2009 Honda CR-V vs 2009 Mazda Mazda6
Reliability comparison based on NHTSA recall and complaint records.
2009 Honda CR-V
2009 Mazda Mazda6
Stories from the shop
These come from different vehicle segments, which means we're not declaring a winner here. The 2009 Honda CR-V scores 3.6; the 2009 Mazda Mazda6 scores 3.3. Different testing populations, different driving patterns, different categories of failure. Use the data below to understand what each one is good at and what each one breaks.
If you lean 2009 Honda CR-V, know what you're getting into on airbags and electrical. Those categories have noticeably more complaints than the 2009 Mazda Mazda6 sees, and they're not cheap items when they go.
Going with the 2009 Mazda Mazda6? Watch the body and suspension. The 2009 Honda CR-V has fewer reports in those categories, so you'd be trading one set of weak spots for another.
Bottom line: these are different categories of vehicle. Pick based on what you actually need it for. We're showing the reliability data so you can factor in long-term ownership cost, not pick a winner.
Side-by-side by problem area
Common questions
Which is more reliable, the 2009 Honda CR-V or the 2009 Mazda Mazda6?
Based on the NHTSA data we track, the 2009 Honda CR-V comes out ahead with a reliability score of 3.6 versus 3.3. The margin is narrow, so the verdict could shift if you weight specific categories differently or factor in your own use case.
What goes wrong more often on the 2009 Honda CR-V?
Compared to the 2009 Mazda Mazda6, the 2009 Honda CR-V sees more reported issues in airbags and electrical. That doesn't mean it's a bad truck — it means those are the categories worth budgeting for if you go that direction.
What goes wrong more often on the 2009 Mazda Mazda6?
Compared to the 2009 Honda CR-V, the 2009 Mazda Mazda6 has more complaints in body and suspension. Whether that's a deal-breaker depends on the cost and severity — see the comparison table above for repair cost ranges.
Which has more recalls?
The 2009 Mazda Mazda6 has more active recalls (1 vs 0). Total count is less important than severity, though — a vehicle with one critical recall and zero moderate ones is generally riskier than one with five moderate recalls.
Is an extended warranty worth it on either of these?
Both vehicles are out of factory bumper-to-bumper coverage at this point. Combined repair exposure across the top problem categories runs around $13,450 on the higher-risk vehicle. A quality service contract typically costs $1,800–3,500 over 3 years, so a single major failure usually pays for the contract. The math favors warranty coverage on whichever vehicle you choose, especially if you plan to keep it past 100,000 miles.