Well, it is a crossover, at least compared to its peers. Note how tall it is, and it has an AWD option. I think it's a cross between a 2-slice toaster and Barbie's delivery van.
Funny thing is Subaru has an even smaller car - the R1. That's a 2 seater, so think Smart ForTwo scale.
Perhaps the smallest crossover sold in the USA that would still qualify as a crossover is the Suzuki SX4.
I am going to be either buying or leasing a crossover with 3 rows in the next 6 weeks. The two that have attracted me most are the Acadia dn the Mazda CX 9. Can anyone help me distinguish the advantages one might have over the other. Thanks.
I've been looking at these two also, and for me it comes down to size: if you will be using all 3 rows regularly (read: minivan replacement), the Acadia has available captains' chairs in 2nd row, and a little more space behind the 3rd row.
I liked the way the Mazda drove better, though. Very responsive engine, more peppy than the Acadia (I drove them back to back, and could immediately feel the difference). Also, the CX-9 was also a bit cheaper with similar options.
But if you like the Acadia, and want a better price, the Saturn Outlook is its cheaper cousin. Saturn does have non-negotiable pricing, but even with that, there should be a little difference between the two.
That, and the Saturn customer service can't be beat. Our buying experience could not be beat. They let us keep one overnight for a test-drive. They did not pressure us into buying. Our salesman was so low-pressure we started to wonder if he cared at all. They were happy to let us order it with only the options we wanted. They set us up with an aftermarket DVD installer that put in a much better system than the factory one. We went to pick it up after it finally came in. They told us they were too busy to do the paperwork, so they let us drive it home without signing anything. It was almost a week before we signed for it.
It may have helped that this was our 3rd car from that dealer, but they have been very nice to us from day 1. I think the philosophy is that they already have a predetermined profit margin on every car sold, so they can at least be nice about it. I, for one, am willing to spend a little extra to make the ownership experience as pleasant as possible.
The sound is wired directly to the FM transmitter. It does not use an antenna that hangs in the car like a lot of the portable DVD players. It is hard-wired to the antenna of the car.
Not having to haggle over the price of the car adds to the buying experience, but you always have the option of paying MSRP at other dealers too.
Staying with the car overnight is a big plus, but I also had a very pleasant experience with dealers that had a dedicated Internet department (not some salesperson or fleet manager who read e-mail requests). My last two cars were bought that way (one from Ford, another from Honda) and they gave me an invoice quote on their first response. They can't pressure people over email :-)
"I'm not going to lie- I'm not obsessed with this vehicle (the lambdas), but I will be disapointed if MT gives SUV of the Year to another vehicle, because nothing else impresses me like this does"
I'm afraid you are going to be disappointed...the CX-9 won MT-SUV-OTY. It'll be announced Oct 15.
I'm not surprised. The Mazda is a better driving vehicle. The lambdas have more room and interior flexibility, but that stands to reason because they clearly are minivan replacements...for people who can't see themselves in a minivan.
How do you know this? Have they even done car of the year? Usually it's car of the year then SUV of the year, then truck of the year. I'll look on MT.com
Well, sure it has better driving dynamics, but so does an Acura MDX. The Outlook performs just as well or better than all of its other competition. But nothing else combines interior comfort withgas mileage and performance like the Lambdas.
Is the Outlook even in the running? I think the Enclave is the only Lambda that made the finals.
The only thing the Enclave has against it is its price, compared to the competition. Otherwise it's a nice example of what GM can do when they have a little imagination.
I still think the CX-9 or Veracruz will take it, simply because choosing the Enclave would be too much of an obvious choice for Motor Trend (that and the Enclave hasn't helped Buick -- Buick overall sales are down 25%)
I suspect Buick sales would be down even more than that without the Enclave...therebye helping their situation...
Well that's a hard one to quantify: the Enclave is indeed selling well, but not in enough volume, so even a healthy margin won't make up last year's numbers -- 4081 Enclaves were delivered in Sept, while 3796 in August, so numbers are still on the smaller side.
