johna's automotive blog

Mazda3 (BL) 2009-2013 Review

2025-07-07T12:00:00+10:00

Petrol models are generally reliable.

Diesel models can be expensive to maintain and repair and are best avoided.

ABS and TCM (transmission control module) modules can fail and are expensive to replace.

Reports of drivers' seats coming loose.

Dash tops can warp and become sticky and unpleasant.

Image credit: Vauxford, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

My brief ownership of a rotary-engined car

2023-04-27T12:00:00+10:00

This was my first manual car, a 1976 (or was it 1974?) Mazda RX4 that I bought in the early 1990s for around $4,700. It was freshly painted in pearl white and I think it was a 13B engine.

The body and paintwork looked good but it had a few mechanical issues. It was also missing some interior parts. It wasn't running too well, partly because the spark plugs wires (two plugs per rotor) were swapped around so not firing in the right order.

After buying it I took it to a local rotary workshop and paid them around $2,500 to replace the gearbox, differential and various other parts that I don't recall.

I also bought and fitted many of the missing interior parts.

I didn't end up liking the car too much and put it up for sale after six months. I think it was a combination of exhaust leaking into the cabin, noise (not unexpected), difficulty to drive due to its mechanical state (it still needed engine work), and just being overall an unpleasant car to own and drive.

It didn't sell and soon the water seals failed and the car belched enough white smoke to cloud the entire street I lived in, and then the motor stopped working all together. A rust spot or two started appearing about that time too.

I eventually took whatever I could get, which wasn't much (under $2,000?), and that was my last and only rotary car.

NB. Photo is of a similar-looking car.

Mazda RX-8 (SE3P) 2002–2008 Review

2021-03-27T12:00:00+10:00

Expect a lifespan of around 100,000 km for the rotary engine, but many examples will already have had multiple engine replacements by now. Engines may last longer if maintenance is increased above factory recommendations, and using special running and driving techniques. Fuel economy is poor.

Image credit: Fir0002, GFDL 1.2 , via Wikimedia Commons

Mazda6 (GG1) 2002-2008 Review

2021-03-27T12:00:00+10:00

Diesel models are cheaper on fuel but if used mainly for short trips they can require expensive maintenance. These are best suited to regular longer journies and not to regular city and suburban driving.

Manual transmissions have some weaknesses.

Air conditioning problems are common.

Image credit: jjron (photographer); Edited by OSX., CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Mazda3 (BK) 2003-2009 Review

2021-03-27T12:00:00+10:00

2.0-litre petrol engine models are generally very reliable with few common problems.

SP23 model with 2.3-litre petrol engine can suffer oil leaks and excessive oil consumption which can lead to catastrophic engine damage.

Engine mounts wear quickly.

Image credit: EurovisionNim, CC BY-SA 4.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

Mazda CX-7 2006-2012 Review

2021-03-27T12:00:00+10:00

The 2.3-litre turbo models should be avoided due to many complaints about engine and turbo failures. Fuel economy is poor.

Later 2.5-litre engine is more reliable, better on fuel but not very powerful.

Diesel models are generally reliable but if used mostly for short trips they will need expensive regular maintenance.

On all models beware of transfer case and differential oil leaks and air conditioning system problems.

Image credit: Tennen-Gas, CC BY-SA 3.0 , via Wikimedia Commons

My all-time favourite magazine article

2016-07-28T12:00:00+10:00

My all-time favourite magazine article is from Wheels (Australia) March 1990 issue and is "An old dog or a new trick" by Paul Cockburn.

It's a comparison test between the Mazda MX5 (just released at that time) and the original 1960's Lotus Elan.

Cockburn's writing style is very entertaining. My favourite quote from the article is an imaginary conversation that might have taken place between Lotus's Colin Chapman and one of his engineers...

"What's that?"
"Ah... That's the engine mount, Mister Chapman, Sir."
"It looks a bit... Solid."
"Oh, it is, Sir. Knowing you wanted everything light we started with your original idea, which, of course, broke. Well, sorry, when I say that, I mean it may have been the way we tested it, putting the engine in it and all, but then we added metal until it was strong enough. This is the fourth version."
"Hmm, fourth, eh? And it's strong enough?"
"Yes, Sir. Quite strong."
"Okay, put the third in production."

Cockburn drives both cars and likes the Mazda but loves the Lotus.

There are plenty of other classic quotes from the article, like "The owner gets to work putting various trim panels back on with such a casual air that one suspects he thinks that sort of disassembly normal in a car driven briskly for 20 miles." This is about the Lotus, not the Mazda, of course.

Rotary engine capacity miscalculation

2011-12-17T12:00:00+10:00

I can never understand why the automotive world has gone along with the way that rotary engine displacement is calculated.

The 13B and RENESIS engines claim a capacity of around 1.3 litres.

My opinion is that these engines have a capacity of around 3.9 litres.

Let's look at the facts for the engine from the Mazda RX-8.

1. The combustion chamber size is 654cc.
2. There are two rotors.
3. Each rotor has three combustion chambers.

So 654cc times two rotors times three combustion chambers is 3,924cc... 3.9 litres!

I guess Mazda (and other Wankel engine manufacturers) are claiming this capacity because it is only possible that two combustion chambers are combustible (in contact with the spark plug) at any time. That's fair enough, but I don't know any six cylinder engines that fire all six cylinders at the same time.

Need more facts...

The RX-8 produces 170 kW of power, 211 Nm of torque, and has a combined fuel consumption figure of 12.9 l/100km.

A Ford Falcon with a 4.0 litre 6 cylinder engine has 195 kW of power, 391 Nm of torque, and has a combined fuel consumption figure of 9.9 l/100km.

A Toyota Yaris with 1.3 litre engine has 63 kW of power, 121 Nm of torque, and has a combined fuel consumption figure of 5.7 l/100km.

Do the RX-8 specifications look closer to the Falcon or the Yaris?

Hopefully you will now agree with me and join me in my (fairly silent) protest against this injustice!