We got a flat and I had to use the spare. All I can say is the design to access the spare is the worst I have ever seen. The mechanism to lower it uses a unique 5 sided drive head that only works with the handle provided. It can only be turned 1/4 turn at a time. It can be turned by hand a bit, but still needs to be mostly turned with the tool. Then once lowered, you have to lay on the ground to unhook the spare from the cable. What the hell was Mazda thinking.
Access to Spare Tire Sucks
- Thread starter todd92
- Start date
seems like they got the design from Chrysler.. it is a bad design (where they put it not) but I would rather have it and the extra cargo space then not. They do need a better turning mechanism and that should be easy to design and 3-5 full turn drop for the tire.
Last edited:
CX9 SportOwner
Member
Did you guys use the tool correctly? I find the spare quite easy to crank down. I'm not sure why you'd have to stop every quarter turn. I can put the tool on and crank it to the ground non stop. I also like the little flip tab to make it easier to get in and out of the wheel hole. Nice touch.
I like the placement of the tire, too. Unlike most cars, you can't even see the spare on the CX9. Also, because of the placement, it also acts as a supplemental impact absorber to increase the safety of the car in a rear crash.
Not being used to how something works, or using it incorrectly, doesn't make it a bad design. Every time we buy a new car we read the entire manual, and operate everything including the spare, just so there aren't any surprises.
I like the placement of the tire, too. Unlike most cars, you can't even see the spare on the CX9. Also, because of the placement, it also acts as a supplemental impact absorber to increase the safety of the car in a rear crash.
Not being used to how something works, or using it incorrectly, doesn't make it a bad design. Every time we buy a new car we read the entire manual, and operate everything including the spare, just so there aren't any surprises.
(scratch) (screwy) Where do you come up with these things?? I'll make sure I relay your observation to the crash worthiness guy.
It goes both ways with the hidden tire. Honda Ridgeline has this nice storage on the trunkbed. Reviewers generally loved it, until the day you have the truck bed loaded and you realized you need to get to the storage.
Btw, just incase you are not aware of it, CX-9 has marginal rating on rear crash test:
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/head_restraints/headrestraints.aspx?mazda
Vehicles I considered to be chief competitor to CX-9, Buick Enclave, Acura MDX, Honda Pilot, Toyota Highlander all scored Good. The rating is GAMP (good, acceptable, marginal, poor). Guess w/o that spare tire, CX-9 might be rated poor, eh?
Last edited:
- :
- 2022 CX-5 Turbo
The only reason CX9 did not perform well on rear end crash was lack of active headrest.
The spare tire improves crash worthiness, which is different from what active headrest does to protect your head and neck. Those are tow different things.
Personally, I don't think that test is so critical. How many front-seat people get killed from a rear-end crash with proper seatbelt? Neck injury, maybe, but proper positioning of headrest is probably much more important than an active headrest (which would be nice addon, but not critical in my book).
The spare tire improves crash worthiness, which is different from what active headrest does to protect your head and neck. Those are tow different things.
Personally, I don't think that test is so critical. How many front-seat people get killed from a rear-end crash with proper seatbelt? Neck injury, maybe, but proper positioning of headrest is probably much more important than an active headrest (which would be nice addon, but not critical in my book).
I can assure you a donut while it is modelled during the crash analysis is actually looked upon as a "hazard". You have no idea where it'll go flying. Obviously the bumpers and rails are there to absorbed the bulk of the energy and serves as the crush zone. If you are reaching the spare tire, it will become more of a hazard. But of course since it is held up by a pin and as Mazda says likely hood of this pin to break is possible (per manual) chances are during the rear crash it'll just fall off like the engine during severe frontal crash.
Stop spreading old wife's tail. This is actual engineering. Someone might be tempted to just drive around with a bunch of foam in the back to enhance crash worthiness.
Stop spreading old wife's tail. This is actual engineering. Someone might be tempted to just drive around with a bunch of foam in the back to enhance crash worthiness.
