oh jeebus...........

galwaytt

This is making me ill.........

why? 'cos our 02 Mazda just did it, with 88k miles and history, it just blew a big end...........cost for new short block...........5k.

And to think I specifically bought a Mazda for it's reliability ? I must take up smoking..........something..............the ECU prob on our 07 Galaxy was a mere......inconvenience compared to this latest mechanical episode.......

Is there nothing sacred? Does nobody actually test - anything - anymore?

So, a 15k car with no engine is worth.............???

And, what should we buy if we absolutely, categorically, don't want to ever have to fix anything, ever, again? I'm getting really, really sceptical about common-rail diesels, btw.............they all seem to be great - whilst they're running - it's just they don't seem to have anything like the longevity of previous generations...........I'd shudder to see the bills for a Honda C-TDI if if ever goes 'poop'..............

astraboy

What kind of Mazda is it TT? For a 02 you should be able to source a second hand engine for far less then 5K, then just do a straight swop. Maybe an option to consider. My dads 02 primera had the gearbox go on it and it would cost 4K to fix nearly, so he decided to scrap it. It had well over 90k miles on it though and the bodywork was'nt great so it wasnt worth a load of money. Did'nt get a whole lot for it but you need to ask is putting 4/5K into a 02 car really worth it?

If you never want to fix anything again Toyota is the way to go. Corollas are soulless pieces of metal and plastic, but they will go on forever.

what_car

astraboy wrote: »

What kind of Mazda is it TT? For a 02 you should be able to source a second hand engine for far less then 5K, then just do a straight swop. Maybe an option to consider. My dads 02 primera had the gearbox go on it and it would cost 4K to fix nearly, so he decided to scrap it. It had well over 90k miles on it though and the bodywork was'nt great so it wasnt worth a load of money. Did'nt get a whole lot for it but you need to ask is putting 4/5K into a 02 car really worth it?

If you never want to fix anything again Toyota is the way to go. Corollas are soulless pieces of metal and plastic, but they will go on forever.

i doubt the current model one. i recently drove an 07 one, 1.4 petrol and it pales in comparison to the sturdyness of older 02-04 models.

they are not as good as they used to be!

thats what cost cutting does.

galwaytt

astraboy wrote: »

What kind of Mazda is it TT? For a 02 you should be able to source a second hand engine for far less then 5K, then just do a straight swop. Maybe an option to consider. My dads 02 primera had the gearbox go on it and it would cost 4K to fix nearly, so he decided to scrap it. It had well over 90k miles on it though and the bodywork was'nt great so it wasnt worth a load of money. Did'nt get a whole lot for it but you need to ask is putting 4/5K into a 02 car really worth it?

If you never want to fix anything again Toyota is the way to go. Corollas are soulless pieces of metal and plastic, but they will go on forever.

'fraid not - it's an 02 Mazda MPV, 2.0 common rail diesel, 136bhp - RF series engine, same as Mazda 6.

I travelled to UK 3 weeks ago to collect a unit, and it was rubbish. Cheapest I could find was 2200 Sterling. Clutch and DMF add 1k Euro. Differing opinons out there on whether you can even regrind the crank, so we're in a big hole on this one.........................give me back my Scenic(s) !!

You might have something on the Toyota, though..........currently have a loan of a 97 Corolla with 115k on it, and it runs like a Swiss watch.............ditto the 88 one I can get my hands on, too.

unkel

Sorry for your troubles

That said, I'd have thought you'd be the first person to understand the myth about "Japanese cars will go on forever no matter what" is just that, a myth.

bushy...

galwaytt wrote: »

'fraid not - it's an 02 Mazda MPV, 2.0 common rail diesel, 136bhp - RF series engine, same as Mazda 6.

I travelled to UK 3 weeks ago to collect a unit, and it was rubbish. Cheapest I could find was 2200 Sterling. Clutch and DMF add 1k Euro. Differing opinons out there on whether you can even regrind the crank, so we're in a big hole on this one.........................give me back my Scenic(s) !!

You might have something on the Toyota, though..........currently have a loan of a 97 Corolla with 115k on it, and it runs like a Swiss watch.............ditto the 88 one I can get my hands on, too.

