I’ve spent countless hours rolling down serpentine highways through the deserts and mountains of the West’s big sky country. Hundreds of times my knuckles have whitened, pupils dilated and pulse quickened as I got up my gumption to pass a velocity-challenged vehicle. In my younger years, this TED (Time Exposed to Danger) was delivered courtesy of a wheezing four-banger struggling to crank out double-digit horse power. This week I put Mazda’s modern incarnation of the family hauler, the CX-9 Grand Touring AWD, to the test. Yup, it’s déjà vu all over again.
“If the bland, cookie-cutter styling of other Crossover SUVs doesn’t suit your taste, feast your eyes on the Mazda CX-9 Grand Touring.” Contrary to Mazda’s marketing misegos, there’s a new cookie-cutter shape in town. Viewed in profile, only a learned pistonhead could distinguish the CX-9 from the host of other “sporty” CUVs; what with their pointy proboscises, apostrophe-shaped headlight clusters, steeply raked windshields, blackened B and C-pillars, oversized bling-bling wheels and fastback-styled sloping rear hatch. If the CX-9 didn’t have a dinner plate-sized boot badge, you'd easily mistake it for any number of transplanted cute-utes.
Of course, it IS a lot edgier than the Ford Edge, its sister-under-the-skin. And there’s a reason all CUVs look alike; the buyer has spoken.
Once ensconced, the CX-9 coddles today's blended families with three rows of comfortable, supportive seating. Second row legroom eclipses the Enclave’s, and the CX-9’s third row is both accessible and roomy enough for junior team members. As for larger folks, the rearmost leg and head room is, in MythBusters parlance, plausible. As a two-plus-three seater carting recidivist members of LPA (Light Packers Anonymous), skid-addling with 3500 lbs. of Ski-Doology, the CX-9’s a peach.
Aside from the too-far-forward door-mounted window switches, the CX-9’s controls are an ergonomic Zen garden. Normally, we’re amused– and not in a good way– by cowled gauges in anything other than an old Alfa or new Miata. But the CX-9’s designers carefully blended sports car cues with oversized, Volvo-esque minimalism, creating a handsome, tasteful atmos. Details have been sweated, from sensible buttonology to indirect blue lighting.
Mazda’s mavens left no stone unturned in the family pleasing techno-bauble department. But you gotta pay to play. The CX-9’s obligatory iPod-ready rear seat DVD system– complete with 11-speaker surround sound, videogame hook-ups and wireless headphones– will set you back $2560. And that’s not all. You’ve got to cough up another $2500 for the nav system and power hatch. Ouch.
For 2008, the CX-9 gets a 3.7-liter engine. The all-new six-cylinder mill puts out 273hp and stumps-up 270 ft.-lbs. of torque. In front wheel-drive configuration, Mazda’s full-sized CUV now jogs from zero to sixty in an entirely acceptable eight-ish seconds. While the sound blatting-out the CX-9’s twin pipes under hard acceleration is nowhere near as addictive as the Infiniti FX' moaning motor, the Mazda's mechanical mellifluousness is appropriately zoomy.
Yes, well, our tester's all wheel-drive system added heft (up to 4633 lbs.) and subtracted speed. I’d be surprised if a Colorado-compliant CX-9 made it from rest to sixty in less than ten seconds. Torque, schmorque; two-lane passing maneuvers still elicit sufficient butt puckering to press coal into diamonds. The CX-9’s intelligent six-speed transmission doesn’t help matters; it’s either a very slow learner or fundamentally dim-witted. But the steering does; it’s perfectly weighted and centers nicely.
According to the Mazda website, “the CX-9 delivers a driving experience like no other SUV.” Anyone who’s attempted to fling one of these lumbering behemoths down a country road knows the copywriters set the handling bar limbo low. Relatively speaking, the CX-9 is competent corner carver; the big rig stays flat. Lean and pitch motions are well controlled. But gravity (inertia?) sucks. A two-and-a-quarter ton trucklette that’s 16’8” long, 5’8” tall and 6’4” wide ain’t gonna rewrite the rules of physics (just ask Porsche).
