Car & Driver 40,000 mile update/wrap-up - '16 CX-9.

JPL

:
2018 Mazda6, CX-9
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-mazda-cx-9-long-term-test-wrap-up-review

Another great write up. Considering they have a '16 (before some issues were smoothed out) they've had virtually no issues to 40,000 tough miles.

C&D highly praises the CX-9. It's true that it exists for many of us who don't want anything to do with its cheap boring competitors. Something many can't understand because it might not be the roomiest or most feature filled.
 
https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-mazda-cx-9-long-term-test-wrap-up-review

Another great write up. Considering they have a '16 (before some issues were smoothed out) they've had virtually no issues to 40,000 tough miles.

C&D highly praises the CX-9. It's true that it exists for many of us who don't want anything to do with its cheap boring competitors. Something many can't understand because it might not be the roomiest or most feature filled.

Virtually no issues? That's a little generous. Still, it isn't bad for a first year car:
1. Warped rotors at <40k miles
2. Repeated Infotainment hangs/crashes
3. Bad fuel sending units
4. Steering wheel cover started falling off
5. Two TSB service appointments for reprogramming the ECU and fixing a cargo area rattle (sounds like the rear strut clunk)


I hope the brake issue is an isolated issue, but the previous generation was notorious for the same thing. The infotainment is a well known issue, and there was someone on here who had the same complaint about the "distance to empty" calculation (I wonder if his fuel sender is going bad, too - I may owe him an apology because I gave him some grief about running out of gas).

The one thing in the article that is very disappointing is the roadside assistance that let them down.

At any rate, another article that confirms that the CX-9 is the preferred crossover for auto journalists.
 
Warped rotors seem to be a Mazda thing. My mazda6 rotors were warped by 30k miles
 
Virtually no issues? That's a little generous. Still, it isn't bad for a first year car:
1. Warped rotors at <40k miles
2. Repeated Infotainment hangs/crashes
3. Bad fuel sending units
4. Steering wheel cover started falling off
5. Two TSB service appointments for reprogramming the ECU and fixing a cargo area rattle (sounds like the rear strut clunk)


I hope the brake issue is an isolated issue, but the previous generation was notorious for the same thing. The infotainment is a well known issue, and there was someone on here who had the same complaint about the "distance to empty" calculation (I wonder if his fuel sender is going bad, too - I may owe him an apology because I gave him some grief about running out of gas).

The one thing in the article that is very disappointing is the roadside assistance that let them down.

At any rate, another article that confirms that the CX-9 is the preferred crossover for auto journalists.

Not to excuse the brake rotors, but Car and Driver has done numerous hard brake testing.

Infotainment is already a known thing mainly on '16's. My '18 has never crashed, froze or anything.

Bad gas gauges? They were surprised when they ran out of gas when the range went from 1-0 miles. The other 8 miles. Actually not a huge discrepancy. It's an estimate.
 
C&D is as subjective as it can get for reviews. It’s a driver centric magazine so nothing surprising here.
 
C&D is as subjective as it can get for reviews. Its a driver centric magazine so nothing surprising here.

Very true. It seems that in order to get a good, well-rounded opinion of any vehicle, you have to watch multiple reviews from different youtube channels and seek out written reviews from different blogs/websites.

Everyman Driver on YouTube does some decent reviews, but I also look for TFL reviews, along with the usual suspects (C&D, CR, etc.). Then you have to test drive them and see if they were BSing you (cryhard)
 
I very much prefer YouTube reviews as most mags are paid ones. My top are

Alex on Autos
Redline reviews
Car gurus
Auto guide
Driven car reviews
Forests car reviews

Everyday and TFL mostly read the spec sheet and are not in depth enough.
 
Not to excuse the brake rotors, but Car and Driver has done numerous hard brake testing.

Infotainment is already a known thing mainly on '16's. My '18 has never crashed, froze or anything.

Bad gas gauges? They were surprised when they ran out of gas when the range went from 1-0 miles. The other 8 miles. Actually not a huge discrepancy. It's an estimate.