The crank might be nitrided ? if depends on it and you regrind the crank ( like you should be able to for something that puts out 136 but thats another thread ..) it will work grand for a very short time and then die again. Try find out for sure and i'll try dig up someone who can re-do it ( extra fun outside of the cyanide usually used to harden it is that it needs to be re-straightened again)

galwaytt

I know, I know, but in truth, I think it's Japanese DIESELS that are the problem......can't fault my 90 MX-5..............and you don't need a degree to fix it, either...........

Common Rails diesels, oth,..........don't even go there..........!!

At least I can claim it's the wife's car.........my tastes are more..........discerning ?:D

Ceb

my vote toward reliability has to be with toyota, i hate everything about then except their amazing reliability, especially the late 90's dsl models

Senna

unkel wrote: »

Sorry for your troubles

That said, I'd have thought you'd be the first person to understand the myth about "Japanese cars will go on forever no matter what" is just that, a myth.

Go forever no mater what, now thats a myth, but go longer than your average piece of euro poo, thats fact.
Newer jap cars dont seem to have the same reliability and i'm guessing jap diesels ranges will be worse.

If in doubt, get a 1990 nissan sunny, when/if it does break down, just leave it on the road side and buy another:D

S.I.R

just stick in a 1.3 rotary ( none turbo ) and stop your whining , mazda is owned by ford so what do you expect ??

maidhc

galwaytt wrote: »

I know, I know, but in truth, I think it's Japanese DIESELS that are the problem......can't fault my 90 MX-5..............and you don't need a degree to fix it, either...........

Common Rails diesels, oth,..........don't even go there..........!!

At least I can claim it's the wife's car.........my tastes are more..........discerning ?:D

And we have a Toyota Avensis that eats clutches for breakfast, leaks water, rust, has dodgy electronics, and suffers from uncontrollable rattles....

Mayshine

There seems to be a simple rule with Japanese cars. If it (and the engine) was built and assembled in Japan it seems to be much more reliable than the one built abroad.

Avensis, etc case in point

JHMEG

Not nice.

unkel wrote: »

That said, I'd have thought you'd be the first person to understand the myth about "Japanese cars will go on forever no matter what" is just that, a myth.

Mazda doesn't qualify as being Japanese any more does it? So many parts shared with Ford.

Mayshine wrote:

If it (and the engine) was built and assembled in Japan it seems to be much more reliable than the one built abroad.

Single most reliable car on the roads in the UK at moment is the 98 to 03 Accord... which was built in Swindon.

tred

S.I.R wrote: »

just stick in a 1.3 rotary ( none turbo ) and stop your whining , mazda is owned by ford so what do you expect ??

did Ford have anything to do with that Mazda in 2002???.

DukeDredd

maidhc wrote: »

And we have a Toyota Avensis that eats clutches for breakfast, leaks water, rust, has dodgy electronics, and suffers from uncontrollable rattles....

Have ye not gotten rid of it yet maidhc?

For a long time now every time Toyota reliability comes up you mention this pig of an Avensis that ye own! Sounds like a "Monday morning" one to me.

@galwaytt - very surprised to read about this common problem with the Mazda's - thought they were one of the most reliable you could buy. Crappy situation to be in. I guess all you can do is hang onto it for as long as you can and keep an eye out for a replacement engine.

ednwireland

was talking to recovery guy recently and he said most of the breakdowns hes seeing are in newer cars (06-07) reckons the build and parts quality has gone to pot said he hadn't seen a particular make giving trouble seemed to be spread across all of them not that that is much reassurance to the op.
ring all the scrappies in the country and see if you can find a wrecked one somwhere with a useable engine.
i'm a car free zone due to a thermostat and head gasket failure (but my cars a 98 with 150k on the clock) so i can sympathise

maidhc

DukeDredd wrote: »

Have ye not gotten rid of it yet maidhc?

For a long time now every time Toyota reliability comes up you mention this pig of an Avensis that ye own! Sounds like a "Monday morning" one to me.

Nope! Still have it! It hasn't actually ever cost us any money due to Toyotas utterly fantastic customer service! We had a previous Avensis too that saw a flatbed on more than one occasion. It isn't doing much mileage anymore, so the parents decided to keep it for the time being (as well as the fact they just dont care about cars!)

