love the weight loss and the reduction of 3 full inches of overhang. The proportions are way more dynamic. you are spot on with the 310 lbft of torque available at 2,000. This is a huge jump over the 3.7 ( a great engine in its own right). Real world mpg will be great, but the window sticker will not have "bragging numbers". The explorer and the mustang are really good with the 2.3T, this one will be better. The power tailgate has been improved. I know that it will not offer a panorama moonroof, just the regular. what I don't know is if RSES or dvd player will still be an option. I agree about the cooled seats.
Spied: 2017 Mazda CX-9
- Thread starter crikey
- Start date
That floor tunnel is really the only thing I've seen (pictures and write-ups only) about the 2017 that is worse than the prior model. Style and tech is definitely improved. The powertrain and interior room/usefulness are question marks. But the floor tunnel is just a step backwards. I don't think they lowered the car and I'm not sure they gave it any more ground clearance. So there must be something about the packaging of the AWD and/or exhaust that require the floor to be raised in the middle. This is no deal-breaker but having a flat floor is very nice.
what's with the raised center tunnel (green arrow) any ideas ? can't be comfortable for 2nd row middle passenger on long trips
the flat floor on current model is much better
also what's with the flap (red arrow) is that a cover for secret hidden storage under the front passenger seat ?
rear passengers will appreciate the built in hidden pull up shades (green arrow) on hot sunny days, nice touch
http://www.motortrend.com/news/10-cool-features-on-the-2016-mazda-cx-9/
If you check out the cars.com video, https://youtu.be/Ywz0yYZ9_mk, at 1:47, you can see that there is no hump in the third row, but thee is something on the floor. Maybe vents? Maybe the hump in the second row is duct work that provides air to the third row?
"If you check out the cars.com video, https://youtu.be/Ywz0yYZ9_mk, at 1:47, you can see that there is no hump in the third row, but thee is something on the floor. Maybe vents? Maybe the hump in the second row is duct work that provides air to the third row? "
good thought, but way too high just for vents.
Also, I believe there already are vents now in the current old design, hidden below the 2nd row passenger seats,
I may be wrong, but I thought I've seen some vents down there when I sat in the third row.
good thought, but way too high just for vents.
Also, I believe there already are vents now in the current old design, hidden below the 2nd row passenger seats,
I may be wrong, but I thought I've seen some vents down there when I sat in the third row.
I agree. That tunnel isn't for air vents. Air ducts can be routed pretty much anywhere and I don't think they'd sacrifice a flat floor for them. I think something changed either with the AWD or the exhaust.
CrazyBiker
Member
- :
- 14' Mazda6 GT Tech, 17' Kia Sorento SXL V6 AWD V6, BMW S1000R/RR
Any idea when the specs and detailed build will be out on the website? Still haven't got any notification.
mazdadude
ZOOOOOOOOOM ZOOOOOOOOOM
- :
- '16.5 Mazda CX-5 Touring
Mazdausa home page says "AVAILABLE SUMMER 2016" for the CX-9.
So I think we are about 3 months from when we will see more information.
guys ...I know you will flame me for this but if you think 2013 looks better than new design ......you need to have your eyes checked.... PLEASE .....this car will be amazing if mazda implements all of it's own technology. It already is best crossover 3rd row car on the market ....it can only get better. I really hate myself right now for not being able to afford to get one straight out of the lot because I would be the first one in line.
CrazyBiker
Member
- :
- 14' Mazda6 GT Tech, 17' Kia Sorento SXL V6 AWD V6, BMW S1000R/RR
Biggest misses for me are smaller rear seat room, no panaromic roof, no around view monitor like Nissan gives.
astriuminc
Member
- :
- CX-9 2013 AWD
Agreed, also just can't get over that second row hump, it'll be really uncomfortable for second row middle passenger. Just out of curiosity, I wonder if it'll have a real spare tire and not that stupid fix a flat sealant in a can. My mechanic says those sealant cans are so stupid, they leave an absolute mess inside the rims and gunk up the pressure sensors. Just saw a story about how car companies are taking out the spare tires and replacing with can sealant to reduce weight and meet mpg requirements. In the news segment, it showed a lady who just bought a Cadillac suv and reporter asked if she had a real spare tire, lady had no idea and couldn't find the spare anywhere just a can of sealant, lol. Still can't believe in this day and age they can't make run flat tires economical, my friend hated them, they run like $250 each and you can't repair them if you hit a nail, they must be replaced.
Last edited:
My BMW has run flats--my local shop patched a nail hole, no problem. They said they purchased some special equipment a few years ago to do it.
But I'd rather have a spare--even if Mazda makes it an optional accessory. I'd never get a car without either a spare or run flats--every flat I've had that past 12 years has been a blowout that fix a flat would not work on.
I wonder if the second row hump is just something in the prototype. That would be a major fail--no other competitor vehicle will have that, and it's something people will notice and base a decision on.
