CR CX-9 Reliability Nosedive
- Thread starter tex2670
- Start date
It is true that the Sorento's package is more efficient as it is as compact as possible on the outside while being a 3-row. That has nothing to do with utility though. It is also the result of making a body look more like a minivan than it looks like a CX-9. Mazda gladly went the other way of maximizing space in relation to the length of the vehicle. As a result, it's the best looking in class. A longer hood goes a long way in design. Imagine a Corvette with a hood just 2 feet shorter. The design would be gone.
Ultimately it's a give and take. The Sorento looks like vanilla ice cream next to the CX-9 but people do like Vanilla.
It it's not a Toyota or Honda, CR pans it. I don't trust them anymore - they are not the organization they were in the 70s and 80s.
CX-9 is a great vehicle.
Drive it and any other comparable, and let your gut decide. Mazda made a great product and it's the best kept secret.
Honda has been berated by Consumer Reports these last few years. The current Civic is not recommended because of reliability reasons, and the last Insight performed too ooorly to be recommended.
Toyotas generally dont test out at the top of their respective classes but their high reliability and dedication to outstanding safety have them ranked very highly with CR.
I believe that CR is pretty consistent and fair in their rankings. At least up until they were entranced by Tesla, that was pretty pathetic.
Toyotas generally dont test out at the top of their respective classes but their high reliability and dedication to outstanding safety have them ranked very highly with CR.
I believe that CR is pretty consistent and fair in their rankings. At least up until they were entranced by Tesla, that was pretty pathetic.
deepfriedsushi
Member
- :
- 95 Miata, 14 CX5 Touring FWD, 18 CX9 GT FWD
In the latest Consumer Reports talking with cars 'podcast', they address a viewer question on giving more details about the reliability drop in the CX9.
CX9 conversation starts around the 6:05 mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8YVRMm-nSQ
They seem to sum it up to: infotainment issues, which are relatively easily fixed by a software update. Next are some engine issues that they attribute mostly to 1st gen teething problems with the engine. But when asked if it's truly ok to buy a CX9....one of them say it's worth the gamble because they're most likely working on improving the car/manufacturing and all of this is based on a single year of data and it's the first year of this generation of CX9.
I had similar concerns before buying a 2018 CX9. I took the gamble because it seemed like most problems stemmed from older versions of the infotainment system and those complaints have really died down on this forum. Mazda has also had some time to address whatever teething issues they've found with the engine. That's on top of the fact that no other mainstream manufactures can offer the same type of driving dynamics or luxuriousness and that luxury SUVs cost thousands more.
CX9 conversation starts around the 6:05 mark
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8YVRMm-nSQ
They seem to sum it up to: infotainment issues, which are relatively easily fixed by a software update. Next are some engine issues that they attribute mostly to 1st gen teething problems with the engine. But when asked if it's truly ok to buy a CX9....one of them say it's worth the gamble because they're most likely working on improving the car/manufacturing and all of this is based on a single year of data and it's the first year of this generation of CX9.
I had similar concerns before buying a 2018 CX9. I took the gamble because it seemed like most problems stemmed from older versions of the infotainment system and those complaints have really died down on this forum. Mazda has also had some time to address whatever teething issues they've found with the engine. That's on top of the fact that no other mainstream manufactures can offer the same type of driving dynamics or luxuriousness and that luxury SUVs cost thousands more.
Last edited:
Ive been curious about the engine issues CR has cited. Because I havent seen much here in this forum. Perhaps the number of CX-9 respondents is low so any issues pop up exaggerating any issues that do pop up.
While on the topic, Im a huge fan of True Delta (truedelta.com) for reliability data. Its a great research site for anyone who is looking for a new or used vehicle as well as anyone who is interested in providing good data for reliability, fuel mileage, reviews, etc... and its completly free. Data is collected from participants 4 times a year so results are published more often and more timely than CR.
While I encourage anyone and everyone to paricipate, I highly encourage CX-9 owners. The current generation doesnt have enough participants to publish data, so please check it out!!!
While on the topic, Im a huge fan of True Delta (truedelta.com) for reliability data. Its a great research site for anyone who is looking for a new or used vehicle as well as anyone who is interested in providing good data for reliability, fuel mileage, reviews, etc... and its completly free. Data is collected from participants 4 times a year so results are published more often and more timely than CR.
While I encourage anyone and everyone to paricipate, I highly encourage CX-9 owners. The current generation doesnt have enough participants to publish data, so please check it out!!!
Thanks for the info!
CR's discussion still leaves me wondering what data they have actually collected. While I recognize there were some infotainment issues at launch, the claim of engine issues doesn't jive with anything discussed across many internet platforms.
