The unreliable Mazda ?

[ColoradoDriver]

Maybe they'll make it better, who know. When I test drove the RAV4 in 2013, it was their then redesign and it sucked ass. Rode like a floating boat, was boring to drive, and looked terrible inside and out.

And around here the RAV4 just has a reputation as soccer mom mobile.

Getting excited over a RAV4 does not compute.

 

[dougal]

I learned how to drive in an Alfa Romeo Spider. My mom drove that thing for decades and it never left her stranded. They're not ALL lemons.

I guess that would be a lime? Fiats and Afla's made British cars look reliable! (hah)

 

[xtrailman]

I guess that would be a lime? Fiats and Afla's made British cars look reliable! (hah)

Most unreliable car I've owned was a Mini Metro, a "British" fitted with lots of European parts, French glass, German callipers, it was the next to last car that broke down and needed a call out. Got rid at 2.5 years at a time when I had lots of debt and really didn't want too, it was that bad..... Even rust was showing on the top of the wings.

Last one to breakdown was my 2013 Mazda, battery with both cars.

 

[Unobtanium]

They start at 41k. For that you still get well over 300hp in an SUV made by Ferrari. No it's not inexpensive and reliable, but it's a target to shoot for, and a damn nice one. You can bet every other manufacturer is paying attention to that car.
I learned how to drive in an Alfa Romeo Spider. My mom drove that thing for decades and it never left her stranded. They're not ALL lemons.

Why? The GLC43AMG is a much more sensible target. The Macan S is the archetype they all tried to aim for.

 

[Lbear]

They start at 41k. For that you still get well over 300hp in an SUV made by Ferrari. No it's not inexpensive and reliable, but it's a target to shoot for, and a damn nice one. You can bet every other manufacturer is paying attention to that car.
I learned how to drive in an Alfa Romeo Spider. My mom drove that thing for decades and it never left her stranded. They're not ALL lemons.

It's made by FIAT, not Ferrari. Different engineering, different assembly line, different parts.

The 500hp version starts at $85,000 and it's not on the same playing field as the 300hp version which is basically $45,000. Different engines, suspension, interior, brakes, transmission, etc.

That would be like saying a standard Corvette ($50,000) is like a Corvette ZR1 ($140,000).

 

[CX-5um]

It's made by FIAT, not Ferrari. Different engineering, different assembly line, different parts.

The 500hp version starts at $85,000 and it's not on the same playing field as the 300hp version which is basically $45,000. Different engines, suspension, interior, brakes, transmission, etc.

That would be like saying a standard Corvette ($50,000) is like a Corvette ZR1 ($140,000).

Anything "Ferrari" is hand built by people over the course of weeks.

 

[concept]

So I guess I should not share my experience with Toyota. When people ask me what car to buy. I say buy what you want. Not what other people want you to buy. You will not be happy driving someone else's favorite car.

Many years ago, my wife's Honda Accord needed a new auto transmission at 60,000 miles. Did I tell other people? Of course, but I also told them that odds are that if they buy one, it will be a very reliable car and NOT like our "outlier" Honda.

Now if someone were to tell me he or she was thinking about buying a Mini or Fiat 500, the last thing I would say is "Cool - buy what you want." Rather, I would try my best to warn that person about the very common unreliability issues for which these cars are famous.
Always quantify/qualify your opinion, if possible. If your one or two experiences are all you've had, then say so. However, if tens of thousands of the same model and generation vehicle have been opposite of what you've experienced, don't expect your opinion to carry much weight when given to a rational person.

 

[Unobtanium]

Anything "Ferrari" is hand built by people over the course of weeks.

I'd like to add that the zr1 and base vette go down the assy. line one behind the other. The engines come from a different situation but that's it. Btdt, got the factory tour when I bought my z06.

 

[Natey]

lol quote fest.

The video I posted mentioned that Ferrari had a hand in building the Stelvio Q. Sorry if anyone got their panties in a bunch.

 

[Puyapim]

lol quote fest.

