NA — Mazda

J

JGoodish

Guest
Joined
Jun 10, 2006
Messages
1,422
Display Name
Display name:
JGoodish
I’m possibly looking to purchase a late-model CX-9 for the family. Yes, I know it’s one of the largest vehicles in its class with one of the smallest interiors, but for what it is it drives better than anything else I’ve driven (that’s under $50k). I owned a German car once, loved the driving dynamics but it was a maintenance nightmare, so I will probably never own another one.

So, any late-model Mazda owners who can share their experiences? I’m especially interested in experiences from the post-Ford era of Mazda, as it appears that Mazda has improved appreciably since they were tied to Ford. I typically buy new and keep for 10+ years and 200k+ miles.

Really my biggest concern is long-term comfort, as I am tall and the CX-9 in particular is slightly cozy in the front seats. The test drives have been fine, but I can’t really get a sense of long-term comfort from a couple 10 minute test drives.

Thanks!
 
Not an owner but I’ve driven the CX-9/CX-7 as rentals for a week each. I thought they were both a decent SUV for a daily driver. Interior was of decent quality, almost to the level of luxury automakers and well-laid-out. I found the infotainment control a bit of a pain to use, but I’m sure it gets easier with more use (reminds me of the BMW iDrive which people hated at first).

The only thing I didn’t like was their “SkyActive” turbo 4-banger engine. It was adequate but not energetic. I would have liked to have a 300+HP option available.

Overall I think it’s a fine vehicle, but I wouldn’t own one just due to the lack of a sportier engine option.
 
I have driven a CX5 for 4 years, and have purchased 3 more for the road employees. Great cars, low maintenance!
 
I replaced a 2000 jeep cherokee in 2015 with a 2016 CX-5. 50,000 miles later today and still going without a problem, which is why I pay a premium for a new car (dispatch rate). Zero mx or complaints so far. Drives fine. Yes, it's no CX-9 on the size front, but that's something most people know about mazda interiors compared to the competition.

I bought a 2019 Hyundai Sonata this year for a daily driver (wife's car got totaled) and gave the wife the CX-5. I was weary of the 1990s stigma of Hyundai, but I've been very pleased with the comfort. If I had had the confidence to purchase the brand in 2016, honestly I would have gone with a their Tucson, as I think they're a bit more roomy for rear pax than the CX-5 (we had a toddler at the time, so it's a consideration for us, especially during the car seat days). In reality they're exchangeable vehicles, can barely tell these egg shaped CUVs apart. At any rate, the santa fe would be the equivalent to the CX-9 class for you. But yeah I don't think you can go wrong with either. I limited my choices to non-turbo engines and non-CV trannies, based on prior ownership experience and my penchant for longevity between new car purchases as an ownership priority.
 
If driving dynamics [and a reasonable price] are important, only Mazda is in the running.
 
2009 3 hatchback. 160k miles and it’s never seen a flatbed, consistent with other 3’s of the same generation.

I know a few people with newer 3’s and cx5s and all are happy.

The cx5 is kinda boring compared to the Tiguan we ultimately went with, but, it’s German. Never again.
 
I had a 2006 Mazda 3 for 11 years and ~140k miles. The only non-routine maintenance I did on it was replacing the air conditioner compressor and an engine mount in 2016.
 
SoonerAviator said:
The only thing I didn’t like was their “SkyActive” turbo 4-banger engine. It was adequate but not energetic. I would have liked to have a 300+HP option available.

Overall I think it’s a fine vehicle, but I wouldn’t own one just due to the lack of a sportier engine option.
Click to expand...

I was concerned about the engine, but the reality is that at 310 lb-ft of torque, it outperforms every V6 in the class for a majority of most people’s driving. Yes, get up and go at highway speed suffers, but the 250hp (w/premium) isn’t that far off from V6s in competing vehicles, either (don’t think that any are 300hp or more until you get into more expensive high-line cars). The biggest downside to the engine in my opinion is that, as is typical with an inline-4, it’s a little noisy during acceleration. It’s a compromise for sure, but the competitors have compromises as well.

I wish that I could find one to rent. None of the rental agencies around here seem to have them for rent.
 
Another question for you all (not Mazda specific): I’ve never had leather interior in a vehicle, so do I want tan or black (the only two options available)?

