Looks like legal action will be the next step. Apparently, they think I was driving the car around with the bearing problem. Mazda claims the so called "bearing failure" must have existed previously. I maintain that the screw being embedded in cylinder #2 plus other metal filings related to the 3005C recall, must have caused the alleged "bearing failure". bearing failure has not been verified by anyone yet. There they removed the cylinder head and found the missing screw embedded in the top of cylinder #2. I was then forced to tow the car back to the performance shop. After forcing the issue with Mazda they claimed no further assistance can be offered. Now they claim the engine noise is due to "engine bearing failure" and not related to the 3005C recall. The second dealership then replaced the intake manifold but upon starting the engine found that the engine noise still exists. after much disagreement, this second Mazda dealership eventually opened the intake manifold and found 7 of the 8 screws and all 4 butterfly valves laying in the bottom of the intake. This second dealership verified with a borescope that there was damage in cylinders 1 and 3. Knowing this, the performance shop recommended we take the car to the local Mazda dealership nearby my sons' school. They investigated and noticed the recall 3005C sticker under the hood. 2 days later, we had the car towed to a nearby performance shop. On November 1st, 2010, he calls complaining of a "'loud engine noise". Come late August, my son takes the car away to school. Apparently they performed part a of recall 3005C and did a compression check and slapped a "recall completed" sticker under the hood. Shortly thereafter, on August 3rd, 2010 in fact, he knowing of an open recall, had the car serviced at the local Mazda dealership. My son bought a 2003 Mazda Protege 5, back in late July 2010.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |