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
In regards to interior materials, it is a matter of opinion of which I highly disagree. As far as handling goes, the CX-9 is far superior. The Tribeca has more then its fair share of body roll.
Not to mention a real AWD system.
If by real you mean 100% all the time, then yes. There is nothing fake about the CX-9's AWD system. In fact, the design of the CX-9's AWD system is to help the tires last longer and assist in fuel economy. There is no need for 100% AWD in the dry summer months, now is there?
IMO there are side visibility issues in the CX-9 and their blind-spot monitoring system is there for that exact reason.
The BSMS is regarded as an upscale safety feature. While every car has blind spots, the Tribeca has many of it's own, including the very large C pillars. To each their own....
Did you get a 7-pass Tribeca?
The Tribeca is really considered a flop. It is not large enough to compete with other 7-pass CUV's and does not offer the pizazz for a 5-pass CUV. It's really stuck in between which is really too bad. It's a good car, but, falls short in many ways hence the reflection of poor sales.
Again, I guess it is a difference of opinion. The Tribeca has silver cheesy plastic.
There is a general bias against Subaru as a brand, so most ppl don't even bother test-driving one which is a mistake I think.
Subaru is on fire my friend! Their sales are through the roof, as a company. The Tribeca is the lone wolf that gets no love. I'm a part of the largest Subaru dealer on the east coast, and cannot sell a Tribeca to save my life. Forester's, Impreza's, Legacy's are all hot commodities.
All in all, the Tribeca is a very good CUV, I just think there are many other better choices out there. What matters is what you think, since you are the one who drives it.
My previous AWD/4WD experience: 87 Subaru Turbowagon MT, 92 Toyota 4Runner AT, 98 Ford Expediton, 00 Chevy Tahoe, 04 Honda Pilot, 05 Infiniti G35X. In the usual VA, NC, SC, TN driving arena I prefer the additional traction of AWD/4WD systems to handle in order of priority:
(1) heavy rain/wet roads
(2) aggressive dry road driving
(3) muddy camp/park roads w/ BSA
(4) occasional snow/ice roads
(5) occasional over beach trips in the OBX.
I need room for 2 adults and 3 growing boys + gear; WITH DECENT MPG as I will use this vehicvle for 30K+ mi/yr business. I realy like the Pilot's AWD system and loved G35X ATESSA AWD with RWD bias. Currently trying to find best bang for buck FWD/AWD system for family "wagon" and am looking at Hyundai Santa Fe ($), Toyota HL ($$), Acura MDX ($$$), amongst others (Subaru Tribeca, but relatively hi $ and low MPG). Cargo area behind front seats matters, but don't necessarily need 3rd row.
Recent reads on Toy's HL AWD system have me scared of this system and web information is lacking on it. I really like the Borgwarner ITM 3e electromag actuation for responsiveness and decent MPG. What's the difference betw/ 04 Pilot's and 08+ Acura MDX SH-AWD? I think SH-AWD is perfered but its hi $$ and lower MPG is a big trade off. PLEASE HELP!
link title
Pilot and Highlander are conspicuously missing....
SUVs Under $35,000
Crossovers also dominate our next category, and bumping up the price by $10K nets the buyer increased cabin and storage space without sacrificing carlike performance. With seating for seven and surprisingly sophisticated handling for a vehicle its size, the Mazda CX-9 is a repeat pick and perennial favorite at this price point. The Volvo XC60 is a new crossover from the Swedish carmaker known for safety and offers an innovative collision-avoidance system for stop-and-go city traffic as well as solid driving feel and a dash of European flair.
With room for eight passengers and poised composure on the road, the Chevrolet Traverse is another GM hit in the crossover category. It should be noted that its corporate cousins, the Buick Enclave and GMC Acadia, share the same platform — and by default the accolades for the Traverse.
IMHO when brisk acceleration is required (say at a 90 degree intersection to a high speed thoroughfare) even in dry summer conditions, but especially in anything less than that, having 4 wheels to help you pounce out into traffic is vastly superior and safer than chirping 2wd (even w/ TRACS) and torque steer. Other aggressive driving conditions also warrant AWD over 2WD - consider other dry surfaces than smooth pavement, i.e. dirt, gravel, sand, leaves, etc. H2O is not the only factor.
While I personnaly prefer the Tribeca's AWD system to that of the Grand Touring CX-9's, overall, I prefer the CX-9's spaciousness and total package. The CX-9's interior also edges out the Tribeca's, reflecting upscale Europsort interiors (if you like that better). It's a shame the Tribeca isn't a little bigger, because in my wet test drives it stuck to the road like a magnet.
Finally, we plan to purchase a midsize CUV/SUV by year end and have settled down to the 2010 Grand Touring CX-9 vs. the 2010 Toyota 4Runner Limited w/ X-REAS given the multitasking requirements our family/work requires (see post #468). Granted they are fairly different vehicles at different price points (CX-9 + $5K = 4Runner Limited), but in a gut feel True Cost to Own, the tank like build, flexible 4WD options and believe it or not the better MPG of the 4Runner (17/22 vs 16/21), Toyota has the edge right now, even though the CX-9 edged it out in handling (but not by as much as you would think for a CUV vs. an SUV).
