2017 CX 9 Customer Reviews

[GJ-Molestor]

I have been wondering the exact same. My guess on Camry and Accord is the reliability factor... in the past ripped off by shady dealers (or indys) on repair/maintenance so badly that any (perceived or real) reliability advantage trumps everything else about the choices. Like shell shock. Understandable.

I have a buddy who ONLY buys GM products, so maybe there are many more like this out there. The skyactiv's note doesn't sound enough like bald eagles. Understandable too.

I think Nissan pushes the deals/financing more, or so I've heard. For those who Toyota/Honda don't want to talk to. Isn't the Rogue model like 15 years old... but there is a customer base for that. Have you seen the tv ads for the bad ass midnight edition Rogue?? Great stuff. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1mpRnD-SCw

The accord might have a solid motor, but max torque at 4000RPM is pathetic for a 2.4 or 2.5L. The Altima, accord and Camry are all like this while the Mazda is at 3250RPM yet making more torque then all of its competition.

Hondas 2.4L and Nissans 2.5L, and their respective transmissions have been completely unchanged for over 10 years now. The new Altima, mechanically is identical to the old one.

If youre looking for high mileage reliability, I would only be looking at the Camry because the other two have CVTs. I feel like mazda just combines everything together better then the competition.

Had a super fun drive yesterday with the Mazda, and boy is that car awesome. The 2.5L sounds nice, revs smoothly and has great pickup for a 4 cylinder. The transmission shifts very quickly and smooth, but really what sealed the deal for me on this car is the wonderful chassis. Not only is it stable, but it LOVES corners. I was doing lane changes to pass some cars yesterday and the way the chassis eagerly darts from side to side, yet tracks straight and true when you have the wheel pointed straight. The steering is extremely responsive and well tuned like the rest of the car. steering effort loads up beautifully when you turn into a corner and transmits an abundance in steering feel. The whole car is very well tuned together and manages to be both fun to drive yet well mannered, stable and relaxed when you are driving normally. The fuel economy is excellent, and there is lots of space in the car. Very happy with this purchase indeed.

 

[CrazyBiker]

So whats your comparison in handling between your 5 series and Mazda6? Why I ask because I am planning to replace my 6 with a 2014+ 5 series or a C/E-class.

 

[GJ-Molestor]

So whats your comparison in handling between your 5 series and Mazda6? Why I ask because I am planning to replace my 6 with a 2014+ 5 series or a C/E-class.

my 5 series has more cornering potential without a doubt then the Mazda 6 since it is RWD, but the steering and chassis is less involving to drive then the Mazda. the 5 series feels heavy and noticeably less nimble, not really as motivating to corner aggressively unless you are going fast but very smooth and rewarding when you keep the chassis within its paces. it is a heavy car.

the mazda is more agile with better turn-in and has better chassis feel cornering at lower speeds around town, but the 5 series is a monster at high speed.. extremely stable and capable. thats not to say that mazda 6 isnt good at highway speeds, just not as stable or reassuring as the 5 series. at high speeds, the 5 series corners beautifully.

both cars have good steering. the Mazda's is nice and light for lower speed driving, the BMW's is firm and heavy for high speeds. the Mazda has more feel, but I like the BMW's steering as well.

so honestly for me, its a bit of a tossup. the Mazda drives more passionate and with more soul, the BMW is just somewhat uninvolved but very capable and still lots of fun to drive.

now comparing the 5 series to the c/e class:

- I prefer BMW's engine (inline 6)
- BMW's transmission tuning is better
- the 5 series has better dampening, is more nimble and absorbs bumps better then the Mercedes especially below 80km/h. overall, I prefer BMW's chassis tuning over mercedes.
- the mercedes is biased more toward high speed, while the 5 series just blends city agility with high speed stability better because of it's chassis, so that would be my choice.
- the BMW has better balance and weight distribution. it corners better, more balanced, and more likely to drift predictably.
- I prefer Mazda's and BMW's steering (both very good) over Mercedes.

if you decide to go for the BMW, skip the 4 cylinder and go for the 535i. very reliable engine.. the 2012+ 528i has problematic turbo 4 cylinder with serious timing chain guide issues.

 

[CrazyBiker]

Thanks, I am leaning more towards 5 series or c class. 535 I had actually heard more issues but in general with bmw turbos. Prefer 6 cyl over 4 cyl but anything turbo worries me. Want to stick with 2014+ so I can get extended warranty.

 

[GJ-Molestor]

Thanks, I am leaning more towards 5 series or c class. 535 I had actually heard more issues but in general with bmw turbos. Prefer 6 cyl over 4 cyl but anything turbo worries me. Want to stick with 2014+ so I can get extended warranty.

the 535i's inline 6 turbo is very reliable. I have driven examples with almost 200k KM on it and the engine ran beautifully.

2007-2010, the older twin turbo engine has some issues but it still lasts long with normal maintenance. the 2011+ is the same story, but updated to single turbo and very reliable. few things to go wrong with this engine and I prefer it over mercedes's v6. the inline 6 is an amazing motor especially when designed by BMW.

I would just test drive both and go from there.

if you want to play it safe, buy a 2011 528i like I did. the 2011 was a naturally aspirated inline 6 engine before switching to a turbo 4 in 2012, and it is very reliable.

