, contact a licensed attorney

RJD

The relevant statute of limitations for fraud is 2 years from the time a reasonable person should have discovered it. And I'm not worried about proving it. I have the original sales contract for the "new" car, and I can subpoena all of one business record (which is an exception to the hearsay rule) from Mazda to show that an engine was replaced on the dealer lot.

I just want to know if I'm being unreasonable or not. Is it okay to sell a call as "new" with that much engine work prior to it being sold, said car continuing to have engine problems, and then being lied to along the way regarding the scope of the engine problems.

j9fd3s

i recall that there is a dollar limit for repairs that can be done and have the car still sold as new. BMW got in trouble for this, lol, probably 20 years ago now, they sold a car that had been repainted to a judge or something.

there is a dollar amount that they need to stay under, but i'm not sure what it is.

that being said there are three things. 1 an engine in 2005 might have been new, as they didn't really have any cores to manufacture yet. 2. if you look at the warranty history if the engine was the main cause of the problem but not replaced, it will show the engine part number, but the quantity will be zero. this fools everyone, they see the part number and assume it was replaced. if quantity is 1, then it was replaced.

three, a new engine is cheap. i saw the bill to mazda for mine and it was only $3500 parts and labor.

considering the engine is almost a wear part in these cars, its hard to get worked up about it. although the engine trouble thing is annoying, they flooded a lot, but that was like 7 years ago, and since then its fine

RJD

Thanks for the input - the case you're referring to is BMW v Gore (famous for the US Supreme Court holding that state punitive damage awards can violate the federal due process clause). Interestingly in that case, BMW stated it had followed an industry standard of not reporting pre-delivery repair work not exceeding 3% of the cost of the car. The Alabama state court rejected that 3% benchmark and held that the repaint valued at less than that should have been revealed. In my case, the scope of the work did exceed 3%, and both Mazda and the dealer knew about it b/c the dealer performed the work and was reimbursed by Mazda. Additionally, a repaint is less significant than a failed engine both financially and with regard to safety.

9krpmrx8

iTrader: (46)

Well it sounds like you have it all figured out. Have fun with your lawsuit, I am sure you will come out on top

RJD

Not really interested in suing for personal reasons (time away from home and am not in financial need). It just pisses me off when companies take advantage of me and consumers generally and want to see if I'm out of line. I did a quick search on the cases online about the time you posted your reply, for which I was grateful, and thought I would chime in with what the case you mentioned held.

djfa

iTrader: (3)

I sympathize with you my friend but I must say I think you should just cut your losses and trade in the car. Nobody wins when buying a car, especally wit the rx8. If you bought it for the resale value, you really purchased the wrong car. I bought mine less than 3 years ago for 16k from the dealer. It is now worth 6600 for trade in.

Now you are fortunate to actually have the car still in running condition and a dealer willing to giveyou money for it. So if you lose lets say around 2000$ on trade in value... Is it really worth getting a lawyer and putting your own time on the line sueing mazda while you could be doing something else and earning more elsewhere. If youre not in "financial need" like you put it, then I would just take the loss. The outcome of the case isn't even in your favor since the time lapse is way too long from when you bought the car. Best thing to do, call mazda NAO and tell them your story in details. Maybe they will offer you a rebate on a new mazda of your choice? Or you never buy a mazda again in your life.

Good luck, let us know what you decide to do

Bladecutter

Exactly how did it run after you first purchased it?
You know, that period of time between 11 miles and 30k miles?

Did it run well, or poorly?

BC.

mxer657

Go to large news sources and leak the story. 2 weeks later, Mazda will come out with an article in the same news source about how they fixed the issue and how you got a brand new decked out mazda. Problem solved.

boggle

I have twins..They are a year old. my 8 is a fantastic family car. Its easy to load them in the back with the huge appature thanks to the rear opening doors and no b pillar. i can fit my twin buggy in the boot along with other stuff.

anyway, i hope you get a satisfying outcome.

8 Maniac

iTrader: (1)

I can see your point, and I definitely would not be happy to receive a car that had already had significant work done if it was advertised as new. Even if there should be little to no difference, I wouldn't be happy with that information being kept from me.

I'd just say it depends on what you're looking to get out of it. You definitely have the right to be annoyed, but what are you looking to do about it?

LifeAfterRx8

iTrader: (17)

Are you sure it was 100% an engine replacement?

It could have been since it was an '05 and as the latest flash wasn't out yet, the car was flooded on the lot and a deflooding procedure was performed and when the tech pulled up the information it showed up as engine work and he's assuming it was a replacement? Or possibly, a data entry mistake? I'm pretty sure a car with 11 miles is new and it is highly unlikely that the car would need a new engine after 11 miles... the original engines are far more reliable than the rebuilds as they're all new parts.

Even a low compression rebuild engine would last more than 11 miles and I'm sure Mazda inspects the car before they ship it over here.