Howdy, Stranger!

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





Crossover SUV Comparison

1173174176178179355

Comments

  • Driver's comfort definitely goes to the lambdas as studies show that red light is better for your eyes when driving than blue- which makes my head hurt.

    You are absolutely correct about the red lighting being better than the blue.

    However, the "blue lighting" in the Mazdas is really a non-issue. The accent lighting is extremely subdued, to the point that you really don't notice it much - and the blue on the instruments is really just a subtle contrasting backdrop for the text and indicators, which are red, as they should be.

    The bright blue instruments on my old Jetta (which VW touted as a clever feature that made them different) really kick the migraines in, let me tell you...

    -c92
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Pilot's definitely a contender, just an outdated one waiting more desperately than Honda expected for a change. After a remodel, it will definitely top some competitors, like the new Highlander.

    How do you figure it will "definitely top" the new Highlander when we don't know anything about it yet?
  • nastacionastacio Posts: 370
    I didn't realize the Mazda engine was such a fork in the design trunk, but the comment stands, the original 3.5 achieves peak torque at even higher RPMs (4500 vs. 4250) while GM managed to do it at 3200 RPMs.

    Ford *and* Mazda are not at the same level as GM in that department then :-)
  • nastacionastacio Posts: 370
    Right back to the CX-9 's only advantage being performance.

    That is the one point where I don't agree the CX-9 has an advantage for its target market. Straight line acceleration is about the same and it is not like people will be carving canyons while carrying 6+ passengers.

    At any rate, I think we just entered "it is too/it is not" territory...

    ...but I am right ;-)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    At any rate, I think we just entered "it is too/it is not" territory...

    ;) :P :blush: No we're not!
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    At any rate, I think we just entered "it is too/it is not" territory...

    I guess the difference is that when not only are folks here in this forum saying that the driving dynamics are better in the CX-9, but so are several magazine reviews. The Odyssey minivan beat the Town & Country and Sienna in reviews because of the better driving dynamics too, and I don't expect many minivan owners to be "carving canyons." Better driving dynamics is beneficial even during normal driving, as well as being safer.
  • nastacionastacio Posts: 370
    Despite the driver's feeling of more responsiveness, the CX-9 and the Acadia were virtually tied for all but one driving dynamics number, which was braking. Even the MT figure-eight test, a good indicator of canyon-prowess, had both at 28.2 seconds.

    Braking is better, so I would agree to that account.

    My "it is too/it is not" statement was less about performance than about all the other points. The "about the same" comment about parking space maneuverability - despite the CX-9 shorter wheel-base, narrower body and smaller turning radius - made it that much clear.

    PS: The Odyssey beat the other minivans in other departments besides performance. Car & Driver, for instance, also listed "the best front seats, great instrument cluster, nifty second-row mother-in-law seat". It also dinged the Caravan for "rather bleak interior materials".
  • nastacionastacio Posts: 370
    A link would suffice :-)
  • freealfasfreealfas Posts: 652
    sorry for trying to save you a click...
  • tsu670tsu670 Posts: 293
    Actually, thanks for posting the article instead of the link. It wasn't that long to page down through, and sometimes links have a way of becoming obsolete or inactive after a month or so.
  • Dear Chuckboy,

    As the owner of an '06 Oddysey and now a '08 CX-9 GT I feel qualified to reply about the ad that bugs you.

    I regularly have screaming kids in the car, and I also regularly get hit in the head.

    The Honda beats my old '05 Audi A4 3.0 AWD Convertible for fun. Hard to believe but true. In the convertible I couldn't really hear the passengers screams, and the back seaters only saw the backs of the front seats so the fear never really could build properly in the turns.

    Damn it if I don't get the Honda to flip some day.

    All joking aside I am constantly amazed at how nimble, responsive and yes fun the Odyssey is to drive, when I floor it I love to see how fast it toasts other cars. I will say fully packed with 8 people and luggage it def boged down and would not go above 108 no matter how hard I pushed it.

    Bottomline you are right you are never going to convince a hot chick to hold your grab handle by driving a honda minivan, but hey my wife wouldn't want that anyway. You will get full sheets of plywood, and 10' lengths of pvc pipe in without the tiniest complaints. The Oddysey is my workhorse the CX-9 is my wife's "I am not a soccermom" car, and my get all dressed up and go out without the kids, dogs, neighbors, church choir, book club all at the same time car.

