Howdy, Stranger!

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





Howdy, Stranger!

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

Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

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

Edmunds.comEdmunds.com Posts: 10,059
edited July 2017 in Mazda
imageMonthly Update for May 2017 - 2016 Mazda CX-9 Long-Term Road Test

Catch up on the Edmunds long-term 2016 Mazda CX-9's activities for May 2017, including photos, driving impressions and fuel economy updates.

Read the full story here


Comments

  • agentorangeagentorange Posts: 893
    " Yes, four-cylinder engines are more prone to this sort of thing, but that doesn't stop certain manufacturers (Volkswagen comes to mind in this price range) from making four-bangers that, well, don't bang."

    That's because VW don't make them bigger than 2 liters. That appears to be about the limit for a really smooth 4, in my experience. At 2.5 liters I suspect the inherent 4-cylinder effects and the larger reciprocating masses cannot be hidden.
  • legacygtlegacygt Posts: 599
    I had the previous generation CX-9 and loved it. I needed a new car last year and steered clear of the new CX-9 because I was nervous about being an early adopter of this powertrain. Still, Mazda did something great here. The competition (from Hyunda to Audi) is putting 2.0L turbos in cars this size. The result is often disappointing performance and fuel economy well below the EPA test numbers. It seems like 2.5L might be the right-size engine for this type of car. My guess is that the turbo doesn't need to spool up as often or as much as it would if the engine was 2.0L. This allows it to use less fuel during more relaxed acceleration.
Sign In or Register to comment.