But to your point, numbers are increasing every month, which is a good sign.
That's my point. You and a lot of other folks appreciate the interior comfort and flexibility of the lambdas much more than skidpad performance and sporty feel. Test drivers with auto magazines really put the vehicles through their paces and drive them at their limits. Thus they tend to put much more emphasis on driving dynamics than the average American driver would.
That, and the Saturn customer service can't be beat
Well, if you buy one, you might be getting to know the service staff on a first name basis. My brother is a manager for Enterprise Rent-a-Car, and they have 3 Outlooks. All three have been in and out of Saturn for repairs. His customers have not been to happy with it. Yes, consideration needs to be taken because they are rentals. But still...
Compared to the lambdas, the CX-9 has more legroom and only an inch less hiproom in the second row. The CX-9 has 17.2 vs 19.7CuFt of cargo space behind the 3rd row, so it's not too much different either. Yes the 3rd row of the lambda can "hold" 3, but if you're requirement is only for 2, then the 3rd row of either can easily hold 2 adults, and the CX-9 will provide more legroom by sliding the 2nd row up, since the combined legroom of the 2nd & 3rd rows is greater in the CX-9.
So for a lot of folks, the ability to carry 3 in the 3rd row isn't so significant, nor is the extra couple of CuFt of cargo space behind the 3rd row. If that's the case, then the better driving dynamics, style, etc can become more important for even the "average American driver."
I condider myself an average driver and I'd much rather drive a vehicle with the better driving dynamics than another one just because the other one is just bigger. I'd rather have a higher quality meal that fills me up than a poorer quality meal just because it's all-you-can-eat!
I just watched the video of the CX-9 for the SUV of the Year comp on Motor Trends web site. Mark Williams, was the commentator and he had a few errors in his narration. First, he said the 2008 CX-9 has 249 lb ft of tq, when it actually has 270, and said the CX-9 only has 3000lb max tow capacity, which is also incorrect. It can tow 3,500 lbs when equipped with the tow package.
I just thought these things should have been caught before it was posted on their website.
Do you think demand/price will go up as a result of this?
Price goes up every year, regardless. Demand? Who knows. The real only good thing that Mazda can capitalize on is for marketing purposes. That's all any of these awards really do.
But they don't always choose the best performer. The Civic won in'06- with competition like the Lexus IS/ES, and the Infinity M, and the Charger (though the 300 won the year before). It's about overall package, and I feel that the CX-9 and Vera Cruz don't have the best overall package. The Vera Cruz is nothing new, and for the large dimensions of the CX-9, even the Taurus X station wagon does better. No, it's not all about interior comfort, but the lambdas are well rounded enough to have some performance aspects covered. The MDX didn't win last year, and I think it was the quickest in the test (or maybe it was the Yukon Denali?)
From what I've heard, sales of both the Taurus/ Sable, and the Taurus X have been shockingly slow, and a new guy from Toyota (something's going on over there!) is in charge of fixing it. I'd imagine that the Taurus/ Sable (please don't let them keep the Sable name!) will get total redos- or at least they better.
But there is no need for the TX anymore, as Ford has the new Flex. So I'd bet that before the 2010 model year, the TX will be dropped. Some may think this is crazy, because they are brand new for 2008. Only they aren't. Just new (old) names and facelifts. So I guess the Freestyle will have only a short run. We'll see what happens.
The Vera Cruz is nothing new, and for the large dimensions of the CX-9, even the Taurus X station wagon does better
What do you mean by that? I really don't understand?
The MDX didn't win last year, and I think it was the quickest in the test (or maybe it was the Yukon Denali?)
While the MDX is probably the quickest, it also has a very insignificant rear seat. Compared to the other 7 passenger vehicles in this competition, the MDX fall's short of being overall well rounded. If the MDX was only a 5 passenger, it may have won.
