Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

2007 Mazda CX-9

13468923

Comments

  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    Yup, you're right. Alot changes between pre-production and production... like the vehicle getting better: quality problems being addressed and ride dynamics smoothing out.

    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. :)
  • brutus22brutus22 Member Posts: 122
    "Mazda is saying the MPG will be
    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.
  • bandemommybandemommy Member Posts: 20
    Please forgive me if this is a stupid question but will the CX-9 be able to handle light off road use, ie. beach sand? We have a Pilot and a Yukon XL and would love to get rid of the Yukon for a cross-over. The Pilot does really well on the beach, what can I expect from the CX-9?
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Mazda has started production of the CX-9. This means they should be arriving in the US by late January.

    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.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Us Mazda dealers are privledged to info on up comming vehicles before the rest of you. That is where I believe he got it. I have seen this EPA estimate as well.

    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...
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    Sneak a CX-7 out for a test drive. It uses basically the same AWD system as the CX-9. I would think it would be able to handle that same terrain as the Pilot.
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    The new 3.5L motor is fairly low tech for today's standards. It does not use direct injection or variable valve timing to make its power, but both are coming at some point. This motor is capable of much, much more. I'd say that the addition of those two technologies could produce more power and better gas mileage. The only thing I'm surprised about is the AWD gas mileage. In most vehicles AWD doesn't cause that much of a drop.
  • audia8qaudia8q Member Posts: 3,138
    Where is Mazda saying this, I do not see anything within Mazda News or Mazda website or Government Fuel listings saying anything?

    It's in the dealer order guide.
  • unixxusunixxus Member Posts: 97
    It does not use direct injection or variable valve timing to make its power....

    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
  • nxs138nxs138 Member Posts: 481
    Well to tell you the truth I was a bit surprised when I saw those mpg numbers; for some reason I was expecting something in the mid 20's (after all, the bigger GM Acadia/Outlook products are supposed to get 25 or 26 mpg hwy). Especially since it is a 6 speed.

    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.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    The only thing I'm surprised about is the AWD gas mileage. In most vehicles AWD doesn't cause that much of a drop.

    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.
  • brutus22brutus22 Member Posts: 122
    I am sorry but I do not compare the MDX to the CX-9 I compare this to the Honda Pilot/Toyota Highlander GMC Acadia/Saturn Outlook/Subaru Tribeca all of which get better mileage and older (except GM) 5+ years for the Honda/Toyota...bottomline 16/22 sucks...and saying oh it is not that bad because cheaper on 87 octane does not take away from the fact I want to use less fuel, emit less pollutants etc... yet still have a vehicle with family room, AWD and style.
    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 :-)
  • d_hyperd_hyper Member Posts: 130
    Have you considered giving the money you save driving CX-9 using 87oct (vs others w/91oct)to the Sierra foundation at the end of the year?! Not to mention tax benefit... :)
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    If you are looking to be environmently friendly, then I can see your point, to an extent. Personally, I do not see 2mpg highway all that much of a difference, since you said 18/24 would be OK.

    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!
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    Most SUVs and CUVs see a 1mpg drop in their AWD numbers.
    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.
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    That's the problem with the car market. Their is very little that is mechanically different between the MDX and the CX-9. People think that if Acura only makes expensive cars, they must be better cars and worth the immense price difference. In reality, you may have $3k worth of actual differences between the two vehicles. The other $6k or so is perceived. You just rolled out $6k for a name.

    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.
  • dave90dave90 Member Posts: 27
    Don't clearly understand all the complaints about gas mileage in context.

    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.
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    I'm not out to get Mazda. I still love the vehicle. I guess I was hoping for too much out of this motor since it in new for 2007. The Pilot is built like a brick. Despite its much smaller size, it weighs the same as the CX-9.

    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.
  • brutus22brutus22 Member Posts: 122
    Here is the issue, I expect a 5 year newer design to improve on gas mileage against their main competitors. The CX-9 not only has better aerodynamics with about the same weight, a 6sp transmission, but it about 5 years newer then the Pilot and all they can get is 16/22 AWD?...come on now any way you slice it this is a disapointment.

    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.
  • lateralglateralg Member Posts: 929
    The difference between 22 & 25 MPG, at 12,000 miles/year is 65 gallons. @$2.50/gallon, that's $162.50/year.

    Can we get an additional 3 MPG for $162.50/year?
  • dave90dave90 Member Posts: 27
    Sorry, I don't buy the argument that the Pilot is 5 years old. Honda just released a new MDX and it went from 17/23 to 17/22. Six years newer, and worse gas mileage.

    Why would I expect anything more from the new Pilot? Magic?
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    The MDX requires premium fuel too, and it is over 9 inches shorter than the CX-9. It has around 40 more horespower though. The CX-9 has average gas mileage when compared to it's competitors. The only thing I blame Ford on is not equipping the motor with direct injection and variable valve timing. I think that really would have given it the "edge". (pun intended)

    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.
  • audia8qaudia8q Member Posts: 3,138
    Don't you find it odd that everyone was all over the CX-7 for the premium fuel requirement but when a Honda product requires premium fuel its no big deal...??
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    That's because it's the all powerful Honda. We must bow before it. What kind of offering have you brought? :)
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    "I have brought to you.....a CX-9..... to beat the Honda Pilot's tail pipe (cannot say what I wanted to say) into submission..."
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    From a styling and interior room standpoint, it certainly does that. :)
  • brutus22brutus22 Member Posts: 122
    Why are people on this board so defensive of Mazda while also trying to bash Honda..don't understand it.

