Hi all,
If you were going to purchase or have purchased a mazda 6 2008 new shape and the dealer said this car is really only suitable for long distances would you buy it? ...... Thats what i thought
Also, would you class this car unfit for purpose if you were told that you should only do long journeys in it & it's not right to go from A-B?
Please answer as honest as you can :P
Edited by Pugugly on 07/08/2009 at 17:59
|
Med, I agree with you 100%.
It is nonsense the way diesels have gone backwards. I bought my 1.9 Passat and Golf diesels because I do many short journeys. When I had petrol cars they mayonnaised up the rocker covers and were on choke quite a lot. The fuel consumption was poor on short journey petrol cars as well.
So now, if I wanted a new car I would have to buy petrol. I prefer diesel cars, they used to be ultra reliable and simple.
Having read all the problems with Mazda diesels I wonder why they get such good results in Which and other reliability reports.
What a way to go to prevent global warming/climate change/global cooling by using more fuel to save CO2.
|
Med, I agree with you 100% Its not fit for purpose & I wouldn't buy any car which had liltations like that!
By the way remeber the New Mini PAS fiasco where BMW said it was only a handfull of cars! ,when watchdog got hold of it over 800 people e-mailed watch dog saying they had similar faults with the PAS & they were just the ones that watched watch dog
|
Med,
Stop posting about your problems and get legal advice etc. You stopped posting in the other thread and should in this one whilst you resolve your problem with the supplier.
Unless of course you now think you need to create a case based on use for mainly short trips.
Mine is used a lot for short trips and the oil level does creep up and when I pushed my lease company to take responsibility they just said we'll get an oil change (and charged my employer I should add). It was over 25mm below the X mark. Maybe 5mm above full at the time.
If you want my opinion (and extend it to all 2.0d Mazda drivers because the engine is the same) then yes it is fit for purpose. I do local journeys (often not warmed up) and some longer runs.
But there is a recall notice on engine increasing revs which needs a new control unit. See your other thread.
|
|
But Med if you have evidence that Mazda are saying this before you buy a car then it is some evidence. But be careful how you prove they say this. If the evidence is not admissible then it is of no use.
|
|
|
|
|
I think its absolute rubbish to sell cars with that stipulation. I have had seven Citroen XM diesels all of which have covered around 200,000 miles with no serious mechanical problems, one had done nearly 300,000. I still run them and wouldn't have a modern car unless it was a gift.
|
|
But they don't stipulate this. They might imply it for those with DPF issues (and not just Mazda).
|
As a current Mazda6 (original shape) 2.0d 143PS driver I would consider another Mazda diesel. In fact a Mazda6 163PS or 185PS diesel. but my car is not up for renewal for a bit.
More likely is something like an Audi A4 because I like Audi's and they are back on the allowed list along with other VAG cars.
|
with due respect, in my experience (over 3 years at a Mazda dealer) the only problems with DPF equipped cars oil level rising, was on either 'school run' cars, or mimser cars... these cars need to be driven hard from time to time, as do most cars.
in fact, the model we saw most, with the high level, was the 5.... mostly driven the mile or so to school and back, the 6's were mostly 'reps' cars, and were fine....
|
|
|
|
|
