Checked out the CX-9 today... (looong read)

Foolish

...of Awesometon
:
'94 Miata! '10 Mazda5 Sport 5MT, '16 Mazda3 S GT
I have long been what could be called a "driving enthusiast". I've had a Miata, an RX-7, and even equipped the Protege I bought to carry my son with the MazdaSpeed suspension, so that it could handle like a sports car. I love to drive quickly through corners, I love winding mountain roads, I love racing autocross. I love to drive, and drive hard. I'm a sports car fanatic.

That said, I also appreciate the practicality of a mini-van, even though they are not particularly fun to drive. I have a nearly two-year-old son, my family and my wife's family live 3 states away, and we make road trips home to see them 2 or 3 times a year. We bought the MPV with these trips in mind. It gives us more than enough room for 3, tons of room behind the second row for all of our stuff, and gets pretty good gas mileage on the highway. Around town, it drives well enough and is not too large to park. The sliding doors make it very easy to load and unload my son from the middle row of seats.

When I heard that the MPV was not to be continued in the U.S. and that Mazda would "replace" it with the CX-9 SUV, I was very disappointed. I found years ago when when the SUV trend was in full bloom that the "utility" of SUV's is severely overrated, especially in 3-row models. Most could carry two rows of people and significant cargo, or 3 rows of passengers and virtually no cargo. When we shopped for the MPV, I was impressed with the usable space behind the third row of seats, and vast amount of overall space in the vehicle, and more confused than ever about the trend of SUV's replacing mini-vans for kid hauling duties. One main advantage I find to mini-vans over SUVs is interior height. The roof height is generally comparable between mini-vans and SUVs, but with the higher ground clearance of an SUV, the floor is higher and vertical space inside the vehicle is lost. The trade off of interior height, which I can use every day, for additional ground clearance, which I would almost never need, is unacceptable to me.

Today, I went to check out the CX-9 for myself, and found it to be a very poor "replacement" for the MPV. I remain disappointed by Mazda's new option in a 7-passenger vehicle. To explain why, I will work from back to front, comparing the MPV to the CX-9.

The upper half of the CX-9's rear hatch slopes sharply toward the front of the vehicle, providing a sporty look similar to the CX-7. While this looks nice, anytime you have a sloped rear glass, you loose some interior room, specifically diminishing the capacity to carry bulky objects such as the toddler bed (in a very large box) that I brought home easily in my MPV.

Space behind the third row is not noticeably longer or wider in the CX-9 than it is in the MPV, and the usable height is much less, due to the sloped glass and the flat floor in the CX, vs. the deep well behind the MPV's third row. For a practical comparison, this means that I am able to fold up our larger stroller and place it upright behind the MPV's third row, taking only half of the space and not blocking the rear window, while in the CX-9, I'd have to lay it on it's side, filling most of the rear hatch space. We have on occasion driven places with friends of ours and their son, who is the same age as ours. With the MPV, we can put both strollers upright behind the third row and the six of us can travel in one vehicle. We would not be able to fit both strollers behind the third row of the CX.

The third rows themselves also bear comparison. The MPV's rear bench is one-piece, and the headrests must be removed and put somewhere for folding. Folding is very easy, though and the seat folds into the well behind it, creating a large flat cargo area. There are three seatbelts for the MPV's third row, though space for three across is fairly tight. The CX-9 by contrast seats two in the rear, and the seats can be folded individually. Headroom in this row is terrible in the CX-9. At 5'11", my head hits the ceiling, due almost certainly to the sloped hatch and swooping roof line. The MPV's box shape works much better for interior height, and there is plenty of headroom. The third row seats themselves are comfortable enough in both vehicles, with the seat-back being adjustable in the MPV and, I believe, in the CX-9. Third row leg room is not great in either vehicle and depends largely on the position of the second row seats, but seemed more cramped in the CX-9 than in the MPV.