Have to mention it to counteract the "toyotas are wonderful comments" which isn't really true. The Avensis model in general has only been very average for all its life as regards reliability.

zilog_jones

Senna wrote: »

Go forever no mater what, now thats a myth, but go longer than your average piece of euro poo, thats fact.
Newer jap cars dont seem to have the same reliability and i'm guessing jap diesels ranges will be worse.

Well the problem in this case is that it's not really a "jap diesel" at all. I'm not sure exactly (Wikipedia says litte to nothing about this engine) but the engine either a Ford design or a PSA design (or a bit of both) with a Denso (japanese company) pump. However the pumps seem to be part of the problem...

Mazda seem to design their own diesels in the past - the ones offered in the 323, 626 and vans seemed to be their own work. Did they get lazy?

maidhc

zilog_jones wrote: »

Mazda seem to design their own diesels in the past - the ones offered in the 323, 626 and vans seemed to be their own work. Did they get lazy?

No, but they realised their engines were always eons behind european ones... the comprex diesel in the 626 was pathetic by all accounts.

Biro

astraboy wrote: »

If you never want to fix anything again Toyota is the way to go. Corollas are soulless pieces of metal and plastic, but they will go on forever.

That, I'm afraid, is also a phrase that belongs in the past. Toyota are gone down hill too. Big time. If you want a reliable car, get a 10 year old Toyota or Honda.

Biro

zilog_jones wrote: »

Well the problem in this case is that it's not really a "jap diesel" at all. I'm not sure exactly (Wikipedia says litte to nothing about this engine) but the engine either a Ford design or a PSA design (or a bit of both) with a Denso (japanese company) pump. However the pumps seem to be part of the problem...

Mazda seem to design their own diesels in the past - the ones offered in the 323, 626 and vans seemed to be their own work. Did they get lazy?

That engine has nothing in common with the Ford one. I'd still take the Mazda one.

E92

Hard luck galwaytt. Especially with a manufacturer that is normally excellent for reliability. I didn't even know about the problem with the Mazda diesel until today when I read the link, I just assumed it being a Mazda that it would never go wrong(then again I assumed that Mitsubishi's GDI engine would never go wrong either until I joined boards and found out what a complete disaster it is).

Toyotas are definately going downhill. The Auris is giving no end of trouble if Toyota forums are to be believed. The current Corolla inside feels as cheap as chips, and I presume it's the same as the Auris reliability wise. Toyota are cutting a lot of corners these days, I dread to think what the new Avensis will be like.

They were 7th in the JD Power survey, still better than 26 other makes of car, but they used to be just outside the top three before.

The problems with the diesel Mazda6 are eerily similar to the Mitsubishi GDI engine when it gets coked up.

Which brings me on to the next point. What's the point in all this new technology, when plainly it doesn't work? Do car makers not bother testing these new technologies to make sure that they work before bringing them to market?

The stories of some common rail diesels are horrific. Do other direct injection petrols go belly up too(apart from Mitsubishi's infamous GDI)?

For some reason it only affects certain manufacturers. I've never heard of Fiat common rail diesels going wrong, or Honda, Toyota, BMW(bar the 02-04 320d but that was a turbo problem) or Merc CR diesels either.

You would think with the passage of time that cars would get more reliable. Unfortunately they're going backwards, the fact that Japanese cars are not as reliable as before is a very bad sign, not to mention the well noted decline in reliability from VAG and especially Merc. They're well over 100 years old these days, they should have ironed out problems on cars a long time ago.

I thought Mazda designed their own diesels for the 6, don't they?

JHMEG

Have to laugh at how "unreliable" Japanese cars have become all of a sudden.

Relax guys, the problem isn't that bad... the top 12 most reliable cars are all still Japanese.

maidhc

E92 wrote: »

For some reason it only affects certain manufacturers. I've never heard of Fiat common rail diesels going wrong, or Honda, Toyota, BMW(bar the 02-04 320d but that was a turbo problem) or Merc CR diesels either.

I know of two incurable Mercedes E Class diesels. One is languishing in a garage in cork for the past few months. I know an avensis that just got two new injectors. Indeed a Mondeo TDCI and an Avensis D4D all have an almost identical fuel system with both being manufactured by Delphi.