The video I posted mentioned that Ferrari had a hand in building the Stelvio Q. Sorry if anyone got their panties in a bunch.

I’m sure Ferrari didn’t design that nose beak front. It looks like a Pontiac Vibe.

 

[DEman19901]

Many years ago, my wife's Honda Accord needed a new auto transmission at 60,000 miles. Did I tell other people? Of course, but I also told them that odds are that if they buy one, it will be a very reliable car and NOT like our "outlier" Honda.

Now if someone were to tell me he or she was thinking about buying a Mini or Fiat 500, the last thing I would say is "Cool - buy what you want." Rather, I would try my best to warn that person about the very common unreliability issues for which these cars are famous.
Always quantify/qualify your opinion, if possible. If your one or two experiences are all you've had, then say so. However, if tens of thousands of the same model and generation vehicle have been opposite of what you've experienced, don't expect your opinion to carry much weight when given to a rational person.

Speaking of Honda's transmissions. This is my first Mazda coming of of 5 straight Honda/Acura products. With that being said, my last two a 2010 TL(5-speed auto) and 2015 TLX(9-speed auto) gave me very little confidence in their transmissions. I didn't keep either of them to the 60K mark, but I am not sure if either would make it past that. Both had this shudder that would occur when keeping a constant speed(cruise control. in the 40-50MPH mark.Enough to be felt throughout the entire car. Still a lot of complaints in the forums about the TLX 9 speed.

 

[barryso]

Speaking of Honda's transmissions. This is my first Mazda coming of of 5 straight Honda/Acura products. With that being said, my last two a 2010 TL(5-speed auto) and 2015 TLX(9-speed auto) gave me very little confidence in their transmissions. I didn't keep either of them to the 60K mark, but I am not sure if either would make it past that. Both had this shudder that would occur when keeping a constant speed(cruise control. in the 40-50MPH mark.Enough to be felt throughout the entire car. Still a lot of complaints in the forums about the TLX 9 speed.

Our 4 cyl. Accord lost it's transmission at 63k. I've never had a car lose something as important as an engine or transmission before 120k before the Accord. I'd say it was a fluke except there's a whole Honda forum full of folks who've had the same problem.

We've had Hondas and Mazdas over the years. It's pretty even on how they have held up over time and some have been better than others from both brands. Buy what makes you happy.

Back to Mazda, the reason we'll likely get a CX 5 isn't about the features or the space. If we really needed to haul stuff all the time the CRV holds more stuff and there are other vehicles that may win on features.

The CX 5 simply drives better. It goes over the road in a refined manner and it steers as if it's a car. It's pleasant and I enjoy being in it. Some of the other CUV's weren't near as nice to drive or to ride in and a few of them I found unpleasant. They might have more features or haul more stuff but they aren't the vehicle that's going to make me happy over the long term.

Again, buy what makes you happy.

 

[Carfo]

Our 4 cyl. Accord lost it's transmission at 63k. I've never had a car lose something as important as an engine or transmission before 120k before the Accord. I'd say it was a fluke except there's a whole Honda forum full of folks who've had the same problem.

We've had Hondas and Mazdas over the years. It's pretty even on how they have held up over time and some have been better than others from both brands. Buy what makes you happy.

Back to Mazda, the reason we'll likely get a CX 5 isn't about the features or the space. If we really needed to haul stuff all the time the CRV holds more stuff and there are other vehicles that may win on features.

The CX 5 simply drives better. It goes over the road in a refined manner and it steers as if it's a car. It's pleasant and I enjoy being in it. Some of the other CUV's weren't near as nice to drive or to ride in and a few of them I found unpleasant. They might have more features or haul more stuff but they aren't the vehicle that's going to make me happy over the long term.