Thought that black would wear better, but be hot (though seats are cooled). However, I’ve heard that tan is higher maintenance. In either case, the carpeting, dash, etc. in this vehicle is black.
 
JGoodish said:
... do I want tan or black (the only two options available)? ... However, I’ve heard that tan is higher maintenance.
Click to expand...
Tan is higher maintenance if you care what it looks in 5-6 years. The wear on it is more visible than on black. My wife has a beige, it looks plain dirty where it's worn.
 
JGoodish said:
I was concerned about the engine, but the reality is that at 310 lb-ft of torque, it outperforms every V6 in the class for a majority of most people’s driving. Yes, get up and go at highway speed suffers, but the 250hp (w/premium) isn’t that far off from V6s in competing vehicles, either (don’t think that any are 300hp or more until you get into more expensive high-line cars). The biggest downside to the engine in my opinion is that, as is typical with an inline-4, it’s a little noisy during acceleration. It’s a compromise for sure, but the competitors have compromises as well.

I wish that I could find one to rent. None of the rental agencies around here seem to have them for rent.
Click to expand...

I said the power was adequate, just not what I’d want personally. They need a “zoom zoom” engine package. The Dodge Durango SRT, Ford Explorer Sport/Platinum both offer more than one engine option which are more to my taste (both are north of 360HP). If I could get the Mazda interior in a Ford Explorer Sport I’d take it in a heartbeat. It’s very close to what the 2020 Ford Explorer is going to be, and with RWD to boot.

The CX-7/9 and the Ford Explorer turbo 4-bangers are both solid performers for what it is.
 
zaitcev said:
Tan is higher maintenance if you care what it looks in 5-6 years. The wear on it is more visible than on black. My wife has a beige, it looks plain dirty where it's worn.
Click to expand...

Agreed, black will generally wear better 8-10yrs down the road. If you have tint on the windows, the leather color will be mostly irrelevant in terms of heat retention anyway.
 
SoonerAviator said:
I said the power was adequate, just not what I’d want personally. They need a “zoom zoom” engine package. The Dodge Durango SRT, Ford Explorer Sport/Platinum both offer more than one engine option which are more to my taste. If I could get the Mazda interior in a Ford Explorer Sport I’d take it in a heartbeat. It’s very close to what the 2020 Ford Explorer is going to be, and with RWD to boot.

The CX-7/9 and the Ford Explorer turbo 4-bangers are both solid performers for what it is.
Click to expand...

It isn’t a high performance car for sure, but it isn’t designed to be, nor are most others in the class. I suspect most folks buying those vehicles aren’t buying them for sport.

The Explorers I’ve been in handled like cruise ships, which turned me off to them despite being a Ford guy. Though I would love RWD.
 
I have 32,000 miles on a 2017 Mazda 3 hatchback with 6 speed manual. I have been very pleased with it. Very fun to drive but hatchback practical. 38 mpg. but will nicely accelerate from 70 mph to 8o mph. Nicely appointed for a budget car. I would absolutely buy again. I think that the post ford Mazda is a great line of automobiles.
 
Speaking from a used parts supplier angle, there may be something to the steady rising demand for the engines on the CX-9's. Of the ones we acquired over the past years, the engine sold near immediately (as in within days of arrival and entering the parts into inventory database) for between $2,000 to $2,500. These were used engines with an average mileage of about 60,000 to 75,000 miles. Of the ones I sold, 20% of those failed and I had to provide a warranty replacement.

Compared to other vehicles in the similar style and class, the CX-9 was in the top 5 of both price and mean failure rate for non-truck vehicles.

So something about that design and or usage wasn't lasting as long as it should.


My advice to folks considering a replacement car is to include the availability and cost of replacing major components such as the engine and transmission. Then maybe add cost to install the same.

Some cars, both the engine and transmission can be had from reliable used part providers for $500 to $600 each. Others, due to much higher demand (like the VIN P SOHC engine for the first gen Ford Focus) will get to $1,500 and above in a hurry. And salvage yards get this pricing because the market for the engine or transmission creates high demand and the customers, both the retail car owner and the wholesale repair shop, will pay that price.

As you evaluate a vehicle, you can both call local auto part recyclers for availability and pricing, as well as check online data via www.car-part.com.


Circling back to the CX-9 under discussion, something about that motor is crap, as evidenced by the sales history we experienced. And the failure rate we experienced requiring to replace it under warranty told me I was really gambling with my profit margin for that model, and frequently losing.