The reality is most problems with common rail diesels stem from misfueling, dirty diesel and other contamaninents. There is nothing special about petrol engines that will make them more reliable than diesels.

Finally I disagree strongly with people who say old cars were more reliable than modern ones. I am not old, but I remember when few cars attained 100k without needing serious money spent on them. Old Rover SD1s needed a rebuild every 60k miles and anyone who has any experience of old cars will know the constant fettling they need. Modern cars are simply incredible in comparison.

zilog_jones

E92 wrote: »

Which brings me on to the next point. What's the point in all this new technology, when plainly it doesn't work?

I'm sure they said the same thing about overhead camshafts, turbos, VVT, aluminium heads, electronic fuel injection, etc. when they were new technology.

And they definately said that about the Wankel engine! Mazda's first production car using Wankel engines (sorry, "rotary engines" ) was the Cosmo in May 1967 - surprisingly several months before the infamous NSU Ro 80. Apparently at first they were not the most reliable motors around either, but they had certainly got the hang of them by the time the RX-7 came out.

Do car makers not bother testing these new technologies to make sure that they work before bringing them to market?

If history has taught us anything, it's that they never seem to know how reliable they will be until they release them to the mass market. Sucks to be an early adopter, I guess

peasant

maidhc wrote: »

Finally I disagree strongly with people who say old cars were more reliable than modern ones. I am not old, but I remember when few cars attained 100k without needing serious money spent on them. Old Rover SD1s needed a rebuild every 60k miles and anyone who has any experience of old cars will know the constant fettling they need. Modern cars are simply incredible in comparison.

I would agree and disagree at the same time

Really old cars were mostly a disaster. If a car clocked up 100.000 km without something major going wrong, that was the exception, not the rule.

Even the famed "goes on forever" Beetle was nowhre near as good as its reputation. The only reason why thousands of German tourists in the 50's and 60's (for the first time in their life) made it to holidays in Italy and back without major hassle was because you could get a replacement beetle engine at almost any filling station and any filling station attendant could fit it within a few hours

Cars reached their reliabilty peak in the late 80's / early nineties, when modern engineering techniques and computerised manufacturing were introduced in large scale, but electronics IN the car were kept to a minimum / non existent.

The Golf Mark II, Merc W124 and almost all Japanese cars from this period are classic examples of this and their makers live to this day on the reputation gained then.

These days car reliability is going downhill again, due to over-reliance on electronics (either to please the customer with the latest gadgets or to meet ever more stringent emmissions laws that stretch the possibilities of internal combustion engines to the technical limit) and extreme cost cutting or so called "synergy effects" accross multiple brands owned by the same parent company.

maidhc

peasant wrote: »

Cars reached their reliabilty peak in the late 80's / early nineties, when modern engineering techniques and computerised manufacturing were introduced in large scale, but electronics IN the car were kept to a minimum / non existent.

The Golf Mark II, Merc W124 and almost all Japanese cars from this period are classic examples of this and their makers live to this day on the reputation gained then.

Very fair point. Funnily enough one of the best selling tractors in Ireland in the past few years has been the NewHolland TM120/140 classic. This is essentially a "normal" tractor, but seriously devoid of electronics. It has been a massive hit with people looking for a no-nonsense machine with stuff like aircon and plenty HP, but that can be fixed in a field when something goes wrong.

I know the Dacia Logan is a bit like this, but I wonder how would a mainstream car fair?

True too about emissions legislation, the enginners seem to be flat to the mat trying to keep abreast of the pen pushers.

unkel

peasant wrote: »

Cars reached their reliabilty peak in the late 80's / early nineties

Yes and no, to paraphrase your good self

You're not mentioning rust, which was still a big problem for most 80s cars (not galvanised), were they?

I've never had any electronics problems on my 12 year old BMW that's for sale. That said, I'm the first to acknowlegde it is a highly engineered car subsidised by huge profits BMW makes on lower end models

But to sponsor your point, my daily driver (138k miles and 22 years old) has no problems starting, driving and no worrying rust problems. All the important electronics (needed for safety) work, but some of the non-important ones don't. And my car is typical, not an exception.

zilog_jones

unkel wrote: »

You're not mentioning rust, which was still a big problem for most 80s cars (not galvanised), were they?

