Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2007 Mazda CX-9

2456738

Comments

  • unixxusunixxus Posts: 97
    I am sure Mazda will tune their engine differently and use their own six-speed transmission, so horse power and fuel efficiency will definitely not be the same as the Edge. I also hope the EPA fuel number will be 20/26 or better.
  • corvettecorvette United StatesPosts: 4,196
    I also hope the EPA fuel number will be 20/26 or better.

    That seems difficult given the CX-9's size. Also, the CX-7 is rated at something like 19/24, so I doubt the larger SUV will come out with significantly better mileage than the smaller one.
  • brutus22brutus22 Posts: 122
    if the CX-7 is 19/24, I do not see 20/26 as being significantly better, I think this is a realistic gola, lets say they tune the engine and tranny to be more fuel efficient I certainly think it is possible...I think the CX-7 probably was tuned for a more frenetic revy sporty ride and less about fuel economy.

    Honestly I think the 19/25 is probably what we will see and on regular 87 octane no less, so cheaper then the CX-7 anyhow. This is not exact but probably not far off.

    I am surprised we have not heard anything new on this car lately, it is coming out in the Fall right... and Mazda was nto shy about giving us tons of details on the CX-7 way before it has hit dealerships.

    B.
  • dave90dave90 Posts: 27
    I'm not sure 20/26 is realistic. I don't think any CX-9 sized vehicle gets that level of mileage.

    For example:

    Honda Pilot

    4wd - 17/22
    2wd - 18/24 (with cylinder cut technology)

    The Pilot is 188" long and the CX-9 is 199.6" so the Mazda is much larger.

    Given the size, I think anything similar to Pilot would be good.
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    Here are some links to more photos:

    http://trucks.about.com/od/2007suvs/ig/2007-Mazda-CX-9-Pictures/index.htm

    http://www.autoblog.com/2006/04/13/new-york-auto-show-mazda-cx-9-zooms-with-room- /

    As far as dimensions, it looks to be about the same size as the Freestyle (L/W/H 199/74/68), so probably similar inside (maybe a little less because of the curves. But where the Freestyle is more utility the CX-9 adds the power, sporty edge (no pun intended).
  • brutus22brutus22 Posts: 122
    Hey,

    I agree 20/26 probably not realistic, but the Honda Pilot is about 4 years old at this point, so I would hope that the Mazda would be able to make some aggressive strides towards better economy then the Honda, not to mention it looks a hell of a lot more aerodynamic, thus hwy should improve and it is using a 6 sp auto, so it could be geared towards more efficiency.

    Thanks for the pics, seen them all before, anyone catch any pics in a different color other then blue, like a lighter color?

    B.
  • bosi77bosi77 Posts: 37
    Hey Everyone I was just comparing the two (Mazda CX-9 and the) Audi Q7 and they are very much alike. Does anybody have any info on the Mazda CX-9 Features and Options?
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Does anybody have any info on the Mazda CX-9 Features and Options?

    Still a bit to early for that. The CX-7 packages and options were not available until January 2006. I think we can expect accurate pricing details the same time packages and options are released.

    I think it's safe to say the Audi will be more plush. However, now that I have seen the CX-7, the interior quality and finish is remarkable. I wonder if the CX-9 will be similar. Time will tell.
  • rcf8000rcf8000 Posts: 619
    I haven't seen any published figures for the weight of the CX-9, but I'll bet it is a lot less than the weight of a Q7. That should produce better gas mileage and better performance than a 6 cylinder Q7. I predict that the CX-9 will be a big success.
  • bosi77bosi77 Posts: 37
    2007 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2007 Chrysler Pacifica
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Here are the color choices for the 2007 Mazda CX-9.

    Black Cherry Mica
    Brilliant Black Clear Coat
    Copper Red Mica
    Crystal White
    Galaxy Gray
    Liquid Platinum
    Sparkling Black Mica
    Stormy Blue Mica

    Also, some preliminary package options:

    Towing package, rear passenger entertainment system, Bose Audio/ Moon roof package. There will be more, but, that's all I have for now.

    This vehicle will also be a 2007, possible here early 2007 or late 2006 (December)
  • ezra442ezra442 Posts: 1
    I'm glad to see the tow package. Does anyone have a guess on the probable tow rating? I know the MPV is at 4000-4300 lbs. The CX9 will have a more powerful engine and 6 speed tranny, but will be on a different (Mazda 6) platform. Also, any further info on introduction dates? I'd be very interesting in getting one right now if the tow rating were strong enough...and they were available.
  • music287music287 Posts: 116
    We want an awd 6-7 passenger vehicle with xenon headlights, decent mileage using regular gas and maybe a full-size, regular spare tire. As best I can determine, only the Pacifica (with a new 4.0 engine and 6-speed transmission,) and the upcoming CX-9 offer this combination. (I am right in assuming the upcoming MDX uses premium, aren't I?)
    When I test drove a CX-7 I noticed that, even though the spare wasn't a full-service tire, it was a full diameter spare. I'd bet a full -size spare will be available in the CX-9.