The transmission must have been a better design because it took significantly longer to sell one, and average price was pretty cheap. The body panels also took quite a while to sell. Telling me that many owners chose not to repair the car when it was involved in a collision.


Would I buy one? No.
Would I recommend the CX-9 to someone else? Likely not. There are others in the category and class that do the same thing that are as nice or better on comfort and features, and definitely are more reliable mechanically.
 
Last edited:
Some of the other Mazda models have been mentioned. Those don't have the issues I mentioned about the CX-9.

The 3's and the 6's were something I always had 2 to 4 of each generation on hand, mostly due to they're popularity and being so many on the road. Engines and transmissions were $600 to $700 and sold maybe two or three a month, taking on average 6 to 8 weeks from acquisition to sell. And warranty request rate of those sold was less than 5%.

That history tells me they are well designed and built cars.
 
JGoodish said:
It isn’t a high performance car for sure, but it isn’t designed to be, nor are most others in the class. I suspect most folks buying those vehicles aren’t buying them for sport.

The Explorers I’ve been in handled like cruise ships, which turned me off to them despite being a Ford guy. Though I would love RWD.
Click to expand...

The Explorer Sport is AWD with a stiffened suspension. It’s not a sports car in terms of handling, but it’s on par with the Mazda in that regard. The regular XLT/Limited trims are a bit too soft in the suspension department, but not atrociously-so. Like I said, I didn’t need the CX-9 to be a high performance model outright, just offer me a better engine option and leave the turbo-4 for the regular trim levels. I don’t think it needs to compete with a Porsche Cayenne or supercharged Range Rover, but it would hurt to throw a bone to the Zoom Zoom crowds by offering a bit more excitement under the hood for a premium.
 
Had a 2006 Mazda 3 hatchback. Strong 253K miles and ended up giving to my niece for college. Still running at 275K. The only issue was tire wear. If you don’t align that car (4 way) every 6-8,000 miles, you wouldn’t get 20,000 miles out of a set of tires. Bought a lifetime alignment package from Firestone and tire wear went to the normal 45-50,000 miles.

I have a 2016 CX5 and I am not as happy with it as I was the 3. Both are Grand Touring models, but the leather in the CX5 is already showing problems and I’ve had a few glitches with some of the systems. I think it’s the last Mazda I will own.
 
AggieMike88 said:
Circling back to the CX-9 under discussion, something about that motor is crap, as evidenced by the sales history we experienced.
Click to expand...
Is that the old Ford V6? Or the newer Skyactiv turbo-4?
 
Kenny Phillips said:
If driving dynamics [and a reasonable price] are important, only Mazda is in the running.
Click to expand...

I’d add some Infinities to the mix. A brand that most forget about. Couple of their SUVs are based on Z car platform with similar driving dynamics. Not quite cheap new, but it’s a hidden(and inexpensive) gem lightly used
 
Bought a 2015 Mazda3 a year ago. Liked it enough that we bought a 2018 Mazda3 last month.
 
I do recall a squadronmate of mine suffer a similar lemon fate during warranty period on a cx9 as has been described earlier in the thread. They chucked it for a different car after less than 6 months of ownership. This was for the 2014ish time period. It seem isolated to the 9s as like I said, haven't heard any complaints from the cx5 crowd and myself as the owner of a 2016 model. If the 9 is the size of interest perhaps a Hyundai santa fe would be a good vehicle to look at as I mentioned earlier.
 
The new CX-9s have only 1 engine option - the turbo-4. It was a new engine (new in the sense of a turbo added to the existing Skyactive engine) that was originally only in the CX-9, although it is now being offered in the CX-5 and Mazda6 as well. Newly turbo'd engine, heavy vehicle, and not much turbo experience for Mazda could contribute to the CX-9 reliability issues.
 
I have a 2015 Mazda 3 that runs like new. Mazda is my new favorite brand. I feel like it drives as well as the typical luxury models and has great Nav/Audio/electronics interface to boot. Look up videos of Skyactive on Youtube on the Engineering Explained channel. It increased my respect for Mazda engineering.
 
