Spied: 2017 Mazda CX-9

I can say that my headlights on my 2010 GT are awesome! First time I've seen a complaint about the head lights
 
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


Well, if they do go turbo it's sure as hell not going to be based on that old 2.3 turbo-four, which is problematic as hell and a product of the Ford era. They'd have to do a clean sheet for the CX-9's engine. Whichever it is, turbo-four or six cylinder, it will be an all Mazda design.
 
My stock 2013 headlights were a joke. Im sure the OEM HID equipped cars were vastly better though. But me just adding a 55w aftermarket hid kit more then fixed that issue.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.

The problem with the EcoBoost engine is the way its tuned, you have no torque wave to ride, they make their power above 2000 rpm and need a little bit of mashing to get going. The BMW and Hyundai-Kia turbo-fours don't need that, they have a torque wave you can ride, which keeps you from needing to thrash the engine cause they start below 1500 revs.

i could really care less if an engine needs premium or not, plus its 91 and above here in CA not 92.

Turbo-four or not, the CX-9 hopefully will introduce a more powerful engine. Mazda really needs one for their larger cars.
 
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.
 
2017 Mazda CX-9 will not have a diesel variant / turbo 2.5L @ 275HP

http://indianautosblog.com/2015/09/2017-mazda-cx-9-will-not-have-a-diesel-variant-196469

The 2017 Mazda CX-9 is expected to be unveiled at the 2015 Los Angeles Auto Show in November. The 7-seat SUV is likely to be offered only with only one petrol engine, which is confirmed by Benders to be a SkyActiv motor.

In addition, reports suggest that the all-new CX-9 will introduce the first turbocharged 4-cylinder SkyActiv engine, which is possibly based on the 2.5-litre power plant currently doing duty in the CX-5, Mazda 3 and Mazda 6. If so, it would be tuned to produce around 275 bhp of peak power. Either way, the 2017 CX-9 is expected to have an AWD variant.
 
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.

That's my #1 concern with all these turbos. In small cars, they're rarely on but in big SUV's they're almost always on. I like em but I do have doubts and I can still see MAzda going V-6 or turbo-4 even though the CX-9 is super close to being revealed.
 
I find the exterior styling to be pretty good. So long as it has 7 seats and somewhat enjoyable performance then I would consider it as the replacement for our current CX-9 when we look to switch in a couple of years. Also considering Ford Explorer Sport which may be up for a proper redesign by then. I like our current 2011 CX-9 as a people mover and 'stuff' hauler although the interior is very old-style.

TheWombat
 
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.
 
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)

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, also has a 3-row offering--except Jeep, which essentially sells the Durango as a 3-row version of the GC.

But are you really going to wait another year for a car that you don't have details on? Keep in mind, all reports say it will be a turbo 4, with no V6 offered. I love my '12 CX-9, but if I was shopping today, it wouldn't make my list because the design hasn't really changed since '07. I kind of like the Pilot; I'm with you on the Highlander Limited middle row captain's chairs, but I think the 3rd row "can" seat 3. I would probably get the Santa Fe--but the Limited's middle row captain chairs make that a 6 passenger vehicle, which I won't be able to do for carpool commitments. I like the Kia Sorrento, but it's the smallest of the bunch.
 
It'll be 3 rows. It would be a huge mistake if it didn't.

Agreed, but that spy photo sure doesn't look like a 3-row vehicle, unless you're talking Nissan Rogue-style 3rd row.

And if I remember correctly, the Durango is also not coming back after either 15 or 16.

There is definitely a 2016 Durango. Who knows what the future holds beyond that.

There's no way in Mazda's right mind that the new CX-9 would not offer a 3rd row--their sales would plummet.

Yes, but does that spy photo look like a 3-row vehicle to you?

But are you really going to wait another year for a car that you don't have details on?

If it really is a year, then no. But I'm hoping the new CX-9 is not that far off. We'll find out next month.

I'm with you on the Highlander Limited middle row captain's chairs, but I think the 3rd row "can" seat 3.

Yes, but those mandatory captains chairs in the middle row make it a 4-passenger vehicle if you're carrying any substantial cargo. Kiss road trips or camping excursions goodbye if you have more than 2 kids since the third kid will be occupying half your cargo space.

A stupid move on both Honda & Toyota's part. I'm no fan of domestic brands, but I have to give them credit when it comes to options. They are much, much more flexible in that department.
 
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

Every other car maker makes a 2 door FWD car also, and generally quite a few. Mazda hasnt offered one in almost 20 years in the US. Mazda doesnt sell any Pickup trucks either, which are one of the largest segments out there in the US. So dont go off what other car makers are doing, compared to Mazda. because Mazda def is on there own path.
 
Fresh photos you can find on the web:

attachment.php


attachment.php
 
Back