Toyota Highlander vs Mazda CX-9 - Edmunds A-Rated Crossover SUVs Face Off Video | Member, Administrator, Moderator Posts: 10,315
edited September 2014 in Toyota
imageToyota Highlander vs Mazda CX-9 - Edmunds A-Rated Crossover SUVs Face Off Video |

Two SUVs and two editors Face Off: the Toyota Highlander vs the Mazda CX-9. Editors James Riswick and Mike Monticello debate the merits of each sedan, including their performance, comfort, interior, value and how much (or little) they're fun to drive. Which crossover SUV would you buy: the Toyota Highlander or Mazda CX-9?

Read the full story here


  • dokterv8dokterv8 Member Posts: 8

    The cx9 is a 'throw-away' car. We had to get rid of our mazda cx9 awd because the transfer case broke twice before 55,000. It's a common problem with an official TSB and even a letter sent out, but the manufacturer's solution is - "when it does it again we'll just replace it again - unless it's no longer under warranty". No thanks we said and traded for another brand. No, I'm not being a troll, I really think people should know to avoid this car unless you can get a front wheel drive version. We loved the car otherwise. It does handle well for its size. LIttle nuisances - if you're over 6 ft tall you will probably bump your head on the A-pillar when getting in (it's low), and the gas mileage and range is pretty bad. Otherwise we will miss the car.

  • ocramidajzjocramidajzj Member Posts: 91
    edited September 2014

    I think you're overgeneralizing a bit. We've have owned a CX-9 for close to 5 years now and have about 60K on it. We did experience the transfer case issue which is due to a manufacturing defect with the Ford supplier that Mazda used when they were still part of Ford. Our case was replaced twice one was during failure and the other was after the tech noticed a leak and replaced it out of good faith- they did not confirm if the case was indeed bad. Agreed that this is a reliability issue but that does not make this a throw-away car. Mazda actually extended the power train warranty to 120K (from 60K) for all CX-9's. This sort of coverage does not say to me "you're out of luck". With the exception of that issue our 2010 has been dead nuts reliable and a solid all-around family car. In fact everytime I think about making a change I remind myself that there are few SUV's that are so engaging to drive. And honestly the transfer case issue never left us stranded because I was well aware of the signs of failure and perform the recommended service. A little bit of education goes a long way and those who believe that other brands are without issue really need to get a reality check.

    There is a reason why this almost 8 year old design still sells well and is relatively competitive. Good engineering and packaging. Problems will always arise no matter the manufacturer. IMO

  • lions208487lions208487 Member Posts: 240

    For fun to drive factor the CX-9 is the choice; however, even in Toyota's worst decade in regards to recalls and reliability concerns the Highlander is still a solid built product that lasts. Yes the Toyota is a bit boring, but with this segment no one is looking for a race car. I would pick the Highlander hands down. One of our consultants just had his 2011 Mazda in because of the transfer case.

  • ocramidajzjocramidajzj Member Posts: 91

    You're assuming that Toyota won't have some bad issues, like rusting frames and faulty V6 engines. Pound for Pound the CX-9 is as reliable as the Toyota. The transfer case issue is a more recent problem. Arguably no different than some of Toyota's more chronic quality issues. Ahh, the Toyota image of reliability is quite formidable despite the fact that everyone else has pretty much caught up. They certainly know how to sustain an image that is stuck in the 80's (a time where admittedly they were the benchmark). :-)

  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454

    The CX-9 has had quite a few issues going by the forum posts, especially compared to the CX-5.

  • dokterv8dokterv8 Member Posts: 8

    First of all, they extended it to 7 years or 90K miles. But either way, they didn't offer any fix, just a replacement with the same defective part. When something is defective, the right thing to do is change it to correct the defect so that future incidents don't continue to happen. Instead, Mazda is betting on people just trading them in and letting the used car dealers and the poor saps who have to buy second hand cars deal with the issue. That's not right. I did like the car otherwise, but when I inquired about the 2015 they could not confirm that they corrected the problem even on the 2014 and up models. If I had any idea this were the case, I would not have bought a Mazda because I usually put 100k or more on my cars before selling/trading.

Sign In or Register to comment.