    Jay
  • I would check out the Audi Q7. You can get it in 6 or 7 passenger, it has as much or more room as the cx-9 or pacifica, and i would not wory about buying vehices that "require" premium fuel. all that premium fuel does is get a slightly higher horsepower output from the engine. in fact, a well known mercedes dealer in my area puts regular fuel in all of their cars. Im sure the audi has a full size spare, and it is available with a 350 horsepower v8 or 280 horsepower v6, the v8 getting 14/19 mpg, and the v6 probably about 3 mpg better. all have xenon headlights.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    This Audi would be great if:

    1) it didn't start at $50,000 (for the v8)
    2) it didn't weigh so much (5,300lbs)
    3) you live near an audi dealer so you can get it fixed
    4) you could fit somebody more than 4ft tall in the 3rd row (head room)

    Don't get me wrong. The specs look pretty good for it (especially if we could get that diesel), but they are calling for the Ford Edge to get in the mid-20s for average gas mileage, which bodes well for the Mazda since they share the same motor. I could take that money saved from gas mileage and vehicle cost and practically buy another car.
  • autoboy16autoboy16 Posts: 992
    But the edge has no 3rd row. A vehicle for you to check out would be the Mercury Mountaineer or Ford Explorer (xlt or higher). The 3rd row in them are large enough for a 6'2 foot person or a little bigger. Both have power folding 3 row (they split 50/50 for 2006. Before 2006, it was just one piece.) available. If you decide on the Explorer limited or eddie bauer, heres a tip. The mountaineer is $300 cheaper and has very comfortable 2tone leather seats in all 3 rows. Power running boards are an inexpensive option for the mercury. They come with a full size spares. The MPG isn't perfect and the v8 gets almost equal the MPG as the v6.
    image

    image

    It looks a lot bigger in person than it looks on the picture. And the two the is consistent throughout the vehicle. The 2 colors you see are the 2 colors available on the Mountaineer :) !

    -Cj :shades:
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    Chances are that the Ford Edge will have 3 rows in 2008. Ford is putting it in the Future Options category to gauge popularity. Also, chances are good that the Freestyle will leave after 2008 as well so an Edge with 3 rows could fill that void. I was more referencing the Edge for an estimate of gas mileage for the CX-9 since they have the same drivetrain. The CX-9 will probably get one or two mpg less because of it's larger size and extra weight though. I do like the Mountaineer (My In-Laws have a 2002 Explorer w/ 3rd row), but with all the options my wife "requires" ;) it can get pretty pricy and thirsty. The crossovers are usually a bit roomier, ride better, and use a bit less gas. We'll probably end up with some sort of crossover or a minivan.
  • The Audi starts at 39,900 for the V6. It does weigh a lot, but with the 6-seat configuration, the third row gets is roomier. What worries me about the mazda is that, although it is japenese, it is a Ford product, which do not have a good reputation for reliability. Just look at the Mazda 6. Still, i would pick the cx-9 over a pacifica or explorer any day. I also think the new Mdx could be a good choice, (as long as it doesnt look anything like the ugly concept car). Maybe there will be a 7-passenger X5 as well, but the spy photos make me think they could never fit one back there. This segment of vehicle seems to be growing very rapidly, especially with the GM Acadia/Enclave/Outlook coming out this fall.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    When you start stacking options on the Audi, I'm sure you'll push it right back up towards $50,000. The Mazda will be similarly equipped for about $10,000 or more less. Chances are Audi engine offerings will ask for Premium fuel to make those numbers as well while the ford makes its power on Regular. All of this (and the fact that there are few places to get the Audi services, especially if you live farther from a large city) drives the overall maintenance cost of the vehicle up quite a bit.

    Even though the V6 is 280hp, it's still going to be hard pressed to push over 5,000lbs. The new engine from Ford is going to be about 265hp. That engine, which is supposed to be more reliable than its replacement, (The 3.0L V6 came out as a 2.5L V6 in the 1996 Ford Contour) is what Ford is really going to be basing it's whole fleet of cars on. It was created to fit in any vehicle that had the 3.0L V6 in it. The 3rd row headroom is what I'm worried about in the Q7. That big sloping curve over the room certainly makes the vehicle beautiful, but it takes alot of space away from the 3rd row (headroom).

    That being said. I really love the look of the Audi, inside and out. I also like the tow rating. I know the Ford will probably only tow about 3,500lbs.

