CR CX-9 Reliability Nosedive

No, I really liked the sorento. Its a great car, nearly chose it over the mazda. But I never see people say of the sorento I love it BUT it has poor utility. It was since we bought our cx9 that my family had a horrible experience with Hyundai warranty service. And looking at online forums, they arent alone.
 
That's what gets me every time. So many publications have called out the CX-9 for it's tighter interior dimensions. All the while, the smaller Sorento gets very little criticism in that department. And if the CX-9's interior room is a reason people don't buy it, why does the equally expensive Sorento sell like hot cakes?
 
Until they give proper weighting to different reliability issues, the overall score is misleading. Lots of 2016 cx-9 had infotainment issues. Probably not quite as many pilots had major tranmission failures. The mazda issues are relatively small, and won’t leave you on the side of the highway. Which can’t be said for my moms 2014 Santa Fe. Catastrophic engine failure on the side of the highway. Kia and Hyundai vehicles recalled a month after it happened. Warranty service took 3 months, given the run around. I’d never touch a Hyundai or Kia strictly because of that. You don’t want to have to deal with them.
On the utility front- if you call the cx-9 lacking in utility, you have to say the same for the Highlander. Santa Fe, Acadia, and consumer reports favorite child the sorento.
Comparing cargo capacity using VDA method- with 5 seats up. Cx9-810 liters, sorento- 605 liters. With 7 seats up , cx9- 230 litres, sorento - 142 litres. Decrying the cx9 for its “lack of utility” vs the sorento is ridiculous. I thoroughly cross shopped both. The cx9 feels bigger, with More useable space, especially behind the 3rd row. Apparently their are multiple ways of measuring cargo volume, which can greatly vary the results. Apparently consumer reports looks at different numbers. All numbers are from Australia Kia And mazda websites.

The Sorrento barely is big enough to qualify as mid-sized. It's always going to be on the low end of interior space--it's about a foot shorter than the CX-9. It's not really a fair direct comparison.

Comparing CX-9 to Pilot and Highlander is the better matchup.
That's what gets me every time. So many publications have called out the CX-9 for it's tighter interior dimensions. All the while, the smaller Sorento gets very little criticism in that department. And if the CX-9's interior room is a reason people don't buy it, why does the equally expensive Sorento sell like hot cakes?
Because the Sorrento is smallest in class on the outside too. CX-9 is larger than Pilot and Highlander and Santa Fe on the outside, but smaller on the inside. That's the difference.
 
CR is useful mostly for the raw reliability data they have on products and brands. They still publish the frequency of repair data for major appliances and cars, which is good. They get in trouble, in my opinion, when they try to distill it all down to one number. I mainly use CR to augment online reviews and other sources because reliability data is really hard to find.

You have to remember that CR are not "enthusiasts" advocating for any of the technologies or products they review. CR reviews tend to focus on ease of use and value for money. I remember reading a review of stereo amplifiers they did a long time ago, and the start of the review basically said "all of these sound great, so sound quality isn't a differentiator." If you are an audiophile, this might drive you insane. If all you want is a decent stereo that is easy to use, it makes perfect sense.


I agree on the goal being ease of use and value.

But like I've said before, I've picked CR's higher rated items with mixed results, mostly poor.

I now ask myself these questions:

How knowledgeable are those providing data to CR? We're talking about the general public. If that's who you trust in to help make decisions, who am I to say that's wrong?

Did the CR reviewer buy the product with their hard earned money or was it given to them? This could influence a survey... Oh yeah.

When answering the surveys, do people know exactly what's wrong with a product?

For instance, what about the MANY older people that subscribe to CR? How familiar are they with new technology, info screens, warranty details etc...

What about brand bias or loyalty?
Some people buy the same "comfortable" brand over a lifetime just because that's what their parents did or that's what others told them to do.

They're sucked into the cosmic tradition vortex... they don't know how to formulate critical thinking and they can't get outside of the 3x5 card of allowable opinion. I'd say that's the majority of CR survey takers if using the general public as a barometer.

In some ways, taking a CR survey is like going to vote, Ha
 
Last edited:
I'm still not buying the methodology of the rankings.
The category rankings aren't relative to competitors but a final ranking is? You can't have a 4/5 average across the board and then give it a 1/5 overall. That's the stupidest thing I've ever seen.

The problem areas, mostly found on first year units, are relatively minor compared to what I've read about many of the competitors who actually have serious drivetrain problems. Now their predicted reliability is supposed to be for 2018 models going forward which have these issues addressed.

I researched extensively for over a year before buying. One of the reasons I went with the CX-9 was because the least amount of problems we're showing up. Way more are reported by Highlander ("the reliability king") owners. Spent much time on ToyotaNation.

