2007 Mazda CX-9

navigator89

The Mazda CX-9 is a seven passenger crossover SUV that will be larger than the CX-7. It will be introduced at the New York Auto Show, and is specifically designed for North America.

It will be powered by a 3.5L V6, which is I believe the engine used in the Ford Edge/Lincoln MKX. The engine is hooked up to a six speed automatic transmission.

This will replace the MPV as Mazda's people mover. The styling is great and will draw many people to Mazda. It is due to be released in the fall I believe.

Here's the one and only image of the CX-9.

aviboy97

I was right!! I said in a few other posts that this car will debut at the NY Auto show this month. Simply because it is a NA market only, and the MX-crossport (CX-7) debuted at this show last year. I'm going to the Auto show, so I will take some pic's and post them here.

Press release is available at www.mazdaUSA.com

brutus22

Courtesy of Marathonrally
Looks great...I would like to see it in some other colors other then blue tho'

B.

rcf8000

Looks better than an RX350, I'll give 'em that.

brutus22

Even more pictures that someone posted here, includes interior:
http://forums.autoweek.com/thread.jspa?forumID=31&threadID=31196&tstart=0

I am sold.

B.

jchan2

Looks very elegant. Very modern and upscale. Mazda did a good job.

rcf8000

I used the photo of the CX-9 and CX-7 together to determine the approximate dimensions of the CX-9. Looks like it is about 203 inches long and 65 inches high, which are exactly the dimensions of an MB R-Class. It looks better than an R-Class to my eyes. I'm impressed.

rcf8000

I guess my scaling of the dimensions was a little off. The CX-9 is actually about 200 inches long and 68 inches high, according to specs given in worldcarfans.com. This would make it very close in size to an Audi Q7, except the Q7 is about 2 inches wider.

brutus22

Hey Guys,

Mazda USA has a bunch of pics:
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=upcomingCX9

Great interior shot of front:


Back showing 3rd row:


Interesting things they note:
250hp with 240 lbs tq.

wheelbase 113.2 inches...for comparison the Honda Pilot is 106.3, while a Honda Odyssey is 118.1, and the Subaru B9 is 108.2.
This would suggest some solid room inside, without truly knowing the cargo volume.

B.">

rcf8000

For some reason the mazdausa site does not show the length, which is 199.6 inches. All of the dimensions of the CX-9 are quite close to those of a Sienna. This certainly suggests a lot of interior room, although the Sienna has a lot more cargo volume behind the third row.

aviboy97

I think the CX-9 has some similarities to the B9 Tribeca. The body shape, excluding the front and rear facias. Wheels are similar. If in not mistaken, CX-9 is larger, and can offer more in interior room then the Tribeca. I know first hand how the 3rd seat in the Tribeca is almost useless, unless you are a child. It will be interesting to see how useful the 3rd seat is in the CX-9.

I am a Mazda, Subaru, and Ford dealer. We plan on placing the CX-9 next to the Tribeca to see how they stack up. I hear early 2007 we will see this vehicle?

rcf8000

It looks to me like the CX-9 will have a lot of advantages over a B9 Tribeca, like nicer styling, larger size, more power, and more features, such as a power tailgate. But it probably costs more, too.

ebby

I have a little spreadsheet for calculating 0-60s and it works pretty well. Based on my calcs, if Mazda had thrown in the 2.3 turbo in the Mazdaspeed 6 (274 hp/280-lb-ft) the CX-9 will do 0-60s in 7.2s. However with the next gen 3.5V6 rated at 250 hp (torque unknown at this time), my calcs estimates 0-60s near or below 8 secs. The calcs assumes 4200 lbs curb weight for the CX-9 (CX-7 weighs 3939 lbs).

ebby

BTW: with the already known power/torque and curbweight for the CX-7 (244 hp, 258 lb-ft), estimated 0-60 mph is 7.4s. I am awaiting any road test to confirm this. Most likely the CX-9 will be slower to 60 mph than the CX-7 since it is going to use the new 3.5V6 duratec rated at 250 hp and a tad heavier.

rcf8000

The word is that the Duratec now will be rated at 265 HP. On the flip side, I would be very surprised if the CX-9 weighs as little as 4200 lb. I'd guess 4400-4500 (with AWD). (A Chrysler Pacifica is a similar sized vehicle, and an AWD Limited model weighs almost 4800 lb.) If the CX-9 achieves 8 seconds 0-60, that would be respectable.

aviboy97

CX-9 has the same power (250hp) as the B9 Tribeca. But, the CX-9's motor is bigger. 3.5L to 3.0L

jchan2

Does the third row look a little tight, or is it just me?

ebby

I just saw an update on the CX-9 power ratings (250 hp/240 lb-ft). The estimated 0-60s is now 8.4s if it weighs 4500 lbs. That is similar to Honda Pilot and does not really stand out. The CX-7 will obviously be faster than the CX-9 with the turbo engine. My only worry about the turbo engine is refinement. Most four cylinder engines over 2.0L are trashy and coarse.

rcf8000

I see where a Mazda spokesman said that the CX-9 is intended to compete with the Honda Pilot. It certainly looks like a more upscale vehicle than the Pilot--more like an MDX competitor. If it is priced like the Pilot, the CX-9 should be a big success.

aviboy97

My only worry about the turbo engine is refinement. Most four cylinder engines over 2.0L are trashy and coarse.

Hop into the Mazdaspeed6 and you will see how refined the MZR 2.3L DISI Turbo is. It is based off of the refined Mazda3 MZR 2.3. I don't think refinement in the CX-7 will be an issue.

