2016 CX9 Owners Thread

This has to be the latest in a year an automaker has ever released a new model using that year. To think the new 2016 Sorento came out nearly a year and a half ago (around February of '15) and there's a million of them already on the road. While the new CX-9 just launched.

Clearly Mazda didn't want to skip a model year but didn't want the old model carried into 2016.

even crazier, the 2016 CX-5 came out February 2015 (i know b/c i bought one in April 2015).
 
CX9 2016, just amazing

I currently have the cx9 2011 sport with the V6 engine. Tested the new cx9 2016 GT AWD on Sunday, just a few seconds after play with the v6 power without family in the car and with no traffic, so I had a chance to get the smile due to the great acceleration on the old V6.

The old v6 have more power feeling and sensation from full stop. You launch more quickly, for sure 500%.

But the new turbo engine was just amazing after hit the 2000 rpm. I test acceleration on Sport Mode and really like it. I will get my GT soon, I'm just waiting now to finish my cx9 2011 sale.

I like the exterior and interior a lot. Has been waiting for this new model since last year. I check Pathfinder and Pilot and there is no comparison at all. The cx9 is miles away in design and performance. The pathfinder have additional features like surrounded cameras, DVD players in the headrest for kids, cooling/heating seats for 1st and 2nd rows but the design looks old. buttons are small, don't have the performance and amazing look of the cx9. The Pilot is just too boxy.

We was about to get the Infiniti qx60 but have a price a lot higher than cx9 so we are happy we wait until released on market.

Again, I really love the turbo power in sport mode during test. EBA is really powerful, be careful.

I hope to get my new cx9 soon! I'm a really happy Mazda customer since 2011 and everything has been great! lot of highway trips with family, 7 seats used all the time on remote locations, great price for maintenances, and amazing driving experiences.
 
You would have hated the Infiniti/Nissan cabin noise and the CVT engine drone as well as the poor reliability
 
I currently have the cx9 2011 sport with the V6 engine. Tested the new cx9 2016 GT AWD on Sunday, just a few seconds after play with the v6 power without family in the car and with no traffic, so I had a chance to get the smile due to the great acceleration on the old V6.

The old v6 have more power feeling and sensation from full stop. You launch more quickly, for sure 500%.

But the new turbo engine was just amazing after hit the 2000 rpm. I test acceleration on Sport Mode and really like it. I will get my GT soon, I'm just waiting now to finish my cx9 2011 sale.

I like the exterior and interior a lot. Has been waiting for this new model since last year. I check Pathfinder and Pilot and there is no comparison at all. The cx9 is miles away in design and performance. The pathfinder have additional features like surrounded cameras, DVD players in the headrest for kids, cooling/heating seats for 1st and 2nd rows but the design looks old. buttons are small, don't have the performance and amazing look of the cx9. The Pilot is just too boxy.

We was about to get the Infiniti qx60 but have a price a lot higher than cx9 so we are happy we wait until released on market.

Again, I really love the turbo power in sport mode during test. EBA is really powerful, be careful.

I hope to get my new cx9 soon! I'm a really happy Mazda customer since 2011 and everything has been great! lot of highway trips with family, 7 seats used all the time on remote locations, great price for maintenances, and amazing driving experiences.


I drove the 2016 CX-9 yesterday as well. I don't think its as quite as everyone is claiming it is. The engine does seem pretty harsh and around town driving didn't give me the impression is has 310 lb-ft of tq. On the highway when passing, it downshifted once and went from 65-80 in no time. That was pretty nice to see.

I'm not "wowed" by it. Still upset its significantly smaller on the inside vs the 1st gen. The styling and features of the GT is what I prefer. I was underwhelmed by the appearance of the Touring. Those 18" wheels don't cut it for me.

I will probably have one at some point. The wife does not like the new Pilot or anything else in this class.
 
I drove the 2016 CX-9 yesterday as well. I don't think its as quite as everyone is claiming it is. The engine does seem pretty harsh and around town driving didn't give me the impression is has 310 lb-ft of tq. On the highway when passing, it downshifted once and went from 65-80 in no time. That was pretty nice to see.

I'm not "wowed" by it. Still upset its significantly smaller on the inside vs the 1st gen. The styling and features of the GT is what I prefer. I was underwhelmed by the appearance of the Touring. Those 18" wheels don't cut it for me.

I will probably have one at some point. The wife does not like the new Pilot or anything else in this class.

Noice measured by decibels matches the best in the class.