I'm onboard with you all the way JPL.
CR Data + CR Methodology = Fuzzy Math.

Sarcastically speaking, I personally enjoy CR's "predicted satisfaction" rating. Do they use a Magic 8 ball or call in the Amazing Kreskin?
 
Last edited:
The Sorento barely is big enough to qualify as mid-sized. It's always going to be on the low end of interior space--it's about a foot shorter than the CX-9. It's not really a fair direct comparison.

Comparing CX-9 to Pilot and Highlander is the better matchup.

Because the Sorento is smallest in class on the outside too. CX-9 is larger than Pilot and Highlander and Santa Fe on the outside, but smaller on the inside. That's the difference.

Regardless, the Sorento does compete with the mid-size class. It aligns with competitor pricing. They advertise a base model that starts low that no one buys. Isn't it interesting that an SX-L cost more than a CX-9 Signature? The Kia Sportage is there competing with the compact class.

This rhetoric about the CX-9's lack of utility or practical space is laughable when the same people praise Sorento for the same price and people buy it in droves. What does it say about Sorento if you say that it doesn't qualify to compete with the rest of the class but costs the same?

Also remember, the CX-9's larger exterior (length only) is purposefully done for superior design. The long hood does nothing for interior space but makes CX-9 best looking in class leaving the rest look more like minivans. For many of us this is a welcome design decision. No way I would buy a Pilot specifically because of it's stubby nosed proportions.
 
Last edited:
Okay, lets compare the Highlander.
Toyota Highlander 529 litres behind 5 seats
195 behind 7/8. Compare with 805/230 cx9.
The highlander is a great car, but it lacks utility- said no one ever.
The sorento and highlander are absolutely comparable- similar price, and seating arrangements. The larger exterior dimensions of the cx9 only really factor into getting into tight parking spaces. Irrelevant otherwise.
It has everything to do with brand image. You say Toyota, people think reliable, practical. You say mazda, people think fun to drive, but they must sacrifice practicality. This is irregardless of facts. Reviewers arent immune to this either.
 
99.9% of ownership time, the extra space found in rivals is filled with air. Even in the CX-9, most space is unused most of the time. Space is measured touching the ceiling. How often do you see this utilized?
 
Regardless, the Sorento does compete with the mid-size class. It aligns with competitor pricing. They advertise a base model that starts low that no one buys. Isn't it interesting that an SX-L cost more than a CX-9 Signature? The Kia Sportage is there competing with the compact class.

This rhetoric about the CX-9's lack of utility or practical space is laughable when the same people praise Sorento for the same price and people buy it in droves. What does it say about Sorento if you say that it doesn't qualify to compete with the rest of the class but costs the same?

On the contrary, I think KIA sells a crap ton of the cheap models. The KIA dealer near me doesn't even stock the top trims, I have to drive 75 miles or so to find anything above the middle of the road. Plus, I can get like $6K off a Sorento SX-L without even trying around here.

Also remember, the CX-9's larger exterior (length only) is purposefully done for superior design. The long hood does nothing for interior space but makes CX-9 best looking in class leaving the rest look more like minivans. For many of us this is a welcome design decision. No way I would buy a Pilot specifically because of it's stubby nosed proportions.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The CX-9 certainly looks very nice, and drives very nice. However, my impression when sitting in one was that it was tight inside - this feeling was exacerbated by the exterior dimensions. I was expecting much more volume inside, so I was surprised by the interior volume. It's not just me, either - there are multiple reviews out there making this same point. And not to belabor the point, but if you are looking at an SUV, most people are buying space, not design. The sales numbers bear this out. The recently redesigned CX-9 is barely beating the Ford Flex, an ancient design that is due to be cancelled any minute now.

Sales.PNG
 
I now ask myself these questions:

How knowledgeable are those providing data to CR? We're talking about the general public. If that's who you trust in to help make decisions, who am I to say that's wrong?
Isn't that what people do on this forum, other owners forums, and on the internet in general, every day?
 
On the contrary, I think KIA sells a crap ton of the cheap models. The KIA dealer near me doesn't even stock the top trims, I have to drive 75 miles or so to find anything above the middle of the road. Plus, I can get like $6K off a Sorento SX-L without even trying around here.

I'm talking about the base L version that is almost non-existent. They offer it to advertise a $26K starting price. The one with only a 185 hp 4-banger and 5 seats. Most sales are of the LX with V6 and in the northern half, AWD. Yes, still a low end model. I don't even see that many middle models, the EX.