YMMV
At the start of our search, we read the guides and our Pilot was furthest from the top of our list. But it happened to be the one we drove first. We didnt at all leave the test drive thinking, oh I love it.
After driving the Traverse, Acadia, CX-9, and Highlander, we came back to the Pilot, which was surprising to us. Having read the guides again and doing a lot of searching, as well as coming to realize what goals/purpose our car would serve, that was the clincher. If the decision was based on impulse, I probably might ahve gone with the others but we all felt these cars were all very much the same with little differences among 3 row SUVs
Thanks in advance!
The newer Pilots may have slightly more cargo room, but the CX-9's seating comfort, handling (20 inch wheels w/ Michelin Latitudes - much better than the OEM tires), braking, Lexus grade 6 speed transmission and even nice interior layout make us happy with our decision. The Pilot's more of a truck, the CX-9 is a true crossover - I just wish we could do better than the 21 - 22 MPG I get on trips with my heavy foot.
Both are true crossovers; the Pilot is based on the Odyssey, which stems from the Accord. The only way the Pilot is more of a truck is in exterior design (and perhaps the middling fuel economy).
Lexus grade 6 speed transmission
Lexus-grade? Help me out with that one.
Lexus-grade? Help me out with that one
The CX-9 has an Aisin 6-speed automatic transmission which also makes transmissions for Toyota and Lexus. Aside from using the recommended by Mazda JS3309 fluid for the transmission. You can also use Toyota's T-4 Transmission fluid that is widely used by many Toyota and Lexus vehicles.
Kapish??
*Yes, Toyota owns a majority stake in Aisin stock.
I get frustrated when people do that, then I up-and did it myself!
That's a good example of where spell check fails. I think you meant foul.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
You got me!
I really like the CX-9. Great vehicle. The Pilot is great too, just different. If you want capacity, good cabin tech, okay MPG for size or like the "classic" SUV look, the Pilot is the choice. If you love sporty handling and less utilitarian interior, the CX-9 is the choice. It's really hard to justify the Highlander as the best choice compared to these two on any crieria, unless price is no object and you're getting the Hybrid even though you will never make up the cost difference versus fuel bill in your lifetime of use.
Just put in a few hundred miles on my Pilot today. 18.5 combined mpg, seated 2 in front, 2 kids in cars seats in middle with an adult between them, plus a stroller, and adult in the 3rd row.
Just yesterday we were parked across from our best friend's CX-9. Sure its sportier looking, but I really didnt care for the cramped, cambered-in rear shoulder area/ ceiling in the 3rd row.
Our car is a tool. If we wanted a sports car, I'd get that.
And as far as fuel.....if Honda ever puts that Diesel Pilot back into consideration, we'd jump. As already noted, the TOyota Hybrid did not impress, even though on paper, it seemed like the best choice.
1. Pilot is utilitarian at the cost of sporty in all aspects.
2. I cannot stand that dumb ugly front end.
Both of these however are subjective reasons not to go with a Pilot over a CX-9.
Many people buy based on subjectivity. We are all entitled to our opinions!
Since fuel efficiency is based on a number of factors it would be nice to know what Mazda changed to achieve better fuel efficiency. Not sure if a couple of MPG here and there tilts a buying decision, but good to see that Mazda is doing something about it.
The 2007 CX9s have 3.5L engines. Owners have reported much better MPG than later models with 3.7L variants. For 3.7L engines, Mazda revised the intake manifold and programming. Interesting to know what Mazda does this time for 2011.
If the 2011 has the DI (direct injection) engine, it would be a very nice improvement to the CX9s, not just MPG, but for torque and horsepower. One can always hope...
I started researching SUVs only recently. I went to blogs, ranking, reviews. It seems CX-9 wins hands down in the category of Toyota Highlander, Pilot, and Escape (throw MDX in the mix if you like).
With CX-9 winning so comfortable, I presumed they would be all over the roads, parking lots. Not so, I could hardly find a few. The SUV space here is dominated predominantly by Highlander and Escape, with good no of Pilots and MDX's. CX-9'sare so out of the picture that it begs the question, why the discrepancy..There must be some reason fro the shall we say poor sales of Mazda CX-9s. Anyone care to enlighten me.
The drive is the best in the category, period, the End! Since I didn't get the GPS and RE system, I was wondering if the audio quality would be any better.
Regards,
OW
Many people are obsessive with "reliability".
They choose among Toyota/Honda exclusively.
I got asked many times, "Why did you buy Mazda?" :mad:
For the record, I only had two very minor issues (taken care of at oil changes)
from 3 and half yrs of ownership. That is decent reliability in my book,
though my wife's Prius is issue-free, but it had more than THREE recalls.
On the Highlanders. True, it is probably 2mpg better than CX9. However, consider how much more you pay for the Highlander, comparably equipped.
If you drive 12000/yr, assuming 20 vs 18mpg, the difference is only 67gallons,
i.e. 67x$4 = $260 yr. If you pay $2000 more for your Highlander, that is enough to cover 8 yrs of mpg differences, w/o considering interest....
Not to mention that Toyota charge more for comparable parts and maintenance. I know because my wife has a Prius. I receive coupons from both all the times.
Oh, did I mention the trashy/cheapo 1-piece 3rd row seat of Highlanders?
It is a joke, really.