NHTSA Complaint #10132684 — 2000 MAZDA 626

I OWN A '00 626 THAT I BOUGHT FROM MY GRANDMOTHER IN 2-04, WHO HAD BOUGHT IT NEW IN '99. I HAVE SINCE HAD TRANNY ISSUES ON 2 OCCASIONS WITH THE MOST RECENT REQUIRING A COMPLETE REPLACEMENT WITH WHAT THE TECH. DESCRIBED AS "AN IDENTICAL FAILURE PRONE UNIT". MY GRANDMOTHER HAD A NEW (NOT REBUILT) AND IDENTICAL TRANSMISSION INSTALLED AT ~42K MILES AS NOTED IN THE SERVICE LOG. I DID A SEARCH ON THE WEB AND I WAS SHOCKED AT WHAT I FOUND. NUMEROUS CASES OF FAILURE, AT ALARMINGLY SIMILAR INTERVALS AND ALL HAD THE COMMONALITY OF BEING EQUIPPED WITH AUTO. W/ OD TRANNY MFG'D BY FORD AND INSTALLED IN 4 CYL. MAZDA 626'S. FROM WHAT I CAN GATHER THE HIGH FAILURE RATE HAS SOMETHING TO DO WITH "THE INADEQUATE COOLING DESIGN" AND SUBPAR MATERIALS USED IN THE "CLUTCH PACKS". SO BECAUSE OF THIS WHEN IT'S ALL SAID AND DONE WITH WE WILL HAVE SHELLED OUT ~$2500 (EXC. LABOR) FOR A REBUILT TRANNY THAT IS EXPECTED TO FAIL IN LESS THAN 30K MILES REGARDLESS OF THE SERVICE INTERVALS. THERE ARE SUGGESTIONS ON THE INTERNET HOW TO GAIN SOME ADDL. LIFE OUT OF A UNIT, ALBEIT SMALL. TO ME IT WOULD SEEM THIS RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD FALL ON THE MANUFACTURER AND NOT ON THE CONSUMER. AS A CONSUMER I'M EXPECTED TO TRUST AN AUTOMOBILE MANUFACTURER TO PROPERLY DESIGN AND TEST A VEHICLE AND IT'S SUBSYSTEM PRIOR TO RELEASING IT UPON THE PUBLIC. FAILING THAT IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THE MANUFACTURER SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR FLAWS SUCH AS THOSE NOT RELATED TO NORMAL WEAR AND TEAR AS IS APPARENT IN THIS CASE. WHICH IN TURNS IS WHAT BRINGS ME HERE. WHEN ALL ELSE FAILS THE CONSUMER AND PUBLIC AT LARGE HAS ONLY ONE ADVOCATE AND THAT IS THE U.S. GOVERNMENT, WHICH IN THE INTEREST OF SAFETY AND CONSUMER RIGHTS HAS THE AUTHORITY TO ENFORCE THIS ACCOUNTABILITY. EVERYONE SINGLE PERSON PRIVY TO THIS COMPLAINT SHOULD TAKE A MOMENT AND CONSIDER ANYONE THEY KNOW WHO OWNS OR DRIVES AN AUTOMATIC MAZDA 626 OF THE YEARS 98-02 WITH THE ABOVE MENTIONED GENERIC AND COMMON CONFIGURATION IS IMPACTED BY THIS DESIGN FLAW. *JB