Aberfeldy wrote:
1.單方說法？可是樓主補上了錄音檔...
一間保養廠第一線最大管理的廠長都不知道了？
那疑問里程怎麼來？？？
那有問題的是？
2.期待台馬出來說明？
台馬的說明誠實嗎？
1. 廠長不知道來源可能單純是車子有多組設備可以讀到哩程數，而不是254,477就是假的。再者音檔也是編輯過，我覺得資訊要再多些才能判斷。
2. 這也是大家太先入為主的問題。依車主在一樓講的，不用提到哩程、光不按時回原廠保養這點馬自達就有足夠理由拒保。這點我比較認同馬自達，車主把這件事跟召回搞在一起講並不會讓他比較有理。那接下來大家可以想一下，車主鬧到消保會的，是因為被拒保還是被拒召回？
網路上太多這種消費者糾紛了，有些到最後結果並不是車廠的問題。看多了這種文章第一件事是不要先入為主而全盤接受另一方事主的講法。我不是說車主是錯的，而是詳情還沒有足夠讓我給車主一個贊聲。目前看得到的馬自達的說明也只有被剪輯過的片斷，要說馬自達在這件事情上沒誠信那也要證據多一些吧。
Hayashi-Kiyoshi wrote:
照一樓的原文，爭執的...(恕刪)
Hayashi san
excuse me, I assume you are Japanese.
actually,we highlighted so many time to Mazda Japan FB, Twitter... the 2.2 diesel engine got very bad reliability after 100K KM.
why we do that? to highlight to Mazda Japan？
root cause is Mazda never want to give us final solution. they just try to force us accept work run process. i.e. modify PCM and limitation diesel engine output power to extend engine working time. I'm RD of EE, in my experience I didn't saw any company RD select this way to force customer accept it. only mazda. just Mazda never thinking the HW issue need to have HW solution. BTW, Mazda already have second generation diesel engine. why they upgraded it any thing can't say to end customer?
Hayashi-Kiyoshi wrote:
1. 廠長不知道來源...(恕刪)
Hayashi san
one more thing, if you are Mazda CQS window. I want to highlight Mazda Taiwan CQS Mr Chang also tell me the HW issue can't used FW solution and mention this stupid idea came from Japan. if so the Japan how to say they are engineering rigor. it really totally boshit to compare with this issue.
內文搜尋
從 APP 打開
X