The CX-9 out performs any of the GM's in terms of excelleration, handling, breaking. It's also more agile, and lighter by 400 lbs. It also has very comparable room to them as well. Not as big, but, still more then sufficient The CX-9 gives the appearance of being small from the outside, and is actually really big on the inside. The CX-9 also has higher ground clearance, and tighter turning radius. In MT's comparo between the Acadia/MDX and CX-9, the CX-9 got the best overall real world fuel economy as well, not to mention that the CX-9 AWD Grand Touring is LESS then the Saturn Outlook AWD XR when comparably equipped.
Now, when it comes to comfort and looks, that is purely subjective. But, when it comes to fact's, those cannot be denied. Where the CX-9 lacks against the GM's is in tow capacity, and overall interior room. That's really it.
There are some seriously fierce defenders of the lambdas here. To be honest, it's nice to see someone this emotional about a GM product that isn't a Corvette. I too like the lambdas, but there are some pretty big deficiencies in the package IMHO...to many for my $$$.
I will state for the record that I am first a foremost a "car guy" so driving dynamics are very important to me.
Soooo, I guess that explains what the big countdown is on mazdsusa.com? Heh, I was just going to post asking if anyone new what the big Cx-9 news was. Now I know.
The more I drive my new CX-9, the more I like it, and I have pretty much always looked askance at anything bigger than a wagon.
The Outlook test model we had for the weekend had at least two quality-related issues hard to explain on something with less than 3000 miles on the odo: a whirring noise coming from the dash and a malfunctioning lid atop the dash.
The initial quality data from JD Powers seemed to confirm that impression.
I'd say Popular Mechanics is very much "average guy" and they also ranked the CX-9 in 1st place, with the Veracruz in 2nd and the Outlook in 3rd place in a 6 CUV comparison...so it's not just car magazines.
The CX-9 out performs any of the GM's in terms of excelleration, handling, breaking. It's also more agile, and lighter by 400 lbs. It also has very comparable room to them as well. Not as big, but, still more then sufficient The CX-9 gives the appearance of being small from the outside, and is actually really big on the inside.
In terms of acceleration, the Acadia was only behind the CX-9 something like .3 seconds. And Mazda did kind of pull one over, as they added an upgraded engine in the same model year, I can see how accleration is now even quicker. But that's GM's fault. Maybe if they add 20-25 hp to the Chevy Traverse it will take the award next year. Size wise, the CX-9 doesn't look big, until you get to its HUGE nose. The lambdas don't really look as large as they are either, and they are more proportionate.
Comfort wise, it is all good in the CX-9 until you get to the third row, which is a dissapointment. The space in the two don't even compare.
not to mention that the CX-9 AWD Grand Touring is LESS then the Saturn Outlook AWD XR when comparably equipped.
Have to say I doubt that. I've built the two on line.
True, facts can't be denied. Where the lambdas lack against the CX-9 is in performance. But it lacks only against that, and is better in that area than all its other competitors, except maybe the Vera Cruz. And performance can be fixed (as MAzda has shown). But MAzda can't fix interior room- until the next redesign.
I will use my own experience as a guide here. I am on my 3rd Saturn and, with about a combined 18 years and close to 300k miles on them, I can count on 1 hand the number of problems I have had with them, combined. Until they burn my with a lemon, I have little reason to doubt them or GM as a whole.
"From what I've heard, sales of both the Taurus/ Sable, and the Taurus X have been shockingly slow, and a new guy from Toyota (something's going on over there!) is in charge of fixing it."
Not very surprising. I went into the showroom of one of the largest Ford dealers in the world yesterday. There was an Edge, a Focus, a fancy 150K GT, a lot of SUVs, several pickups, and no Taurus, either sedan or T-rex. I don't know how they plan to sell them if they don't show them...
I still think that they are afraid it will steal from Explorer sales, since (except for towing) it has better MPG, comfort and better dimensions than the Explorer.
My dad was in the market for a cross-over, and his least favorite of the bunch was the Taurus-X. His main complain: the interior felt cheap, he didn't like the small instrument cluster, and the exterior has the too-obvious two-tone color (base model). So apparently the Taurux-X can't win over a 70-year old guy who has previously owned 2 Mercury Sables.
