Spied: 2017 Mazda CX-9

Drogos said:

non of the cars released before 2014 does well in small overlap.

Click to expand...

Check out Volvo. Perhaps not surprisingly, but just about everything they made prior to 2014 did well on that test.

Subaru also had cars that predate 2014 get an "acceptable" on the test. This is probably because the front frame rails in a Subaru are spaced more widely than a typical car to fit the flat engine design.

Just about every other make, however, has had to tweak their designs to do ok. It's a shame that Fiat/Chrysler is in such bad shape financially, otherwise they'd probably have fixed the Durango by now.

Stumbled across this thread searching for 2016 CX9 info. Wanted to chime in and give my 2 cents.

Mazda has used turbos for years. Not sure why everyone is so concerned with them? I understand it's a new engine with a new use in terms of grunt over high horsepower. I can't believe the old school thinking I am reading. The HP is down 10%. Torque is up 15%. It should tow better, have better acceleration, climb better, especially at altitude since its boosted. Also, you are jumping 20% in mpg which should counteract the 20% penalty for premium, although it sounds like regular is possible. I am not going to worry about 7-8 bucks per fill up on a 35-45k vehicle purchase in a 3 row large vehicle. If MPG is the concern stick with mini vans to haul people.

I have driven turbo vehicles for years and find they are the best of both worlds. Power when you need it, efficiency when you don't. It's just the trend to get to CAFE standards. Gotta accept the change. Going down from 455 engines was a shock also.

How does everyone know it lost seat room? I just read in Motortrend the third row is ample for 6 footers. Let's wait until you can actually sit in one.

As to the Durango, I am also cross shopping the 9 with the RT. I like the 8 speed but its still thirsty, still expensicve., no second row front to rear sliding seats, poor visibility. The resale on Dodge sucks as does the fit and finish especially body and paint.

The Highlander has a small third row and low roof. Santa Fe is nice but the arm rest sucks. The Pilot is nice in the lower trims, no 9 speed for me. They seem to be having some issues.

If Mazda can maintain the price and still give the leg room of the last gen, I really think I am going to get one. I don't care about longevity as I don't care to waste another 4-5 years to find out. I am sure it will be fine, like all modern cars.

As to Subaru and head gaskets and oil burning, non of those issues occur in the turbo cars. Those are on the NA engines. The 2.0 DIT has shown to be solid. The head gasket issue has been gone for years.

I love the sporty look, very nice looking interior, tech and expected MPG with good if not great usable power all at an affordable price of this new 9. Increased sound deadening, acoustic glass etc. All sound like a more polished and refined cabin.

Subaru is rolling out a new 3 row next year but I am not sure exactly when and don't want to wait. Subaru has fantastic resale with several models holding 65% after 3 years.

The Highlander is smooth and quiet, two gripes that kept me out of first gen 9's plus abysmal MPG. I like the 6 cylinder power and the smooth transmission and the seats are great. It is just not a lot of size or content for the money. I prefer a turbo over a 6 cylinder any day.

Anyway, I learned a lot in this thread and look forward to more reviews to roll out as testers get a chance to give us more details!

I am looking for trim breakdown and pricing as well as interior dimension specs.

Nice post, except I don't think members meant that it lost seat room BUT in the pictures of the new CX9 you can clearly see a hump in the second row, it will be very uncomfortable for the second row middle passenger, they have to hunch their legs and knees up over the hump.

I have three kids and even with the third row they hardly use it because when I pick them up they're too lazy to climb back there and school administrators want to keep the line moving so they mainly use just the second row which is fine now since it's flat, the new one has a hump which is inconvenient for me when I get the new LCD flat screen can't just slide it in, gotta lift it over the hump LOL.

I know I know, small detail to gripe about overall I love the new CX9 but I tell you that flat floor is very convenient and it's a step backwards to add a hump.

I'm sure there's a very good reason Mazda probably needed more space for transmission or drivetrain but if Honda/Toyota can make it flat why can't Mazda?

