Hi, Mazda last Friday finally put in heavier leaves in the bottom part of the springs after they had re-set the springs earlier. This was only done after I got fair trading involved and said I was prepared to go to court. The company that re-set the springs told me they would sag again so while they were off I paid for an extra heavier leave which they said would be all I'd ever need ( not off roading), car sat and towed good. Mazda would not pay for the extra leave (which was done approx. a month ago) but changed over two of the small leaves.. Early in the peace Mazda had my car for 16 days testing to see if springs were faulty, they had no test procedure for testing when loaded and still to this day won't tell me what is the measurement from bump rubber to chassis or guard to ground with 1.850 kls over back axel. Dealing with Mazda more painful than getting a wisdom tooth pulled. Cost of phone calls klms taking car back and forwards most probably more than upgrade cost...
The next saga continues as they wont fix my seat that keeps dropping. They acknowledge the problem and have done for years saying they don't have a fix, but ford are now fixing their seats and I'm led to believe have been doing so for over two months. Same seats ? I think so just another run around by Mazda.
Len :)
__________________
Just another day closer to dying...MAKE THE MOST OF IT. :))
sounds like most vehicle and RV manufacturers............lots of glossy b/s and duck for cover even when under warranty.
For those that aren't aware, about 6 mnths ago or so, the ACCC told motor vehicle (not RV makers unfortunately) companies that if people took their vehicle back for a fault under a warranty and it wasn't fixed because "they could not locate the fault or problem", that once the warranty expired, if the fault continued - so would the warranty on that fault, ie - you repeatedly take your new vehicle back to the Dealer who cant find the fault, then suddenly when the warranty expires, well goodness me - we can now find the fault and it will cost you $$$$$$$$
If your State Fair Trading people cant/don't help you - then go to the ACCC. They now take consumer complaints from the public
__________________
Cheers Bruce
The amazing things you see when nomading Australia
What I think is really the problem is Australia's weak and feeble rules and regulations and know one with the b--ls to police them. I too have brought a Mazda BT50, I made it quite clear what my intention was and now I have to up-grade springs, even though the adds all say you can tow 3.5t and load 1.2 t, in reality this is b--l-S---t. So why is it they can advertise this when clearly the vehicles don't make the grade. We have 5 Ford Rangers at work two with up-graded springs and three sitting on their a---ses. And nowhere near the max payload in them. The vehicles should do as they claim, and it should not be the new owners that have to take the rap.
Did I say Australia's weak and feeble rules and regulations, yes I mean that, you can murder someone and spend less time behind bars than I had to do my apprenticeship. In WA what's a white line in the middle of the road mean? Oh dear nobody knows, look at the mess presenting trip hazards on the verges, illegal parking what a joke, the list goes on for ever.
We need to bring in rules and regulations and severely prosecute those who offend, then we may be able to buy a vehicle that actually does what it says it can do.
To answer your question, yes I am p---sed off about this.
Me thinks! From an engineering perspective the ads used for marketing are quite correct, these vehicles are quite capable of pulling (towing) 3.5 tonnes nowhere in the ads do they state that the vehicles will withstand the load applied to the rear of these vehicles when towing a caravan. example if the distance from the vehicle rear axle centre to the tow ball was 1 metre and a down force of 250 kg being tow ball weight and then the distance from the tow ball to the caravan is a conservative 4 metres (usually greater) you end up with a load factor of 4 to 1 which means the leverage of load to the rear of tug instead of being 250 kg static can become 4 times that i.e.one tonne of down force to the rear of the tug plus the load of what ever is carried in the rear of the tug then multiply all of those loads applied by the accelerative factor at speed when the caravan is pitching fore and aft on uneven road surfaces and the problem is compounded. The constant loads constantly applied will far exceed the LOAD CARRYING CAPACITY of the tug.
Is it any wonder that the warranty claims are rejected. Buyers need to really do their research before purchasing a tow vehicle. Unfortunately the average layman is not aware of the engineering complexities involved in making their choice. I hope this helps.
don't get to excited about getting your seat fixed I have a ranger they replaced the bottom of seat and told me all was good but not so lasted a week so back to the drawing board I have put airbags on the back so much better 20 pound with van on 2900kg van 10pound with without van
Being involved with 4x4's for close to 40 yrs owning and repairing I can say that there has never been a 4x4 whether Commercial or Passenger that if used for Load Carrying or Towing even to Factory Specs has Not Required Suspension Upgrade to Do the job properly.