On the positive side, ignore the advertising come-on, cool your jets and all’s well that ends well. The CX-9’s dynamics strike a satisfying compromise between perky and plush, delivering a well-refined driving experience. And accelerative challenged kiddie schleppers can cool their jets safe in the knowledge that Mazda’s deployed their safety knowledge throughout, including a full complement of Nannies, airbags aplenty and the government’s highest side and frontal impact ratings.
Although SUV refugees can get into a CX-9 for around $30k, the mpg “savings” involved are marginal (FWD EPA 16/22). And it’s easy enough to option-up to 40 large. For a Mazda? Considering the fact that sliding behind the wheel of a minivan emasculates the domesticated North American Homo sapiens male faster than a ranch hand de-testicularizing a calf, the CX-9 has got to be the pistonhead’s sprog hauler alternative of choice. As long as you’re willing to wait your turn on the turnpike, you’re good to go.
It looks like every other Murano-Caravan descendent of a AMC Pacer. Mazda could fill it to the luggage rack with options yet it can’t put any style to its exterior. Just another pod in the vast parking lot of clones.
Safety is a good thing, but the weight of all these large unibody SUVs is stunningly high. It’s almost like they are packing the rocker panels with lead (a la Nascar).
On one hand, it might be cool to have a job reviewing cars. On the other hand, it might be a Mazda CX9. I’ve seen them, i think, or maybe not, i dunno. I like Mazda, sometimes. Yawn. Now im sleepy.
Good review, as usual. “Torque, schmorque; two-lane passing maneuvers still elicit sufficient butt puckering to press coal into diamonds”.
“pistonhead’s sprog hauler”
HAHAHA excellent!
Great review. I still think this thing is ugly as all get-out…at least the Edge has some uniqueness with its slabby angularity. I think this particular CUV design school is going to go the way of the ’90s “Dustbuster Minivans” pretty quickly.
My only gripe on paper–keeping the target market in mind here–is that I fear a Honda Odyssey or Nissan Quest could outclass this thing in every area (I’ve driven those, but not the CX-9). If that’s indeed the case, then Mazda is not really offering anything over an SUV…it’s still just an image thing for people in minivan/wagon denial. As long as “style” remains the #1 factor in people’s car-buying decisions (as much as they may hate to admit it), then I can’t fault Mazda’s marketing and R&D one bit.
Nice review, I always wondered how well the crossovers held up Mazda’s well-deserved Zoom-Zoom street cred. But, man, $40k for a Mazda? Just get a couple of optioned-up 3s and caravan!
p.s. why we gotta end by bashing the venerated minivan? I love the minivan…
Thanks very much for the review. I have been looking forward to TTACs take on the CX-9. After all is said and done, you still gave it four stars.
I love the looks of this vehicle. At present I have a Taurus wagon and there are no other large wagon replacements out there. As such, the CX-9 makes a damn fine replacement and it’s way nicer than the Edge. Am I the only one that hates the new Gillette Mach 3 grills? No, I’m not in “wagon denial” I would love to get another one, there just aren’t any.
As a two-plus-three seater carting recidivist members of LPA (Light Packers Anonymous), skid-addling with 3500 lbs. of Ski-Doology, the CX-9’s a peach.
Can someone please translate this into English?
92camrywagon :
The CX-9 is an appropriate vehicle for five passengers (two in the front and three in the middle row) who tried and failed to learn the art of packing light, and wish to tow 3500 lbs. worth of Ski-Doo-branded personal watercraft.
I must say that it seems like you are reviewing the CX-9 too far out of the context of the 3 row CUV segment. Regardless of marketing, even the most uneducated consumer knows this aint no sports car. Taken for what it is, the CX-9 is very stylish for the segment, performs admirably for the segment and even optioned up to $40K, still represents a solid value in this segment. Mazda has created something with great appeal in a pretty bland sea of Crossover Utes. I would agree with the poster above in that the manufacturers have pulled the wool over our eyes with the Crossover tag as these large crossovers are no less the urban tank than the midsized SUVs of only a few years ago they replace. Somehow the CUV tag makes them more acceptable. Anyway, thanks for the review.
Great review, Bill. Thanks for writing it.