Again, buy what makes you happy.

exactly the reason I bought the cx5, because of the way it drove. To me, it was the most important aspect of the vehicle I wanted to drive. The fact that it has great handling in a CUV with ample room is the best of both worlds that other CUVs can't nail down. If my job required me to haul a bunch of stuff around then the CRV might be a better option, but since my wife drives a highlander if I really needed the space because things won't fit in my car then I would just use hers. In a way though because of the 40/20/40 split seats, you could make the argument the cx5 has an edge of practicality if you needed to haul things like poles or skiis or something similar. Every time I get in my CX5 I feel so good and no other car has really done that to me before except my old c class mercedes (RIP). Still haven't run into a situation where I needed to use her car because things wouldn't fit in mine tho

 

[DEman19901]

Our 4 cyl. Accord lost it's transmission at 63k. I've never had a car lose something as important as an engine or transmission before 120k before the Accord. I'd say it was a fluke except there's a whole Honda forum full of folks who've had the same problem.

We've had Hondas and Mazdas over the years. It's pretty even on how they have held up over time and some have been better than others from both brands. Buy what makes you happy.

Back to Mazda, the reason we'll likely get a CX 5 isn't about the features or the space. If we really needed to haul stuff all the time the CRV holds more stuff and there are other vehicles that may win on features.

The CX 5 simply drives better. It goes over the road in a refined manner and it steers as if it's a car. It's pleasant and I enjoy being in it. Some of the other CUV's weren't near as nice to drive or to ride in and a few of them I found unpleasant. They might have more features or haul more stuff but they aren't the vehicle that's going to make me happy over the long term.

Again, buy what makes you happy.

I agree with everything you said about the CX 5. You also said, "buy what makes you happy" Happy can mean a lot of things to different people. I bring this up because minus pickups, the Nissan Rogue is the number one selling vehicle in America despite not so favorable reviews. It has to be one of the worst vehicles in it's segment. Rogues are being heavily discounted. So I guess to some, happy can be saving a lot of money at the expense of an average driving vehicle.

 

[boandlkramer]

Reliability for each brand and model is not consistent year by year most of time. We can't say a very reliable 2000 Mazda6 indicates a very reliable 2016 CX-5. I'm concerned the dropping reliability ranking on Mazda from Consumer Reports. Unforyunatrly Mazda’s reliability keeps dropping to #12 now dropped 6 spots from 2016! The brand reliability now is behind Honda、Hyundai、Nissan, the only one worse than Mazda among all Asian brands is Acura! In 2015 when we purchased our 2016 CX-5, the reliability ranking for Mazda from CR was #4!

Dang! 7 of the bottom 10 are US. (boom06)

Back to the topic, this is my 3d CX-5. I've only gotten rid of them for reasons other than mechanical defect/factory error.

 

[yrwei52]

Dang! 7 of the bottom 10 are US. (boom06)

Back to the topic, this is my 3d CX-5. I've only gotten rid of them for reasons other than mechanical defect/factory error.

Consumer Reports have also down-graded the "used car" reliability rating from “Much Better than Average” for 2016 CX-5 to “Average” overall for 2017 CX-5, dropping big 2 notches. Coincidentally a friend of mine who bought 2 new Mazda's in 6 years and in the process of getting a new car has decided not to get another Mazda as his 2016 Mazda CX-5 suffered failed LED DRLs which would cost him at least $900 for 2 with MNAO's $1,500 assistance. This's definitely a wide-spread factory defect and is costly for people without a new car warranty. Just yesterday another member said he traded in his 2016 CX-5 just because it has a failed LED DRL and got a new 2018 CX-5.

The led headlights, especially the running lights, are a fail point. One replaced under warrantee. Second went out so I traded it it. $1600 to replace.

Tom

 

[Kaps]

I agree with everything you said about the CX 5. You also said, "buy what makes you happy" Happy can mean a lot of things to different people. I bring this up because minus pickups, the Nissan Rogue is the number one selling vehicle in America despite not so favorable reviews. It has to be one of the worst vehicles in it's segment. Rogues are being heavily discounted. So I guess to some, happy can be saving a lot of money at the expense of an average driving vehicle.

