Spied: 2017 Mazda CX-9

It was announced that it will require premium 93 octane.

For areas that only have 91 octane max, the engine will de-tune itself to prevent detonation, so that means less HP/Torque for those pumping 91 octane into the tank.

I have confidence in the engineering BUT I am always leery of new designs. I will wait a year or two before I decide if the new turbo engines are reliable.

C/D reported that lower octane fuel will only reduce HP, not torque.
 
The new model looks promising but a few worries:
1) Powertrain: I'm willing to give it a chance but we have to realize that Mazda is promising something that nobody else has been able to do. Performance and real-world efficiency from a smaller turbo engine in a heavy 3-row CUV. The 2.0L ecoboost in the Explorer didn't deliver performance or efficiency. The 2.3L seems to be doing better. But Ford offers a V6 and a V6 with a turbo. This 2.5L turbo is going to be Mazda's only engine.
2) Rear glass seems to slope even more than the current version. In addition, the car is a couple inches shorter. What's this going to do to cargo space and 3rd row headroom.
3) Where did that tunnel come from? The current model has a flat floor all the way across the 2nd row. It's nice when you're carrying a lot of passengers.
4) Really don't know why they didn't go 40/20/40 on the second row seats. It's not a requirement but they did it on the CX-5. You'd think they'd do it here.
5) I think captains chair in the 2nd row of these cars are kind of silly. It does make it easy for kids to get to the 3rd row but it's generally pitched as a luxury feature in competing vehicles. Mazda is going to be pushing a new top end trim level and you wonder if the lack of captains chairs is going to be a problem.
 
At last do we have the CX-9 Premiere!

Ok, at first glance I saw no major differences -exterior wise- with the current facelifted model. But of course, now they begin to crop up and also the styling to grow on you.
I still do not like that much the rear bumper design.
The car looks pretty good, inside and out.
Things I love are:

LED Headlights -low and high beams-
Nappa Leather -Oh yeah!!!!!!-
310 lb-ft of torque . Love love that number, and so much oh so, that all of it is available at such a low 2000 rpms. That is certainly a huge improvement in daily driving. I read in their program that they found out that the majority of drivers never go beyond 3K. I dont doubt it. And yeah, looking forward to get that pull of acceleration from down low.
I mean, yeah, I come from the school of thought that likes a lot of horsepower, but in the real world all those extra horses really up top, they are left mostly unused. Still, I would not expect that it gets slower to 60 mph than the current model. Looking forward for the acceleration results of the test drives.
Less weight. A lot of it. The AWD model especially seems to really take back what it lost in peak horsepower.
The interior, a huge step up, design and materials wise.
Fuel economy! Really needed. And by Mazda*s thinking, it will be a major improvement in the real world. Hopefully city wise it gets really better. Highway wise, I have taken trips and yeah, even fully loaded in terms of people and luggage, full AC on, I have seen it register between 22 up to 28 mpg.

I do not see the front parking sensors? Tell me it has front parking sensors.
Also, where are the cooled seats? Paddle shifters? (not that you really use them frequently anyway, but you gotta ask). At least I see a sport mode! Great! Hopefully it really awakens the car up.
No self parking assistant?
Has the power tailgate system improved?
 
2016 Mazda CX-9 TECH REVIEW by MotoManTV

 
Last edited:
I'm still scratching my head that anyone is considering both Durango and CX-9. Have you seen up-close the interiors in the Durango? I was stunned at how cheap they are; one glance and my decision was made. Didn't even want a test drive. The Durango is even a few steps down from the GMC Acadia, which has a pretty cheap interior itself.

I think the interior in the current Durango is great. Good quality materials, very clean design. Nothing like the domestic auto interiors of years past that I avoided like the plague.

The Durango interior quality isn't as good as what I have in my VW, but then again neither is Mazda's (though of course I've yet to run my hands over the new CX-9).

A couple things I don't like about the new CX-9 interior, at least from photos. The center seat in the middle row looks uncomfortable. And the center column has a very cockpit-looking feel to it, like a sedan. For a large family hauler vehicle that will be doing a lot of road trips, I prefer a more open space and not be cocooned into the driver seat like a fighter pilot.
 
At last do we have the CX-9 Premiere!