The Audi 80 had a galvanised body since 1987 AFAIK. A lot of Fiats (at least the Tipo anyway) went galvanised in the early '90s to try and make up for their apalling reputation from years of shítty Russian steel. But they've all but disappeared from our roads.

What are we still seeing? Feckin E90 Corollas, T170 Carina IIs, P70 Starlets, Mk. 3 Daihatsu Charades (sorry don't know the chassis codes for them ), etc. - rust and all. Would I be wrong in assuming most Japanese cars from this era only really suffer from body panel rust, and nothing really structural? Then again I guess there were just more of these on the roads here in the first place...

unkel

zilog_jones wrote: »

The Audi 80 had a galvanised body since 1987 AFAIK

Indeed. My father bought a brand new Audi 80 in the early 90s. His first car protected from rust from the start, although he had several of his previous cars galvanised himself.

My car is a '86 and it is galvanised. Most cars back then were not

maidhc

unkel wrote: »

My car is a '86 and it is galvanised. Most cars back then were not

My 74 Capri certainly isn't! Im actually amazed it still exists at all.

unkel

maidhc wrote: »

My 74 Capri certainly isn't! Im actually amazed it still exists at all.

I'm actually amazed I do own and drive a car every day that at some point used to be the fastest production car for sale in the world. The only sports car ever to win European car of the year

OK it's old now and a sh1tty modern cheapo hatch might actually beat it in a 0-100km/h run. So be it.

jayok

unkel wrote: »

OK it's old now and a sh1tty modern cheapo hatch might actually beat it in a 0-100km/h run. So be it.

Ah, but that's not the point of buying it. Fact remains as you said that it was once the fastest production car in the world - and that is just cool :cool:

DukeDredd

You'd have to wonder about the modern ones alright. Wouldn't like to be running a modern common rail diesel that wasn't in warranty after reading this i think! (Especially with the problem being with one of the most reliable brands).

Speaking of early ninetys reliability - i've loaned my old '92 Corolla with around 200K miles on the clock (which spends it's time parked up at my parents place) to two friends over the past 6 months while their much newer and tiny mileage cars were in the garage. Sometimes i wonder why i ever got another car and stopped driving it!

what_car

Biro wrote: »

That, I'm afraid, is also a phrase that belongs in the past. Toyota are gone down hill too. Big time. If you want a reliable car, get a 10 year old Toyota or Honda.

or a new honda!

ednwireland

what_car wrote: »

or a new honda!

i think you missed the point of this thread

GTC

what_car wrote: »

or a new honda!

Which are built in England (some of them anyway). Hardly a plus!

E92

I think one of the other big problems with modern car design is how all the engine etc is completely covered up. In the olden days, before I could even walk, when you opened a bonnet, everything was there, ready and waiting, without any shielding.

This makes it much harder to try and do anything on your own, and this means that cars take longer to get serviced, when something goes wrong it takes longer and costs more, and for what? I don't care about what under the bonnet looks like, I don't care about all the black plastic, I don't expect to ever have to open it apart from checking the oil every now and again(but of course some modern cars don't even have dipsticks these days).

Even changing a light bulb is inaccessible these days. How can manufacturers justify this?

The other big problem it would appear is that mechanics actually seem to know nothing about what's wrong with a car without that bloody diagnostic machine. When that doesn't work, they don't know where to start.

How did they ever fix problems in the pre diagnostic era?

Then of course, the diagnostic machine might tell you that something needs to be replaced when it doesn't.

The ever increasing demands on emissions are not helping, especially when coupled with our rightful demands that cars get safer, yet faster, and comfier and more luxurious all at once.

There's only so much efficiency that can be had out of an engine. I wonder how are the diesels with over 90 bhp per litre going to last? Not that long ago, a diesel with not even half that was an achievement. Now it's not that spectacular, 100 bhp per litre diesels are starting to appear.

Surely they won't be as reliable as lower powered diesels of the same engine size? There has to be more stress on the engine components, after all, all they do is remap an engine or stick on another turbo and hey presto you can have loads more power.