I was looking at this and the GMC Acadia on the road the other day. They’re both attractive vehicles, but I realized what a good job carmakers have done figuring out a new way to sell minivans. And the buyers don’t even realize they’re buying a minivan.
Yes yes, definitions change lines blur and so on.
It’s still a brand betrayal.
ireallylovemangoes:
There are still several wagons on the market. Most of the German manufacturers have at least one and there’s also Volvo, Subaru, and the Dodge Magnum. They’re not quite a Country Squire, but they’ll do.
My wife drove an Acura MDX for a couple of years, then she traded it in for a Honda Odyssey. The 2 vehicles are pretty simliar to each other but the Odyssey is actually sportier than the MDX (and it’s Pilot cousin). Lower center of gravity and lack of 4-wheel drive machinery makes a huge difference in drivability and efficiency.
Now, I wouldn’t want to go off-roading with the Odyssey, but I doubt many people who are shopping for the CX-9 will do so.
Plus, the minivan has incredible space and interior flexibility. Just doesn’t have the “image” that many people seem to be looking for these days.
::sigh::
Theodore
I should have been more specific. I meant there are no more BIG wagons. Say what you want about the Taurus, but it was a big car and it was a very comfortable ride.
The German wagons are all too small. The Volvo doesn’t feel as big as the Taurus and the Magnum…I like that car and my wife did too until she got into one at the dealer. I’ll never forget the salesman’s face. She gets inside a Magnum and after about three seconds she says “the dashboard is covered in plastic, did you guys forget to finish it?”
She got out of the car and said “Thanks, don’t worry about us ever bothering you again.” and that was the end of our Chrysler shopping experience.
I would like to second CeeDragon’s comments.
I will admit that when we were purchasing our Odyssey, neither my wife nor I were thrilled with the task, as we really wanted an MDX, but two infants, all their stuff, a yellow Lab and long road trips didn’t seem MDX-compatible. (Thankfully you can option-out an Odyssey to be as plush as an MDX)
Two years later, the Odyssey is one of my favorite (owned) vehicles ever. The flexibility, comfort and suspension are amazing. The 3.5L is strong, and the efficiency is amazing too, if you stay disciplined between 65 and 70 mpg (25-27mpg)(75-80mph commuting returns only 21-22mpg.)
I think the CX-9 looks good for what it is, and I prefer its looks over the Edge. I have to believe that the steeply raked hood and windshield get better mpg in the real world than the boxier Edge. I can’t believe they put a 3.7L in it, though. I don’t have any complaints about my 3.5L’s ability to move my two-and-a-quarter-ton living room on wheels.
Great review WCM. Sounds like Mazda is really hitting on all cylinders right now. They have a very consistent lineup without a weak link, it seems.
Theodore :
October 29th, 2007 at 10:23 am
ireallylovemangoes:
There are still several wagons on the market. Most of the German manufacturers have at least one and there’s also Volvo, Subaru, and the Dodge Magnum. They’re not quite a Country Squire, but they’ll do.
A Ford Taurus wagon is a bit different from those that you mention. The one major difference is that the Tauras wagon a full tradional wagon that can seat 7 passangers. The only other seven passanger wagons that I know of is the MB. E350. I think the Volvo s70 might still have a rear facing 3rd row but considering the size of that car it is all but worthless.
The Sabaru can best be described as a hatchback. The Magnum is a mess with its sloping rear roof and limited cargo room. Audi Avantis and BMW Tourings have a wagon look about them but can’t carry much more than the sedan counterparts.
I am holding on to an older 1993 Camry Wagon because there is nothing on the market other than a CUV thingy that can match the cargo capacity and/or passanger capacity in as compact a package. The Subaru Legacy and Mazda6 Wagons are both nothing more than glorified hatchbacks. The new Tauras/Freestlye looks like it started to morph into a minivan but stopped halfway through the process. As mentioned before the Magnum is a joke in addition to its hampered cargo space it looks like a cartoon car. That leaves us with only the way over-priced MB E350.
GEMorris,
I understand why you believe this is brand betrayal, but economics being what they are, “car” companies can’t afford to miss profit margins on these neanderthal CUV’s (as opposed to Ford and GM, which are now “truck” companies). The Cayenne saved Porsche’s bacon, and this vehicle will possibly add lots to the Mazda coffers allowing them more development opportunities for a better 6 wagon… I hope.