There's a loss of approximately 6 cu ft in total interior volume, half of which is cargo behind 3rd row. That's not significant. Most other measurements are virtually the same (leg room, head room, etc...). Check out a spec comparison. Numbers are numbers regardless of feel.

I do agree, it does need the 20" wheels. The CX-5 has 18's in top trims, no sense in putting 18's on the big CX-9. If all I could afford was the Sport or Touring, I'd be very urged to buy custom 20's or even 21's.
 
I currently have the cx9 2011 sport with the V6 engine. Tested the new cx9 2016 GT AWD on Sunday, just a few seconds after play with the v6 power without family in the car and with no traffic, so I had a chance to get the smile due to the great acceleration on the old V6.
The old v6 have more power feeling and sensation from full stop. You launch more quickly, for sure 500%.
The old saying: "there's no replacement for displacement" always stands! :)

I check Pathfinder and Pilot and there is no comparison at all. The cx9 is miles away in design and performance. The pathfinder have additional features like surrounded cameras, DVD players in the headrest for kids, cooling/heating seats for 1st and 2nd rows but the design looks old. buttons are small, don't have the performance and amazing look of the cx9. The Pilot is just too boxy.
We was about to get the Infiniti qx60 but have a price a lot higher than cx9 so we are happy we wait until released on market.
Not saying I like it the most, but for 3-row CUVs one should always check Acura MDX out. There's a reason why it's been the best seller among 3-row mid-sized CUVs in the US. It's the luxury brand by Honda, even the $40K+ base model is having much higher quality feeling than Honda Pilot.
 
I do agree, it does need the 20" wheels. The CX-5 has 18's in top trims, no sense in putting 18's on the big CX-9. If all I could afford was the Sport or Touring, I'd be very urged to buy custom 20's or even 21's.
No, the top-trim CX-5 GT has 19" wheels.
 
I drove the 2016 CX-9 yesterday as well. I don't think its as quite as everyone is claiming it is. The engine does seem pretty harsh and around town driving didn't give me the impression is has 310 lb-ft of tq.

I feel the opposite. A very quiet interior, great handling and amazing motor power after 2000rpm

On the highway when passing, it downshifted once and went from 65-80 in no time.

I don't tested on highway but tested on an empty long hill and was amazing. I was about to suddenly brake and go to the bank to finish my down payment.

I'm not "wowed" by it.

I really like it. I feel the power after the 2000rpm (remember to press the SPORT button for the WoW factor)

Still upset its significantly smaller on the inside vs the 1st gen.

I feel just the same size. Remember: I drove to the Mazda seller on gen1, drive the Cx9 GT Demo and go back to home in my old CX9. I feel the same size but I miss when drive home the amazing interior materials, tech and finish.

The styling and features of the GT is what I prefer.

I agree. I will receive the AWD GT next week. Signature is not available here in Mxico until 2017 and my new cx9 GT will have most of the things I want and I will get it at special price due to launch!

I was underwhelmed by the appearance of the Touring. Those 18" wheels don't cut it for me.

You are right. Fortunately, I will get the 20" wheels.

I will probably have one at some point. The wife does not like the new Pilot or anything else in this class.
Pilot is too "boxy" Pathfinder looks "old" in the interior... qx60 it's ok but price was increased about 20% two months ago. I'm happy I wait until the new cx9
 
Last edited:
I actually don't like the MDX facelift at all:( Sat in a CX-9 signature the other day..nice but I wasn't exactly wowed either. 3rd row was less usable than I remember in the old one- like my CX-5 seats (and maybe even my leather) better, wood looks very nice but felt like very thin laminate over plastic when I tapped on it (for some reason I did that.)
So to replace wife's Highlander its this (not sure if I'd go w/Sig, probably GT) or another Highlander- I thought the upcoming SE looks pretty cool and we've been trouble free with her '14 other than couple head unit freeze/reboots. Its a surprisingly satisfying drive- not sporty per se (haha) but definitely not a dog either and the new model promises more power, better transmission (one of its bigger downsides) and hopefully a bit more responsive handling. I love Mazda but I think they could've hit a home run w/this (maybe they have) but to me it looks like a standup double- a nice option but not quite the no-brainer the CX-5 was and still is imo.. Whatever my 2c- main reason for was that I almost never see the Highlander mentioned but they've righted many wrongs of how the older ones drove and that old V6 is still pretty sweet.
 