He ended up buying a Toyota Sienna. This of course means he plans to visit us very, very, very often so he can carry around the grandkids...(by the way, the Sienna isn't bad at all, tons of room behind the 3rd row, but I'm still not buying a minivan!).
True, facts can't be denied. Where the lambdas lack against the CX-9 is in performance. But it lacks only against that, and is better in that area than all its other competitors, except maybe the Vera Cruz. And performance can be fixed (as MAzda has shown). But MAzda can't fix interior room- until the next redesign.
I think the lambdas also lack behind in interior design: too much hard-shining material covering the dash and steering wheel, tiny buttons to control the A/C, and that single stalk design for wiper/wash/light control. Not to forget the sub-compact thin steering wheel.
The Outlook, when comparably equipped, is more expensive. You have to check pretty much all boxes to get it up to the same level, starting with the Touring Package for the larger wheels, convenience package for the seat memory, premium package for leather, etc, etc. On the Mazda, you need to add the roof rails, home-link rearview mirror and that's it.
Remove some of the options above (upgraded wheels + HID,) and the difference is even greater:
Outlook XR AWD = 40110 CX-9 Touring AWD = 38902
And you also get a power hatch (part of the Mazda assistance package that includes navigation) and bluetooth connectivity vs. the paid OnStar system.
I am 6' tall and sat on 3rd row in the Mazda. It is not bad at all. Given price, driver's comfort, performance, and equipment, the only reason to go for the lambda is the elusive 8th passenger squeezed in the center of 3rd row.
I will use my own experience as a guide here. I am on my 3rd Saturn and, with about a combined 18 years and close to 300k miles on them, I can count on 1 hand the number of problems I have had with them, combined
More power to you. While you are stating your real world experience, I was posting mine.
Sorry! It was announced today, anyway. If you were here a few days ago, there is a couple of us here that spoiled it for everyone, and there were a few that also called our bluff!
I think, by and large, most new cars sold in the US today are fairly reliable. You really have to look at things on a model-by-model basis. Some models have a history of problems (Chrysler minivan trannys) but I don't see much difference between Honda, Toyota, GM, etc... anymore. The nightmare stories of somebody buying a rattling deathtrap where everything is failing are just isolated incidences anymore.
You won't find me disagree with you there. While American brands have gotten better, I still think they are not totally up to snuff with say the Hondas/Toyotas of the world. However, it is also my opinion, and I think I may ruffle some feathers here , but Honda and Toyota are also not as good as they used to be.
Where Japanese brands tend to have an advantage is overall build quality. Meaning materials used, and how well they fit together. I do not think Toyota uses great materials, but, they put them together nicely.
So now we have several magazines all picking the CX-9, and I think it's because of the overall driving experience (handling, braking, etc) ,not just a 0-60 time. And in terms of space, I don't think most folks are looking at a CUV for carrying 8 people, but just primarily 6. Those needing capacity for 7-8 on a regular basis will be better served by a minivan.
Depends on how often people use all three rows and the size of the occupants. Why sacrifice the better driving characteristics just for the added interior space that isn't needed?
I agree. If you are looking for the most useable 3rd row and cargo capacity, go with a minivan. I have noticed that most of the people I have sold a CX-9 to, do not need the 3rd row, however, they chose it for the "just in case" factor. Meaning their kids soccer games, camping, etc. Most of the people buying one are a family of 5 or smaller. They have also chosen to go with this vehicle for the way it drives, and the total capacity potential.
All have said if it were only capacity they were looking for, a minivan would be in their driveway.
Comments
Funny thing is Subaru has an even smaller car - the R1. That's a 2 seater, so think Smart ForTwo scale.
Perhaps the smallest crossover sold in the USA that would still qualify as a crossover is the Suzuki SX4.
I liked the way the Mazda drove better, though. Very responsive engine, more peppy than the Acadia (I drove them back to back, and could immediately feel the difference). Also, the CX-9 was also a bit cheaper with similar options.
In my mind, you can't go wrong with either.