Access to the third row is easier in the MPV, due to the ability to slide the center-row's right seat in to the center, the lower step-in height and the relatively higher ceiling. The rear doors on the CX-9 are quite long, one assumes to allow better for better access to the back row, but long doors swing wide, and are tough to deal with in tight parking situations.

The middle row of the CX-9 is quite comfortable, with seats that slide fore-aft for leg room, tilt seatbacks and decent legroom. The middle row seats three in the CX-9, and should be wide enough to do that more comfortably than the third row in the MPV. The CX-9's middle row seats, like it's rear seats, individually fold flat to accommodate large loads. This row may be the CX-9 interior's strongest point. The MPV's middle row slides fore-aft, has tilt seatbacks and allows plenty of legroom. The middle row is designed to seat two, and does so very comfortably in a pair of captain's chairs with individual armrests. The seat on the right is also able to slide laterally to create a bench seat in the middle row, or to allow excellent access to the rear seats. The seats can be removed individually, though they are very heavy. With the middle row removed and the rear row folded the interior space is enormous and the floor is flat. The dual sliding doors, powered on later models, allow excellent access to the middle row, especially when dealing with a child seat.

Finally, the front row. The driver's seat in the CX-9 is quite comfortable, a bucket seat nestled down behind the very attractive instrument cluster, separated from the passenger by the inexplicably huge center console. The console mounted shifter is sporty looking and features a manual-shift mode that the MPV never offered, at least in the U.S. The cupholders are deep and centrally mounted on the console, they look like they'd hold any beverage container you threw in there, including the road trip-sized 1L bottles of iced tea I am fond of. The huge center console includes a surprisingly small lidded compartment with a 12V power source and auxiliary input for the factory stereo. There's enough room in there for your Ipod and your gum, but not much else. I kept looking for the release that gave me access to the compartment below, but there isn't one. Door pockets in the CX-9 were oddly shaped and seem to serve some purpose that I'm unfamiliar with. The CX-9's front seats seemed to me like a very comfortable place to spend a road trip or daily commute. The MPV's front captain's chairs are certainly comfortable, though the driving position is not as sporting as that of the CX-9. The cupholders extend from the dash below the radio, and at least on my 2000 model, are terrible. I'm told they were improved on later models. Below the cupholders is a large storage bin with room for cd's or other items. Later models were available with a center tray between the seats that could fold away. This allowed MPV owners to have a sort of center console, but also allowed movement from the passenger seat to the middle row. We used this access quite a lot on road trips with our MPV when our son was very young. The door pockets on the MPV are quite large. The gear selector for the automatic transmission is on the steering column and unfortunately blocked my view of a few of the knobs on the stock radio when in drive. This problem was solved for me when I installed an aftermarket stereo in my MPV. I find the MPV quite suitable for daily driving and an absolute joy on road trips.

Some stats:
MPV/CX-9
Length: 187.8 in./199.6 in. (+11.8)
Width: 72.1 in./76.2 in. (+4.1)
Height: 68.7 in./68.1 in. (-.6)
Wheel Base: 111.8 in./113.2 in. (+1.4)
Curb Weight: 3794 lbs./4312 lbs. (+518)
Gross Weight: 5229 lbs/5805 lbs. (+576)

The CX-9 is much larger than the MPV, yet seems to offer less interior room and function. I consider this it's greatest failure. It's also significantly more expensive than the MPV, putting it out of reach of many families, such as mine.

While I didn't drive the CX-9, I don't need to to evaluate it for my purposes. Though I love fun-to-drive vehicles, the MPV for me is the practical family hauler of the fleet, and the fun-to-drive-factor falls at the bottom of the list of priorities. The CX-9 wouldn't work as my family vehicle, as the interior space and features are inadequate. When the time comes to replace our MPV, I will look for a 2006 MPV, a Mazda5 if we can live with the smaller size, or move on to another manufacturer altogether.
 