Wife and I drove the CX-9 and we both liked it, but agreed the price was more than we were comfortable with equipped to the gills. We picked up an ’07 XC90 for about 7 grand less than a similarly equipped CX-9 – it was a demo, but we got the extended warranty…. not bad.
I still wish BMW hadn’t priced the 530xi out of sight, so that even a 1 or 2 yr old one was still too expensive. That’s what we really wanted.
Oil hits $93/barrel…
Would you like some more bloat with that?
jkross22, how many miles were on that demo XC90? I had to read your line twice, noting that an XC90 came in at $7k LESS than a Mazda…
Similar to several of the posters, I’ve read overall-positive reviews of the CX-9 on both TTAC and Edmunds now, but personally, I can’t get over the $40k hump, be it a Mazda CX-9 or a Honda Odyssey or … (insert non-luxury-marque here).
(On a side note, I’m a Honda fan and giving the Odyssey serious consideration when I eventually have kids… but there’s no way I’d drop $40k, would shop the 2-3yr. old used market well in advance of doing that…)
It looks like the evolution continues. SUV’s aren’t dead/dying, they just are changing their underwear and coats. I noticed this while driving to work today in my trusty WRX that my normal “view” showing convoys of sluggish junk while waiting for red lights is changing.
The normal endless rows of 4×4 trucks with a box welded on the back being piloted by soccer moms is no longer so straighforward. Now interspersed in the truck-derived cubism are more and more AWD-cars with jellybeans welded on top, lifted about three inches, and again poorly piloted by soccer moms in my way.
This CX-9 thing is one of them. The ill-thought out and brand-hurting B9 Flying Genitalia is another. I can barely tell that jellybean apart from this one. When is someone going to bite the bullet and come out with the “Eggpod” and call the duck a duck?
@MgoBlue: I think Mazda does have a couple of weak links, namely the Ford-sourced Tribute and B2000. Luckily, no one ever remembers that they make either of those, so essentially you’re right.
Theodore
I should have been more specific. I meant there are no more BIG wagons. Say what you want about the Taurus, but it was a big car and it was a very comfortable ride.
I know I’m going to get flamed here, but I don’t understand the large wagon angst of the last few posts, and I really don’t understand the CUV market.
For $10k or less (1/4 the Mazda, at least 1/2 any other newer wagon) you can get a mid to late 60’s American wagon with 9 seats.
You get 8 or 9 seats, at that price point the engine/tranny/suspension have already been rebuilt, you save enough money over the Mazda to buy gas for a decade, the styling isn’t cookie cutter, and it’s pollution is both offset by not requiring the manufacture of another new vehicle and can be minimized by installing catalytic convertors.
Why are we debating the merits of a 4400 pound vehicle for $40,000 when you can spend $10,000 and get more functionality in a classic wagon?
Why does anybody spend $40k on a CUV when a new or slightly used Suburban/Tahoe costs $25k with similar options and more space/towing and only marginally lower fuel economy?
Oh… leather, nav, no stigma, and a warranty in the case of a 60’s Impala and…. no stigma? in the case of the Tahoe/Explorer.
Gotcha.
Oh… leather, nav, no stigma, and a warranty in the case of a 60’s Impala
And no safety, which is a very important factor in this segment.
Looks like a nice CUV. For those that need 7 seats with a third row that folds flat it looks like a nice option. Its odd that Mazda seems to get it but Ford doesnt when coming to vehicle design.
Mj0lnir, I’ve looked around, and old wagons in even halfways reasonable condition are pretty scarce. I did find a 67 Belvedere with a 383 that would have plenty of power. I could even live with installing a new interior and getting it painted. But a complete absence of safety devices made me think twice.
That being said, if you can find one, and you can at least install belts yourself, they aren’t a bad choice. And some of those old cars could loaf along with only two barrels open and get highway mileage no worse than the bloated jellybeans that infest today’s roads.
And some of those old cars could loaf along with only two barrels open and get highway mileage no worse than the bloated jellybeans that infest today’s roads.