It may have helped that this was our 3rd car from that dealer, but they have been very nice to us from day 1. I think the philosophy is that they already have a predetermined profit margin on every car sold, so they can at least be nice about it. I, for one, am willing to spend a little extra to make the ownership experience as pleasant as possible.
Just wondering: Is the sound routed directly into the head unit, or thru an FM transmitter?
Staying with the car overnight is a big plus, but I also had a very pleasant experience with dealers that had a dedicated Internet department (not some salesperson or fleet manager who read e-mail requests). My last two cars were bought that way (one from Ford, another from Honda) and they gave me an invoice quote on their first response. They can't pressure people over email :-)
I'm afraid you are going to be disappointed...the CX-9 won MT-SUV-OTY. It'll be announced Oct 15.
Usually it's car of the year then SUV of the year, then truck of the year. I'll look on MT.com
The only thing the Enclave has against it is its price, compared to the competition. Otherwise it's a nice example of what GM can do when they have a little imagination.
I still think the CX-9 or Veracruz will take it, simply because choosing the Enclave would be too much of an obvious choice for Motor Trend (that and the Enclave hasn't helped Buick -- Buick overall sales are down 25%)
I suspect Buick sales would be down even more than that without the Enclave...therebye helping their situation...
Well that's a hard one to quantify: the Enclave is indeed selling well, but not in enough volume, so even a healthy margin won't make up last year's numbers -- 4081 Enclaves were delivered in Sept, while 3796 in August, so numbers are still on the smaller side.
But to your point, numbers are increasing every month, which is a good sign.
Well, if you buy one, you might be getting to know the service staff on a first name basis. My brother is a manager for Enterprise Rent-a-Car, and they have 3 Outlooks. All three have been in and out of Saturn for repairs. His customers have not been to happy with it. Yes, consideration needs to be taken because they are rentals. But still...
So for a lot of folks, the ability to carry 3 in the 3rd row isn't so significant, nor is the extra couple of CuFt of cargo space behind the 3rd row. If that's the case, then the better driving dynamics, style, etc can become more important for even the "average American driver."
I condider myself an average driver and I'd much rather drive a vehicle with the better driving dynamics than another one just because the other one is just bigger. I'd rather have a higher quality meal that fills me up than a poorer quality meal just because it's all-you-can-eat!
True. The CX-9 won MT's SUV of the Year for 2008. I've known for about a week now.
I just thought these things should have been caught before it was posted on their website.
Price goes up every year, regardless. Demand? Who knows. The real only good thing that Mazda can capitalize on is for marketing purposes. That's all any of these awards really do.
Buick's other vehicles are a bit of a dissapointment. I mean the Lucerne? Not with the 300 and other competitors out there.
But there is no need for the TX anymore, as Ford has the new Flex. So I'd bet that before the 2010 model year, the TX will be dropped. Some may think this is crazy, because they are brand new for 2008. Only they aren't. Just new (old) names and facelifts. So I guess the Freestyle will have only a short run. We'll see what happens.
What do you mean by that? I really don't understand?
The MDX didn't win last year, and I think it was the quickest in the test (or maybe it was the Yukon Denali?)
While the MDX is probably the quickest, it also has a very insignificant rear seat. Compared to the other 7 passenger vehicles in this competition, the MDX fall's short of being overall well rounded. If the MDX was only a 5 passenger, it may have won.
The CX-9 out performs any of the GM's in terms of excelleration, handling, breaking. It's also more agile, and lighter by 400 lbs. It also has very comparable room to them as well. Not as big, but, still more then sufficient The CX-9 gives the appearance of being small from the outside, and is actually really big on the inside. The CX-9 also has higher ground clearance, and tighter turning radius. In MT's comparo between the Acadia/MDX and CX-9, the CX-9 got the best overall real world fuel economy as well, not to mention that the CX-9 AWD Grand Touring is LESS then the Saturn Outlook AWD XR when comparably equipped.