We're not talking about a sedan with low ground clearance here that would need a hump, we're talking about a tall SUV with a 2nd row hump ? Come to think of it, I've never seen an SUV or even a minivan for that matter with a 2nd row hump. I wonder if only new AWD CX-9 has the hump and FWD will be flat? That will be something to check out at the auto show.

batmancx said:

Nice post, except I don't think members meant that it lost seat room BUT in the pictures of the new CX9 you can clearly see a hump in the second row, it will be very uncomfortable for the second row middle passenger, they have to hunch their legs and knees up over the hump.

I have three kids and even with the third row they hardly use it because when I pick them up they're too lazy to climb back there and school administrators want to keep the line moving so they mainly use just the second row which is fine now since it's flat, the new one has a hump which is inconvenient for me when I get the new LCD flat screen can't just slide it in, gotta lift it over the hump LOL.

I know I know, small detail to gripe about overall I love the new CX9 but I tell you that flat floor is very convenient and it's a step backwards to add a hump.

I'm sure there's a very good reason Mazda probably needed more space for transmission or drivetrain but if Honda/Toyota can make it flat why can't Mazda?

We're not talking about a sedan with low ground clearance here that would need a hump, we're talking about a tall SUV with a 2nd row hump ? Come to think of it, I've never seen an SUV or even a minivan for that matter with a 2nd row hump. I wonder if only new AWD CX-9 has the hump and FWD will be flat? That will be something to check out at the auto show.

Click to expand...

good point batman, last time I've seen a hump like that was in a hybrid sedan, most likely for the battery pack.

come to think of it, I've never seen a hump (green arrow) like that before also on any SUV or minivan,

just looking at it, doesn't look comfortable at all for the 2nd row middle passenger.

@dboz - all good points on forced induction. Now, from someone that just yesterday traded in his 08 legacy Spec B (still can't frickin believe I did that ) and has between close friends and family min. 8 subarus ....you are simplifying the head gasket issue or lack of it on turbo subarus. Not to drag this thread further away from it's actual purpose...there is nothing significantly different in terms of choice of materials and overall design between NA and turbo shortblocks. It's true NA head gasket issues pops up much more often on subaru forums....you know why ??? because turbos are dying before head gaskets has a chance to fail LOL !!!! In all seriousness, there is quite a few variables that affect overall health of the engines in subarus. These cars are so bullet proof though..So easy to work on, parts are cheap, solid platform. My 08 spec b with 111k on the clock was bone stock, road tuned for 93. It gave me nothing but pleasure and satisfaction. It was tracked, it was ice tracked it was driven like I stole it on the road and it still provided amazing reliability and MUCH better comfort believe it or not than wife's 11' outback. 05-09 gen suabrus was golden age for this company. Subaru at time was still aspirational company. They really created beautiful package for very reasonable price. Audi quality of materials or better with MUCH better reliability and price. 10+ gen is uber s*** compared to previous gen. Cheap, plastic, noisy pile of crap. My understanding is that 15+ improved and returned to good old days in terms of quality ...still driving 11' CX 9 and 11' outback limited .....man ..no contest. It's not even funny. My newly ecquired cx9 so it will do for a now. I practically stole it from a lot considering what it is and how many features it packs. TC service has to be done asap, otherwise very solid platform. New mazda cx 9 seems to improve dramatically on drive train with minor improvements in other departments which means it will be VERY solid contender. Next car though, definitely subaru with 3 rows ...if I can afford it new.

I commented earlier and will do it again to back up batmancx. That hump is a step backwards. There are plenty of cars that have it but the current CX-9 doesn't and many of its competitors don't have it either. I have no idea what engineering decision led to the hump in the new version and wonder what it could have been to be worth the tradeoff of space and utility in the second row.