    Tommy
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Achieving torque at a lower RPM does not make it a "better" engine. In reality, the engine should be tuned to fit the vehicle needs for power delivery. Since the GM's are over 400lbs heavier, that torque is *needed* to get the vehicle moving.

    So far, both engines have done well, for all vehicles involved.
  • nxs138nxs138 Posts: 481
    Since the GM's are over 400lbs heavier, that torque is *needed* to get the vehicle moving.

    Totally agree, and I would like even more torque: when my wife and I test drove the Acadia, we both noticed sluggishness of the line, and hesitation when trying to accelerate when driving at 40 mph or so. Now this could be due to the faulty transmission software that has now been somewhat rectified, but the Mazda was definitely more responsive, and I believe weight is definitely an issue.

    So to your point, the Acadia definitely needs to achieve most of its torque at lower RPMs, and that's the way the engine was tuned. Once the Acadia gets moving, it performs fine: it gets similar 0-60 and quarter mile numbers than the CX-9.
  • baggs32baggs32 Posts: 3,210
    Achieving torque at a lower RPM does not make it a "better" engine. In reality, the engine should be tuned to fit the vehicle needs for power delivery. Since the GM's are over 400lbs heavier, that torque is *needed* to get the vehicle moving.

    So far, both engines have done well, for all vehicles involved.


    Well said. My sentiments exactly.

    Low end torque is not something that you need "advanced" engine tech for anyway. Detroit has been making high torque at low RPM engines for decades now.
  • nastacionastacio Posts: 370
    Achieving torque at a lower RPM does not make it a "better" engine. In reality, the engine should be tuned to fit the vehicle needs for power delivery. Since the GM's are over 400lbs heavier, that torque is *needed* to get the vehicle moving.

    You are missing the other portion of the story, the HP numbers are better too. Even the larger Mazda engine is a few HP shy of the GM's.

    Achieving high torque at low rpm AND high horsepower at high rpm is a challenge that GM managed to achieve better than Ford. If you have to spin an engine faster to produce the same amount of torque, given the same combustion efficiency and engine size, you will spend more gas. That is how GM managed to keep the mpg numbers for lambdas low for its size and still tie the CX-9 performance numbers.

    400 lbs of weight are not the issue here. Case in point, Ford uses virtually the same engine in the TX 08 as Mazda does in the CX9 07 (same peak torque/hp rpm) and yet the TX is nearly 400 lbs lighter.
  • nastacionastacio Posts: 370
    Low end torque is not something that you need "advanced" engine tech for anyway. Detroit has been making high torque at low RPM engines for decades now.

    It depends on whether you consider Variable Valve Timing technology advanced. Excluding the large displacement engines used on Detroit muscle cars, smaller push-rods have largely fallen out of public's favor for their lack of power at high rpm. It is hard to move those rods fast enough, valve floating and all that.
  • unixxusunixxus Posts: 97
    Even the larger Mazda engine is a few HP shy of the GM's.

    The Mazda engine has a whole lot more torque than the GM so it makes perfect sense that the Mazda engine will reach peak torque at a higher rpm.
  • nastacionastacio Posts: 370
    The Mazda engine has a whole lot more torque than the GM so it makes perfect sense that the Mazda engine will reach peak torque at a higher rpm.

    The torque for the Corvette LS-6 engine should peak at 8000 rpm then :-)

    Peak torque and peak rpm are not related that way. To illustrate that point with an extreme example, the Mazdaspeed 3 engine has a higher peak torque than both CX-9 and the Outlook (280 lbft) and yet it happens at a very low 3000 rpm.

    Peak numbers only tell part of the story, as an engine may achieve higher torque than others through part of the rpm range but still have a lower peak torque. That is why one would never try and have that Mazdaspeed engine on the CX-9, it peaks high and abruptly without sufficient low-end torque to adequately move a loaded 5000+ lbs monster from idle. When they put it on the CX-7, they wisely tuned it to deliver a flatter curve with considerably lower peak torque (240+ lbft)
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    DENTS IN TOYOTA'S ARMOR

    Come on people! did we not already see this? The Lexus GS got bad ratings from the godly CR 2 YEARS AGO.

    I appologize for forcing my oppinion that CR isn't biased to Toyota.

    It's funny about the Chrysler Vehicles that CR says are realiable, as they may all be on the chopping board RIGHT NOW.
  • albookalbook Posts: 1,282
    braking, handling and just about every other driving dynamic for those who care about such things...of course braking distance is definitely a safety issue as well.

    Braking distances are worse in the CX-9.
Sign In or Register to comment.