Then it ran out of gas again with 41 miles showing on the range estimate. Mazda roadside assistance left them stranded. When they took it to the dealer, the fuel sending units were replaced (after a 14 day service visit!). So yes, there was an issue.
 
And, brake rotors don't warp....http://www.stoptech.com/technical-support/technical-white-papers/-warped-brake-disc-and-other-myths

Rotors accumulate uneven deposits of pad material from either improper break in or from using pads that aren't suitable for the severity of the service the driver puts them through. Clean off the deposits (either turn on a lathe or scrub with abrasive cloth & solvent), put on pads suitable for the driving conditions, break in according to the instructions with the pads, if any, and drive without "warping."
 
After reading the article I came away with the sense that C&D does not treat their cars with kid gloves so brakes are likely to be worn at that mileage. Consistent brake testing might have hastened the rotors getting warped.

As for the fuel issue, I thought it was not a good idea to run out with a fuel injection pump? Trying to beat the computer was not smart either so a bit of numbskullery on the part of the drivers in those instances.

All in all, a good review for the CX-9.
 
Yeah, overall, they really, really liked the car. They fuel issue, which a poster here had, was fixed by the dealer - the result of a faulty sensor. That issue would be very, very annoying.
 
I was told the brakes on the previous gen and the '16+ are very different. Supposedly the '16+ discs wear more evenly front to back, and some may find the rears wear faster than the fronts.. where as the previous gen wear out the front quote often - must be the Ford DNA as my old Ford Explorer used to require new rotors and pads every 20K miles
 
I very much prefer YouTube reviews as most mags are paid ones. My top are

Alex on Autos
Redline reviews
Car gurus
Auto guide
Driven car reviews
Forests car reviews

Everyday and TFL mostly read the spec sheet and are not in depth enough.

Doug Demuro (rockon)
 
C&D is as subjective as it can get for reviews. It’s a driver centric magazine so nothing surprising here.

I've been subscribing to Car and Driver for more than 40 years, and consider them to have some of the best writers in the business. While they do quite a few long-term (40,000 mile) tests, they tend to place reliability near the bottom of importance when it comes to selection the annual top ten vehicles. For example, VW's GTI often is included in this list, but the GTI has a fairly consistent "worse or much worse than average" reliability.
 
What struck me was the huge drop in depreciation. A 2016, with an MSRP of $ 45,955 was worth 27.2K after a year. That is $ 1500+ per month depreciation.
 
What struck me was the huge drop in depreciation. A 2016, with an MSRP of $ 45,955 was worth 27.2K after a year. That is $ 1500+ per month depreciation.

I wonder if larger drops in depreciation is becoming more common overall. The resale / trade-in value on my 2013 Rav4 Limited after only 3 years with less than 36k miles was laughable.
 
Warped rotors seem to be a Mazda thing. My mazda6 rotors were warped by 30k miles
Having owned lots of different cars, with my 2017 Mazda 6 being my first Mazda, I can tell you that warped rotors, early brake wear, are anything but just a Mazda thing.
It's more common across the industry than you might expect.
Most mass produced vehicles not in the luxury or "high" end category, are built as cheaply as possible.
The brakes in mass produced cars in many cases barely meet minimum requirements.
Parts are cheap (cost and quality), and more often than not, the rotors are too small, or barely adequate, for the size and weight of the vehicle.
Compacts, sub-compacts, and other daily drivers are designed and engineered for so called "daily commuters" type of drivers/users.
They are not engineered for the driver enthusiast or aggressive type of driver that might put a bit of a strain on the vehicle.
If you take for example, a Honda Fit, and drive the crap out of it, the brakes will be done in a week.
I was a Nissan guy for many years, and constantly had to service the brakes on my Altima and Sentra.
My Pathfinder is a little better, but it has drum brakes in the rear, and are infinitely better than rear discs, believe it or not.
The rear discs in my other cars were particularly bad. I was lucky to get 20K out of them. Not only crappy and undersized rotors, but garbage single piston calipers that seized all the time.
I'm sure the climate had something to do with it (Canada), but still, they were cheap.
Mazda is not alone in trying to save money by using components that meet the minimum requirements.
Just my thoughts. Cheers everyone.
 
Back