Last edited:
I never drove an MPV, but find it odd that the CX-9 would be the replacement. They appear to be 2 different catagory vehicles. I have a growing family and are expecting our 3rd child this year (last child as well!) I had a minivan and they are hands down the most practical vehicle on the market for a family. I just disliked driving one and having the stigma of owning a mini. I bought my 03 Odyssey new and had it for 2 years. Replaced it with an Audi Allroad and recently sold that to buy the CX-9. Although I loved the Audi and love the CX-9, neither hold a candle to the mini in terms of versatility or practicality. As I do have short spurts of sellers remorse (dumping the Odyssey) I still have no intention on buying another mini. The CX-9 is not a full replacement for what the mini offered but a good comprimise.
 
Foolish, Thanks for taking the time to express your thoughts. If you need all that extra room (and it sounds like you do), then a mini-van (or fullsized van is definately for you). I just don't think your comparison of the MPV to the CX-9 is very relevant. The Cx-9 is not a mini-van and was not designed to be an end-all, do-all cargo hauler; the mini-van was (and the MPV is a great one). The CX-9 was designed to appeal to those who need to haul more than the average amount of stuff, but who are willing to trade some of that all out utility for a fun-to-drive, stylish, sporty package. The price alone is going to put it out of the budget of most young families along with several others including Acadia.

For us DINKS (dual income/no kids), the CX-9 is damn near perfect. I thought it might seem too large for my wife (PT Cruiser driver), but after an extensive test drive, she loved it! Since you state that you are an enthusiastic driver, I wish you could have driven the CX-9. You may have found that some of your concerns seemed somewhat less significant. No flame intended! (cheers2)
 
lazyace13 said:
Foolish, Thanks for taking the time to express your thoughts. If you need all that extra room (and it sounds like you do), then a mini-van (or fullsized van is definately for you). I just don't think your comparison of the MPV to the CX-9 is very relevant. The Cx-9 is not a mini-van and was not designed to be an end-all, do-all cargo hauler; the mini-van was (and the MPV is a great one). The CX-9 was designed to appeal to those who need to haul more than the average amount of stuff, but who are willing to trade some of that all out utility for a fun-to-drive, stylish, sporty package. The price alone is going to put it out of the budget of most young families along with several others including Acadia.

For us DINKS (dual income/no kids), the CX-9 is damn near perfect. I thought it might seem too large for my wife (PT Cruiser driver), but after an extensive test drive, she loved it! Since you state that you are an enthusiastic driver, I wish you could have driven the CX-9. You may have found that some of your concerns seemed somewhat less significant. No flame intended! (cheers2)
Hear-hear! You gotta have your expectations right. CX-9 is not a minivan replacement. As an alternate example, I drive a BMW M3 in the summer and even if the entire world says the CX-9 is "fun to drive", I would have been insane to compare it to the M3. Don't you agree Foolish? Well that's what you did from the other direction with the CX-9 to MPV comparison :).
 
The CX-9 IS the replacement for the MPV, so a comparison is quite relevant. If you needed just to haul more than the average amount of stuff, the CX-7 would be more than enough :) the real "point" to the CX-9 is that it's massive and has a third row of seats (like the minivan it replaced).
 
Kansei said:
The CX-9 IS the replacement for the MPV, so a comparison is quite relevant. If you needed just to haul more than the average amount of stuff, the CX-7 would be more than enough :) the real "point" to the CX-9 is that it's massive and has a third row of seats (like the minivan it replaced).

Ok, obviously we're going to get to a stage here where there is going to be disagreement, and with good cause. That's why this is being classified as a different vehicle, a CUV rather than an SUV or a minivan. There are definitely things about the CX-9 that are worse than a minivan (huge rear doors vs. sliding doors, less raw hauling space, 3rd row accessibility) and there are things about the CX-9 that are better than both the CX-7 (much smoother to drive, more space if you need it, significantly increased towing capacity) or the MPV (much more fun to drive, a very different image, more towing capacity, greater clearance for the urban jungle).

