Do Mazdas suck in general?

[NeoPTLD]

I had a 1993 Mazda van with about 140K miles on it which we acquired when it had about 100K miles on it.

In the 40K miles we owned, it cost a ton in repair bills.

$2500 in transmission
$200 in radiator
$800 in timing belt
$400 in brakes
$250 here and htere

For the cost of that thing, it would have been cheaper to lease a new car for 4 years...

I see that MPVs still get a black circle in consumer reports in reliability department. Do Mazdas suck in general as far as reliability?

My MPV was made in Japan in case anyone care to know.

The timing belt was actually replaced, because that area had to be torn apart. The problem started when the hydraulic belt tensioner mazda likes to use failed causing the timing belt to skip a few teeth. The belt and idler pulleys were replaced, because engine was torn apart to that point and it would be stupid not to replace the belt.

 

[franksta]

I don't think anybody makes a worthwhile van.

 

[Chunkee]

Originally posted by: NeoPTLD
I had a 1993 Mazda van with about 140K miles on it which we acquired when it had about 100K miles on it.

In the 40K miles we owned, it cost a ton in repair bills.

$2500 in transmission
$200 in radiator
$800 in timing belt
$400 in brakes
$250 here and htere

For the cost of that thing, it would have been cheaper to lease a new car for 4 years...

I see that MPVs still get a black circle in consumer reports in reliability department. Do Mazdas suck in general as far as reliability?

i have one, but it is a 2003.

there are too many variables in your situation.

the previous owners care is the biggest one. and with that kind of mileage on it, those are some routine items, except the tranny.

look at it from this point, if it gives you a good three years without any other major expenses, is it worth it?

all cars need maintenance at some point or another

jC

 

[NeoPTLD]

Originally posted by: Chunkee

Originally posted by: NeoPTLD
I had a 1993 Mazda van with about 140K miles on it which we acquired when it had about 100K miles on it.

In the 40K miles we owned, it cost a ton in repair bills.

$2500 in transmission
$200 in radiator
$800 in timing belt
$400 in brakes
$250 here and htere

For the cost of that thing, it would have been cheaper to lease a new car for 4 years...

I see that MPVs still get a black circle in consumer reports in reliability department. Do Mazdas suck in general as far as reliability?

i have one, but it is a 2003.

there are too many variables in your situation.

the previous owners care is the biggest one. and with that kind of mileage on it, those are some routine items, except the tranny.

look at it from this point, if it gives you a good three years without any other major expenses, is it worth it?

all cars need maintenance at some point or another

jC

MPVs consistently get poor ratings in consumer reports year after year. Haven't they learned anything?

 

[Mr N8]

Originally posted by: franksta
I don't think anybody makes a worthwhile van.

:roll:

The reliabilty of a Honda or Toyota minivan is incredible. The engineering put into the interiors is even more so.

 

[dug777]

:| my 89 323 has done 230,00km and is in great nick

Not a single problem in the last year i've owned it

 

[Fritzo]

Is nobody finding it funny that he bought a vehicle with 100K miles on it and he's amazed he's having to do repairs?

 

[NeoPTLD]

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Is nobody finding it funny that he bought a vehicle with 100K miles on it and he's amazed he's having to do repairs?

I expect some problems, but transmission seems to be an issue with that model year after year.

 

[Kremlar]

LOL. You buy a vehicle with 100K miles on it, and don't expect to do a timing belt and brakes?

Sucks about the transmission and radiator, but that's the gamble you take with ANY 100K vehicle. You have no idea how it has been treated.

To answer your question, I think Mazdas are good cars in general. Not up there in reliability with Honda and Toyota, but you often get more bang for the buck, and they're great fun to drive.

 

[Amused]

Every Single Mazda I have owned (3) or has been owned by someone I know (6) had to have a new tranny in under 60,000 miles.

For some reason, their trannies are just crap.

I have a beater 1997 Mazda 626 that I bought new. It's tranny died at 45,000 miles. I got a rebuilt one and the car is up over 200,000 miles now.

The only other problem it has had, besides being a rattle trap, is a dead AC fan that cost some $200 to replace.

 

[gigapet]

my 96 mazda 626 is coming up on 150k miles. Still chugging along and geting like 27 mpg. I think if I didnt hate driving stick that i could easily get another 100k out of it.

so to answer your question....I'll pose another: Why are you driving an ugly soccer mom van to begin with?

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: gigapet
my 96 mazda 626 is coming up on 150k miles. Still chugging along and geting like 27 mpg. I think if I didnt hate driving stick that i could easily get another 100k out of it.

so to answer your question....I'll pose another: Why are you driving an ugly soccer mom van to begin with?

You're lucky. You got a manual. The auto trannies fail very early on these cars.

 

[CVSiN]

all mazdas except for the gen 3 RX7 pretty much do suck... they just fords with different logos =-p

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: NeoPTLD
I had a 1993 Mazda van with about 140K miles on it which we acquired when it had about 100K miles on it.

In the 40K miles we owned, it cost a ton in repair bills.

$2500 in transmission
$200 in radiator
$800 in timing belt
$400 in brakes
$250 here and htere

For the cost of that thing, it would have been cheaper to lease a new car for 4 years...

I see that MPVs still get a black circle in consumer reports in reliability department. Do Mazdas suck in general as far as reliability?

 

[rh71]

do they suck ? No. Are there better ? Of course.

 

I had a 1989 v6 mazda MPV that I got at 130,xxx miles and didn't have to put a single dollar into for over a year.

It had the typical clicking valve problem and the rear differential gear shaving problem was developing as well. Neither were worthy of putting any money into.

