Howdy, Stranger!

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





2007 Mazda CX-9

1679111238

Comments

  • nxs138nxs138 Posts: 481
    But the Acura MDX starts at $40k and ends up near $48k loaded, while an almost fully loaded CX-9 Grand Touring with AWD (the most expensive trim) ends up at $40k. So the $8k you'll save by not buying the MDX will surely make up for the gas mileage ;-)

    I've considered the MDX, even got a nice brochure, but it's not worth all that money, imo. For $40k, the CX-9 will have everything the MDX has, i.e. bluetooth, a nice NAV (in fact, the NAV in the CX-9 is touchscreen, while in the MDX it is not), rear seat DVD, all-wheel drive, etc. etc.

    There's not way the MDX has $8k in upgraded plastics, suspension, etc. You're just paying a premium for the Acura brand, which is fine if you're an Acura fan. I'm just looking for some value for my money, and the CX-9 fits the bill, even if it will have slightly lower mpg.
  • lateralglateralg Posts: 929
    Regular vs. premium fuel a factor in Miles per $$ ?

    Cargo volume: 101 vs. 87.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    Throw in the extra options that the Mazda has, and you get $49k for the MDX. With FWD the Mazda gets better gas mileage too. With that price difference and the extra 10 cents per gallon for premium, the CX-9 still comes up smelling like roses.

    If you don't end up buying this year, I'm sure the CX-9 will end up with power upgrades. The engine currently makes 263hp without the aid of direct injection or variable valve timing. It really a rather simple engine. In theory, you could end up with 300+hp with very simple modifications on regular gas.
  • brutus22brutus22 Posts: 122
    I would never compare an Acura MDX to a Mazda CX-9.... this car is supposed to compete against the Toyota Highlander, Honda Pilots of the world not luxury utes like the Lexus RX, Acura MDX or BMW X5.

    Regardless, 16/22 sucks, I mean the 5 year old Honda Pilot gets 17/22 on an arguably less aerodynmic body with one less tranny cog...this is a dissapointment any way you slice it. But I think the KBB is just guesstimating as those figures have not been completed by the EPA or published.

    Later,
    B.
  • The CX-9 looks like a sure hit from a styling perspective but the Edmunds staff has not given it a full test yet.
    I find it odd to offer such a high recommendation to a vehicle the even the writer states was still in the tuning process...
    Let's suppose the final tuned product stinks with little or less zoom then in the prototype (not likely)but for the sake of argument I'd like to only see fully tested in full production vehicles given top honors;it makes the Edmunds honors more credible and make me as a consumer feel more confident about the recommendations.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    Motor Trend's article said pretty much the same thing as Edmunds. Upon first drive, they both really liked it. I wouldn't say either flat out recommended it though. It sounded like they both thought it had alot of promise. I suppose we'll se what happens after the full road test.

    The only real complaint I saw from either one of them was that because of the rather tight suspension and the 20" wheels, pot holes caused a little bit of suspension noise in the cabin.
  • audia8qaudia8q Posts: 3,138
    Mazda is saying the MPG will be

    2WD...18/24
    AWD...16/22
  • unixxusunixxus Posts: 97
    Mazda has started production of the CX-9. This means they should be arriving in the US by late January. :)

    http://www.mazda.com/publicity/release/2006/200610/061030.html
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    I've never seen this information coming from Mazda. I've only seen it from KBB. It'll be interesting to see if Mazda posts this information soon.
  • balooobalooo Posts: 24
    How much more of a recommendation do you want then "Editors Most Wanted" This certainly is a flat out recommendation.
    I am not saying the CX-9 does not deserve it however the vehicle just launched production two days ago.
    Alot could change in a pre-production vehical and finished product.
    The "Editors most wanted" award is premature is my opinion.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    Yup, you're right. Alot changes between pre-production and production... like the vehicle getting better: quality problems being addressed and ride dynamics smoothing out.

    I'll be interested to see the road test though. It seems to be very competitive with everything else on the market, and it may be better if they can carry over that Zoom-zoom spirit. :)
  • brutus22brutus22 Posts: 122
    "Mazda is saying the MPG will be
    2WD...18/24
    AWD...16/22"

    Where is Mazda saying this, I do not see anything within Mazda News or Mazda website or Government Fuel listings saying anything? Better be at least 18/24 AWD is all I gotta say.