This stuff is enough to sink the CX-9's chances when it already started as an underdog in a field dominated by Explorer, Highlander, & Pilot sales. The reader as an example was seriously considering it like many and trust CR and they see "worst" and that's it. So a vehicle is now doomed if the infotainment reboots a couple of times in year one. Good thing it only costs a billion dollars to put a new car on the road otherwise I'd feel sorry for Mazda.
I wanted to ask the experienced owners on here about my upcoming purchase. Im trying to decide between a 2010 CX-9 I like the engine & roominess of it , or the 2013 CX-5 The technology and appearance is nice, also the mpg is appealing but the 2.0 is anemic. Ive been reading horror stories about the 2010 CX-9 transfer cases being replaced. Should I steer clear of it & go with the CX-5?
This will be my first non-Big 3 vehicle, I cant support the crap they put out anymore. Thank you for any info you can supply.
This will be my first non-Big 3 vehicle, I cant support the crap they put out anymore. Thank you for any info you can supply.
Last edited:
GJ-Molestor
Banned
- :
- 2011 BMW 528i, 2015 Mazda 6, 1995 Nissan Maxima Manual
The CX-5 is a good choice. On the CX9 you can avoid transfer case issues by skipping the AWD models.
We thoroughly enjoyed our 2010 CX-9 FWD. My wife loved the way it drove (and quite frankly so did I, though Im not much of an SUV fan). Reliability was excellent, only issue being some pre-ignition in the engine while it was warming up, but that didnt really concern me much. Wed still have it if a drunk driver hadnt run a red light and totalled it out.
CR Predicted Reliability is still 1 out of 5. Anymore inputs on reliability for the 2nd generation CX-9? From reading this thread it appears that Reliability is fine.
I now put no value on their ratings. Apparently they took note of a few early issues, infotainment mainly, and rate the whole vehicle as low reliability. Even though there is no real occurance of issues in the CX-9 that makes it an unreliable vehicle. I read from tons of real owners on here and other sites that have reported only minor, rare issues. Car and Driver has a 40,000 mile example that was nearly perfect, and that was a 2016, the most likely year to have early issues.
Looking at their ratings breakdown doesn't add up. All the categories are rated average or above average, then the overall rating is low. Imagine getting all A's, B's and one C in school and then you get a 1.0 GPA. That's Consumers Reports, apparently for the CX-9 only.
C&D nearly perfect? The car was in the shop getting fixed for 14+ days over the 16 months they had it. Being out of service 2% of the time is pretty crappy reliability, and then stranding people by the side of the road because your roadside assistance sucks is not the way to build up good will with your customers. This was covered before:
"Sometimes the infotainment system would freeze at startup; often, the fix was to shut off the CX-9 and turn it on again"
"The dealer also performed two no-charge repairs to address service bulletins from Mazda, including updating the powertrain-control-module software"
"it would later take our local dealer 14 days to fix the running-on-empty problem by replacing both fuel-sending units."
"there were no tow trucks in Mazdas network that could assist them. Oh, hey, thanks. Glad we waited. "
Eventually, they fixed the issues (I hope). However, that's how you end up with a 1 star reliability rating. I would assume the new ones are better, but they grade on what has happened, not what everyone hopes will happen in the future. Mazda also needs to fix their customer service experience ASAP - leaving people stuck because your roadside assistance network is spotty is bush league - I'd expect that out of KIA in 1995, not Mazda today. Mazda dealers also do Mazda corporate any favors - my local dealer here is a disaster, and the larger one that is an hour away is no better.
That said, the problem with CR's data is that the CX-9 is a low volume car, so the number of responses they have is likely quite small, so the data is probably bordering on statistically insignificant. That said, I know 2 people with newer CX-9's, and they've been to the dealer numerous times...
Aren't you way overblowing the issues of a 1st year vehicle? I'm counting 3 things things that C/D experienced. The freezing infotainment, an inaccurate range indicater, and a sorftware update. Do you not have an issue with those things relinquishing a great vehicle to a "poor" reliability rating overall?
Do you find it odd that vehicles from other makes have needed transmissions replaced (including top reliability rated Highlander and Pilot), receive excellent reliability scores? An inaccurate range gauge is worse than a faulty transmission?
Also, dealer service and experience has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Your rating reliability because of an unusual 14 day fix. It took that long because it's rare.
Almost 1 year into ownership and just 2 oil changes for me. Not one infotainment freeze.
Among the many reasons why I bought the CX-9 was because it showed the least reported issues from all the various forums I read. The top quality rated Highlander was my second choice and on Toyota Nation, tons of issues are reported. CR apparently hasn't heard.
Last edited:
