Cx-7 "unreliable" says Consumer Reports

[jmhumr]

CR is more useful when shopping for used cars, because you can see the trends for each model over 5-6 years. It's still too early to characterize the CX-7's reliability, and I think it's illegit and wrong that CR and others even try.

The method I recommend when researching new cars: Find and browse owner forums such as this! Forums provide a first-hand discussion of problems and praise and leave it up to me to decide whether any "issues" are a dealbreaker. So thank goodness for forums like these!

 

[Mazda Lover]

They're surveys are terrible(not standardized), and since when did surveying ONLY subscribers of one magazine predict the reliability of the entire line up.

Some of those sample sizes are 250 people, not enough to predict the reliability of a car that has sold in the masses of what 32K units now.

You don't even know who these people are, you don't know what the survey looked like, and you don't know what the questions asked we're, just a simple, unreliable. And the people that took the surveys, subscribe to such horrible publication, thats enough for me not even to consider whatever BS score they got from out of the sky, those people don't think like me, and ALL have variations of what a "Serious Problem" is(SOME thing an unscheduled dealer visit is, I DON'T).

CONSUMER REPORTS IS EFFING GARBAGE.

Good post. Better summary.

I've read some of the responses the CU puts to NHTSA, what a whinny bunch of self rightous idiots. Anyone else remember the "expose'" that it produced about how no car was acceptable in a rear impact (IIRC, it was a rear impact) then it was discovered, after all the press it could generate, that the test was run at double the speed that it should have been. Odd how this information wasn't as widely published/discussed.

I recently purchased a cordless home phone that I was told was rated the best for clarity by CR. Since I wasn't impressed with any of the brands of phones at the store, I bought it. Too bad, as it's aweful.

 

[CX-7owner]

LOL some thing, *Some Think*
Yep, just like those "unsafe" car seats, hahaha.
Morons.

 

[cruzdreamer]

j007....yep got my seals fixed too....seems good so far.....thanks though!

 

[Mazda3]

So you agree with CR's 9.1 0-60?

That was in reverse with the E-brake on.

 

[warrusty]

I've got about 500 miles on the car now. No way it's 9.1 to 60.

 

[Killer]

So I suppose this guy is full of poop too???


http://www.msprotege.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123688212

The latest TrueDelta Vehicle Reliability Survey results have been posted. These are for the year ending September 30, 2007.

For the 2007 Mazda CX-7, I have an average of 4.5 months of data on 31 cars. The stat of 153 successful repair trips per 100 vehicles per year (1.5 per vehicle) is much worse than average for a 2007 model.

Most of the reported issues involved sensors and valves in the intake manifold. Not major problems, but they do affect driveability.

It is possible that Mazda will sort these issues out, and repair rates will start to decline. Results will be updated in three months.

Everyone who has been helping out with this research, thanks, these results wouldn't have been possible without you. Those who aren't yet helping out, I hope you'll consider doing so.

 

[CX-7owner]

So I suppose this guy is full of poop too???


http://www.msprotege.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123688212

(eekfu)
His whole sample size is like thirty people, so yes.

 

[Killer]

Sure...ok (rofl2) I guess JD Power is wrong too...

CX-7 had subpar ratings too (2 out of 5.....)

http://www.jdpower.com/autos/mazda/cx-7/2007

http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pdf/2007088.pdf

fact is most every review on reliability I could find on the CX-7 it was about the same.

Dont get mad at the messenger.

 

[CX-7owner]

From the first 90 days, that really tells me if this car is going to break down on me, please try again.

 

[07LiquidCX7]

^There is no way to reliably review a car's reliability in the first year production of that model... period. NONE of the reviewers should say "Reliability"... but maybe "Initial Reliability." I doubt that any of these reviewing bodies bothered to do any testing or research beyond the week (possibly weekend) they had with the vehicle and the surveys they sent out. In CR's case that was only to subscribers (who probably aren't subscribed for the auto reviews)... WTF??? LOL I want Top Gear's review on the CX-7... or maybe Car & Driver. Not CR or JDPwr.

Truth be told there won't be an accurate reliability review for another half year or so. Now all of the reviewers are more than welcome to do driveability reviews and such other stuff before then, but leave reliability alone until Mazda is able to deal with the issues every first year model has.

/end rant

 

[VirginMazdaOwne]

Its all on how well Mazda reacts owning two first year release GM's I can say first hand GM did a horrible job, I'm willing to deal with issues as long as Mazda steps up to the plate.

 

[Killer]

From the first 90 days, that really tells me if this car is going to break down on me, please try again.

Seeing that you are providing no statistical/quantifiable data and they are providing this...i will go with the reviewers. Your opinion seems to be based upon emotion, which is primarily due to the fact you own one.

 

[AWmustang]

I guess i'm a little more tolerant of cars needing to go in for TSB's and such.

If the car doesn't leave me stranded somewhere, It's reliable. Plain and simple.

None of the TSB's where critical and I just have the computer flashed when I go for an oil change so there's no inconvenience for me.

I was able to schedule the recalls at my convenience and I was given a loaner car.

