My dealership just got it's first new cx-9 on lot right now, can't wait to test drive this car. I drive for pick up and drop off my workers, cx-5 is full for 5 adult already. IDK how long will I keep driving this car. CX-9 looks really good, and lots standard features. It just little under power for a larger suv. I have 2015 cx-5 right now, I don't know how much will it wroth now.
Trade in or sale CX-5 for new cx-9?
- Thread starter hek8560
- Start date
I wouldn't want to be driving 5 adults around in a CX-5 for any length of time, nor would I want to be one of the three people crammed in the back. I find mine gets creaky as you get close to the advertised payload capacity (800 lb if memory serves).
I haven't looked into the CX-9 or cross shopped, so I don't know what else is out there. If you are feeling cramped you might want to look into a larger ride, or fewer coworkers. (cabpatch)
I haven't looked into the CX-9 or cross shopped, so I don't know what else is out there. If you are feeling cramped you might want to look into a larger ride, or fewer coworkers. (cabpatch)
CX9 (AWD):
Weight = 4,300 lbs
Power = 250HP / 310 lb.ft of torque
Zero to 60 mph: 7.5 sec
Standing -mile: 15.8 sec
CX5 (AWD):
Weight = 3,600 lbs
Power = 185HP / 185 lb.ft of torque
Zero to 60 mph: 7.6 sec
Standing -mile: 15.8 sec
The 2 vehicles are about identical in acceleration but that is because the CX9 weighs almost 700 lbs more. Now with that 2.5L turbo in a CX5, man, that thing would FLY! I would easily estimate that the CX5 would see low 6 second 0-60 and the 1/4 mile would be in the low 14's maybe even high 13's
Weight = 4,300 lbs
Power = 250HP / 310 lb.ft of torque
Zero to 60 mph: 7.5 sec
Standing -mile: 15.8 sec
CX5 (AWD):
Weight = 3,600 lbs
Power = 185HP / 185 lb.ft of torque
Zero to 60 mph: 7.6 sec
Standing -mile: 15.8 sec
The 2 vehicles are about identical in acceleration but that is because the CX9 weighs almost 700 lbs more. Now with that 2.5L turbo in a CX5, man, that thing would FLY! I would easily estimate that the CX5 would see low 6 second 0-60 and the 1/4 mile would be in the low 14's maybe even high 13's
Last edited:
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
Your estimate sounds very accurate to me, and a tune could even put one in the 12's if they left a bit on the table with the turbo size.
Are these at 87 octane? The new turbo engine see's a HP bump when using 91 or above so the CX-7 could be closer to 7.2 or so.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
I still think if speed is what one is after in a compact SUV, a lightly used GLK350 is a much better alternative than a modded/tuned/whatever CX-5, for now at least.
Probably because it can take advantage of higher octane fuel's resistance to detonation by increasing the compression beyond what the non-turbo engine can do. Traditionally, engines with turbos couldn't even run on lower octane fuel although modern engines modify parameters on the fly to avoid detonation, at the expense of performance.
I don't have a crystal ball or anything but I would suspect that Mazda will eventually come out with a new 6 cylinder engine to run in the CX-9, and maybe the Mazda6. Much like the CX-5 first only came with the 2.0 only to have the 2.5 added later. My guess is that mazda wanted to get the redesigned CX-9 to market sooner rather then later to try and capture some of the market share for 3 row SUV's away from the likes of Honda, Toyota, ford and chevy. There 6 cylinder just isn't ready yet. I don't know, maybe they aren't even working on a new skyactive 6 so I could be completely wrong, but it would surprise me if in a year or two you start hearing rumors of a new 6 cylinder engine to go into redesigned cars and SUV's. I also suspect the next CX-5 will get the 2.5T and perhaps a Mazdaspeed3 is on the horizon as well.
I expect them to revise the sky-activ G engine (sky-activ 2) along with offering the skyactiv-turbo. I expect them to possibly offer an optional 8+ speed automatic. More sound deadening. Hopefully better windshields. Same ole Bose.
Although V6 is a desired choice for some users, it probably won't be a good direction for Mazda. Most manufactures have been moving from V6 to V4-turbo because of the fuel-economy constraints. I'm just gonna reference this old link with detailed analysis on how those regulations are forcing Mazda to be more fuel-economy, and even going the route of exchanging for Toyota's hybrid tech (read the second half of the article).
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lianeyvkoff/2016/03/28/for-mazda-saving-the-art-of-driving
SkyActiv is meant to solve the short-term efficiency with gasoline, but they have to plan for long-term sustainability too.
Probably because the fuel mapping was done on the CX9 engine while the 2.5L non-turbo engine has been a "corporate" engine that has 1 fuel map on it which then gets put into 3's, 6's, CX5's.
Mazda could develop a software fuel map that would make the non-turbo 2.5L have 2 programs in it. One for low octane 185HP and then one for 93 octane with 210HP.
Remember, when your 13:1 compression Mazda de-tunes itself when it experiences any hint of detonation. So when running 87 octane and climbing a grade, under load, towing, summer time with the AC on, the 185HP 2.5L will de-tune itself and will probably be making 160HP under those conditions.
Last edited:
3rd row seating is a bit cramped in the new CX9. If your thinking of shoving adults back there, id say get a 2013-2015 CX9 instead as they had a ton more room and adults could even sit in the 3rd row comfortably. Its one of the things i really didnt like about the 2016 i test drove.
Not a chance. It would be high 6's to 60 and high 14s in the 1/4. Mid 6's and mid 14's with a mild tune. This engine is not designed for flat out acceleration. The power drops off rapidly at high rpms as the tiny turbo runs out of breath. Hell, MS3's needed a tune to break into the 12's with more power stock than the new 2.5T, and that was in a much lighter and lower-profile vehicle.
- :
- RDX Aspec Adv.
That's frustrating.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
So the new 2016 CX-9 has smaller cabin space than previous generation especially in 3rd row seating? I agree, that's not a good idea making the new-gen even smaller! I personally don't like the cabin space utilization in old-gen CX-9, with the perfect example on the wide and high center console making front driver and passenger feel so cramped! In fact, many friends made the same comment on that and had given up on buying the CX-9.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
That's what I've been reading by many reviews on new SkyActiv-G Turbo. It's designed for big low-end torque but is running out of steam in high RPMs. This engine is not suitable to be a Mazda Speed 3 type for fast acceleration without major mod.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Yeah, I was hoping Mazda would come out a naturally-aspirated、high-compression SkyActiv-G V6 instead of an SA-G Turbo. But with more restricted CAFE fuel economy standards are looming close and automakers have no choice but developing small displacement engines for better fuel efficiency. V6 soon to be a thing of the past like the V8, and will only be seen in fancy sport cars.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
For SA-G 2.5L Turbo, 250 hp is on 93 octane whereas 227 hp on 87 octane.
Honda's 3.5 VTECH V6 in the new pilot only gets 1 MPG less than the CX-9. It's doable.