Ok, at first glance I saw no major differences -exterior wise- with the current facelifted model. But of course, now they begin to crop up and also the styling to grow on you.
I still do not like that much the rear bumper design.
The car looks pretty good, inside and out.
Things I love are:

LED Headlights -low and high beams-
Nappa Leather -Oh yeah!!!!!!-
310 lb-ft of torque . Love love that number, and so much oh so, that all of it is available at such a low 2000 rpms. That is certainly a huge improvement in daily driving. I read in their program that they found out that the majority of drivers never go beyond 3K. I dont doubt it. And yeah, looking forward to get that pull of acceleration from down low.
I mean, yeah, I come from the school of thought that likes a lot of horsepower, but in the real world all those extra horses really up top, they are left mostly unused. Still, I would not expect that it gets slower to 60 mph than the current model. Looking forward for the acceleration results of the test drives.
Less weight. A lot of it. The AWD model especially seems to really take back what it lost in peak horsepower.
The interior, a huge step up, design and materials wise.
Fuel economy! Really needed. And by Mazda*s thinking, it will be a major improvement in the real world. Hopefully city wise it gets really better. Highway wise, I have taken trips and yeah, even fully loaded in terms of people and luggage, full AC on, I have seen it register between 22 up to 28 mpg.

I do not see the front parking sensors? Tell me it has front parking sensors.
Also, where are the cooled seats? Paddle shifters? (not that you really use them frequently anyway, but you gotta ask). At least I see a sport mode! Great! Hopefully it really awakens the car up.
No self parking assistant?
Has the power tailgate system improved?

Not sure why you want front parking sensors... Cooled seats I would like to see as an option on the Top of the line. Mazda has ALWAYS had a "sport" model, but it is a trim level and it is just the Base trim. And paddle shifters? really, on a three row SUV?
 
The new model looks promising but a few worries:
1) Powertrain: I'm willing to give it a chance but we have to realize that Mazda is promising something that nobody else has been able to do. Performance and real-world efficiency from a smaller turbo engine in a heavy 3-row CUV. The 2.0L ecoboost in the Explorer didn't deliver performance or efficiency. The 2.3L seems to be doing better. But Ford offers a V6 and a V6 with a turbo. This 2.5L turbo is going to be Mazda's only engine.

Actually, the new Volvo XC90 has a 2.0 Turbo with 316 HP and 295 ft/lbs of torque, so maybe it's just that Mazda is on the cutting edge, rather than following the crowd.
 
Not sure why you want front parking sensors... Cooled seats I would like to see as an option on the Top of the line. Mazda has ALWAYS had a "sport" model, but it is a trim level and it is just the Base trim. And paddle shifters? really, on a three row SUV?

I want front parking sensors so I know *exactly* how much room I have in front. Some people do still parallel park.
 
dang, new one does look good ! especially the interior, high quality materials,

however, not really digging the multiple horizontal chrome grill elements,
I prefer the current "blacked out grill' that makes the Mazda logo look like it's floating in air

scroll thru the HQ pictures from CNET review link below, can hardly see the low profile chrome roof rails (wonder if they will fit the current generation), nicely done ! they look like part of the car instead of an add on option.

just noticed, no turn signal flashers on mirrors ?? c'mon Mazda even cheap cars have them now.
The gear shifter leather boot is a nice touch but they only looks nice when new, they are a pain to keep clean in the long run.

http://www.cnet.com/products/2016-mazda-cx-9/

love the color in the debut car, looks like my 2014 meteor grey mica color
agree with poster about the "front knife edge" that thing will cut Bambi in half *just kidding*

I would still wait until there's more real road data on the 4 cylinder turbo, not really sure if there's enough power to tow.
I bet in 2 or 3 years there will be a V6 engine option.

Also need to get crash test results and pricing, I bet the so called "Signature" model with the real Yamaha wood trim
and real aluminum trim and nappa leather will run $45K, I only paid $32K GT with tech package for my 2014 model.

Redline review:

 
Last edited:
I would still wait until there's more real road data on the 4 cylinder turbo, not really sure if there's enough power to tow.
I bet in 2 or 3 years there will be a V6 engine option.

Also need to get crash test results and pricing, I bet the so called "Signature" model with the real Yamaha wood trim
and real aluminum trim and nappa leather will run $45K, I only paid $32K GT with tech package for my 2014 model.

Same here. I am always leery of new engine designs and a turbo 4 cylinder with 17 pounds of boost and 10:5 compression is something I don't want to be the guinea pig on. Sure Mazda builds great products but nothing is time tested and 2 years from now that engine could be blowing head gaskets or having the oil burning issues that Subaru and others had with their turbo cars.

Pricing wise, the CX9 Signature GT package will probably be close to the mid $40's, so another $10k-$15k more than the loaded CX5.
 
just noticed, no turn signal flashers on mirrors ?? c'mon Mazda even cheap cars have them now.
The gear shifter leather boot is a nice touch but they only looks nice when new, they are a pain to keep clean in the long run.

Keep in mind that it's still a prototype. I'm sure they will have turn signal mirrors on the final version.
 
"hidden" projector foglight in 2016 CX-9 ?

nice touch, I know it's not really "hidden" per se but I wouldn't even have noticed it, until he pointed it out in the video (0:47 mark)


looks like a Hella DE foglight, I've seen them in BMW 3 series and older X5's, you can stick an HID kit in there and really light up the road.