And belch out about 100 times more pollutants (and I don’t mean CO2).
Oh well looks like a Lexus RX 350,Nissan Murano and an Infiniti.
I always watch Top Gear and they never really hail the Mazda design and they always say it’s ugly. They prefer the Subaru’s and Mitsubishi’s designs but more into horsepower.
I hope they start test driving the Cross Over in hard turns doing 65 miles per hour or it’s just British.
@gemorris
The CX-9 is probably more brand appropriate than the MPV minivan it replaced since crossovers are perceived as “sportier”.
Also Mazda is actually truck company since a lot of its reputation is based on the B series worldwide, plus vans and medium trucks.
If you want to talk brand betrayal, the Porsche Cayenne and the rumored Ferrari SUV are it.
I really *want* to like the styling on this Mazda (having enjoyed 3 Mazdas over the years), but the kick up near the D pillar and the little droop near the A pillar always throws me (I have similar feelings about the CX7).
I like straight lines on utility vehicles, damn it…is that so wrong?
Doesn’t it always seems that if Mazda competes in a segment, the driving dynamics are generally pretty good relative to the competition? I wonder if it will ever be branded, like “Lotus Tuned Suspension” used to be?
IMO you have always to consider the price level when comparing cars, including the latest fashion statement for families and soccer moms, the so called Crossovers. As an example. My company leased a new 2007 Chrysler Pacifica AWD – 4.0 liter engine – 5 seater – 6 speed auto – 255 hp – 252 lb.ft of torque – leather package – Final Price: $23,890.00. I drove it and it’s pretty nice for a Crossover, with a fair price in my opinion. Why they would pay more for a Mazda ?
Not so much zoom zoom as zzzz zzzz, just like the Mazda 5 – the motoring equivalent of a sleeping pill.
Another bloated junker that won’t get me out of the Aztek.
Every time I see one I ask myself, “Why would anyone think the Aztek is uglier than this creature?”
The floor’s too far off the ground; the roof too close to the floor, it weighs about 500lbs more than an AWD Aztek or 800 lbs more than my FWD model (which has never yet gotten stuck in snow, so what would I do with a heavy and complicated AWD system?).
The overall height is similar to an Aztek’s, but the Aztek’s gotta handle better as its center of gravity is much lower.
Like all CUVs, this Mazda proves a thesis that author John Keats set forth in 1958. In his book “The Insolent Chariots,” Keats stated that, “… whenever cross-breeding occurs among automobiles, the result is always a more expensive combination of the least desirable traits of the parents.”
The CX-9 is a cross between a minivan and an SUV, combining the minivan’s lack of off-roadability and its unsporting handling with the SUV’s appetite for fuel, cramped interior and limited cargo space, all at a higher price than either one. The fact that the CX-9 and its brethren are selling so well just proves that Keats and P.T. Barnum were both right. I’ll take a minivan over any crossover on the road including this one, thank you very much.
mj0lnir:
For $10k or less (1/4 the Mazda, at least 1/2 any other newer wagon) you can get a mid to late 60’s American wagon with 9 seats.
For that same ten grand, the careful shopper can get a used Dodge minivan with plenty of life left that will be much safer and easier on the environment than the vintage station wagon. It will also seat seven in comfort and get better gas mileage than the Mazda CX-9.
WELL, BEFORE YA’LL CROWN THIS MAZDA THE SECOND COMING, GIVE ME A DODGE DURANGO WITH THE MDS HEMI,IT WILL OUT TOW ,HAS MORE ROOM, GETS BETTER MPG YES I SAID BETTER. AND THOSE EXTRA 100 HORSE ARE THERE WHEN YA NEED ‘EM, THAT MAZDA CRAP IS A FORD EDGE EL WITH A WIENNIE 6 THAT WOULDN’T PULL A BOGGER OUT OF YOUR NOSE UNLESS YOU HAD IT HAMMERED, TACTED OUT IN LOW RANGE.
It’s unfortunate that the market essentially forced Mazda to give up on the competent, well-packaged MPV for the stylish, but inefficient, CX-9. The much smaller Mazda5 ‘minivan’ just doesn’t cut it.