All of your repairs are typical for a vehicle with 140K miles on it. Except mabey the transmission.

 

[vi edit]

In your list - much of that was just typical stuff required to be done on a vehicle with 140,000 miles.

A toyota would require it, a honda would require it, a GM product would require it. Assuming they used timing belts instead of chains anyway. Obviously the tranny going out isn't something that you want to happen, but it was a 13 year old vehicle that may or not have been treated well. Transmissions don't last forever.

I'm not sure if this thread is meant to be trolling in nature but it sure feels that way.

As for Mazda, the Protege line of cars were bullet proof. Mazda also did much of the work under the sheetmetal of the Ford Escort ZX2 which for a couple years was the only Ford vehicle that made consumer reports "Recommended" list for reliability.

The recent MPV's are right behind the offerings by Toyota and Honda in the reliabilty category.

As a company they are down in the rankings because of new models being released at the same time (MZ3 & MZ6). So that hurts. Putting out rebadged Escapes didn't help them either

 

[Horus]

Originally posted by: CVSiN
all mazdas except for the gen 3 RX7 pretty much do suck... they just fords with different logos =-p

I'm a Mazda fanboy, and I will readily admit that their automatic transmissions SUCK. SUCK SUCK SUCK.

I have a 1999 Protege SE w/ 63k kilometers on it...ONLY problem in the 6 years my family has owned that car is the front exhaust pipe blew on it.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: vi_edit
In your list - much of that was just typical stuff required to be done on a vehicle with 140,000 miles.

A toyota would require it, a honda would require it, a GM product would require it. Assuming they used timing belts instead of chains anyway. Obviously the tranny going out isn't something that you want to happen, but it was a 13 year old vehicle that may or not have been treated well. Transmissions don't last forever.

Mazda's early to late 90s cars and some of their early 00s are KNOWN for short lived auto trannies.

A tranny should last more 140,000 miles.

Mazda trannies from that time period are lucky if they last 60,000.

I had two 626s and an MX 6 from the 90s. ALL had premature tranny death. So has EVERY SINGLE ONE I've witnessed. ANY mechanic will tell you the same.

 

[dud]

all mazdas except for the gen 3 RX7 pretty much do suck... they just fords with different logos =-p

On the contrary my wife's '99 Protege was made in Japan of Japanese parts. MOST Mazdas are made in the U.S and some do indeed have Ford transmissions. The 2200 pickup is a copy of the Ranger and they used to be made on the same assembly line.

With only 48K on the car you would not expect to have had many probs but in the last year I have had to replace the alternator and the water pump.

BTW, don't LEAN on the side of the Protege because the thin sheet metal dents very easily!

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

My little old 1990 mazda 626 has 160,000 miles on it and appears to be going strong. I still get 25 MPG in the city and it is averaging less than 8 cents a mile in repair and maintenance costs. basically all I do is change the oil every 4 months.

It does have its quirks though, particularly with the retractable seat belts.

 

[imported_thomash]

Originally posted by: NeoPTLD

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Is nobody finding it funny that he bought a vehicle with 100K miles on it and he's amazed he's having to do repairs?

I expect some problems, but transmission seems to be an issue with that model year after year.

I think it's damn funny that he's complaining, 70,000 miles is enough to expect repairs..

 

[JasonSix78]

Originally posted by: NeoPTLD
I had a 1993 Mazda van with about 140K miles on it which we acquired when it had about 100K miles on it.

In the 40K miles we owned, it cost a ton in repair bills.

$2500 in transmission
$200 in radiator
$800 in timing belt
$400 in brakes
$250 here and htere

For the cost of that thing, it would have been cheaper to lease a new car for 4 years...

I see that MPVs still get a black circle in consumer reports in reliability department. Do Mazdas suck in general as far as reliability?

As others have said, the auto transmissions are doomed to go out early. No, Mazdas do not suck in reliablity. My first car was a 91 MX6 5-spd that I got shortly after I turned 16. Great little car, it had 70k miles on it then and I ended up putting over a 100k very hard miles on it without major problems. I've also bought a turbocharged model and a 2nd Generation which I'm currently driving now. I love the reliability and performance of these cars. Regular maintenance items like you mentioned above, transmission excluded, are part of the upkeep on any vehicle. Especially one with high mileage.

-Jason

 

[halik]

Originally posted by: thomash

Originally posted by: NeoPTLD

Originally posted by: Fritzo
Is nobody finding it funny that he bought a vehicle with 100K miles on it and he's amazed he's having to do repairs?

I expect some problems, but transmission seems to be an issue with that model year after year.

I think it's damn funny that he's complaining, 70,000 miles is enough to expect repairs..

I've got a 96 Audi a4 quattro and my 2nd gear went out maybe month ago. The car has ~100K miles too.

Stuff like that happens - my tranny was going for the past 10K miles (gear would pop out). I've got a new tranny lined up from pensylvania, i'll be putting it in in august.

 

[randomlinh]

My mx6 tranny died. 93, auto. I was also the third owner... soooo... it wouldn't have died if my cousin knew what it was (got it from her basically free ). I didn't really know either, since I had never driving stick or understood how transmissions worked exactly... but it was slipping from 2nd to 3rd. She had it under warranty, but they never knew what the problem was (dealer as well.. or didn't want to fix it....). But yeah, you could tell the original owner also didn't take great care of the car either...

needless to say, I still decided to pick up the 3... i'll be the original ower, so we'll see. oh, and opted for the 5speed of course. we'll see how rational my decision is 5 years from now