The reason being why there are so many Suspension Companies selling kits to improve the problems of vehicles Not Suited for what they are made for.
Go to your local motor trimmer there is a company in WA that does replacement good quality inserts for most Japanese vehicles. My guy bought two for my landcruiser best thing I ever did they are very comfy for my far bum
Sorry Len, came on a bit too strong, glad you got a result from Mazda, I was planning on getting a 5th wheeler made, and made my purchase intension quite clear to the vehicle dealer. After all the planning etc, I get a quote back and on it is about $8000 for wiring and suspension up-grades to tow/carry the load. The down force was about half a tonne and towing about 3. My beef is that we should be able to buy a vehicle fit to do the job and while the advertising hype suggests the vehicle can do the work, practical work proves it cannot.
Our vehicle at work tow if at all very light loads, and carry not more than .5 tonne, yet all have flat or inverted springs.
I don't know if I fully agree with your reasoning Footprints, but its an area I have thought about.
Hi Allen, I hear what your saying BUT let's apply your reasoning to other forms of transport.
a cruise liner that is advertised to carry say 2,000 passengers should only be able to do so while in port not in rough seas because 1 x z plus g - f plus the swell - the wave plus the fuel and the food . So in an engineering perspective how many people do you think the ship should carry.
the same logic for a plane, that in your engineering perspective is that a plane that advertises that it can carry 300 people can only do so while its sitting on the Tarmac NOT flying.
Trucks that are advertised to have a pay load of 20 tonne can do so but not when moving.
Forklifts that can lift x amount but not move with them.
AND cars etc that are advertised to do what they claim can only do so if not moving.
No matter what perspective I look at it, just being a layman not an engineer can I see any logic in your comment. Please don't take offence, but please explain as later in the year I'm flying to Sydney to take a cruise, and at the moment I'm driving trucks and fork lifts mostly to their advertised and legal weights.
Len
__________________
Just another day closer to dying...MAKE THE MOST OF IT. :))
The points hade by STl are quite interesting, in the case of a plane, the gross vehicle mass is determined by the designers, the tare is determined by weighing at each undercarriage, and the centre of gravity is calculated. The all up weight of the plane which includes passengers, cargo and fuel, cannot exceed the gross vehicle mass, nor can the centre of gravity be allowed to move back beyond the allowable limits. These limits are all clearly stated in the aircraft handbook, and the aircraft will not be issued with a certificate of airworthiness if they aren't up to date.
Forklift trucks must have a load chart attached to them clearly visible to the driver giving allowable lift loads that are allowable by the vehicle. If any attachment is fitted to the forklift truck, then a new chart giving the lifting capacity when using that attachment must be fitted.
Now the point that Allen raises, is one I have chewed over, and is the reason why I brought aa "crew cab" ute. The way I see it is, lets say the vehicle can carry a load of 1.2 tonne, I'm guessing that that would apply to a single cab ute. If we get 1.2 tonne of lead, and place it on the tray, hard up against the cab, now I say lead because I want the load as far forward as I can get it, then we can say each wheel would be supporting a portion of that weight. What percentage the front and back share I don't know, but I would say, in this circumstance the load figures given by the manufacturer would be correct.
Now if we take this load and put it on a crew cab ute, the load is now shifted back, and is now over the back wheels, the front wheels are not supporting a portion of the load, and so I would say the designers specs have been exceeded. If we take that same load and put it on a 4 door ute, hard against the cab, the load will be passed the rear wheels.
Now we have a situation on what Allen was getting at, and that is "moments" or leverage, calculated by multiplying "load x distance" from a fulcrum point. As the load is shifted back aft, the problem just gets worse and is worst at the tow ball. This is how we get the cracked chassis, And is why the question of using airbags comes into play, this is because we are introducing a new fulcrum point, and in an area not designed (by the manufacturer) to take the load.
But the long and the short of this is that the purchaser should be made aware of the load limitations before purchase.
