Mazda North American Operations (Mazda) is recalling certain 2018 Mazda3, Mazda6, 2019 CX-3, 2018-2019 MX-5, CX-5, CX-9, and 2019-2020 Mazda2 vehicles. The impeller inside the low-pressure fuel pump may crack and deform, potentially causing the fuel pump to fail.
Mazda North American Operations (Mazda) is recalling certain 2020-2021 CX-9 vehicles equipped with 60/40 split bench second-row seats. The left-side second-row seat may unexpectedly slide forward during a crash. As such, these vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard number 210, "Seat Belt Assembly Anchorages."
Mazda North American Operations (Mazda) is recalling certain 2007-2012 CX-7, CX-9, and 2009-2012 Maza6 vehicles. These vehicles had their passenger frontal air bag inflators previously replaced under a prior recall using inflators of the same design. The inflators may explode due to propellant degradation occurring after long-term exposure to high absolute humidity, temperature and temperature cycling.
Mazda North American Operations (Mazda) is recalling certain 2019 CX-9 vehicles equipped with Sumitomo Falken ZIEX CT50 A/S tires, size P255/50R20 104V, having date code 1619. An incorrect rubber compound may have been used in the tire's manufacturing, allowing the tread to separate and detach.
Mazda North American Operations (Mazda) is recalling certain 2018 CX-9 vehicles. The wiring harness may disrupt electrical communications and disable the passenger frontal air bag, turn signals, and/or engine starting system.
The vehicle was parked stationary in the driveway with the engine running for 3-5 minutes with the A/C on. The vehicle then accelerated forward into my garage causing damage. Once I entered the vehicle, both the dash and shifter displayed park. Current TCU system internal failures have been reported from the pulling of data from Mazda.
1) What component or system failed or malfunctioned: On 6/12/2026 While drive on the highway with our daughter in the car and we experienced a high speed stall. The engine failed and we lost power. We barely got the car of the highway and coasted into a parking lot. 2) Life threating for Father, Mother and daughter and other drivers on the highway. 3) The Mazda dealer stated they were unable to reproduced problem. The diagnostic report showed few random misfired on two cylinders 2 & 3. Autozone detected codes P0300 with Secondary DTCs U0442-00 4) There car was only inspected by the dealer. The vehicle has not been inspected by Mazda the manufacturer. We requested Mazda to escalate this to the District Service Manger and to open hotline call with Mazda corporate but both of these were denied. All our service has been performed at Mazda dealer, including oil changes. We have always received a video of them working on our car with a detailed summary of what done. We did not receive the video or diagnostic report for this issue. 5) There were no warning lamps, no messages or other symptoms of the problem prior to the failure.
No injuries · No fire · No crash
This complaint refers to Mazda and it's dealer refusal to properly execute the warranty work under the SSPD5 Valve Stem Seal Class Action Campaign and does not follow the Court's approval of the final Settlement Agreement. I assert that Mazda and it's dealer are not following the SSPD5 repair procedures. 1. I have documentation and complaints going back to Dec-2023 with this particular dealer that I have experienced low level oil consumption within the 7,500 mile oil change interval. The dealer did not detect oil leaks in any of the engine systems. 2. I presented the vehicle to the dealer with the Engine Oil Level Warning Light illuminated. The Diagnostic Trouble Code (DTC) P250FF:00 should be stored in the vehicle memory. 3. The vehicle had 50,501 miles and was within the original 60 month limited powertrain warranty. 4. The dealer refused to conduct the valve stem seal repairs until an oil consumption test was run. The dealer claims that because I had another service center (note that I use full synthettic oil that meets Mazda oil specifications) conduct the most recent oil change at 43,738 miles (note within the 7,500 oil change interval and the 1 year time window) that the dealer would require an oil consumption test. I assert that this is not required per the class settlement agreement and the SSPD5 repair procedures that Mazda sends to all of its dealers. 5. I researched the available documentation that it's available through the NHTSA.gov. The language in these documents is very clear. 6. SSPD5 Valve Stem Class Action Campaign, Repair Procedure 6-12-2024: a. "The DTC250 is not required to be present for valve stem replacement." b. "Customer complaint of oil consumption...OR Low Oil Light OR DTC250 follow the flow chart." c. Flow chart says "Replace the exhaust valve stem seals by following TSB 01-003/24" if no previous warranty work done. 7. SSPD5 updates on 8-6-25 and 4-28-26: a. Refer to page 4, DTC250 is NOT required to be presented (it is noted in RED).
No injuries · No fire · No crash
Check engine light comes on and error P0303 comes on. Had an independent mechanic do the following and after each one, error P0303 still came on 1. Swap the ignition coils from 2 to 3 2. Swap spark plugs from 2 to 3 3. Swapped injectors 4. Compression test 5. Leak down test 6. Changed the spark plug, coil and injectors 7. Looked for vacuum leaks. Mechanic believes that it is related to the cracked cylinder head in the recall, MC-10232269-0001.pdf. My vehicle is just outside of the recall range and has 87k miles on it. Other research online shows other people with the same vehicle and similar milealge are also having this problem.
No injuries · No fire · No crash
I am reporting a critical mechanical restraint failure regarding the 5-point harness crotch buckles on the Graco TrioGrow and the Graco TriRide car seats. The red button-release tension on both of these models is engineered with insufficient physical resistance. My toddler is capable of physically depressing the lower crotch buckle and completely freeing themselves while the vehicle is traveling at highway speeds. The harness was explicitly verified as tight via the pinch test and the chest clip was at armpit level, proving the failure is strictly the low force required to disengage the buckle.I contacted the manufacturer (Graco), and their customer support agents dismissed this hardware failure by suggesting 'behavior modification' instead of addressing the mechanical vulnerability. A child restraint system must physically restrain the occupant regardless of behavioral variance. This is an active, ongoing safety hazard for young children traveling in these specific models.
No injuries · No fire · No crash