Hello All.
I have a 2010 CX-9 GT with about 128K miles on it. Other than the cracked transfer case issue at 95K (Mazda replaced no charge for parts) I am currently fighting the 4WD light on issue caused by the cable broken into the rear diff. Plus the CX9 really ate wheel bearings.
Anyway, I am going to trade the CX9 in. A local dealer has a 2016 CX-5 GT (not 2016.5) CX-5 that came off trade with 11K miles on it for about $ 24,400. Seems to be a good deal. But I am REALLY shell shocked by my tranny issues with the CX9 and I have been looking at these threads and see other people having transmission problems. I put a lot of miles on my cars and tend to be hard on them..Live in the NorthEast, etc.
So as is the case for many people it is between the CX-5 and the CRV and I don't want to buy new. My main concern is long term reliability. I need to get more that 128k miles on my car (assuming I take care of it). So are my concerns about the 2016 CX-5 unfounded.? It really seems like a nice car.
Oh and the 2016 the dealer has is certified so it has the 7 year/100,000 mile on the power train so that feels a little better.
Any thoughts? These posts on here with people burning through tranny's with low miles concerns me.
Thanks
Dave
I have a 2010 CX-9 GT with about 128K miles on it. Other than the cracked transfer case issue at 95K (Mazda replaced no charge for parts) I am currently fighting the 4WD light on issue caused by the cable broken into the rear diff. Plus the CX9 really ate wheel bearings.
Anyway, I am going to trade the CX9 in. A local dealer has a 2016 CX-5 GT (not 2016.5) CX-5 that came off trade with 11K miles on it for about $ 24,400. Seems to be a good deal. But I am REALLY shell shocked by my tranny issues with the CX9 and I have been looking at these threads and see other people having transmission problems. I put a lot of miles on my cars and tend to be hard on them..Live in the NorthEast, etc.
So as is the case for many people it is between the CX-5 and the CRV and I don't want to buy new. My main concern is long term reliability. I need to get more that 128k miles on my car (assuming I take care of it). So are my concerns about the 2016 CX-5 unfounded.? It really seems like a nice car.
Oh and the 2016 the dealer has is certified so it has the 7 year/100,000 mile on the power train so that feels a little better.
Any thoughts? These posts on here with people burning through tranny's with low miles concerns me.
Thanks
Dave