CX9 SportOwner
Member
hamproof supposedly worked for GM and Ford once, so he has to keep showing us how smart he thinks he is about cars with unrelated responses to his posts he doesn't even read correctly.
My statement came directly from the original CX9 press release. In a hard rear and collision, the spare is designed to compress between the rear apron and the center multi-link support, absorbing some of the impact. More Mazda intelligent thinking. The tire is there, so why NOT make it serve another purpose. Other spares are lower, and usually angled, doing nothing.
ham, try giving your fragile ego a rest and read sometime.
My statement came directly from the original CX9 press release. In a hard rear and collision, the spare is designed to compress between the rear apron and the center multi-link support, absorbing some of the impact. More Mazda intelligent thinking. The tire is there, so why NOT make it serve another purpose. Other spares are lower, and usually angled, doing nothing.
ham, try giving your fragile ego a rest and read sometime.
Unrelated responses you say? I think you are the king of offering your opinion from everything about parenting skills to how bad your CR-V was. I'm relaying information about how crash analysis is done at Ford and GM, and yes, I did work at both tech and design centers. Right before I posted what I did a quick check with an engineer I know doing crash worthiness and it is what he said.
If Mazda is doing as you say, then it is something new to me and the crash guys at GM and Ford. Also, I never claim I'm smarter than anyone unlike you. So smart that he would pay ~$32k for a Sport FWD CX-9 and then keep B&M about how bad the Duellers are in ice and snow in Arizona and yet he bought FWD. Raves about his new tires, but has yet to drive them in ice nor snow. Doesn't stop him from recommending them to everyone.
To know who has a case of ego issue, one just need to read threads where Sportowner replies. In many cases, the OP or another member takes an issue with him with regards to what he wrote and how he wrote it.
I also owe Sportowner an apology in this case. Mazda literature does suggest the rear spare tire is there to absorb some energy. Learn something new everyday, but I can assure you this is not common practice. Maybe my GM crash friend should be demoted
Last edited:
CX9 SportOwner
Member
You just proved my point. You misquote me time after time to try to sound smarter.
I NEVER said our CR-V was bad. In fact, it was a great car. I only talked about how poorly Honda and the dealer handled a maintenance issue, thereby creating a problem with the car that would not have even happened otherwise.
regarding my tires, almost everyone agrees the Duelers are lousy. That doesn't make the car bad. And while I have yet to drive on ice with my Paradas, I bought them based on extensive research into all tires available, and hearing dozens of owner opinions of them.
I didn't just ask one guy I know and base my decision on what he said, like you do.
As for the spare tire doubling as a safety device, that kind of thinking is rare because companies like Ford and GM don't give a rat's fanny about our safety. They only do what the government requires them to. Another reason they are in trouble.
Yes, I have, on occasion, taken issue with people who complain about things they should have taken note of before buying, and parents who expect a car to tame their out of control kids, but I have also provided as much useful information as anyone else here. You, it seems, just come here to rebuke everything other people say because some guy you know says otherwise.
I'm done. Once again you got us off topic because you refuse to believe anyone else might know something you don't.
I NEVER said our CR-V was bad. In fact, it was a great car. I only talked about how poorly Honda and the dealer handled a maintenance issue, thereby creating a problem with the car that would not have even happened otherwise.
regarding my tires, almost everyone agrees the Duelers are lousy. That doesn't make the car bad. And while I have yet to drive on ice with my Paradas, I bought them based on extensive research into all tires available, and hearing dozens of owner opinions of them.
I didn't just ask one guy I know and base my decision on what he said, like you do.
As for the spare tire doubling as a safety device, that kind of thinking is rare because companies like Ford and GM don't give a rat's fanny about our safety. They only do what the government requires them to. Another reason they are in trouble.
Yes, I have, on occasion, taken issue with people who complain about things they should have taken note of before buying, and parents who expect a car to tame their out of control kids, but I have also provided as much useful information as anyone else here. You, it seems, just come here to rebuke everything other people say because some guy you know says otherwise.