I have no doubt that the CX-9 will sell much better than any legitimate revamping of the MPV Mazda might have come up with, but it’s still sad to think what might have been had Mazda decided to stick with the MPV.
Re: station wagon size
I didn’t realize the current wagons were so small, or that the last Taurus wagon was so big relative to those cars. I always thought of the Taurus wagon as mid-sized, not full-sized – but then, I grew up in a series of big wagons like the ’78 LTD Country Squire that was my first car (in the mid-90s.)
Mj0lnir, I’m not going to flame you or anything, but what you’re proposing is a somewhat juvenile look at the auto industry and demands of people today and probably the most ridiculous idea I’ve ever read
Let me go over your points real quick:
“at that price point the engine/tranny/suspension have already been rebuilt,”
Maybe. Maybe they haven’t been. When did “rebuilt” become a synonym for reliability anyway? I’ve seen rebuilt engines explode after a few thousand miles. It all depends on who’s been rebuilding them, and let’s face it – when you get a 50 year old car, you don’t exactly know how good of a job that someone did, and there’s nothing to assure you of quality of those repairs (you know, like a factory warranty.)
If your old wagon does break down, parts may be hard to come by (since it’s, you know, old) and you will be paying for them out of your own pocket. No one will provide you a loaner, either.
Combine that with a multitude of possible electrical and interior issues, such as rattles (since a $10K wagon can’t possibly be completely rebuilt with brand new parts) and you’ll see why a new car is far better
“and it’s pollution is both offset by not requiring the manufacture of another new vehicle”
Uh, no. You’ll be extending the life of that old car instead of driving a new one, and that will not only cancel out any emissions a new car would have made but will actually far surpass them, since old cars were much worse pollutants. So you’re not offsetting squat
“and can be minimized by installing catalytic convertors.”
Catalytic converters would also cripple the car’s power in a major way, so I doubt anyone would do that voluntarily. It wouldn’t help all that much with emissions, either – you’d go from “bad” to “slightly less bad”
“Why are we debating the merits of a 4400 pound vehicle for $40,000 when you can spend $10,000 and get more functionality in a classic wagon?”
Such as AWD? I don’t think you can, actually. Nice seats? Nice sound? DVD for kids? Unlikely, unless you enroll your wagon in a Pimp My Ride MTV special and end up looking like a douchebag every time you get behind the wheel
There’s much more to it than that, actually. Safety is very important. Most people don’t want their kids to splatter all over the interior of their 60’s wagon in an accident because said wagon doesn’t have airbags or crumple zones. It’s a pretty good deterrent for parents.
Old wagons also have pretty terrible road characteristics – they aren’t fast and they handle like a Titanic.
# ireallylovemangoes:
October 29th, 2007 at 9:21 am
I love the looks of this vehicle. At present I have a Taurus wagon and there are no other large wagon replacements out there. As such, the CX-9 makes a damn fine replacement and it’s way nicer than the Edge. Am I the only one that hates the new Gillette Mach 3 grills? No, I’m not in “wagon denial” I would love to get another one, there just aren’t any.
you know they still make a taurus wagon, right? :-P
http://ford.com/vehicles/vehicle-showroom#/ford/ford-taurus-x-2008
Mrb00st
Even Ford knows that ain’t a wagon, that’s why they had to call it “X”.
Yep, “X” is Ford-Speak for “Crossover”… It will probably take either $5/gal gas or a gas shortage for “feminine” (i.e. minivans) vehicles to make a comeback.
Back to the brand betrayal, how about that $40k potential price tag? Not long ago, I remember when the W8 Passat came out and everyone griped that nobody would ever pay $38k (sticker) for a VW. Which was really closer to $33k or $34k after discounts, for a solid 8-cylinder bahncruiser.
Yes, apples and oranges with this particular discussion, but I always saw Mazda as the “people’s car” of Japan–small, sporty and affordable (which most of the product lines still maintain). The pricing and segmentation here seems like more of a “brand betrayal” than the physical characteristics of the vehicle, IMHO.
@ dawgone
Thank you. I LOLd. You even mis-spelled “booger” appropriately.