My point I guess is that you have to evaluate any car against your own needs and the CX-9 (or any CUV) is not a fit if your needs are a minivan.
 
While I agree with what you said there (except that "smoother to drive" means "mushier suspension".. meaning the CX-9 is far removed from the "zoom-zoom" ethos of Mazda.. ), Mazda has made it clear that the CX-9 is the replacement for the MPV (which is now of course discontinued), so direct comparisons are completely fair.
 
Kansei said:
While I agree with what you said there (except that "smoother to drive" means "mushier suspension".. meaning the CX-9 is far removed from the "zoom-zoom" ethos of Mazda.. ), Mazda has made it clear that the CX-9 is the replacement for the MPV (which is now of course discontinued), so direct comparisons are completely fair.
I don't know if Mazda actually made the connection that CX-9 is an MPV replacement. Yes, they discontinued the MPV and added the CX-9 at the same time and they do seem to share a fair bit of functionality, but not all. I can certainly see how that could be interpreted by many to be a replacement play. But CX-9 is a different class to the MPV, it's a not a replacement for it, as evidenced by this thread, at the very least.

(By the way, what I meant by "smoother drive" is that the engine and transmission on the CX-9 are much smoother than the CX-7's turbo setup. I've read/heard that people consider CX-9 to be a harsh ride, implying a fairly firm suspension; I don't find that at all, but I do drive a tightened M3 in the summer, which is very firm, but not bouncy :). The CX-9 doesn't swash around like some minivans and SUVs I've driven, but it's not a sports car by a stretch, of course. Nor is the CX-7.)
 
Here's an article where a Mazda exec. says that they decided not to develop the new MPV (available in Japan) for they U.S. market, instead going with the CX-9 to serve those who want 7-passenger vehicles. He sites relatively low sales of the MPV (never a huge player in the U.S. mini-van market) and the significantly higher prices and profits in the SUV sector.

I see it as the replacement for the MPV and compared it as such, because Mazda got rid of one 7-passenger vehicle, and put another in its place. As a Mazda fan, I'd like to replace the MPV with another Mazda when the time comes, but the CX-9 is not going to work for me. My review was entirely of the interior, because the interior space/function is basically all that matters to me in a kid hauler. People on this forum might want to find a bigger Mazda as a family vehicle, I just wanted to point out areas where the CX-9 is not as good as the MPV (or any other mini-van) as a kid hauler.

I was frankly a little apprehensive about posting this in the CX-9 section, as obviously people in this section are going to be pro-CX. I appreciate you all taking the time to read my excessively long rant, and not flaming me out of the section, though. :)
 
Lexx said:
I don't know if Mazda actually made the connection that CX-9 is an MPV replacement. Yes, they discontinued the MPV and added the CX-9 at the same time and they do seem to share a fair bit of functionality, but not all. I can certainly see how that could be interpreted by many to be a replacement play. But CX-9 is a class to the MPV, it's a not a replacement for it, as evidenced by this thread, at the very least.

(By the way, what I meant by "smoother drive" is that the engine and transmission on the CX-9 are much smoother than the CX-7's turbo setup. I've read/heard that people consider CX-9 to be a harsh ride, implying a fairly firm suspension; I don't find that at all, but I do drive a tightened M3 in the summer, which is very firm, but not bouncy :). The CX-9 doesn't swash around like some minivans and SUVs I've driven, but it's not a sports car by a stretch, of course. Nor is the CX-7.)
All that being said the CX-9 ISthe replacement for the mpv as per Mazda
 
Ok, ok, you guys win :). Sigh, I am driving a minivan ... replacement :). Midlife crisis, here I come :).
 
Foolish said:
IThe CX-9 is much larger than the MPV, yet seems to offer less interior room and function. I consider this it's greatest failure.

