Last post on May 08, 2012 at 5:17 PM
You are in the Mazda 626
What is this discussion about?
Mazda 626, Sedan
#598 of 2044 RE: Upgrades (?) for 2001 by windowphobe6
May 03, 2001 (5:37 pm)
Did I mis-read your last post? Did you say the "the GF4A-EL transmission, at least in 626-land, is history"? I have a 2001 LX 4 cylinder. I was crawling around under it the other day (It's three months old) and saw a "Ford" stamp on one of the disk shaped "plugs" on the transmission. My tranny seems to shift VERY smoothly, much to my surprise. Could I be so lucky as to not have the cursed Ford tranny?
Also you, or anyone else for that matter, wouldn't happen to know of the procedure for removing the 2001 double DIN Mazda CD receiver would you? I want to pull it and put a respectable CD player in.
I have had the car for three months now and it seems okay. There have been some "minor" problems with it and the usual dealer B.S. You know "they all do that"!!!!
If you remember a few posts back I mentioned that I sometimes had a "oil smell" problem. I asked the dealer about it and they replaced:
1) Pipe, Oil
2) Radiator - I guess the transmission radiator?
3) A/T fluid
4) coolant (Orange)
I am not sure but it seems to have helped.
The front windows still "creak" when they are part way down and I hit any kind of bump but The dealer tells me "they all do that". Maybe I am too picky but I only buy a new car every 8 to 10 years so I hate to have problem with it so early.
Any way, any comments would be very welcome.
#599 of 2044 Ford is a four-letter word
May 03, 2001 (7:51 pm)
You're not that lucky. Then again, the CD4E isn't the time bomb it used to be, either, and by most accounts, its shift action has always been a bit smoother than you could get from Mazda's G or GF - at least, so long as it was holding together. Myself, I don't have any issues with any post-'98 CD4E; I think they've finally gotten this little slushbox out of Tranny Hell and into the low end of the respectability spectrum. It still ain't a Turbo Hydra-Matic, but Ford hasn't bought any transmissions from GM for, oh, 50 years or so.
What it looks like to me is that the V6 cars are getting the Ford box for '01 - but again, I haven't confirmed this personally.
In seven months, I have noted the following:
- Slight departure from flatness in headliner
- Really long time for heater to kick in when it's really cold ("they all do that")
- Low-fuel light even more paranoid than before
This summer I'll be burning up around 200 gallons of $2.99 gas in twenty days or less. Ought to be fun.
May 04, 2001 (10:16 am)
I have a 2001 lx v6, my drivers side front window also creaks, lubricant helps for a while.
May 07, 2001 (11:56 am)
That Mazda hasn't changed the current 626 4-cyl automatic and put in the auto tranny out of the current Protege 2.0L (or the '99 and '00 ES 1.8L). It shifts much smoother and doesn't seem to be plagued by any failure problems to the scale of Ford's evil CD4E. But, I guess, with the demise of the current 626 in the next couple of years, it wouldn't make much financial sense to do so!
#602 of 2044 4cyl. auto
May 07, 2001 (2:31 pm)
The recent years of the CD4E in the 626 have not been plagued with problems. It seems like it's just the 2nd cycle 626(93-97). The CD4E in the Ford vehicles haven't been unusually problematic so it may have had something to do with the power train programming. This makes sense and if you have driven a <97 and a >98 you can definitely feel the difference.
May 07, 2001 (7:52 pm)
...the actual running changes made to the CD4E design in response to mechanical failures.
I still don't think this is the most bulletproof tranny on the road, but I'm not sweating much over the thought of putting 4500 miles on one in three weeks this summer either.
One of the things I bought recently was a proper Mazda shop manual for the GF4A-EL. (I know, I don't have one anymore, but what the heck.) My god, but this thing is complicated.
And far be it from me to mention the design bits shared by both Mazda's FN4A-EL (in the Protegé) and Ford's 4F27E (in the Focus).
#604 of 2044 2000 626 V6 Hard to find?
May 07, 2001 (9:38 pm)
I am very interested in buying a 2000 626, but I have read almost everything I can on the car and it seems the 4 cylinder is a bad, or, 'not-as-good-choice'. The problem is I can't seem to locate many 2000 626's with a V6 for sale. Is this a hard car to find? I've found about 10 2000 models in the Tulsa, OK area but all of them have a 4 cylinder. Would it be a bad decision to go forward with a 4 cylinder model?
#605 of 2044 ahastings
May 08, 2001 (8:59 am)
I have owned both and I pick the v-6 hands down. However, my '98 4cyl felt like a bucket of jello and they made changes to the suspension in 2000, but the 4cyl is still a bit anemic. Windowphobe will disagree, but I'd hold out for the v-6. The reason you may not see many is that it's a car that you'd want to keep.
#606 of 2044 Leftover 2000s (Part Deux)
May 08, 2001 (1:30 pm)
All the V6 cars were snapped up early.
(And if I had to jounce up and down 81st Street in Tulsa, I'd probably want the V6 too.)
May 09, 2001 (2:04 pm)
ahastings: I think if you get the 4cyl 5sp combo, you may still be able to have some zoom zoom. The sluggish auto 4cyl combo, however, is not as fun to drive as the 6cyl (auto or 5sp). I used to lease a 97 4cyl auto combo; although the car was fun to drive (ride and handling were great), the lack of power/torque was often frustrating especially with the ac on during the Summer. I currently have a 00lxv6; although low-end torque is now what it ought to be (you could say power corrupts'; we always want more power/torque), it definitely screams zoom zoom once it gets going.