- :
- 2008 Mazda CX-9 GT
I am not sold on the 4 cylinder turbo for such a large heavy vehicle (yes I know you get a lot of torque down low). V6 engines are lot smoother and the 3.7 was a competent engine. Another thing to consider is that the turbo 4 on the CX-9 will produce 250hp on 93 octane and only 227 on regular (yes I know the torque will still be there). Up here in Canada where 91 octane costs at least 20% more than regular will ensure that either I will have to drive a significantly under powered vehicle or pay a 20% premium to drive the vehicle at its fullest potential (and I am sure this new car will not be 20% more fuel efficient).
It makes me wonder why Mazda did not source a 8 speed transmission which would have helped even more (especially when you want to utilize power down low). I may have to move over to the Pilot after 8+ yrs with my '08 GT.
Last edited:
00protegees
Member
- :
- 2000 mazda protege es
Yes, you're down a 23 horsepower on regular vs unleaded. But remember, those are peak numbers, not throughout the whole rpm range. Also torque, which is what really matters, remains virtually unchanged on premium or regular. Sure the 3.7 was a good engine, but so was the Chevy 350 and the flathead ford.
People are so concerned with "numbers". It's nice to see mazda buck that trend and provide real world drivability, even if that means they can't brag about a peak number unattainable in real driving.
RedHotFuzz
Member
- :
- '16 Durango R/T, '10 VW Sportwagen
You may want to reassess that decision based on the feedback from new Pilot owners on the forums, many of whom are unhappy with the new 9-speed tranny. I think its been equally unsatisfying in the MDX, again based on forum discussions. After a year of shopping and research, I've decided to go with a '16 Durango R/T (which has the ZF 8-speed). The new CX-9 is very attractive but the Durango still looks better, and the chrome bits on the Mazda don't appeal to me personally. MPG is obviously lower in the Durango R/T, which has a good-old-fashioned honest V8 (a 6-cyl is also available in the Durango), but the fuel savings in the Mazda are compromised with the "need" for more costly premium fuel. And even with premium fuel, the Mazda is still whooped by the Durango in the HP department (370 vs 250) and surely the tow capacity of the Durango (7400 lbs) will eclipse the Mazda as well. I don't own any large towables but can foresee the occasional need to tow a borrowed/rented boat, camper, or work trailer full of gravel for a yard project. The Durango is also great fun to drive, unlike anything else in the segment. I assumed the Mazda would also excel in this department, as the Mazdas I've owned always had, but its "shortcomings" knock it out of the running for me. Not to mention we have no idea when it will actually ship. It was to be this spring, now it's this summer. Which could be as late as September, if they don't change the date a third time.
Like Honda and Nissan, Mazda has made its large SUV much less of a SUV in its latest iteration. Great for some buyers, not great for others (me). I haven't owned a domestic brand auto for 30 years and am wary of the prospect (with good reason), but just can't find anything from the Japanese that fully competes with the current Durango for my needs/tastes. Which is too bad - my '04 Pilot has been bulletproof for 160k miles and would likely do another 160k with ease (alas, the wife is not willing to find out). Oh, and the new Pilot looks like a swollen guppy.
Last edited:
Dr. Awkward
Member
- :
- 2017 Honda Ridgeline RTL-E
I wish they would offer a version w/ 2 rows of seats, sort of an "adult" version. I'd be in that line!
Those Pano roofs are prone to problems. Hyundai has had a boatload of seal and noise issues with some of their panos.
Most automakers just use a standard BU camera. Nissan has a CVT, a deal breaker for many.
Last edited:
I might be wrong but I thought the Dodge Durango had the same mechanical underpinnings as the Jeep Grand Cherokee? I heard there's reliability issues with the Grand Cherokee. Just a heads up, if I'm wrong then just disregard.
I looked at the Durango a few months ago - it is very nice inside, at least the upper trim levels, anyway. My wife liked it, too.
The deal breaker is the crash test results. We almost bought one, then I looked at the crash test results. It does not do well at all on the small overlap test. The current CX-9 does even worse, but I can't justify replacing it with something that doesn't ace all the safety tests.
I hope the new CX-9 passes the small offset test, in which case we'll probably buy one.
The deal breaker is the crash test results. We almost bought one, then I looked at the crash test results. It does not do well at all on the small overlap test. The current CX-9 does even worse, but I can't justify replacing it with something that doesn't ace all the safety tests.
I hope the new CX-9 passes the small offset test, in which case we'll probably buy one.
I was actually surprised how well my old '07 G ('07-'14) did on small overlap. It was just shy of a good rating behind the S60. Structural wasn't so great but body injury was seen as low.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/infiniti/g-4-door-sedan
http://speedydaddy.com/iihs-small-overlap-frontal-crash-test-reveals-safety-concerns/