I've deliberated long and hard over the MDX. I can get a very good deal on a certified 2016 with only 8k on the odo. The problem is the dual screen infotainment system is s nightmare. Want to change the AC fan speed? Better pull over because it's buried 3 screens deep. What's wrong with knobs?! Same with the Honda Pilot (which doesn't even have a volume knob).

The other MDX (and pilot) issue is the 9 speed tranny. Too many reports of failures and jerky shifting.

I liked the highlander I drove but just couldn't get comfortable. There's a bolster behind the shoulder blades that's really unformfortable (to me). I noticed the same thing in a friend's Hi Hybrid, so it's not just a new car thing.

I haven't driven a CX9 yet, but during the 5 minutes I spend sitting in one a reflexively reached down to change the seat bottom angle enough times to tell me that it was too flat. I'll still take one on a test drive, but between the seat, lack of paddle shifters, non-ventilated seats and that big tranny tunnel, I'm probably going to go with a Durango.
 
Yeah HL seats def aren't great- it took a few (fine 1) long drives to confirm that, Mazda def does a better job there. My CX5s are very nice could use more lateral bolstering for the spirited cornering it excels at but nice firm and supportive seats.
 
Last edited:
I just wish the CX-9 was a little more like my wife's Mazda6 (Seats & paddle shifters)--I'd buy it in a heartbeat.
 
I actually don't like the MDX facelift at all:( Sat in a CX-9 signature the other day..nice but I wasn't exactly wowed either. 3rd row was less usable than I remember in the old one- like my CX-5 seats (and maybe even my leather) better, wood looks very nice but felt like very thin laminate over plastic when I tapped on it (for some reason I did that.)
So to replace wife's Highlander its this (not sure if I'd go w/Sig, probably GT) or another Highlander- I thought the upcoming SE looks pretty cool and we've been trouble free with her '14 other than couple head unit freeze/reboots. Its a surprisingly satisfying drive- not sporty per se (haha) but definitely not a dog either and the new model promises more power, better transmission (one of its bigger downsides) and hopefully a bit more responsive handling. I love Mazda but I think they could've hit a home run w/this (maybe they have) but to me it looks like a standup double- a nice option but not quite the no-brainer the CX-5 was and still is imo.. Whatever my 2c- main reason for was that I almost never see the Highlander mentioned but they've righted many wrongs of how the older ones drove and that old V6 is still pretty sweet.

At least in Mexico the Highlander is priced higher than the new cx9. The GT AWD price is 32,600 USD with a promo and you have some signature stuff like the lights in the grill. Very good price. Between 3 - 10% cheaper compared with Highlander, Pilot and Pathfinder. And if you pay 236 extra USD, you get extra 3 years of warranty! (6 in total) amazing!
 
Noice measured by decibels matches the best in the class.

There's a loss of approximately 6 cu ft in total interior volume, half of which is cargo behind 3rd row. That's not significant. Most other measurements are virtually the same (leg room, head room, etc...). Check out a spec comparison. Numbers are numbers regardless of feel.

Here are the specs:

EPA Passenger Volume:
2015: 137.7
2016: 135.1

Advantage: 2015 by 2.6 cu-ft (negligible given the total passenger space)

2nd and 3rd row up:
2015: 17.2
2016: 14.4

Advantage: 2015 2.8 cu-ft (significant given the tight space back there)

2nd row up, 3rd row folded:
2015: 48.3
2016: 38.2

Advantage: 2015 10.1 cu-ft (oh, here we go....)

2nd and 3rd row folded:
2015: 100.7
2016: 71.2

Advantage: 2015 29.5 cu-ft (O.M.G!!!!!....30% less in the 2016)

Yes, I did look at the specs. Not sure where this 6 cu-ft you speak of is. The 2016 is significantly smaller in terms of useable cargo capacity.

Now, that being said, I'm buying one....I pick it up next week....GT AWD. I still stand by the fact I'm not "wowed" by it in terms of the press reviews I read before I drove it myself. However, being a 2013 Mazda CX-5 owner (has been flawless yet underpowered), family of 4 and needing the extra space, it will suit my family just fine. I'm stating the undeniably obvious mathematical fact that this is much smaller then the model it replaces.

I still hold reservations on the 2.5T engine as I cannot get the CX-7 issues out of my head (I worked at a Mazda dealer for over a decade). That car was a disaster. I know the CX-9 has nothing in common with the 7, but the worry still remains with a 2.5T motor in a car this big.