I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one. The CX-9 certainly looks very nice, and drives very nice. However, my impression when sitting in one was that it was tight inside - this feeling was exacerbated by the exterior dimensions. I was expecting much more volume inside, so I was surprised by the interior volume. It's not just me, either - there are multiple reviews out there making this same point. And not to belabor the point, but if you are looking at an SUV, most people are buying space, not design. The sales numbers bear this out. The recently redesigned CX-9 is barely beating the Ford Flex, an ancient design that is due to be cancelled any minute now.

View attachment 218047

I'm 6'1" 260 lbs and have plenty of room sitting front and back. I don't need room to roll around. It's quite pleasant having a cockpit style interior wrapping around you. The interior, particularly in Signature, is one of the main reasons I bought it. I looked at the whole segment and every one else is Walmart, CX-9 is Saks Fifth Avenue.
 
I would not classify that as having "no issues". Take a video of it next time it happens, and schedule an appointment under your warranty.

No "major" issues. I have a video, and if it happens more, off to the dealer. I've had a few navi systems and they all have bugs that get worked out eventually.

It really is an amazing value for the dollar.
 
"Other than my engine exploding, my car has been great."

"Other than poisoning my dog, my next door neighbor is a really nice guy."

"Other than making me violently ill, our dinner at that restaurant was wonderful."

Hyperbole much?
 
My recommendation is to drive all the similar class and trim (Honda, Toyota, Kia, Hyundai) and see what you think. I think the CX-9 is the best for me (driving still matters). I've had people stop me and ask about it (ex "We're in the market for a new car, how do you like it?"), I think partly because it looks so good.
 
I'm talking about the base L version that is almost non-existent. They offer it to advertise a $26K starting price. The one with only a 185 hp 4-banger and 5 seats. Most sales are of the LX with V6 and in the northern half, AWD. Yes, still a low end model. I don't even see that many middle models, the EX.

The KIA dealer here has 3 of the stripper model L and 16 of the LX with the 4 cylinder. That's more than half of the cars in stock. Most of those are under $30k. KIA sells a ton of these things at fire sale prices.


I'm 6'1" 260 lbs and have plenty of room sitting front and back. I don't need room to roll around. It's quite pleasant having a cockpit style interior wrapping around you. The interior, particularly in Signature, is one of the main reasons I bought it. I looked at the whole segment and every one else is Walmart, CX-9 is Saks Fifth Avenue.

Again, I'm not disputing that it is nice inside. I've test driven a bunch of the competition. Mazda's interior design and execution is better than almost everybody's (I drove an XC90 which was a little nicer, but not $10k nicer, and a Mercedes, but it was also about $15k more). I just found it to be a bit on the claustrophobic side.

It's a shame that these things don't sell in larger numbers. Mazda should fire their entire marketing department and start over. They make really nice cars but their sales volume doesn't reflect that.
 
I used to work for a national statistics agency, one that consistently rated first or second in the world (so not the US). The "survey" methodology used by Consumer Reports to generate the "statistics" for its article is laughable. They basically asked their subscribers to b**** about their cars. A reliable survey methodology would involve sending actual owners (i.e. getting names from state/territory DMVs) a detailed survey form and asking them to complete it and following up with those who did not respond. If you don't get a 20% minimum response rate, your survey is not going to produce a reliable dataset. An alternative would be to get actual warranty/service information from manufacturers and dealers.

I am not sure if CarFax gets decent service information, that could be used to draw conclusions about model reliability. When we traded in our last car, the dealer was able to pull up a history online (mileage and a car crash, don't know about service history). If service history information is available it would be really good for Kelley Blue Book etc. to base car reliability on that. I really don't care to waste my time reading the results of a "survey" that asked people to b**** about the infotainment system in their new car - by the time I buy one of those cars it will be at least two years old and the infotainment system will be obsolete.
 
Last edited:
I think what CR tries to do is great but I do think they fall apart on execution especially with cars. I look at it before I buy a dishwasher though lol
 
I think what CR tries to do is great but I do think they fall apart on execution especially with cars. I look at it before I buy a dishwasher though lol

So Toyotas are a bad bet, but if I want a reliable car, I should get a Chrysler? If CR "fell apart" in rating their cars, they would have abandoned rating them long ago. Perhaps they don't get every car rating 100% correct--it's "predicted" reliability, right--but on the whole, I'd be pretty willing to bet CR has a very good, if not excellent, track record.
 
'Murica has 2 kinda people... them who buy into consumer riports 🇺🇸
and them who ain't 🇨🇳

sUmbody keeps payin' fur that stoopid magazine...

we got better things to do, lets git sum terrrists!
🕳 🏃🏻
 
Last edited:
Back