 

[singlemalt_18]

...i will go with the reviewers. Your opinion seems to be based upon emotion, which is primarily due to the fact you own one.

You nailed it.

Part of human nature is to seek validation for our choices and actions, and the curse of modern technology is the programming - which is also human.

Mostly, what is documented are the constant "updates" and the inconveniences associated with them. The CX-7 is a complex state-of-the-art car, period. The CEL & gas cap issue caused many to loose sleep for cryin out loud! Thanks also to continued government regulation that there are even sensors on a cottin' pickin' gas cap in the first place. CR is right on the money, from their unemotional perspective. (Which is not to say they are always without bias.)

The "unreliable" rating does NOT change the safety, handling, braking, fun-to-drive benefits of ownership!

After 15 months & ~8,000 miles, I continue to like my ride. I am also a part of the "not broke/don't fix it" school, and I am a little hesitant about the voluntary recall changes; I have been procrastinating making a decision on that one.

 

[Killer]

You nailed it.

Part of human nature is to seek validation for our choices and actions, and the curse of modern technology is the programming - which is also human.

Mostly, what is documented are the constant "updates" and the inconveniences associated with them. The CX-7 is a complex state-of-the-art car, period. The CEL & gas cap issue caused many to loose sleep for cryin out loud! Thanks also to continued government regulation that there are even sensors on a cottin' pickin' gas cap in the first place. CR is right on the money, from their unemotional perspective. (Which is not to say they are always without bias.)

The "unreliable" rating does NOT change the safety, handling, braking, fun-to-drive benefits of ownership!

After 15 months & ~8,000 miles, I continue to like my ride. I am also a part of the "not broke/don't fix it" school, and I am a little hesitant about the voluntary recall changes; I have been procrastinating making a decision on that one.

Thank you. and (werd)

 

[AWmustang]

You nailed it.

Part of human nature is to seek validation for our choices and actions, and the curse of modern technology is the programming - which is also human.

Mostly, what is documented are the constant "updates" and the inconveniences associated with them. The CX-7 is a complex state-of-the-art car, period. The CEL & gas cap issue caused many to loose sleep for cryin out loud! Thanks also to continued government regulation that there are even sensors on a cottin' pickin' gas cap in the first place. CR is right on the money, from their unemotional perspective. (Which is not to say they are always without bias.)

The "unreliable" rating does NOT change the safety, handling, braking, fun-to-drive benefits of ownership!

After 15 months & ~8,000 miles, I continue to like my ride. I am also a part of the "not broke/don't fix it" school, and I am a little hesitant about the voluntary recall changes; I have been procrastinating making a decision on that one.

So far the only thing i have experienced with this has been positive. I've only noticed a change in the transmission programming. it's much more eager to upshift than before. and it holds 3rd for a bit when you punch it... just in case you need to punch it again.

though I can't really compare whether this will have any effect on MPG since I changed jobs about the time the recall happened and my commute is considerably different.

 

[Mazda Lover]

When the President of Toyota NA says there's something wrong with CR, which constantly ranks Toyota as it's most reliable and automatically says "we expect everything it puts out to be great" (until the Tundra and the other car I can't recall right now ruined its automatic rating), there is something wrong.

Perception does not always meet reality. CR is perception. I know people who've taken a Toyota in for serious issues and they blow it off as it's not a problem. While people take in a domestic for a small issue and it becomes this major issue.

There are so many example of CR's problems in its surveys that it amazes me people still look at it. Eh, to each his own.

 

[mikey1981]

i havent posted in a while on this board, some people may like that fact.

the "unreliability" of the CX-7 is evidenced ON this board. look at the posts spread out everywhere. blown turbo's under 10k miles? ya got to be kidding me. Replacing differentials, check engine lights, detonation, seals, leaks, "bad smoke", heating/cooling, even something as minor as a gas cap--(however you may perceive that problem to be; minor/non-existent) is still an issue that attributes itself to the reliability of the product you are buying. The people on this board who have a 7 without any sort of issue at all are few and far between.

my 7 was FINE through 3k miles, where all hell broke lose. I will agree that they may have jumped the gun on labeling it the dreaded "UNRELIABLE" cuz that is bound to piss some supporters off, as it has in this thread. I think they would need more time/data to go that far.

I LOOOVED the Mazda, it was so fun to drive, its brakes are awesome, the ride quality is great for this type of vehicle, but regardless of all that & the outcome with my vehicle, i would tend to agree with consumer reports on this one, even if they jumped the gun. a trip to the dealer for service is still a service visit, and still an inconvienence to many.

 

[CXRabbit]

I take reliability reports pretty seriously, but hey, it's water under the bridge now - LOL - since I already own the car! Whether it's luck or whether it's that CR jumped the gun, I don't really care... I've had nothing but good experiences with the CX-7 and Mazda in general. Dealership has been great, car has been great. Of course, I had to deal with TSBs and the recall issue, but all has been minor and nothing that left me without a car -- and I believe in all cases, I was due for service anyway.

I understand that people get annoyed when they have to take their car in, but overall, I haven't found I needed to take my CX-7 in for service any more so than any other new car I've owned.