Bottom line is this car is gorgeous, excellent build quality, excellent materials and state of the art safety features. I can't wait until it's in my driveway. By far the best looking in the segment. It's not perfect, but I'm sure I will be happy with it (reliability pending). I really wanted to consider the Pilot, but it's so damn ugly and frumpy looking. It's like a Rubbermaid container on wheels. No thank you.

Side note...can any owners comment on real-world FE? Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Some of you have experience with or own a CX-5 as well. Which are your thoughts on Cargo Area?. I am owner of CX-9 2011GT, and was waiting for this redesign, and was sold until I notice the Cargo Area apparently is not that great. That probably is the only thing holding me, not even the so discussed driver seat, as I drove it and felt right on it

Comparing CX-5 with CX9, it seems that comparing 2 rows to 2 rows, there is a lot of waste comparing total size (20+ inches longer, 5+inches wider) to cargo space


INTERIOR DIMENSIONS & CAPACITIES (*From MazdaUSA website)

Headroom, front/rear without moonroof (in)
  • CX-5 40.1 / 39.0
  • CX-9 39.3 / 38.5 / 35.4
Shoulder room, front/rear (in)
  • CX-5 57.5 / 55.5
  • CX-9 57.9 / 58.1 / 53.1
Hip room, front/rear (in)
  • CX-5 55.2 / 53.7
  • CX-9 56.7 / 57.4 / 40.1
Legroom, front/rear (in)
  • CX-5 41.0 / 39.3
  • CX-9 41.0 / 39.4 / 29.7
EPA passenger volume (cu ft, without moonroof)
  • CX-5 103.8
  • CX-9 135.1
EPA cargo volume, rear seatback up/folded (cu ft)
  • CX-5 34.1 / 64.8
  • CX-9 14.4 / 38.2 / 71.2
 
Last edited:
Here are the specs:

EPA Passenger Volume:
2015: 137.7
2016: 135.1

Advantage: 2015 by 2.6 cu-ft (negligible given the total passenger space)

2nd and 3rd row up:
2015: 17.2
2016: 14.4

Advantage: 2015 2.8 cu-ft (significant given the tight space back there)

2nd row up, 3rd row folded:
2015: 48.3
2016: 38.2

Advantage: 2015 10.1 cu-ft (oh, here we go....)

2nd and 3rd row folded:
2015: 100.7
2016: 71.2

Advantage: 2015 29.5 cu-ft (O.M.G!!!!!....30% less in the 2016)

Yes, I did look at the specs. Not sure where this 6 cu-ft you speak of is. The 2016 is significantly smaller in terms of useable cargo capacity.

Now, that being said, I'm buying one....I pick it up next week....GT AWD. I still stand by the fact I'm not "wowed" by it in terms of the press reviews I read before I drove it myself. However, being a 2013 Mazda CX-5 owner (has been flawless yet underpowered), family of 4 and needing the extra space, it will suit my family just fine. I'm stating the undeniably obvious mathematical fact that this is much smaller then the model it replaces.

I still hold reservations on the 2.5T engine as I cannot get the CX-7 issues out of my head (I worked at a Mazda dealer for over a decade). That car was a disaster. I know the CX-9 has nothing in common with the 7, but the worry still remains with a 2.5T motor in a car this big.

Bottom line is this car is gorgeous, excellent build quality, excellent materials and state of the art safety features. I can't wait until it's in my driveway. By far the best looking in the segment. It's not perfect, but I'm sure I will be happy with it (reliability pending). I really wanted to consider the Pilot, but it's so damn ugly and frumpy looking. It's like a Rubbermaid container on wheels. No thank you.

Side note...can any owners comment on real-world FE? Thanks!


*EPA total interior volume

2015: 156.6 cu ft
2016: 149.5 cu ft

That's 7.1 cu ft difference (4.5% decrease).

I said 6 cu ft. Looked fast and rounded off. But that's where the number comes from.

Also, it's hard to believe the old CX-9 had 100 cu ft total cargo. Edmunds does state that, I just can't see it. That's not far from the new Pilot.
 
Side note...can any owners comment on real-world FE? Thanks!

We've averaged ~23mpg with mixed driving in Bay Area traffic over two tanks as indicated by built in gauge. It's pretty easy to burn gas in this car; the car is quiet and stable. On our test drive we hit 80mph on the freeway without noticing while chatting with the sales guy in the back.

If you want to hit 30mpg, indicated by the built in gauge and fuel economy app, it is possible. To prove it to myself, I drove it for an hour without racing the engine, maxed out at 65mph on the freeway, and just did our errands (40 miles, 80% freeway, 20% local).