    Lastly, I can't see where the Acadia/Enclave/Outlook will get good gas mileage at all. The 3.6L V6 is the same one in the Cadillac CTS, and it only make 18/27mpg in the CTS. If you add over 1000lbs and make it less aerodynamic, it can only get worse, although I like how they look too.
  • The Audi does get pricy quick, but, it is an Audi, so you are getting something for your money that you dont get with a Mazda. Headroom (and legroom) really are VERY tight in the Audi 3rd row, which does not bother me that much as i will not be using the 3rd row very often. Still, it would be nice to have room there just in case. I agree that the GM Crossovers will not be very fuel efficent (but im sure they will have that 8/4 cylinder engine soon). I really dont think they look all that great, the Buick is the only one that catches my eye, but, its a Buick. The new Explorer is not bad in terms of style (in the Limited trim), but i am worried about reliability. I'm interested to see what options are available on the CX-9 (i hope they have a panorama roof like the Q and R). If they are similar i think it would be a huge success.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    The only thing that you get for the extra money with the Audi, IMHO, is a name and some bragging rights with the neighbors. Audi always rates as a poor value in its class and has had some definite reliability issues. I'm not saying Mazda hasn't, but all that extra money without a whole lot to gain for it, except people thinking I have more money than I do :) doesn't really entice me to buy a Q7. If I had that much money, I'd get the MB GL450. It's not much more than the V8 Q7.
  • I did look at the GL450, but it just seems to ordinary, like most SUV's on the road. What's nice about the Q7 is it has that sporty shape, but is still a 200 inch long car. The Mazda definitely has that look to it as well, somthing the Explorer doesnt. Still, IMHO, the Audi is a fantastic car that is has a combination of room and style you cant get with anything else. Only the Cx-9 comes the close to matching it in my opinion.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    I definitely agree that the GL450 is very bland. Chances are good that I will never own anything as expensive as the Audi or Mercedes. (I have alot of trouble parting with my money :) ) I know people rag on them for alot (although their new vehicles are receiving alot of praise), but Hyundai has a new CUV coming out very late this year or maybe next year called the Veracruz (was thought to be called the Mesa). It will have a 3.8L V6 with about 270-280hp. It is bigger and more luxurious than the Santa Fe, and has the required curvy shape. There is a forum for it here already.
  • Thanks for the tip. Hyundai is really a whole new company. They're new cars compete very competevly with Honda and Toyata. I will definitley look into this car. :)
  • marsha7marsha7 Posts: 3,676
    1. Is the CX-9 sold now, or is it a car to be released in the next 6-12 months...

    2. Unless I missed the obvious, I checked Pacifica, and it still comes with a 3.5L 250 HP engine, not a 4.0 L...is that a future engine, or am I alseep at the wheel???

    Thanks
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    1. The CX-9 is not for sale now. It is supposed to be released in the next 6 months or so. I supposed it depends on the how many changes at the factory they have to make.

    2. The 2007 Pacifica, which is also not out yet, will have a 4.0L V6 with about 265hp and a bit more torque. It will also have a 6 speed automatic. The hp and torque curves are supposed to be much improved, but I'm not sure of any mpg improvements yet.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    The CX-9 is not for sale now. It is supposed to be released in the next 6 months or so. I supposed it depends on the how many changes at the factory they have to make.

    I would not count on the CX-9 for almost a year or so. Orders take about 14-16 weeks once a dealer places them. Us dealers have no info on the CX-9 yet. I placed my first order for the Mazdaspeed3 back in June, it is not scheduled to start production until 8-31-06, which means I wont see it until November/ December. Given how Mazda does it's allocations and shipments, I would not bet on the CX-9 until March/April of 2007 as a 2008 model.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    I figured it could be billed as a 2008 model, but they will probably release more information about pricing and such closer to 6 months. They really don't have to worry much about sales of an outgoing vehicle since this isn't really directly replacing anything. Production will probably ramp up much faster on the CX-9 though as it will be a much bigger money-getter than the limited orders of the Mazdaspeed3.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    they will probably release more information about pricing and such closer to 6 months. They really don't have to worry much about sales of an outgoing vehicle since this isn't really directly replacing anything

    I really do not see pricing comming out until almost near arrival time here in the U.S.. And actually, the Mazda CX-9 is the replacement for the NA Mazda MPV. I happen to think sales for the CX-9 will be far greater then recent MPV sales numbers.

    Production was ramped up for the CX-7, one of the most highly anticipated vehicles for 2007, and it got here 3 months late. I will not bank on the CX-9 arriving here when they say it will.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    It's not a direct replacement for the MPV, but you may be right about pricing release. Most people who want a minivan will go elsewhere (Minivans have more usable interior space), but it will definitely pull a few away from minivans. It's a beautiful vehicle.

    There are a few less engineering changes to the CX-9 than the CX-7 due to its stock use of the 3.5L V6. It's really not worth arguing though since I probably won't be ready to buy a vehicle when it comes out anyway. :cry:
Sign In or Register to comment.