Sorry, I wasn't questioning your math and numbers. Only how accurate they are in the real world. I'm not trying to brag about what credentials I have, it's just that we are in a car forum, on the internet, were many speak like they have on hands experience with what they're talking about, when in truth it's what it is only read on the internet. And what they read on the internet must be true, no?! I have no personal proof of actual percentage numbers. Like you said, I am a car guy, not a math guy. But we ARE on a car forum. And thanks for the accolade. I can only go by how many cars I've seen from personal experience go into and out of all the shops and dealerships I've worked in. And through word of mouth from local car clubs, organizations, and races. I've been into cars, trucks, motorcycles since I first drove a motorcycle when I was 9. Been driving cars since 11. Been working on cars with my dad since 11 also. Oops, I'm slipping out credentials again. Anyways, I have a lot of hands on experience. About the only thing I've not delved on is paint and body. But, I've never calculated car failure in numbers, only "wow, I notice there's a bunch more Mazda transmissions in this shop than Fords and Toyotas, but not many Chevrolets" (that last "Chevy" part is a joke btw). Over the years, I've just calculated in my head, some brands always stick out more than others. As far as online numbers,
www.truedelta.com lists 7.5% of CX-9 owners have reported transmission repairs. Yes, it's not a CX-5, but our model has only been out a few years. As far as mechanical arguments to add, without going into a long list of transmission parts, I will just say that it contains many gears, valves, passages that can be affected by wear and tear. But we are getting a little off subject. My point is that transmissions costs so much more time and money than brakes. Assuming you have more sense than money, why risk pushing it? I apologize by having you be uncomfortable on this forum, unless that was a joke, too