To be honest it's pretty close to our Mazda5's performance when driven in that manner.
 
Yesterday I ended up purchasing the Mazda CX-9 Signature Edition. We were waiting for this vehicle to come out to give a comparison. I was in the market for Honda Pilot. I am upgrading from a 2011 Ford Edge Limited, Fully loaded. I wanted to pass along my thoughts on why we went with teh CX9. It may help others. In the end with features & price, I would say the Mazda and Honda were a virtual tie in my book. Here's why:

We were mainly looking at the Touring model, which is at a price point similar to the CX9 Grand Touring. The pilot feels much bigger on the inside. Alot more space in the 2nd and 3rd row. Honestly, the Pilot is an awesome vehicle, and there were only a few things i thought were strange about it. There's no blind spot monitoring. To me, that is one of the most important newer safety features to have, and why they excluded it is beyond me. I found out later you can get it in the Elite model, but that will add an additional 3K to the price. Also with the Elite, you get a panoramic roof, HD radio (another one of those odd upgrades), and captains chairs. Again, at a much higher price point. Finally the touring did have rear entertainment with BluRay, but in this day and age with Tablets, i don't think it's as big of a selling point anymore, at least for me.

To recap:
Honda Pilot Touring:
Positives: more spacious all around, drives great, bluray entertainment, remote starter.
Negatives: no Blind Spot monitoring, no HD Radio, and not a big fan of the infotainment.

As for the CX9, i personally like how it feels more like I am driving a car than a truck. It felt very similar to the Edge i am trading in. Even though it is a 4 Cylinder, i think it is extremely quiet. I also think it has plenty of power for the type of driving I do on a daily basis. The third row is very small. i think you can get adults back there, but it would be cramped. Also to get to the third row, it's not as easy as they claim. I had my son try and get back there, and he struggled to move the seat forward with the mechanism. I personally had some struggles as well. And lastly, in this day and age, how do you not have a remote starter standard? As a matter of fact, the only thing you can get is the Mazda mobile start, which works. but it takes forever to login, and start your car (we have it on the wife's mazda 6). Plus you have to pay a yearly fee to use it. i know people complain about the seat adjustments, and it's just not that big of a deal for me. i am average sized, and i found a comfortable position. I have been pretty much settled on getting a Grand Touring, mainly because my wife was not feeling the brown leather interior. However, in person, it has a much darker richer tone to it, and already owning a Mazda 6 with Black Leather, her comment was that it will at least differentiate the two as the black interior in CX9 looks very similar to the Mazda6. Plus, it doesn't look like you can get the steel grey in anything other than the Signature right now. I assume in a few months that will change.

To recap:
Mazda CX9 Signature:
Positives: Drives more like a car, Looks better than pilot, has blind spot standard, love the interior.
Negatives: No remote starter, third row is very small and hard to get to, wife doesn't like the interior color :)

I'm sure there are other differences, but this is just based on what matters to me..

So i went with the CX9 over the Pilot mainly because i just like the way the CX9 handles and drives slightly better. We are a family of 3, so the 3rd row is more of an insurance policy than a need. Otherwise, i am sure i would have gone the other way.
First off, I got a great deal. My initial thought is that i wouldn't had been able to negotiate much being a new model and all, but i didn't even have to ask. He gave me a discount that i was pretty pleased with. Plus he gave me more than i expected on my trade-in. I suspect approaching end of the month may have helped here. As mentioned, i was leaning toward the GT, but it didn't sound like my dealer would be able to secure me one for a few weeks from now, and he gave me such a great deal on the Signature, i couldn't pass it up. I pick up my CX9 next Thursday, and will try to update everyone on my experiences.


(I will post my price if you want to know and if you are allowed to. You can message me privately as well)
 
Thanks for your insight.

I agree with your assessment of the Pilot. It seemed strange that Honda chooses to make BSM available on the Elite trim only. In fact, Honda does this with the Acura MDX as well. You'd have to get at least the Technology trim to get the full suite of safety features. In my opinion, BSM should be part of the Honda Sensing and AcuraWatch, since it's a safety feature not a standalone feature.

You may want to be aware of the CX-9's AC performance. One reviewer commented that it was weak and had a hard time cooling down the CX-9. Since it's really warm this weekend, you might want to take the CX-9 for a spin again and observe the AC. That is, if you have time.
 
Last edited:
Back