As for the turbo, I had a Legacy GT with a 2.5L turbo and it was fantastic. But that was a much smaller and lighter car. I've been skeptical of small turbos in large heavy cars since Ford tried putting the 2.0L Ecoboost in the Explorer and it was a joke. They did it to improve their CAFE number. It was only offered in FWD. Drivability wasn't great and fuel efficiency in the real world was nowhere near the EPA test numbers. 2.5L is definitely bigger than 2.0L and I'm encouraged by Mazda's engineering lately. I'll wait to pass final judgement but I'm a little skeptical and believe that they could have borrowed Toyota's fantastic and efficient 3.5L V6 which might have been able to deliver a better driving experience with real world fuel economy to match what they're going to get with the 2.5 turbo.

dboz said:

Stumbled across this thread searching for 2016 CX9 info. Wanted to chime in and give my 2 cents.

Mazda has used turbos for years. Not sure why everyone is so concerned with them? I understand it's a new engine with a new use in terms of grunt over high horsepower. I can't believe the old school thinking I am reading. The HP is down 10%. Torque is up 15%. It should tow better, have better acceleration, climb better, especially at altitude since its boosted. Also, you are jumping 20% in mpg which should counteract the 20% penalty for premium, although it sounds like regular is possible. I am not going to worry about 7-8 bucks per fill up on a 35-45k vehicle purchase in a 3 row large vehicle. If MPG is the concern stick with mini vans to haul people.

Click to expand...

Look at this month's issue of Car and Driver, re: Volvo XC90 Lows: "Stressed four tries its little heart out in a six-cylinder segment". People aren't afraid of turbos--but how many 3-row crossovers are using a turbo 4? XC90 and CX-9. There is a reason for this--people are skeptical that these engines will provide adequate power, without intrusive noise, harshness and vibration. We'll see....

And as to MPG...I don't think people's complaints about CX-9's MPG are because that is someone's main "concern"--the CX-9 is at the bottom rung in this class of vehicles. It's fair to expect something at least average from a company like Mazda.

Keep in mind, that car rags are TESTING performance. Of course ringing out a 4 banger 0-60 or 100 is going to stress it. Mazda has said REAL world is what it is shooting for here. 0-60 is not real world for most. 40-60 is a better measure. Rarely do you ever go from a dead stop all the way to highway speed in one pedal to the floor launch.

Keep in mind the interior shots are in a prototype vehicle. Looking at the hump it looks added to me. Possibly just covering something? It looks like it is sitting on the carpet with a small gap under it, not how you would typically install a carpet in a finished vehicle. The is no hump 2-3 row so I would guess it may be extra power or something like that for show use?

NVH is a problem in the current 9. That's why they added 50+ pounds of deadener and acoustic side glass etc.

I am not going to argue that a 4 cylinder is as smooth as a 6 but to get a 6 with 300+ pound feet of torque the MPG is is never going to be comparable to what a turbo 4 can produce. CVT transmissions are the other NVH complaint in vehicles like the Outback or Pathfinder. At least Mazda is sticking with a 6 speed transmission.

All vehicles have compromises somewhere. Personally, I think performance will be kick arse. I will give up some quietness for power with MPG. I think Mazda will separate itself better and may pick up significant sales. The new pilot is only 280hp and 262 pound feet. 20% better torque in the 9 combined with the weight reduction should keep it enthusiast/driver oriented vs boredom of Pilot etc. The Highlander is pretty quick but still pretty boring to drive and much smaller.

I also will not argue that the turbo will eventually need replaced. So for reliability that will be a certain replacement at some point. I don't buy and hold these modern cars as they just advance so rapidly now. Technology, safety, efficiency change every few years now. I personally have decided there are too many computers and electronics in all modern cars for me to want to drive something 10 years. I am assuming finding replacement parts for obsolete electrnoics will become a real problem in the near future.

Anyway, good points by all.

I am not going to let the Ford failure get me discouraged. Mazda has a completely different angle and objective for this engine. Just think turbo diesel in gas format. Lol.

dboz said:

Keep in mind, that car rags are TESTING performance. Of course ringing out a 4 banger 0-60 or 100 is going to stress it. Mazda has said REAL world is what it is shooting for here. 0-60 is not real world for most. 40-60 is a better measure. Rarely do you ever go from a dead stop all the way to highway speed in one pedal to the floor launch.