Lets look at the actual seating you described...

North American spec MPV had a 2-2-3 seating where the last 3 was on single bench type seat (wich could fe folded flat to the floor) So, in order to gain that much needed storage space, you complain about, in MPV, you will lose 3 seats. I think thats a major factor compareing to CX-9.
Because the latter has 2-3-2 type of seating arrangement and you can fold the 3row seat 50-50!

So, you can be more flexible with cargo area - starting to lose only one by one seatingspace per additional cargo needs!

And that fact alone owercomes all your comments on the backwindow angles and other crap (smash)

Euro type MPV had a much more sensible 2-3-2 seating arrangement with last two seats separately removable (2thumbs)

So the CX-9 looks more like a euro spec MPV

Mazda MPV4.jpg

Also the Euro spec Mazda 5 will get a seating for 7 and not 6 as in States?!?

mazda 5.jpg
 
Last edited:
Lexx said:
Ok, ok, you guys win :). Sigh, I am driving a minivan ... replacement :). Midlife crisis, here I come :).

haha it's all good, the CX-9 is a nice vehicle for sure! I say the Mazda5 with a roof-mounted carrier would be much more suitable for anyone who wanted an MPV-replacement. It sure would be painfully slow with 6 people + roof carrier with 155hp.

The reasons no one bought the MPV:
1. low on power compared to offerings from other makers. Loaded down with 7 people and luggage I'm sure it was no fun.
2. reduced storage space behind the third row compared to other (mainly domestic) offerings.
 
My wife and I own a 2006 Ford Freestar SEL. This van is fully loaded with leather (heated), DVD, power sliding doors/lift gate, etc. You get the picture. Now, besides all of those options, the Freestar offers lots of room. We need this room because we have 4 children together ranging from 19 months old to 11 years old. This minivan is exactly what we need.

As for the CX-9, my wife and I have been interested in it ever since we first noticed it in a commercial. We had planned on trading in our minivan for a Freestyle, but after seeing what Mazda has to offer for the minivan replacement (because we are tired of minivans), we will wait about 2 years before we make the switch to the Mazda CX-9.

Mind you, I will be reading/researching as much as possible about the Mazda CX-9 and then next few years will give Mazda a chance to tweak out the bugs.
 
Kansei said:
I really, really wish the new MPV would come here.

it's the most beautiful minivan.. EVER http://www.mpv.mazda.co.jp/

DAMN. That MPV is beautiful. Too bad the website is in Nippon. Engine carries DISI DOHC. Why can't they bring that here in the US? They're missing out a lot.
 
Dalton said:
So, you can be more flexible with cargo area - starting to lose only one by one seatingspace per additional cargo needs!

And that fact alone owercomes all your comments on the backwindow angles and other crap


Well, I'm not trying to start a fight, but you're both completely right, and totally missing my point. You're right that the CX-9's configuration of space is more flexible, I wish the third row on the MPV had a 50/50 or 60/40 split. However, what I was getting at with the "back window angles and other crap" was that the CX-9 is larger than the MPV, but still makes more compromises inside as far as space and untility go. Again, there is room for a lot more stuff behind the third row on the MPV than the CX-9. The CX, like most SUVs (and the Mazda5) can carry people or stuff, but not both. The 5 is much smaller, so it makes sense that you'd have to compromise some space, but the CX-9 is a foot longer, 4 inches wider, and weighs 500 pounds more than the MPV, and all so that people can feel better about themselves 'cause they're not driving a mini-van! (crazy)
 
Shaz said:
DAMN. That MPV is beautiful. Too bad the website is in Nippon. Engine carries DISI DOHC. Why can't they bring that here in the US? They're missing out a lot.

It's the same 2.3 turbo engine found in your CX-7, the MS3, and the MS6 :)
 
Because I guess Mazda North America really doesn't understand the couple reasons that no one bought the MPV have been fixed in this new model.
 
Back