Also, looks like there's space to add DRL LED's in the plastic cover above foglight or even add another fog light (wink)

 
Last edited:
2017 Mazda CX-9 Prototype First Drive

2017 Mazda CX-9 Prototype First Drive

A lot of it seems to be a rehash of the Mazda press release. There are some worthwhile tidbits:

The result of all this work is awesome. While we fancy ourselves as heavy-footed drivers, there simply wasn't a need in the CX-9. Power is abundant off the line. The 2.5-liter had no issue setting us back in our seat and making for breezy, effortless passes along southern California's freeways. On the twistier sections of Mulholland Drive, this low-end torque paired nicely with the lag-free turbo to fling the big CUV about. You notice the high-end power dropoff when you're really driving spiritedly, but given the CX-9's target customer, we don't see that being a problem in the real world.

Mazda wouldn't give us estimates, but we'd wager that 30 mpg highway is within reach.

Speaking of the V6, a few readers asked why Mazda didn't just go that route. Simply put, it's cheaper to add a turbocharger and an intercooler to the existing 2.5-liter four-cylinder than it is to add all the Skyactiv engine tech to a brand-new V6. Besides, even with the Skyactiv tech, Mazda said the V6 would've had a 13:1 compression ratio, more mechanical friction, and greater pumping losses than the 2.5T. As is the trend with many turbo engines these days, downsizing is a great solution Mazda sees the 2.5-liter as a genuine V6 replacement.

Other readers pointed out that you only get the full 250 horsepower when running on 93-octane fuel; driving with 87-octane results in 227 hp. It's true, and honestly, most customers won't care. In fact, our drive took place on regular-octane fuel, and no one told us until we finished the test. At no point did we think, "You know, this thing could really use an extra 23 hp." Besides, the all-important 310 lb-ft of torque is there regardless of fuel choice.

Getting away from the engine, the CX-9 is an amalgamation of a bunch of well-received items. The six-speed automatic is from the Mazda6 (which uses the naturally aspirated 2.5-liter Skyactiv engine), and was a solid, trustworthy companion during our test. Left on its own, the six-speed executed snappy upshifts; downshifts arrive just as you need them. The CX-9 doesn't have paddle shifters, but it performed so flawlessly especially in Sport mode that we never missed them. The transmission held gears when charging hard and even when lifting off for a turn. During highway cruising and energetic runs, the transmission worked beautifully.

It also mentions that it drives better than an Explorer or Pathfinder, but that was already a given to me. I'm interested to know if it punches above its class and drives better or equally as an MDX or an XC90.
 
Interior photos of the new one show a tunnel on the floor in the 2nd row (and possibly the 3rd row too). The current one manages to have a flat floor. Any ideas about what's behind this? It looks like ground clearance is similar and I don't see how the new AWD would require this change.
 
Interior photos of the new one show a tunnel on the floor in the 2nd row (and possibly the 3rd row too). The current one manages to have a flat floor. Any ideas about what's behind this? It looks like ground clearance is similar and I don't see how the new AWD would require this change.

My guess is that the tunnel is due to i-ACTIV AWD. If you check out images of the CX-5's 2nd row, it also has the tunnel. The CX-5 uses the same i-ACTIV AWD.
 
My guess is that the tunnel is due to i-ACTIV AWD. If you check out images of the CX-5's 2nd row, it also has the tunnel. The CX-5 uses the same i-ACTIV AWD.

So I guess it would be good to know what we get in return for the loss of the flat floor. From the press materials i-ACTIV is a bunch of sensors which doesn't explain the tunnel. It also can route 50% of torque to the rear wheels but that's the same as the current model. So what's the benefit? Maybe there's a little more ground clearance but I'm doubtful.
 
So I guess it would be good to know what we get in return for the loss of the flat floor. From the press materials i-ACTIV is a bunch of sensors which doesn't explain the tunnel. It also can route 50% of torque to the rear wheels but that's the same as the current model. So what's the benefit? Maybe there's a little more ground clearance but I'm doubtful.

It is a completely new chassis, so it is likely that the "flat floor" was not deemed as necessary as some other engineering constraints, or benefits.

The i-ACTIV system simply utilizes all of the existing sensors and data on the vehicle for better AWD application.
 
Are you guys saying that the i-ACTIV AWD system is simply the current AWD system on the CX-9 except with a bunch more sensors?
 
Are you guys saying that the i-ACTIV AWD system is simply the current AWD system on the CX-9 except with a bunch more sensors?

The 2015 CX9 has a older Ford based system, whereas the 2017 CX9 uses the system already found in the cx3, cx5. The I-ACTIV system looks to have been improved since its launch in 2013 CX-5. The 2016 I-ACTIV systems are utilizing more of the existing onboard vehicle sensors for data points than the original 2013 system, however I do not see that they changed the name of the system to reflect these updates?
 
Last edited:
Back