I need to buy a car, and at this point it’s basically a contest between a subie wagon and a Mazda3-5door, or a 5 year old audi. There’s just no other wagons worth it in my price range, and I live in a city, so SUV/CUV/Trucks are dumb, even this putatively fantastic Mazda.
Next summer the Ford Flex will debut. That will be a true seven passenger wagon type vehicle.
The CX-9 seems like a decent vehicle.
Is it “way” better than the Ford Edge? No, completely different market anyway. The CX9 is for parents of a brood who are afraid of minivans, the Edge is for single women and DINKs.
taxedandconfused- what’s wrong with the Mazda5? it’s a neat little vehicle. Even got a manual trans available.
Odd though, there’s already such a hatred for the large wagons (even though they’ve only been on the market for a year and a half or so) that I think sales of Ford Explorers are going up. I sure see a lot around.
Me no like.
Me no buy.
Me know what me likes.
is the cx-9 based off a mazda 6? i know ford said thay were makeing a few cross overs off that platform- i assume the edge is so is that a cx-7 or cx-9 or both?
rudiger :
It’s unfortunate that the market essentially forced Mazda to give up on the competent, well-packaged MPV for the stylish, but inefficient, CX-9. The much smaller Mazda5 ‘minivan’ just doesn’t cut it.
I have no doubt that the CX-9 will sell much better than any legitimate revamping of the MPV Mazda might have come up with, but it’s still sad to think what might have been had Mazda decided to stick with the MPV.
Mazda didn’t give up on the MPV. They did a major freshening for 2007, and the new version is selling well in the Far East. Unfortunately the company looked at North American market trends and decided to offer crossovers here rather than bringing the new MPV over.
I agree with you that the MPV was competent and well-packaged, and the ones that I leased were the most fun to drive of any minivan that I’ve piloted. I also agree that the Mazda5 is no substitute for the MPV; the thing is too small, only seats six and doesn’t have enough power. Aside from that, I guess it’s great. :-(
I test drove both the CX9 and an 08 Edge. While the Edge has Sync, which is pretty cool, it is deficient in all other areas that matter.
The Edge: was just mushy. The brakes in particular were alarming. As you applied them you wondered just when they would start doing something. The handling was non descript as if the Edge was taking your intput under advisement and may or may not comply with your request to change direction. The interior was fine, Spartan and fucntional ithy ample center console storage. The Sync feature is easily the best gadget integration solution I’ve seen, from an OEM or after market. The audio system sounded better than average for OEM. The ride was OK, and the seats were comfy. Oddly the power memory seats lacked power recline adjustment, negating much of the draw of memory seats. The motor and 6 speed gear box were adequate, with the motor being a bit noisy at high revs. Good low end pull. Reasonbly smooth shifts.
The CX9: while based on the same platfrom you’d never know it from driving it. Steering input is well weighted and precise. Brakes are very good with an outstanding feel. Ride quality is very nice as well as quiet on most surfaces. The Aisin 6 speed gear box is buttery smooth with almost undetectable shifts, superior in every way to the GM/Ford unit in the Edge. The interior is well appointed and does not have the cheap parts bin feel of the Edge. The CX9 is big, so there of course is no “zoom.” But it handles like no other vehicle of this size I’ve ever driven. It’s real competiotors are the Pilot and Highlander and it just trouces both of them. The audio/nav system was poretty weak. The NAV is OK, but Bose sucks.
So, it’s the CX9 for me. I would prefer a Subaru legacy GT wagon with a manual gear box but Subaru quit selling them here in the states and I don’t want an outback. I love my LGT sedan but need more room. I refuse to pay for a Euro wagon, as by the time it is well equipped you are way past $40K. And like most men I refuse to buy a minivan.
If I could I’d buy a Holden Commodore Sportwagon.
I few posts ago I saw exchanges concerning wagons. I actually have a Passat Wagon and my wife has the Honda Odyssey. I get slightly better gas mileage but have to use premium gas so dollars per mile we’re about the same. Honda also has lower cost of ownership (depreciation) and maintenance. At the end of the day all I’m really benefiting from my VW wagon is better driving dynamics and the joy of playing with a manual tranny. Now if only they added reclining seats on wagons then there’s probably no need to get overweight SUV’s, CUV’s, Minivans..or spend (waste money) on luxury badges.