These high power per litre engines are as a result of emissions legislation, no doubt about it, where manufacturers have to downsize engines and drop cylinders too. Executive saloons were always powered by 6 cylinder engines, now 4 cylinder engines are the mainstray of the range. Even luxury cars will be available with 4 cylinder engines when Merc releases the S300 BLUETEC Hybrid. There was a time when those type of cars had 8 cylinder engines as the norm.

astraboy

E92 wrote: »

I think one of the other big problems with modern car design is how all the engine etc is completely covered up. In the olden days, before I could even walk, when you opened a bonnet, everything was there, ready and waiting, without any shielding.

This makes it much harder to try and do anything on your own, and this means that cars take longer to get serviced, when something goes wrong it takes longer and costs more, and for what? I don't care about what under the bonnet looks like, I don't care about all the black plastic, I don't expect to ever have to open it apart from checking the oil every now and again(but of course some modern cars don't even have dipsticks these days).

Even changing a light bulb is inaccessible these days. How can manufacturers justify this?

The other big problem it would appear is that mechanics actually seem to know nothing about what's wrong with a car without that bloody diagnostic machine. When that doesn't work, they don't know where to start.

How did they ever fix problems in the pre diagnostic era?

Then of course, the diagnostic machine might tell you that something needs to be replaced when it doesn't.

The ever increasing demands on emissions are not helping, especially when coupled with our rightful demands that cars get safer, yet faster, and comfier and more luxurious all at once.

There's only so much efficiency that can be had out of an engine. I wonder how are the diesels with over 90 bhp per litre going to last? Not that long ago, a diesel with not even half that was an achievement. Now it's not that spectacular, 100 bhp per litre diesels are starting to appear.

Surely they won't be as reliable as lower powered diesels of the same engine size? There has to be more stress on the engine components, after all, all they do is remap an engine or stick on another turbo and hey presto you can have loads more power.

These high power per litre engines are as a result of emissions legislation, no doubt about it, where manufacturers have to downsize engines and drop cylinders too. Executive saloons were always powered by 6 cylinder engines, now 4 cylinder engines are the mainstray of the range. Even luxury cars will be available with 4 cylinder engines when Merc releases the S300 BLUETEC Hybrid. There was a time when those type of cars had 8 cylinder engines as the norm.

Correct. Even the new BMW 335 lacks a dipstick. You are warned when oil is low to top up, I'm not sure if you can check the level electronically? People are becoming further and further removed from the workings of a car. Progress is excellent we'll all agree, but this constant excessive focus on emissions is placing ridiclous targets for maunfacturers to reach. Not to mention the constant demands for increased comfort and safety. Something has to give.

I agree totally that you should be able to do certain things with your car, check the oil and coolant, change the tyre, and change a buld are the most basic of tasks that are now being removed from the drivers remit. We have all heard horror stories of engine management shutting down a car or putting it in "safe" mode for no apparent reason. Thats the issue, its software, there will be issues with it and if its being used on a car day in day out for 100-200 thousand miles it needs to be tested and developed correctly!

JHMEG

GTC wrote: »

Which are built in England (some of them anyway). Hardly a plus!

UK built 98-03 Accord (newer model built in Japan) is the most reliable car on the road according to the Reliability Index. If the fundamentals are right it doesn't matter who operates the assembly line.

Biro

When you're extracting every last ounce of energy from every droplet of fuel you need electronics to control it. Mechanical solutions can only go so far I suppose.
Good job planes aren't as finickey with their software! Imagine an A340 going into "safe mode"!

JHMEG

unkel wrote: »

OK it's old now and a sh1tty modern cheapo hatch might actually beat it in a 0-100km/h run. So be it.

I reckon I'd give you a good run in my sh1tty '00 cheapo hatch, which has an engine that debuted in 1989!:p

maidhc

Biro wrote: »

Good job planes aren't as finickey with their software! Imagine an A340 going into "safe mode"!

There you go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eQpUgHkBcg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296

ambro25

galwaytt, you've got (or had) an MX-5, no?

If you want the same driveability/fun factor in 4-door guise and reliability über alles, get a Scooby

Biro

maidhc wrote: »

There you go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eQpUgHkBcg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_296

Not an A340...