P.O. Box 19734

Irvine, CA 92623-9734

Attn: Customer Assistance Center 

January 10, 2011

Dear Mazda-

My 1995 Mazda 626 (DX) just hit 300,000 miles and all I can say is, “Thank you for such a fantastic car!”

When I originally purchased this car in Lincoln, Nebraska, I had no idea what a dependable vehicle I was getting. At the time, all I knew was that the 626 looked good, drove good, and had that groovy “swing” feature for the central air vents. I remember thinking that those oscillating vents were the coolest feature I’d ever seen in a car, and the “swing” button was quite the conversation starter.

Now, well over a dozen years later and road trips across the country, this fantastic car has more than met my expectations for what a quality car should be. For the record, I am not a “car guy.” I don’t perform vehicle maintenance myself (though I do have some mechanical abilities). In fact, when it comes to regular servicing and such, I am pretty lackadaisical about following regular guidelines. I frequently would let the mileage go 5-7 thousand miles beyond the recommended time between  oil changes! But for all the driving and “abuse” that this car has seen, I couldn’t have asked for a more reliable vehicle.

I have had NO serious mechanical or performance issues with this vehicle-EVER! Sure, I’ve replaced the timing belt twice, put in a new radiator (some time ago), had the front axle replaced, and swapped out catalytic converters twice, but the motor and manual transmission are all original, as is pretty  much everything else except for filters, tires and brakes. From a mechanical perspective, this car has been unbeatable. (I should note that I have owned several vehicles to date, both foreign and domestic.)

The exterior paint is still original (Sahara Gold), though it is now fading badly in several areas, and the interior’s better days passed by several years ago, but all things considered, I’d keep driving this car for another 300,000 miles if I could. Sadly, these past few years (and tens of thousands of miles) have made it very difficult to continue to pass ever-tightening state emissions testing and I can’t continue to justify pouring hundreds of dollars (or more) to keep it on the road, since the resale value is next to zero. So from a financial stand point, it just makes sense to retire it now.

But I’m retiring it with much sadness. Where else could I find a new car that can so readily achieve 30+ MPG both in town, on the freeway, and stuck in rush hour traffic- even after all those miles? Where else could I find a car with such tight handling and smooth driving performance- even after all those miles? Where else will I ever find another “swing” feature???

I know that 300,000 miles isn’t any kind of vehicular longevity record, but it sure is for me, and considering that I’m still running with the original engine and transmission, I think this proves that somebody in your company knows how to make a car that will last. For this, I sincerely thank you all.

I’ll be taking over my wife’s ’02 Mitsubishi Lancer now, which is also a nice car, even with its 105,000+ mileage, but not nearly the performer that my good old 626 has been.

I have not yet decided just how I’ll retire this wonderful car of mine. I’ve been thinking of donating it to one of those charity outfits and taking the tax credit. I’ve been thinking of sending it off to the car graveyard (read-junkyard). I’ve been wondering if I could even sell it outright for a few hundred dollars to some needy person. No matter what I decide, I know this- I will surely miss this car a great deal…from its manual hand-crank windows to its non-power locks to its unreadable stock AM/FM/Cassette stereo system (by the way- these stock speakers really can put out the tunes!) to the very special “swing” feature. 

I even considered giving it back to you as a testament to its greatness-(when researching how to reach you to send this letter, I noticed that your corporate headquarters is just up the road from me in Irvine. I live in Oceanside, California.)-but doubt you’re actually interested in getting back an old 626. (If you are interested, drop me a line- we could work something out!)

In closing let me just say that the next time I’m in the market for another vehicle, I’ll be shopping the Mazda’s first, hoping to find something as reliable and affordable as this 1995 626 (DX) has been for me. I can only hope you folks will still be producing such great cars when that day comes.

Sincerely,

Ken Grandlund

One VERY Satisfied customer

PS- I’m enclosing a picture of the car and the odometer reading for you. Maybe you have a nice bulletin board like they have at the vet’s office that you can pin these up to.

Boiled down into even simpler terms, public transit means less congestion, less pollution, and greater efficiency at a low price.

At least, that’s the theory. And in a few places the theory holds up pretty well. Who can imagine traversing New York City without subways and busses? In 2004, nearly one-third of the nation’s public transit users lived in NYC, with over 50% of New Yorkers using public transit for commuting to work. In DC, it was 37%, Boston and San Francisco 31%. This makes sense too, because these metropolises have huge populations concentrated into relatively small areas. Imagine the traffic congestion and accompanying pollution if every one who worked in NYC drove to work alone in a car?

But get away from the east coast (well, okay, and San Francisco) and public transit usage drops way down- 12% in LA, 6% in Houston- so that the national percentage of Americans using public transportation to commute to work in 2004 was only 5%.

Being that it is a public enterprise, public transportation funding comes from a combination of fares and taxes. Fares from actual users, taxes from everyone regardless of whether they ever step foot on a bus or train. A major chunk of the taxes come from fuel excise and sales taxes. This funding system actually relies on a larger number of people NOT using the service to keep it afloat financially. Paradox #1.

When fuel tax revenue declines, public transit coffers suffer. For public transportation, more efficient vehicles plus more public transit users means a loss of revenue and an increase in costs for its own fuel requirements to accommodate more users. So fares go up. And ridership declines.

If one of the benefits of public transit is a reduction in environmental pollution, it should be a goal of public transit agencies to increase public usage. But to do this, public transit authorities have to develop a system that is both expansive and convenient. Out west, historically low usage of public transit has not encouraged systemic expansion, meaning that would be users of public transit face longer and more difficult commutes to get from point A to point B and choose to drive themselves. A lack of comprehensive transit stops and connections reinforces the inefficiency of the system and puts more cars on the road that could otherwise be parked. Paradox #2.

So public transit relies on people NOT using the service to keep financially solvent and poorly designed public transit actually keeps MORE cars on the road due to its inefficiency. Except for New York City, public transit seems to be a net loser, in spite of its valuable service to lower income Americans.

But wait! Gas heads towards $5 a gallon and a lot of people start looking at public transit as a reality. Demand for public transit is increasing. Fewer people can afford high gas prices, and even more are trying to help reduce pollution. But the more efficient cars that continue to drive use less fuel which decreases income for public transit, even as fare paying costumers increase. What’s a transit authority to do?

Raise fares of course. And cut services too.

I guess the message is that public transit is a great thing-just so long as not too many people use it.

Just at a time when we should be increasing public transit and making it more available and affordable, public transit agencies are talking about reducing stops and raising fares. Just at a time when the larger public finally seems to consider the benefits of public transit, agencies are forced to make it less attractive just to stay in service.

So if you try to save money, energy, and reduce pollution by using public transportation, you’re really making public transit authorities cut their services and raise the fares for everyone by overloading the system and not paying enough taxes. Why do you hate America?

Maybe we should all just stay home.

(cross posted at Bring It On!)