I am wondering how refined the new 3.5L is, though. I was supposed to go to the Auto Show today, but, I had to go to work :mad:

ebby

I was going to test drive the CX-7 partly to hear-out the engine refinement. The 3.0 duratec V6 from Ford/Mazda was not as refined as equivalents from Accord/Camry. I had a '04 Mazda6 3.0V6 that I traded in after 4 months because I could not live with the engine, even the car had good driving dynamics. My 2003 Honda 2.4 iVtec was more refined than the 3.0 V6 and had better performance with the manual trans. I am beginging to think the CX-7 may be my next take from Mazda.

rooskie

The "Inside Line" says pricing on the CX-9 will be $38K and up.

Huh?

I hope that's a misprint. Mazda says it's primary competition is the Pilot and Highlander - neither of which have a base price anywhere near $38K . They're dreaming.

crikey

According to Autoblog, the 3.5L Duratec V6 has officially been SAE rated at 265 hp on 87-octane regular grade fuel. It might be capable of producing more power once direction injection and/or turbocharging is implemented.

aviboy97

The "Inside Line" says pricing on the CX-9 will be $38K and up.


You have to take that with a grain of salt. Even though this site is accurate about a lot of issues, they are often wrong as well. They have writers that speculate based on information from sources, or whatever their fact-finding let them to. That does not mean it is always 100%accurate.

When you are dealing with a vehicle that we will not see for quite sometime, it becomes even harder to speculate accurate pricing, when it will be in showroom's and what "real" performance numbers will be. Heck, sometimes the manufacturer does not even know!

rcf8000

There is no reason for a manufacturer to know what the pricing will be for a vehicle that is 9 months from introduction. But if Mazda says that their target vehicle is a Pilot, then we can reasonably assume that the CX-9 will be priced like a Pilot. However, since Mazda doesn't have a luxury brand like Acura it is also reasonable to assume that top-of-the-line CX-9s will be priced at the low end of MDX pricing. Bottom line: a base model just under $30K, a figure that I have seen somewhere, and a fully loaded model about $40K. This is new pricing territory for Mazda, so they will be careful to not price it too high (think the Pacifica launch).

aviboy97

Mazda is not known for launching vehicles very well. Let's take a look at recent launches:

1. Mazda5...no commercials until February, and this vehicle was introduced in August, no special financing, terrible introductary lease.

2. Mazdaspeed6...only one commercial to date,and it did not do the car any justice. Car took way too long to come over here, by the time it did, they "hype" was all but gone.

3. MX-5...This was a decent launch. Car came out right when they said it would. Sales have been very satisfying to date.

4. CX-7...This car was supposed to be here in March/early April at the latest. We are not receiveing our first one until June. We will have to wait and see how they promote this on TV.

5. CX-9..we now know this car is coming. How long until we get it? Who knows. How long will potential buyers wait for this vehicle? If Mazda takes too long, will they lose potential buyers? All is yet to be seen.

I love the Mazda product, and love how Mazda's drive. I also work for a Mazda dealer. I just wish they were a bit better with new vehicle launches!

autoboy16

This is new pricing territory for Mazda, so they will be careful to not price it too high (think the Pacifica launch).

Well technically, the 929 was priced in higher end of 30k. Although that was long ago, picture the millenia in 2002. It was priced in the 30k's also. The pacifica's pricing is soooo high because it was an all new platform (personally what i call the founder of the M-B r class). I don't think is a matter of price but a matter of paying for the name. Several vehicles are priced to high but people buy them anyway. In the case of this cx9 it should be priced at 27k :shades:

jason330i

given the reports of the size of the cx7 (too small), the cx9 looks like a possible future suv for me.

i wonder what the mpg will be for the cx9...

also, can't wait to compare the cx9 vs honda pilot vs new toyota highlander.

navigator89

CX-9 wallpaper available at desktopmachine.com. These wallpaper really let me admire the style in both the CX-7 and CX-9.

Jason330i, I would also add the new Hyundai Santa Fe and Saturn Outlook on the list of vehicles to consider.

fsmmcsi

Does anyone know how much the CX-9 will weigh? The Staurn Outlook seems nice to me on paper until I noticed the very high weight. The new 3.5 V6 with 265 HP, 250 Ft. Lbs., and the new 6-speed automatic will be very nice, but not if the thing weighs 4,500 to 5,000 Lbs.

brutus22

Hey,

So I stumbled upon the Fordedge.org website and they posted some interesting info on the Engine... now as I understand the CX-9 will have the same engine, so these numbers should right arouund what we should expect.
Powertrain:
3.5L V6 Duratec Engine
265HP

Fuel Efficiency
city: 19 mpg
highway: 25 mpg
combined: 22 mpg

But these are prelim numbers only, but I think the original CX-9 info said something like 250HP. I just want to see the Fuel Efficiency be better, more like 20/28.

Have not heard anything new since the auto show tho'.

B.

unixxus

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.

corvette

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.

brutus22

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.

dave90

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.

bobw3

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).

brutus22

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.

bosi77

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?

aviboy97

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.

rcf8000

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.

bosi77

2007 Mazda CX-9 vs. 2007 Chrysler Pacifica

aviboy97

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)

ezra442

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.

music287

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

quattroporte12

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.

arumage

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.

autoboy16

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.




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:

arumage

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.

quattroporte12

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.

arumage

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.

quattroporte12

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.