I don't care if they put a Lycoming to propel the thing, I just care it doesn't give me grief until 120K miles. :D Halfway there so far, knock on wood!
 
atbroome said:
The new CX-9s have only 1 engine option - the turbo-4. It was a new engine (new in the sense of a turbo added to the existing Skyactive engine) that was originally only in the CX-9, although it is now being offered in the CX-5 and Mazda6 as well. Newly turbo'd engine, heavy vehicle, and not much turbo experience for Mazda could contribute to the CX-9 reliability issues.
Click to expand...


Eh.. Mazda has been making turbo cars for at least 20 years(RX7). Most recent(non Skyactiv) were MazdaSpeed3 and MazdaSpeed6. And this is Northa America, where turbos were well out of favor until recently. Elsewhere they probably made more turbo cars.
 
I wasn't going to bring it up as just an anecdote, but now that AggieMike brought in some data: A friend had a 2011 or 2012 CX-7 that lunched its engine completely and suddenly with only something like 40K miles on it. I believe it is basically the same engine as the CX-9s. Was going to be like $7K to replace the engine, so they opted to get rid of the car as-is rather than risk having that happen to them again.
 
Wiki says the 1st gen CX9 was powered by a Ford engine, which appears as the one in the recurring complaints. Figures. Second generation is powered by the Skyactive I-4. Puny but hey at least it might fare better than the Duratec. Personally I wouldn't want something bigger than a CX-5 running that engine. I think in this size class and considering the history, a look at the competition might be in order OP, and I say that as a 2016 mazda owner mind you.
 
genna said:
Eh.. Mazda has been making turbo cars for at least 20 years(RX7). Most recent(non Skyactiv) were MazdaSpeed3 and MazdaSpeed6. And this is Northa America, where turbos were well out of favor until recently. Elsewhere they probably made more turbo cars.
Click to expand...

That is why I said "not much" rather than "none". Those were all earlier efforts for performance reasons. In general Mazda has been trying to stick with naturally aspirated while most of the rest of the industry moved to turbos for fuel economy reasons.

Mazda was forced to turbo the Skyactiv engine to compete. They had planned to go diesel and next-gen Skyactiv-X, but delays/tech issues forced them to come up with an alternate interim plan - turbo the current Skyactiv 2.5
 
I vote CX5. They are outselling everything in their class in Texas and I have driven a 2016 year model and it is just better than the bigger CX models, IMO.
 
I have not been able to find any widespread reports of problems with the Mazda 2.5T engine that is used in 2016+ CX-9 models (and now some other models as well). It has enough time in the market that I would think that chronic issues would be evident by now. On the other hand, the older Ford-powered models apparently did have common catastrophic issues.

The car is heavy, but the reality is that the 2.5T engine is pretty much on par power-wise with the competition’s V6 engines. The biggest downside, as I previously mentioned, is the noise under acceleration.

I have no issue with the turbo. I had a 2000 Audi A4 Quattro with the 1.8T engine—also a heavy car—and although the car exhibited otherwise poor mechanical reliability, I had no issues with the engine or transmission. Many owners did have engine issues, but they appeared to be almost exclusively those owners who did not follow Audi’s recommended maintenance instructions for the engine (didn’t use synthetic oil, used smaller aftermarket oil filters, etc.)

With that said, I do not like the trend toward small-displacement turbo engines in big vehicles. Just doesn’t make sense, and the automakers wouldn’t be doing it if not for CAFE and other nutty environmental regulations. However, it’s happening even in high-line auto brands.
 
IK04 said:
I vote CX5. They are outselling everything in their class in Texas and I have driven a 2016 year model and it is just better than the bigger CX models, IMO.
Click to expand...

Tried the CX-5 first, but I’m too tall to fit comfortably in the driver’s seat. I have the same problem in most mid-sized SUV/CUVs, although I recently drove a 2018 Chevy Equinox rental and was surprised at how much room it had for the size. Drove it 2500 miles in about a week, and the small turbo wasn’t bad either, but I don’t have much confidence in its long-term reliability. It did have a weird thumping sound at highway speeds in certain crosswind conditions (sounded as though someone was pounding on the rear window), but otherwise seemed decent for the price.
 
I'm on my third Miata (ND; previous ones were NA & NC) and I've owned a first-gen RX-7. Love 'em!

For any given segment, Mazda seems to spec their vehicles with just a tad higher spring rate, more aggressive shock valving, a mite quicker steering ratio, etc. and it shows in the driving dynamics. They race the snot out of the Miatas, and the competition DNA seems to transfer to the rest of the lineup.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top