Bulletins
| Bulletin | Bulletin date | Replacement Bulletin | Item no. | Summary | Added |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EXTERIOR LIGHTING | |||||
| SB-09-057-10 | 12/23/2010 | 10037655 | Ready | 06/01/2011 | |
| SB-09-057-10 | 12/23/2010 | 10037655 | Mazda: there is condensation and fog in the front and rear combination lights. *rm | 06/01/2011 | |
| 0901407 | 04/13/2007 | 10021567 | Water in rear combination light. *kb | 05/16/2007 | |
| EXTERIOR LIGHTING - HEADLIGHTS | |||||
| 0900807 | 03/05/2007 | 10021393 | Headlight auto-leveling malfunction indicator light illuminates. *kb | 04/17/2007 | |
| EXTERIOR LIGHTING - HEADLIGHTS - CONCEALMENT DEVICES | |||||
| SB-09-057-10 | 12/23/2010 | 10037655 | Ready | 06/01/2011 | |
| SB-09-057-10 | 12/23/2010 | 10037655 | Mazda: there is condensation and fog in the front and rear combination lights. *rm | 06/01/2011 | |
Consumer Complaints
| Fail date | miles | occurences | Purchase date |
|---|---|---|---|
| EXTERIOR LIGHTING | |||
| 02/10/2008 | |||
| Defective tail light assembly;allows water/rain to enter assembly secondary to defective tail light gasket which degrades with age. 2004 mazda rx-8. consumer observed tail light assembly retaining water after a rain event. consumer researched online and found that mazda issued a service recall to replace the defective gasket in the tail light assemblies. consumer did not receive recall notice because, according to the dealer, my warranty had expired and the recall was not a safety issue. my question to you, nhtsa, is why, when a service recall indicates that water in the tail light could result a short, or, the tail lights no longer working, is this a service recall and not a safety recall? it seems to me that if i were on a cross-country trip and at 2am, encountered a sevre winter thunder storm - rain and sleet - and my tail lights accumulated water, and shorted out, that this is not, according to your agency, a safety issue, but a service recall, which is not valid unless the vehicle is under warranty. since the problem is a defective gasket - which degrades over-time, and when it fails, results in the failure of the tail lights to illuminate, is not classified as safety issue by your department; i respectfully request that you provide me with the documentation (authority) that permits an automobile manufacturer to classify the possibile failure of the vehicles tail lights as a service recall, and not a safety (issue) recall. i would appreciate if you would forward my (this) inquiry to mr. lahood's office because he recently idicated befor a congressional that he takes, and considers every inquiry to his department seriously. | |||
| 10/09/2009 | 43598 | 1 | |
| The auto leveling headlights in mazda rx8s and certain other mazda vehicles routinely malfunctions due to corrosion. this causes the headlights to automatically return to their lowest position in most cases too low for driving conditions causing a major hazard to all drivers both of the mazda and other vehicles. mazda recognized this issue with a service bulletin in 2007 however never recalled the vehicles for repair and weatherproofing. even if the headlights are manually adjusted they will return to the lowest position once the car is started and the malfunctioning auto leveling sensors kick in. the dealership that we purchased our mazda rx8 from does not see this as a safety issue and therefore will not repair or replace the sensors. after conferring with state law enforcement inspectors, they differ in opinion as to the auto leveling malfunction being a hazard especially if the vehicle is traveling at higher speeds. mazda should be forced to recall and replace the malfunctioning sensors to prevent accidents due to lacking visibility. *tr | |||
| 07/31/2009 | 57000 | 1 | |
| The part number of the item is mazda part #fe03-51-21yd and #fe03-51-22yc. this part is installed in the mazda's vehicle the rx8. the part started to fail at around 57,000 miles within just less than two months after the warranty expired and 7,000 miles after the vehicle's manufacturer warranty expired. this part should be considered a safety component because it presents a dangerous threat to both drivers and passengers occupying the vehicle during failure and mazda is claiming that it is not. the reason why is that when this parts fails to function properly the headlight beams cannot be regulated properly in order to see safely. instead what will happen is that the lights will not adjust to the correct height and will not illuminate the road so that the driver cannot see ahead of the vehicle. on my vehicle specifically when the incident occurred and re-occurred i could not see no further then a range of ten to fifteen feet from my vehicle. in the research i've done i've read in the forums that this is extremely common in all the models built within the time period of 2004-2007 built before the date of november 15, 2006 (before they redesigned the part). *tr | |||
| EXTERIOR LIGHTING - TAIL LIGHTS | |||
| 11/01/2012 | 3 | ||
| 2004 mazda rx8. consumer writes in regards to several defects in the vehicle. *smd the consumer stated about a year after having the vehicle, the rear tail lights started filling up with water. also, the vehicle stopped running with no warning. the consumer was informed the vehicle needed a catalytic converter. when the consumer took the vehicle to the dealer, he was informed the vehicle needed two oxygen sensors. after the oxygen sensors were replaced, the stalling continued. the consumer had the vehicle towed the dealer, where he was informed the vehicle needed a new engine. | |||
| 08/28/2008 | 50000 | ||
| Tl* the contact owns a 2004 mazda rx8. the contact stated whenever it would rain, rain water would leak into the passengers side tail light. the dealer advised there were no recalls for the failure and repairs would be at the owners expense. in addition, the contact stated when accelerating from a complete stop the accelerator pedal would become extremely resistant to applied pressure or would sporadically lunge forward without warning. the dealer was unable to duplicate the failure and could not offer a remedy. the manufacturer would not provide any assistance. the failure mileage was 50,000. | |||
| 06/30/2007 | 7000 | 1 | |
| The rear passenger tail lamp on the 2004 mazda rx-8 is known to collect water inside the lamp, sometimes as much as 2 inches or more. this is a known issue with mazda and they will replace the lamp only in under warranty. but according to the mazda dealer where i purchased my vehicle, water in a tail lamp is considered a safety hazard and will not allow the vehicle to pass the annual texas department of public safety inspection in the state of texas. according to the dealer, although it is considered a safety hazard by the texas department of public safety, the replacement of the lamp would not be covered by mazda since my vehicle mileage exceeds the warranty. if it is considered a safety hazard by the texas department of public safety and is not acceptable to their inspection procedures and it is a known defect by mazda, i believe that mazda owns the responsibility in replacing the tail lamp. *tr | |||