    B.
  • Please forgive me if this is a stupid question but will the CX-9 be able to handle light off road use, ie. beach sand? We have a Pilot and a Yukon XL and would love to get rid of the Yukon for a cross-over. The Pilot does really well on the beach, what can I expect from the CX-9?
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Mazda has started production of the CX-9. This means they should be arriving in the US by late January.

    The article stated "early 2007", not end of January. My first allocation will not be processed until Nov. 1st. I expect delivery of my first few in late February/ early March.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Us Mazda dealers are privledged to info on up comming vehicles before the rest of you. That is where I believe he got it. I have seen this EPA estimate as well.

    The new Acura MDX gets 17/22 mpg, with the REQUIREMENT of 91 octane. Mazda is getting 16/22 using 87 octane. Yes, the MDX is getting 300hp, a 37hp difference. I do not see why to cry over this fuel estimate. If you can afford the vehicle, you can afford the gas! I really do not see this as that big a deal...
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    Sneak a CX-7 out for a test drive. It uses basically the same AWD system as the CX-9. I would think it would be able to handle that same terrain as the Pilot.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    The new 3.5L motor is fairly low tech for today's standards. It does not use direct injection or variable valve timing to make its power, but both are coming at some point. This motor is capable of much, much more. I'd say that the addition of those two technologies could produce more power and better gas mileage. The only thing I'm surprised about is the AWD gas mileage. In most vehicles AWD doesn't cause that much of a drop.
  • audia8qaudia8q Posts: 3,138
    Where is Mazda saying this, I do not see anything within Mazda News or Mazda website or Government Fuel listings saying anything?

    It's in the dealer order guide.
  • unixxusunixxus Posts: 97
    It does not use direct injection or variable valve timing to make its power....

    The 3.5L V6 does use variable valve timing. It employs it on the intake valves. What it does not have is variable valve timing on the exhaust valves.

    "The 3.5-liter V-6 uses a compact, lightweight dual-overhead cam valvetrain for peak power capability and smooth operation at high RPMs. The engine also incorporates intake variable cam timing (iVCT) to optimize valve timing for a smooth idle, optimal part-load driving and an impressively broad torque curve with good power. The iVCT system uses a hydraulically actuated spool valve that can rotate the intake camshafts up to 40 degrees within a half-second. A low-friction, roller-chain cam drive contributes to fuel efficiency."

    http://media.ford.com/newsroom/release_display.cfm?release=24607
  • nxs138nxs138 Posts: 481
    Well to tell you the truth I was a bit surprised when I saw those mpg numbers; for some reason I was expecting something in the mid 20's (after all, the bigger GM Acadia/Outlook products are supposed to get 25 or 26 mpg hwy). Especially since it is a 6 speed.

    You could also argue that it's not a question of being to afford the vehicle and the gas; it's a question of using less gas, which is eco-friendly and better for the wallet.

    I wonder if a more refined engine would indeed get those numbers up. I'm afraid that by the time the CX-9 does indeed get better mpg, the redesigned Pilot and Highlander will be on the market, and I'm sure those will have better gas mileage. Not to mention the Veracruz, which is looking like a nice alternative.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    The only thing I'm surprised about is the AWD gas mileage. In most vehicles AWD doesn't cause that much of a drop.

    Sure it does. Why do you think Subaru does not offer a single vehicle the gets AT LEAST 30mpg highway? And those are 4-cyl vehicles w/o a turbo. I think at best the Impreza get 29 with a manual gear box.
  • brutus22brutus22 Posts: 122
    I am sorry but I do not compare the MDX to the CX-9 I compare this to the Honda Pilot/Toyota Highlander GMC Acadia/Saturn Outlook/Subaru Tribeca all of which get better mileage and older (except GM) 5+ years for the Honda/Toyota...bottomline 16/22 sucks...and saying oh it is not that bad because cheaper on 87 octane does not take away from the fact I want to use less fuel, emit less pollutants etc... yet still have a vehicle with family room, AWD and style.
    Damn so annnoyed by this I was dead set on this vehicle, this is an important factor for me. If I could get away with a non AWD vehicle I would but us N.H. residents know otherwise :-)
  • d_hyperd_hyper Posts: 130
    Have you considered giving the money you save driving CX-9 using 87oct (vs others w/91oct)to the Sierra foundation at the end of the year?! Not to mention tax benefit... :)
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    If you are looking to be environmently friendly, then I can see your point, to an extent. Personally, I do not see 2mpg highway all that much of a difference, since you said 18/24 would be OK.