Now, when it comes to comfort and looks, that is purely subjective. But, when it comes to fact's, those cannot be denied. Where the CX-9 lacks against the GM's is in tow capacity, and overall interior room. That's really it.
There are some seriously fierce defenders of the lambdas here. To be honest, it's nice to see someone this emotional about a GM product that isn't a Corvette. I too like the lambdas, but there are some pretty big deficiencies in the package IMHO...to many for my $$$.
I will state for the record that I am first a foremost a "car guy" so driving dynamics are very important to me.
The more I drive my new CX-9, the more I like it, and I have pretty much always looked askance at anything bigger than a wagon.
The initial quality data from JD Powers seemed to confirm that impression.
In terms of acceleration, the Acadia was only behind the CX-9 something like .3 seconds. And Mazda did kind of pull one over, as they added an upgraded engine in the same model year, I can see how accleration is now even quicker. But that's GM's fault. Maybe if they add 20-25 hp to the Chevy Traverse it will take the award next year. Size wise, the CX-9 doesn't look big, until you get to its HUGE nose. The lambdas don't really look as large as they are either, and they are more proportionate.
Comfort wise, it is all good in the CX-9 until you get to the third row, which is a dissapointment. The space in the two don't even compare.
not to mention that the CX-9 AWD Grand Touring is LESS then the Saturn Outlook AWD XR when comparably equipped.
Have to say I doubt that. I've built the two on line.
True, facts can't be denied. Where the lambdas lack against the CX-9 is in performance. But it lacks only against that, and is better in that area than all its other competitors, except maybe the Vera Cruz. And performance can be fixed (as MAzda has shown). But MAzda can't fix interior room- until the next redesign.
Not very surprising. I went into the showroom of one of the largest Ford dealers in the world yesterday. There was an Edge, a Focus, a fancy 150K GT, a lot of SUVs, several pickups, and no Taurus, either sedan or T-rex. I don't know how they plan to sell them if they don't show them...
I still think that they are afraid it will steal from Explorer sales, since (except for towing) it has better MPG, comfort and better dimensions than the Explorer.
He ended up buying a Toyota Sienna. This of course means he plans to visit us very, very, very often so he can carry around the grandkids...(by the way, the Sienna isn't bad at all, tons of room behind the 3rd row, but I'm still not buying a minivan!).
I think the lambdas also lack behind in interior design: too much hard-shining material covering the dash and steering wheel, tiny buttons to control the A/C, and that single stalk design for wiper/wash/light control. Not to forget the sub-compact thin steering wheel.
The Outlook, when comparably equipped, is more expensive. You have to check pretty much all boxes to get it up to the same level, starting with the Touring Package for the larger wheels, convenience package for the seat memory, premium package for leather, etc, etc. On the Mazda, you need to add the roof rails, home-link rearview mirror and that's it.
With navigation + sunroof + leather + upgraded wheels + HID + remote engine start
Saturn XR AWD = 41605
Mazda GT AWD = 40550
Remove some of the options above (upgraded wheels + HID,) and the difference is even greater:
Outlook XR AWD = 40110
CX-9 Touring AWD = 38902
And you also get a power hatch (part of the Mazda assistance package that includes navigation) and bluetooth connectivity vs. the paid OnStar system.
I am 6' tall and sat on 3rd row in the Mazda. It is not bad at all. Given price, driver's comfort, performance, and equipment, the only reason to go for the lambda is the elusive 8th passenger squeezed in the center of 3rd row.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2007/112_0710_mazda_cx9_2008_suvoty- _release
More power to you. While you are stating your real world experience, I was posting mine.
Congratulations CX-9. SUV of the year for 2008.
I'm not an SUV fan, but this is always good news for all Mazda owners.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/auto_news/2007/112_0710_mazda_cx9_2008_suvoty- - - - - _release/
Where Japanese brands tend to have an advantage is overall build quality. Meaning materials used, and how well they fit together. I do not think Toyota uses great materials, but, they put them together nicely.
Really, I agree with everything you wrote.
All have said if it were only capacity they were looking for, a minivan would be in their driveway.