Keep in mind the interior shots are in a prototype vehicle. Looking at the hump it looks added to me. Possibly just covering something? It looks like it is sitting on the carpet with a small gap under it, not how you would typically install a carpet in a finished vehicle. The is no hump 2-3 row so I would guess it may be extra power or something like that for show use?

NVH is a problem in the current 9. That's why they added 50+ pounds of deadener and acoustic side glass etc.

I am not going to argue that a 4 cylinder is as smooth as a 6 but to get a 6 with 300+ pound feet of torque the MPG is is never going to be comparable to what a turbo 4 can produce. CVT transmissions are the other NVH complaint in vehicles like the Outback or Pathfinder. At least Mazda is sticking with a 6 speed transmission.

All vehicles have compromises somewhere. Personally, I think performance will be kick arse. I will give up some quietness for power with MPG. I think Mazda will separate itself better and may pick up significant sales. The new pilot is only 280hp and 262 pound feet. 20% better torque in the 9 combined with the weight reduction should keep it enthusiast/driver oriented vs boredom of Pilot etc. The Highlander is pretty quick but still pretty boring to drive and much smaller.

I also will not argue that the turbo will eventually need replaced. So for reliability that will be a certain replacement at some point. I don't buy and hold these modern cars as they just advance so rapidly now. Technology, safety, efficiency change every few years now. I personally have decided there are too many computers and electronics in all modern cars for me to want to drive something 10 years. I am assuming finding replacement parts for obsolete electrnoics will become a real problem in the near future.

Anyway, good points by all.

Click to expand...

The problem is that all of this is theory. I, for one, am not willing to be a guinea pig as to whether the new Mazda turbo 4 delivers everything that they are promising. I'm hopeful, but skeptical.

I have a car with a turbo 4--I actually love it. My car before had a V6, with less HP and less torque than my current turbo 4. Granted I have 20% more HP and torque than before, my gas mileage is not any better than it was with a V6.

We will see in a few months how everything shakes out. But if the CX-9 has MPG that is right about where the Highlander and Pilot are with V6s because the turbo 4 is taxed trying to move such a large vehicle, I would be inclined to take a pass.

Can't argue that, but power is power. 310 ft. lbs. at 2000 RPM is the same power whether it is a 4, 6 or 8 cylinder. Again, we have to wait and see but pooh poohing it before people even sit in the seat is also theory.

dboz said:

Can't argue that, but power is power. 310 ft. lbs. at 2000 RPM is the same power whether it is a 4, 6 or 8 cylinder. Again, we have to wait and see but pooh poohing it before people even sit in the seat is also theory.

Click to expand...

Exactly, and try and name another gas engine with those low RPM to torque specifications... I am eager to test drive one of these...

2016 Mazda CX-9: Everything You Ever Wanted to Know in TFL4K

Great Video CRIKEY! I learned a lot!

The EGR Cooler is nice to see.

Heated Steering wheel button on dash was good to see.

mazdadude said:

Great Video CRIKEY! I learned a lot!

The EGR Cooler is nice to see.

Heated Steering wheel button on dash was good to see.

Click to expand...

I was just gonna comment on the heated steering wheel switch too

Sweet! Thanks for posting that video. 2 weeks ago my transfer case and spline gear
on my 08 broke, so of course I'm looking at a 2016.
Did anybody notice those tiny driving lights?
The part about the more direct-feeling transmission makes me want this even more.

Great video. Sounds awesome. I am sold!

I hope the heated wheel is available on all trims and not just the Signature as shown!

So those that new all wheel drive system and transmission mean no more transfer case failures?

There not using Fords transfer case anymore. So the issues with that specific one are no more. No idea if its replacement will have any short comings or not till its been out, and in use though.

It sounds like it uses perhaps a larger version of the same setup in CX-3 & CX-5.

Fluid changes in transfer unit off motor are super simple at least on my CX-5.