Rogue sales delve into American Society as a whole. The need for people to buy new latest toys which in reality are beyond their means. I mean if you were offered a mid spec Altima for $15,900 / - brand new you would also think that oh for the price of a used Camry with 20K miles and 18 months on the road - I can get a new Altima.
At one point mid spec Sentra were 14K here in Dallas without even negotiating.

In the end it all works out - any Nissan / Kia / Hyundai bought at 18% or more discount off MSRP will have close depreciation to a Toyota / Mazda. Its just going to ride bad for the 4-5 years you own. Key is to sell it as soon as warranty ends.
I dabble with the used car market - Cannot believe how much VWs depreciate. 55K mile 14 Passat Certified is $9996 - thats the base trim 2014 but still - 45000 mile and 2 years warranty left.
My recent experience with VW has opened me to a new way of thinking - sure there is warranty on the table - but its your time and your effort and your haggling that will get things fixed which is still an expense. A friends $40K 3 row Atlas has had electric gremlins - warnings beep at night with no cars nearby and he has had to bring it in twice in 4 months of ownership for serious safety issues.

 

[yrwei52]

⋯ In the end it all works out - any Nissan / Kia / Hyundai bought at 18% or more discount off MSRP will have close depreciation to a Toyota / Mazda. Its just going to ride bad for the 4-5 years you own. Key is to sell it as soon as warranty ends.

If you keep a new vehicle for as long as the new-car warranty, yes you should consider the resell value and higher price you paid for a new Toyota may not that significant with high trade-in value. But if you keep a new vehicle for as long as you can, high resell value means not much.

Even though you believe Nissan / Kia / Hyundai's reliability is much worse than our Mazda, but Consumer Reports has said otherwise. Nissan brand reliability rating for 2018 is #11, moving up 2 notches, but Mazda is #12, moving down 6 notches. Kia is #3 and Hyundai is #10. The "trend" of moving down from #4 few years ago on Mazda is my main concern!

 

[cburrell]

How did this thread become a Toyota love fest? First off I take what CR says with a grain of salt because they have been notoriously biased and skewed toward Toyota and Honda for years because they know who butters their bread...they get a lot of endorsement and ad money from Honda and Toyota. Secondly, every brand has models that are more reliable than others. My sister owned a 98 Camry that had almost 300K before it started to have major problems and finally died, but I owned a 99 Avalon whose motor died at 150K because it got sludge in the engine ( a common problem with Toyota's V6 of the late 90's ). I deal with the real world, not stats and perceived numbers from magazines or opinions based on ownership of one Mazda...and in the real world I've owned 4 Mazda's that have been the epitome of reliable, 2 were recent Skyactiv models that were leases with 45K each on them when I turned them in, one is my current first gen CX-5 which has 53K on it, and a Mazda 5 that I put 200K on before I decided to buy my current CX-5, and all them only required standard routine maintenance...so all of you slobbering Toyota homers can try to convince me that Mazda's are not as reliable as Toyota's but it is pointless because my experience with Mazda's reliability has been very good.

 

[Unobtanium]

How did this thread become a Toyota love fest? First off I take what CR says with a grain of salt because they have been notoriously biased and skewed toward Toyota and Honda for years because they know who butters their bread...they get a lot of endorsement and ad money from Honda and Toyota. Secondly, every brand has models that are more reliable than others. My sister owned a 98 Camry that had almost 300K before it started to have major problems and finally died, but I owned a 99 Avalon whose motor died at 150K because it got sludge in the engine ( a common problem with Toyota's V6 of the late 90's ). I deal with the real world, not stats and perceived numbers from magazines or opinions based on ownership of one Mazda...and in the real world I've owned 4 Mazda's that have been the epitome of reliable, 2 were recent Skyactiv models that were leases with 45K each on them when I turned them in, one is my current first gen CX-5 which has 53K on it, and a Mazda 5 that I put 200K on before I decided to buy my current CX-5, and all them only required standard routine maintenance...so all of you slobbering Toyota homers can try to convince me that Mazda's are not as reliable as Toyota's but it is pointless because my experience with Mazda's reliability has been very good.

Lol@200k miles.
3-400k miles is where the real differences show up.