I'm done. Once again you got us off topic because you refuse to believe anyone else might know something you don't.
Last edited:
A sticky engine valve according to you and supposedly Honda's refusal to acknowledge the issue and it is still a great car -- "Not performing the simple adjustment caused the entire head assembly to become damaged, requiring full replacement"
Wow! No wonder you didn't have to supply vaseline.
Ok, my bad. I went off topic on this thread. Let's see who goes off topic first the next time. Btw, you ever wonder why people get confused with what you write? On one hand you said the Duellers are ok on snow and on another you said they suck even on dry. Tsk tsk tsk.
Just to get back on topic (sort of)...
Access to spare is difficult, but no worse than my GM or Ford trucks were...(wink)
Duellers do suck on snow. Endured (survived) two midwest winters using them. I doubt if the Paradas will be any worse, but will report back in a few months (ya never know after September what will happen weather-wise around here...)
Paradas are 100% improvement so far for summer driving. No more "bump steer", and much smoother and quieter...
Access to spare is difficult, but no worse than my GM or Ford trucks were...(wink)
Duellers do suck on snow. Endured (survived) two midwest winters using them. I doubt if the Paradas will be any worse, but will report back in a few months (ya never know after September what will happen weather-wise around here...)
Paradas are 100% improvement so far for summer driving. No more "bump steer", and much smoother and quieter...
The CX-9 is my first SUV. All my other cars have been FWD or AWD passenger cars, 2 doors, 4 doors, hatchbacks, compact, mid-sized on all-season or snow tires during the winter. Once I tried driving with summer tires on light snow. Never again.
Bought my 08 CX-9 GT in Sept. Drove through Michigan winter (SE MI - suburbs of Detroit) last year into early this year and I didn't have any issues with the roads I travelled on. Car was stable. No sliding, a bit of slipping. But I'm very much in control. This is around Oakland county - West Bloomfield, Bloomfield Hills, Rochester Hills, Troy etc.
It is hard to quantify or even compare one area's snow condition with another. So, the best is if there's another member here who live in the same area, care to share your experience with the CX-9 on Duellers during our wintery conditions last year? Same conditions, same vehicle, same tires. Different drivers.
Last edited:
CX9 SportOwner
Member
I wouldn't even if it physically fit. It would place the tire very close to the exhaust system, where the donut sits above and out of the way.
The other problem is that the saddle won't fit the center hole of the alloys wheels. It's made for a steel wheel.
My CX-9 is the FWD version which we bought in late February of 2007. My winter driving is primarily a 20 mile commute to and from work on paved side streets, two lane highways, and inner city streets in Central Illinois. My worst experiences with the Duelers were on the wet, mushy snowy conditions that occur after roads were salted and other cars had made it a mushy, slushy mess. This is pretty common in this part of the Midwest from December through February. I've been driving in this area now for about 35 years, and have never had as many instances of sliding and slipping as I have had with these tires. I'm hoping that the new tires will provide a little better traction when the winter mess returns, but I still plan to take it easy. If there is any other member on here from Central Illinois that has a 2007 FWD CX-9 equipped with the same tires, please chime in and let us know if you have had better experiences with your Duelers...
Doesn't fit, I tried when changing a flat in order to avoid placing the very dirty blown tire in the back. Compared to my prior Tahoe, this is 10X easier to change, so people need to be aware that if they don't like this setup, things could always be worse. I removed the spare last weekend when installing an OEM trailer hitch and it took only a few minutes at most to remove and replace, having gained experience from the flat.
- :
- 2022 CX-5 Turbo
CX9ZoomR,
The chart that SportOwner's prepared says it all....
http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123747915
Yoko Parada Spec-X. $160/per.
The chart that SportOwner's prepared says it all....
http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123747915
Yoko Parada Spec-X. $160/per.
