Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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...
It's in the dealer order guide.
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
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.
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.
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 :-)
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Can we get an additional 3 MPG for $162.50/year?
Why would I expect anything more from the new Pilot? Magic?
I'd say expectations for 19/25 for an AWD model is a little high, but I'd say 17/23 or 24 is a reasonable expectation.
Since the MDX uses premium, if you drive 12,000 miles a year based on $2.60/gallon, the cost is $1835.29. The CX-9 cost at $2.50/gallon (since it uses regular) is $1875. That's a whopping $39.71 difference assuming all city driving. If you assume all highway miles, the MDX will cost you $54.54 more than the CX-9.
My point stands whatever manufacturer is there, I do not care if it is Mazda or Honda...I recall when the Acura RDX came out that mileage was dissapointing and people riled agasint it, and it is not all about saving money on fuel it is about using less, effecting our environment less, being proactive about improving fuel mileage, even if it is only 3 miles per.
Stop comparing the MDX to the CX-9 I am dying here just dying...different segments, one can always argue the merits of spending less money on 2 different cars in two different segments and price points... ie the performance/technology/better-service of the MDX is not worth the extra money over the CX-9.
Just my 2 cents,
B.
I hate it when people bring up segments in their arguments. The difference between the "luxury" class and normal class of vehicles is so slim these days. It's all smoke and mirrors these days because there is so much platform and parts sharing. It's really ridiculous. Manufacturers create luxury brands just because people couldn't dare buy a $40+k car from a manufacturer the makes a $14k car. Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, Lincoln, Cadillac, etc. all thank you for perpetuating a stereotype and padding their parent company's wallet.
BTW, I don't really like Honda, although Honda and Toyota make the best, most reliable 4-cyl motors in the business. I don't really know why. Maybe it's all the little !@#$#@$ running around in the souped up Civics who think their new spoiler gives them 20hp.
Don't forget all the stickers they put on those cars, too: that adds at least another 20 hp!
Sarcasm aside, I completely agree with you on the "perceived" luxury of the SUVs you mention, as they are nothing more than their "lesser" counterparts with a little more styling. The Pilot/MDX fits that category well (i.e. the underpinnings were basically the same before the redesign), but obviously there is a market for people who will pay more.
I think the marketing team at Acura, Lexus, etc have done a good job convincing their target audience that their SUVs have better technology, better handling, etc. etc., and really, they don't (every SUV out there seems to offer NAV, bluetooth, heated seats, AWD, etc. etc, which a few years ago were only found on premium cars). If you look at the options offered on the CX-9, you will see that there is nothing more that the new MDX offers.
So yeah, it does annoy me a bit when people snub the CX-9, saying it's not even in the same league as say, the MDX. Mechanically and technologically it is, just because it's cheaper doesn't mean it is not a worthy competitor.
The only argument I've seen against this point is that the imaginary next-Pilot will be better. Since we don't know, and can't buy that car, I think the key point is that the CX-9 has virtually the same mileage of the Pilot.
Not bashing Honda - just saying that Mazda has achieved almost the same mileage as the smaller Honda - and I don't see why this is a bad achievement???
I find Honda/Acura to be more similar then Toyota/Lexus. I also think Infiniti/Nissan are too close to justify the steeper Infiniti price tag.
I know I was totally off topic, but, I would say the CX-9, with its luxury features, can compete with the MDX. It just may not have the same fit and finnish Acura is known for. But, I do not believe that fit and finnish alone justifies the thousands more you pay for the "A" on the grille.
I totally agree though. The less cars you make, the better the fit and finish is. I've never heard of too many problems with Mazda's fit and finish though. My 1999 Toyota Camry has a few that I've noticed. I guess nothing will ever be completely perfect.
We're after function and form, not false exclusivity. The new MDX is smaller in every dimension, costs more and uses premium gas (which costs $.20 more per gallon in my neighborhood.) Frankly, it's a no-brainer!
Jay
The Veracruz is the smallest (about the same as the MDX), and I'm sure, like the Entourage, premium fuel will be recommended. You actually do not have to use it though. I found, through Hyundai, that the motor will run just fine on regular. You just might lose 3-5hp. The Veracruz has more interior room than the Pacifica and Honda Pilot though. This thing is moving way up market for Hyundai. Just look at the specs for the new Santa Fe and imagine it will more power, the same or better gas mileage (6-speed auto, and make it 6" longer and 4" wider. This also has the best power to weight ratio of the bunch.
