very similar to the new CX-3 front except the new CX-9 grill juts out much further upfront.
Hopefully, all that jutting out won't block the usable light from the headlights,
god knows we need better lights on the CX-9, the OEM lights are just horrible, can't see squat at night
I'm very wary of 4-cylinder turbo, the CX-7 was just a disaster, Google CX-7 turbo problems
http://repairpal.com/turbocharger-may-fail-415
CX-9 is a beast, not sure if a four banger can handle the load, I wouldn't buy the new one just yet
until there is enough reliability data
4 cylinder turbo? Even if it can tow the same as the current V6 it's going to work a lot harder.
Why is that? If you made XXXhp at 3000rpm it's the same whether it's a 4, 6 or 8. The biggest difference is in low end until the turbo gets to its efficiency range. But wig variable vanes and all the other electronics in use it's hardly noticeable.
Cars and turbos are way more evolved than they were even 10 years ago. I would be most vehicles will go this route to meet mpg mandates and people won't even. It ice the difference in a few more years.
It's like all the F150s with the 3.5L and EcoBoost engines. They just don't compare to a true V8 for power. HP is not HP, torque is not torque all the time. I'd take the naturally asperated V6 over a turbo 4 every time.
To add, all these turbo 4 engines need 92+ octane to produce the power they claim on paper.
So far, skyactiv powertrains have been very honest in that they deliver fuel efficiency within spitting distance of the EPA numbers. A turbo 4 in a heavy vehicle makes me nervous as cars like the Explorer with the 2.0 ecoboost didn't get anywhere near the EPA in real world driving. Maybe a 2.5 turbo is sufficient to deliver solid real world efficiency in a CX-9 but I'm doubtful. No question that the performance could be satisfactory but if the engine is in boost all the time then fuel economy will suffer.
New member here. Owned an 88 MX-6 and a 94 Miata, both of which I loved. Have not been back in the Mazda camp since, but would love to. Looking to replace my '04 Pilot which I bought new. Hate the '16 Pilot, Highlander doesn't offer a bench middle row in their top trim, hate the Pathfinder. Explorer feels like sitting in a minivan, and I won't consider anything from GM. So my current top choice is the Durango R/T. The current CX-9 as we all know is taking its last breaths, so I'd love to consider the newly-designed model. BUT...from the spy shots this does not look like a 3-row vehicle. (sad1)
It'll be 3 rows. It would be a huge mistake if it didn't.
And if I remember correctly, the Durango is also not coming back after either 15 or 16.
There's no way in Mazda's right mind that the new CX-9 would not offer a 3rd row--their sales would plummet.
But are you really going to wait another year for a car that you don't have details on?
I'm with you on the Highlander Limited middle row captain's chairs, but I think the 3rd row "can" seat 3.
Yes, but does that spy photo look like a 3-row vehicle to you?
There's no way in Mazda's right mind that the new CX-9 would not offer a 3rd row--their sales would plummet. Every other car non-luxury brand maker that sells a 2-row midsized cross over
Fresh photos you can find on the web: