I guess some here are getting very serious about performance , or not
We bought MAZDAs not Toyota or Honda for it's road performance more than looks and style ....
Sure agreed there , my question is , what affect in acceleration and mpg will 93 octane have ? My previous 2.0t 2006 Passat would be very different on 87 vs 93 and mpg was much better on 93 oct.... CX9 is still unanswered question . Can anyone test or post their observations? I need to know not to race other cars just to know what to expect before I may buy it .
According to test data from Car and Driver, 0 - 60 with 91-octane gasoline from 2016 Mazda CX-9 AWD is 7.2 seconds. The FWD CX-9 could be 0.0 ~ 0.2 seconds faster at most!I would like someone to post dyno of CX9 with 87 vs 93 octanes , also 0-60 number with 23hp more should be better than 7.1secs for AWD ?
I really like to see 0-60 number for FWD GT on on 93 oct... can it be in the mid 6 secs???
Car and Driver said:And while the rest of the class offers V-6 power, the CX-9 comes with only a four-cylinder turbo. The engine displaces 2.5 liters and makes 250 horsepower on 93 octane and 227 horses on 87, says Mazda. On Californias 91-octane fuel, it makes something in between and can run zero to 60 mph in 7.2 seconds. It passes through the quarter-mile in 15.7 seconds at 88 mph. The Pilot and Explorer Sport are both quicker to 60 by about a second; the V-6powered Highlander is about a tenth slower than the CX-9.
I think you're too optimistic for 0-60 on a 2016 CX-9 FWD with a little higher 93 octane. Based on what CX-5 FWD can do over AWD, and other 0-60 data, I believe 0.0~0.2 seconds faster is the best you could get. In other words, 0-60 under 7 seconds on 2016 FWD CX-9 is very much unlikely!Nice find , so on 93 it has extra 10hp and 250lbs less weight in FWD trim , I think it can get under 6.9 secs what makes it quicker than my 2013 CX9 7.3 secs , not to mention that 0-45mph it is probably full second faster... with its great torque down low...
I merely compare the difference of 0-60 between FWD and AWD with the same engine. And you definitely don't get 10 hp by using 93-octane than 91-octane gasoline! Upper power band? Although the redline on SkyActiv-G 2.5T turbo is at 6,300 rpm, but the maximum horsepower happens at only 5,000 rpm. With maximum torque happens at 2,000 rpm, that simply means this SA 2.5T is not designed for fast acceleration but for better low-end torque!CX5 is not turbo and is not timed to run on 93 octane .... i just don't know how much difference will it make at upper power band where HP is more important than torque... and when 93 octane gives significant gains....
Car and Drive said:But if you drive the CX-9 as we dopart throttle and no redlining makes Jack a dull boythe power tapers off noticeably. It doesnt fall away with the abruptness of a turbo-diesel, but theres a big drop in enthusiasm beyond 4500 rpm.
if what you are saying is true, i don't think it's noticeable until above 80 mph....i have been using 87 octane and sometimes catch myself at 78-80 mph without even knowing it....meaning i don't find the car wanting for power <80 mph on the highway.....i suppose if you're used to a Porsche Cayenne Turbo S then you would notice the difference....or perhaps if we're going uphill i might notice the lack of power.so 227hp vs 250hp is difference of 23hp , that is based of jump from 87 to 93 oct , so gain of 23hp for 6 octanes = almost 4hp per each added octane .
So gain of 8hp in upper rpm range with loss of 250 lbs of weight should be more than noticeable on 93 octanes and reving this engine higher than it low end torque wants you to say and most of people will do ...
Was car and drive quote done after testing cx9 on regular 87oct with 23 less peak HP where power definitely falls off in the upper rpm band ???
My point is that for every day city driving where torque is lot more usable than upper rpm band Hp , CX9 will do just fine on regular gas.
But if you go on the highway trip and when at 70 or 80 mph were during more spirited acceleration rpm easily exits low torque sweet spot than extra 23hp in upper rpm band will be nice to have and should be very noticeable.... there is a perception in almost all reviews that CX9 dies off at higher speeds , I hope these impressions are based on 87 octane test drives and in reality at highway drive 93 octane maybe adding more spark when passing and could be worth the ticket....
Thanks for your observation , did you try 93 in one tank and can you report if you feel power gain at highway speeds , say 75mph + also if you mpg any better ?
i have never put anything more than 87 in any tank, and i have yet to drive faster than 85 mph (and rarely over 80). sorry, if i wanted to do that with a 3-row crossover, i would've gotten a Q7.
Really ?
Have some more trust in your Mazda , my 2013 cx9 is very stable at up to 100mph , new set of Falken summer tires did transform it too
There are stretches of highways where you stretch you CX9 and push it little harder than your average 70mph mini van speed limits
Supposedly this new gen CX9 handles even better.
Remember you bought a Mazda and it's handling encourages you to drive faster and do it with total control , it is not a Highlander or Pilot after all...
I had a 3 hour trip home and had it up to 110. The car was very stable and I could easily have went faster. I'm very impressed with how this turbocharged 4 banger drives. I also got 22.3 mpg on the 164 mile trip.Really ?
Have some more trust in your Mazda , my 2013 cx9 is very stable at up to 100mph , new set of Falken summer tires did transform it too
There are stretches of highways where you stretch you CX9 and push it little harder than your average 70mph mini van speed limits
Supposedly this new gen CX9 handles even better.
Remember you bought a Mazda and it's handling encourages you to drive faster and do it with total control , it is not a Highlander or Pilot after all...
....... 22.3 mpg on the 164 mile trip.