Monthly Update for January 2017 - 2016 Mazda CX-9 Long-Term Road Test

Edmunds.com

Monthly Update for January 2017 - 2016 Mazda CX-9 Long-Term Road Test

An update on fuel economy, maintenance and places we've been in the Edmunds long-term 2016 Mazda CX-9.

Read the full story here

s197gt

Your 2008 CX-9 average around 18.2 mixed I think, which is what we average with our 2011.

A 4 MPG gain is pretty decent, even if the highway mileage is not meeting its target so far.

legacygt

I owned a 2009 CX-9 Touring with AWD that I purchased, in part, thanks to the detailed information from Edmunds experience with its 2008 Long Term CX-9. I was really happy with the CX-9. I found it to be a practical family hauler with an engaging drive. If you wanted AWD and three usable rows, this was pretty much the only car that also gave you an engaging drive. The only other one at the time was an MDX which was more cramped in the 3rd row and much more expensive.

One year ago I needed to unload the CX-9 as I reached the end of my 120,000 mile extended warranty. I wasn't too thrilled with my options as this, once diverse segment, seemed to be regressing to the mean. The larger offerings were getting smaller. The smaller offerings were getting bigger. Powertrain options were similar. There really wasn't too much that intrigued me. I searched for any remaining inventory of the outgoing CX-9 and couldn't find much. And I didn't want to wait for the 2016 nor did I want to be an early adopter, particularly with the new turbo engine. I ended up with a Dodge Durango AWD Limited and couldn't be happier. It is much less engaging to drive than the CX-9 was (absolutely zero feedback through the wheel) but it is in line with the class and it's proving to be very comfortable and convenient. It also gets fantastic mileage, doing almost as well as the new CX-9 but with a heavier vehicle and a more than adequate V6.

I do miss the great (for its size) handling and steering that he CX-9 offered. I'd be curious to hear how the Edmunds staff finds this CX-9 in that regard. Is it more fun to drive than the rest of the class. How about outside the class? How does it compare to an MDX or XC90? Would it be heresy to include the Q7 of X5 in the conversation? I felt like the old CX-9 punched about its weight in the fun-to-drive category. How about this one?

A couple other points:
It is fair to point out that the CX-9 doesn't have a shelf across the dash like the Highlander. That is accurate. But I'm not sure it deserves a demerit because no other cars have that feature either.
I'd like to know how useful you're finding the space. Obviously the sliding seats seem to be aggravating. What about the amount of passenger/cargo volume which I think is down from the previous model? What about the hump in the floor of the 2nd row where the previous model had a flat floor?