    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.
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    If people were really worried about saving the environment, then this whole segment is not for them. Personally, if people were willing to settle for 200hp out of these motors (which will move a vehicle of this size just fine, although you wouldn't win any races), gas mileage would be easily 5-7mpg more, but people are not willing to do that. People would rather the advances in technology go towards more power. People who buy hybrids are even concerned with horsepower (AKA Honda Accord Hybrid & Toyota Highlander Hybrid which both use V6 Hybrids instead of 4-cyl). That is why technology hasn't really brought us much gas mileage savings over the past 6 or 7 years.

    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.
  • nxs138nxs138 Member Posts: 481
    "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.
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    Sorry about the rant guys. Marketing for luxury car company's have done a good job with convincing people, but further back in car history, they really didn't need to do much. In the past, luxury car brands really did provide far superior options and build quality. One of my old neighbors used to have a early 60's Lincoln with power windows, huge V8, and even a moonroof. That thing was sweet. I think that idea of the way it used to be persists today even though the gap between a "luxury" brand and a regular brand has shrunk greatly.
  • dave90dave90 Member Posts: 27
    For those who don't find the MDX comparison compelling, I was comparing the Pilot. I believe these are in the same segment. The 2WD mileage is exactly the same as CX-9. The AWD mileage is 1 mpg bette in city, highway is the same.

    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???
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    Upon seeing the size of the new MDX, I wouldn't think the new Pilot could be that much bigger than that. I'll bet gas mileage for it stays about the same, maybe 1 mpg better than the current version.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    The real only difference between Lux brands with "blue collar" parent companies is fit and finnish, with a few extra creature comforts. I would say the higher Lexus vehicles, the new LS I believe parks it's self. You can't get that in a Toyota, however, the 2010 Camry may have it, ya never know.

    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.
  • lateralglateralg Member Posts: 929
    Acura and Lexus are built in Finland? ;)
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    I had to read back through that post to get your joke. I feel so blonde. :)

    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.
  • music287music287 Member Posts: 116
    Since Chrysler has decided not to produce an AWD minivan we were forced to look elsewhere to replace our fifth T&C. We wanted AWD, heated seats, xenon hid lights, luggage space behind the third row and 6-7 seats, using regular gas. Other than the Pacifica, the CX-9 is the only choice. We put a deposit down on the first day our dealer took orders. He still predicts, btw, that it will arrive in late January/early February.

    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
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    There's also the Hyundai Veracruz, GMC Acadia, and Saturn Outlook.

    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.
  • unixxusunixxus Member Posts: 97
    The CX-9 will be fitted with Bridgestone Dueler H/L 400 tires. Seems like this tire has not yet been reviewed at Tirerack.com.

    http://www.moderntiredealer.com/t_inside.cfm?action=news_det&storyID=6669
  • nxs138nxs138 Member Posts: 481
    I've been looking through the Veracruz forum, and saw the pictures someone posted. Looks pretty nice, actually. I'll have to see both the CX-9 and Veracruz in person, to compare interior space.

    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?
  • lateralglateralg Member Posts: 929
    I believe that timing is retarded only under moderate-heavy throttle. Road-load, level-ground should allow the same spark advance & fuel economy regardless of fuel ... within reason.
  • brutus22brutus22 Member Posts: 122
    Hey,

    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.
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    In some cars, running regular instead of premium can cause pinging and some knocking.
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    Anyone know if the CX-9 will be there?

    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.
  • loachloach Member Posts: 246
    It should definitely be there - the question is whether they'll let you get inside it or not. Sometimes when new models are displayed at auto shows they're behind the velvet ropes with the doors locked. Often, this is because they're really just pre-production models that the manufacturers aren't comfortable letting the public into.
  • brutus22brutus22 Member Posts: 122
    Well, no go, was there on Sunday and no site of the CX-9, the Mazda guy there said there was like only 6 in the entire country so they were not able to get one for the show, this was a huge dissapointment.

    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.
  • arumagearumage Member Posts: 922
    I test drove a Santa Fe the other day and was very impressed with all aspects of the vehicle. The 3rd row was pretty comfortable considering the vehicle's overall size. My only complaint was that there was no room whatsoever behind the 3rd row. The Veracruz should address that a bit.

    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.
  • loachloach Member Posts: 246
    Dang. I would take the fact that it wasn't at the Boston show as further evidence that this thing is nowhere near hitting showrooms. Which means Aviboy's estimates of it hitting dealerships in early spring seem much more realistic than others' wishful thinking of Jan '07.
  • music287music287 Member Posts: 116
    Take it for what it's worth but, we're awaiting delivery of a CX-9. The dealer put the order in as soon as Mazda accepted 'em and Mazda has confirmed that it will be built (in Hiroshima) on December 1. I think that it's very possible I'll get it in late January/early February.

    Nevertheless, I'll keep posting here as I get more information.

    Jay
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    I just placed my order for my second CX-9 allocation. We are still under the assumption that our first allocation will arrive sometime late February-early March.

    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.
  • upstatedocupstatedoc Member Posts: 710
    This would be a huge deal breaker. Currently pursuing an'07 MDX which has this option. The CX-9 has a lot of toys for a good price (about $8K less than MDX). Does anyone know for sure that DVD is not available w/ sunroof?
Sign In or Register to comment.