As an owner of a CX-9, this review is way off the mark. They obviously decided before reviewing the car they they didnt want to like it (or any Mazda). Let me start by saying I am not biased because I own one. I own one because I looked at every vehice in this class, and a bit out of it, and the CX-9 was the best vehicle by a long shot.
There is so much more intelligent thought put into this car than you see in its competitors, and it will out perform all of them, as well as most cars. The CX-9 is a rocket. Fast off the line, even faster at highway speeds. The transmission learned my driving habits quite well, holding shift points longer for me, and keeping a gear more steadily.
It corners like it’s on rails, and tracks perfectly. even my ‘timid driver’ wife drives this big vehicle with ease. The reviewer clearly has little real driving skill to throw any car through a winding road.
Very roomy interior for everyone, but not Suburban hollow. I am 6′ tall and can enter and sit in the third row with ease even with the middle row in the center detent.
A feature not found in any other 3 row vehicle I have found: you can fold the third row (incredibly simply), regardless of the middle rows position, and without folding or removing the headrests. These are just a couple of the many design details that seem to have totally escaped the other manufacturers.
Drive one before you bash it, or blindly agree with an uninformed and negatively pre-biased review.
What I find so interesting about the comments on here is that they are direct and deliberate. If any one hates it or loves speaks directly to the target audience. Mazda has hit this market with utmost accuracy. If you hate it, then your not the intended audience, besides anyone who has criticized it speaks well to those that own one. Marketing folks is not for everyone, if you like old junk, then you’ll drive it and splain it to everyone else that you have value.
I don’t like old junk, and would rather have a car that has attitude and is fun to drive within its intended market. The CX9 is such a vehicle. compare it to most of the competition and it has something that pragmatics don’t understand, emotion, and that is worth the price of admission. Less than 40 grand for top notch lexus quality with room and fun to drive handling and safety. I do not see the need for Lexus or Acura pricing when for less (without the status of course) the Mazda has been able to break into new territory.
If you want to bash the Mazda, you probably already hate the rotary engine as well. When someone takes shots at any company for making something different work, well then that person is exactly one of the reasons I strive to be different. The CX9 is not boring in its segment, just drive the acadia and edge if you want appliance like handling and feel. Explain why the Asin transmission is in all vehicles (Acadia, Edge, and the Mazda) and Mazda engineers understand how it should shift and feel, the others did not get it right (Motor trend review).
I see it as zoom with room because it is fun to drive and hauls plenty.
Different is good.
I was excited to check this baby out after reading the review. When I got to the dealership, this CUV looked good from he outside.
INSIDE? –TERRIBLE!
The second row (main) back seat was ridiculously low to the floor. I am a mere 5’7″ and sitting in the back seat, with my feet comfortably on the floor had the knees of my short legs popped up to chest level. It felt like many of those crammed-in third row seats! This has nothing to do with foot space; there is plenty. It has to do with the seat sitting so low to the floor! So, it should be no surprise that the third-row seats felt just he same as the wider second row seats.
Then there is the cockpit. Yes, I mean the driver’s seat. But if you simply see this area in person, you will notice it really is a cockpit! The driver is surrounded up do his chest or higher on all sides. That is, the center column (where the gear shift of this automatic resides) feels about has high as as the low edge of the window. Thus, you get a cramped feeling of a fighter jet’s cockpit.
Better seat to floor distance (and lack of crammed driver’s area) can be found in the Toyota Highlander and the GMC Acadia, not to mention better gas mileage in both.
Despite popular belief most (adults) folks cant really fit inside the third row of the GMC unless the second row is pushed way forward. Then the space in the second row is very limited. I am only six foot even and I felt fine in the second row of the CX9 no knees to the chest like you are stating. I dont fit well in the third at all but its about the same as the GM quadruplets. Honestly if you want something light and airy feeling on the inside buy a Flex. It has a higher grade interior than any of the current crop of CUV’s and the second row space is limousine like. As for me I am buying the CX9. I dont really want to see myself coming and going like the Highlander.