The Outlook is about the same price as the CX-9, gets about the same gas mileage (better on the highway), and larger (seats 8 and has 2 cu. ft. more behind the 3rd row. Despite having more horsepower, this thing will be a cruiser rather than a performer because of it's heavy curb weight (4700lbs FWD, 4900lbs AWD) and highly geared transmission.
The Acadia is slightly upmarket from the Outlook so it is a bit more expensive than the CX-9 when it gets optioned out. It pretty much has exactly the same features as the Outlook.
The CX-9, I think, will be the most fun to drive. It has lots of size with a fairly low curb weight (4300lbs), and with a little more sporty gearing and suspension along with optional 20" wheels, it should handle the curves fairly well. It won't be a sports car, but you should be able to throw into a corner much better than it's competitors.
http://www.moderntiredealer.com/t_inside.cfm?action=news_det&storyID=6669
I read somewhere that using regular gas on an engine that requires premium is okay; however, just as you mentioned, you will lose some HP due to the engine pulling back timing, and more importantly, you will lose some mpg. So yes, you are saving at the pump by putting lower octane, but does it make up for the loss in gas mileage due to the engine trying to adjust for lower octane?
Anyone know if the CX-9 will be there?...I really hope so, this is my first time going to this auto show as opposed to the Detrioit and New York Auto shows so hope will not be dissapointed.
Assuming the CX-9 is there I will compare it to the likely target competitors in that price range ie segment, I am sure it will impress.
Just one last thought on the MDX points...Lets put it this way lets say I have about 30-34 to spend, I would never even bother looking at an MDX/X5/XC90/Q7/RX7, they are simply not in the budget, but if I had the budget I would lean towards the MDX or Q7, they have the most advanced AWD systems especially the MDX and Audi IMO makes the best interiors. Sorry for the rant.
Anyhow, please be there cx-9, that is my main reason for going.
B.
I would think it would be there. It seems like once they've hit one auto show they'll hit them all until production really hits its stride.
But I was surprised to see the GMC Acadia and Saturn Outlook. The Saturn was not available to crawl inside, but the Acadia was. Wow, I was really impressed and I have NEVER considered an American car, the styling was very nice, great headlights. The interior was very nice, the third row seat was the most comfortable out of all the SUV's that I sat in at the show, I liked the idea of the minivan set-up with captains chairs instead of 2nd row bench, some of which I sat in.... the Tahoe(pathetic for the size), Pilot(for a 5 year old design surprisingly nice) , Freestyle(surprised by the nice interior for a Ford product), B9 Tribeca(who are they kidding with 3rd row, unless you slide the 2nd row up all the way you would not be able to fit your feet, guess you could use it for a bed), Sante Fe(wow Hyundai has come along way), MDX(1st/2nd very row nice, 3rd row snug), Q7 (awesome if I had the budget!, just loved the panoramic sunroofs).
So needless to say the Acadia was damn impressive, I think GM has finally hit at least a triple. As for looking at 3rd row vehicles, if you don't care about the SUV look and not into getting AWD, the Honda Odyssey was really plush, loved the Nav set up, slick!
I look forward to checking out the CX-9 when I can really check it out, I really hope it has better interior then the CX-7 which styling wise looks great but the interior just leaves something to be desired.
B.
P.S. On a seperate point, the VW Eos was cool, the hard top w/ integrated sunroof very nice...and if just want a cheap fun car who doesn't like the VW GTI, I'm sold.
I don't really like the exterior styling or dash on the Outlook or the Acadia. It looks too much like a generic SUV on the outside. I also don't like the vehicle's weight and high gearing (I wonder how that will effect acceleration). The Outlook comes in at about the same price as a CX-9 fully loaded, and the Acadia is just a bit more with all the options.
Nevertheless, I'll keep posting here as I get more information.
Jay
music287, usually it takes 6-8 weeks for the vehicle to arrive at your dealership after it has left Japan, unless you are on the West Coast. Keep in mind, the production date is an estimate. I sure hope you get your CX-9 in late January, but, don't be surprised if it is a few weeks later then that.