    You might want to consider the Highlander Hybrid. Green car, and the same class, as you put it, as the Mazda CX-9. My opinion would be it is severely lacking in the styling department, and basically unusable 3rd row.

    I live in CT, so I do understand your desire (need) for AWD!
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    Most SUVs and CUVs see a 1mpg drop in their AWD numbers.
    The added weight of AWD on those vehicles is not as much a strain on their engines as it is on a 4-cyl motor in a car.

    Their is a magic number in HP where power and gas mileage are at their peak. Too little power with too much weight = bad gas mileage. Too much power with too much weight = bad gas mielage. This is why V6 full size trucks have just as poor mpg marks as their V8 counterparts. Their are, of course, other variables involved, like aerodynamics. FWD and RWD also hold a mechanical advantage over AWD due to less loss of hp through the drivetrain.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    That's the problem with the car market. Their is very little that is mechanically different between the MDX and the CX-9. People think that if Acura only makes expensive cars, they must be better cars and worth the immense price difference. In reality, you may have $3k worth of actual differences between the two vehicles. The other $6k or so is perceived. You just rolled out $6k for a name.

    All the vehicles you mentioned, excluding the new GM products, are smaller and have far less utility, including the MDX. The GM products are marvels of parts sharing, and excluding the Enclave, bland marvels of poor use of plastics.

    Sorry, I'm ranting. I'm fairly displeased with either gas mileage number seeing that a 4700lb GM product can get 18/26 for FWD with 275hp. This engine is capable of so much more if they had just equipped it with direct injection and variable valve timing. I'll be they could have improved it by atleast 2mpg in city and highway.
  • dave90dave90 Posts: 27
    Don't clearly understand all the complaints about gas mileage in context.

    I would compare this car to the Honda Pilot which is a much smaller vehicle:

    Pilot 2WD - 18/24 = exactly same as CX-9 2WD
    (and Pilot uses a cylinder cut system to achieve this)

    Pilot AWD - 17/22 = 1 mpg city better than CX-9 AWD.

    Again the CX-9 is about a foot longer, so these numbers look pretty good.

    Honda never seems to get any grief for mileage. Seems like people are out to get Mazda.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    I'm not out to get Mazda. I still love the vehicle. I guess I was hoping for too much out of this motor since it in new for 2007. The Pilot is built like a brick. Despite its much smaller size, it weighs the same as the CX-9.

    One thing this motor really has going for it is that it is really simple in comparison to all of the others it is competing against. It makes its power without much coaxing from electronics or other fancy means. It should be fairly easy to work on.
  • brutus22brutus22 Posts: 122
    Here is the issue, I expect a 5 year newer design to improve on gas mileage against their main competitors. The CX-9 not only has better aerodynamics with about the same weight, a 6sp transmission, but it about 5 years newer then the Pilot and all they can get is 16/22 AWD?...come on now any way you slice it this is a disapointment.

    Hey maybe I am expecting too much or was too excited about the CX-9...as info trickled out I got excited until this, I even recall how Ford was touting this engine as so great and it would have good mileage with power.

    So I sit here and I guess I was expecting 19/25 from this car, maybe my expectations were too high, I just get the feeling that next year when the redesigned Toyota Highlander
    and Honda Pilot come out they will be in that range.

    I blame Ford :P

    B.
  • lateralglateralg Posts: 929
    The difference between 22 & 25 MPG, at 12,000 miles/year is 65 gallons. @$2.50/gallon, that's $162.50/year.

    Can we get an additional 3 MPG for $162.50/year?
Sign In or Register to comment.