 

[CrazyBiker]

Yeah no way to get inline 6 unless go turbo. Looking at a 535 today.

 

[GJ-Molestor]

Yeah no way to get inline 6 unless go turbo. Looking at a 535 today.

take a look at the 2011 528i. it had a naturally aspirated inline 6 for 2011 only. 2012 onwards was the same chassis, different engine. I have one.

 

[CrazyBiker]

Hard to get low mileage ones and ability to buy ext warranty.

 

[GJ-Molestor]

Hard to get low mileage ones and ability to buy ext warranty.

By c class do you mean the newest one or previous gen?

Having spent a fair amount of time with the 5 series and a previous generation c class, the 5 series is better engineered and more fun to drive, better built, more reliable etc.

 

[CrazyBiker]

Newest gen C that actually handles better than 3 series

 

[GJ-Molestor]

Newest gen C that actually handles better than 3 series

They both handle very well, id say they both handle just as good as each other, except the 3 series has better steering, a more involved driving feel and a slightly better chassis.

The interior is s*** in comparison to the C class, and build quality/fit and finish has fallen off for the 3 series after they introduced the new model. So it would be either the c class or 5 series for me.

The e class is very nice and more exclusive then the c which is a plus, but its a touch too soft for my taste. I will say that I prefer the new e class over the new 5 series though.

 

[CrazyBiker]

E is kinda heavy turd for handling. The 3 series is as common as a Corolla and feels cheap inside. BMW interiors in general are not that posh.

 

[CrazyBiker]

I had a chance to revisit a Signature last week (been more than a year since I looked at the new CX9) when my 6 was for service at the dealer. The car just feels so claustrophobic in the back rows especially with the black headliner and the low floor-ceiling height. This car definitely needs a panoramic roof. Still beats me why the CX9 still has such a big hump for the driveshaft when other crossovers can design them without it even in AWD configuration. Maybe the low overall height in order to make it look sleeker is to be blamed. Also the reason for such abysmal interior volume.

 

[JPL]

I had a chance to revisit a Signature last week (been more than a year since I looked at the new CX9) when my 6 was for service at the dealer. The car just feels so claustrophobic in the back rows especially with the black headliner and the low floor-ceiling height. This car definitely needs a panoramic roof. Still beats me why the CX9 still has such a big hump for the driveshaft when other crossovers can design them without it even in AWD configuration. Maybe the low overall height in order to make it look sleeker is to be blamed. Also the reason for such abysmal interior volume.

The CX-9 actually isn't that low. It's 69" tall. Sorento is the lowest in class at 66.3". Highlander looks taller than CX-9, right? Wrong. It's 68.1". Even the very upright Explorer is just 1" taller than CX-9. Most ground clearance (8.8") in class also surprises people.

Middle row is among most comfortable in class. Mazda lowered the floor outside of the tunnel so that adults actually have thigh support. Most others have your legs up in the air because the floor is so high to eliminate tunnel.

 

[CrazyBiker]

Its all in the interior packaging efficiency man. Mazda left a lot of empty spaces behind all the surfaces. How come I have more headroom, equal thigh support, no center driveshaft hump in my Sorento or Highlander compared to the CX9. Maybe the large ground clearance is the reason but an additional 1.7" should not add a 6" hump. Look under the car. They definitely could have made it less taller. I am not sure why they have left so much room around the shaft.

 

[Tiggs]

The hump is rather odd in the back considering the my previous generation didn't have it. I've never sat in the back of my CX9, except in the show room - I'm always driving or in the passenger seat and my kids two car seats are back there... it's definitely not designed to be roomy, and I'm fine with that - I'd go elsewhere if that is your major need.

 

[Guest2018]

I had a chance to revisit a Signature last week (been more than a year since I looked at the new CX9) when my 6 was for service at the dealer. The car just feels so claustrophobic in the back rows especially with the black headliner and the low floor-ceiling height. This car definitely needs a panoramic roof. Still beats me why the CX9 still has such a big hump for the driveshaft when other crossovers can design them without it even in AWD configuration. Maybe the low overall height in order to make it look sleeker is to be blamed. Also the reason for such abysmal interior volume.

I too wanted Panoramic Roof before buying. Didn't get it and truly I don't miss it either. The conventional sunroof provides ample rays from our closest Star and nice cool airflow at night.

I don't get the claustrophobia claims unless you've spent a lot of time in a Honda Pilot and bring that expectation into the CX-9. I spent a lot of time in the second row of the XC-90 and I'll put my second row and third row up against that any day of the week in terms of comfort and ride-ability. There is minimal headroom in the third row of the XC-90 and my shoulders were touching the upper portions of the center seat when reclined - uncomfortable for me. In fact, the second and third rows of the XC-90 left me shaking my head after I sat in the second and third rows of the CX-9. I'm still scratching my head over it. I just feel more comfortable in the CX-9.

We fit five (5) full size family members and two (2) good size nieces and nephews into our CX-9 without issues. Everybody says how comfortable they are - in fact, people who sit in the back seats always tell us how comfortable they are. Leg room, shoulder room and head room are all just about right for them. When we caravan someplace and it is time to hop in, family members line up at the CX-9 calling dibs on a seat. The caravans could include a Toyota Highlander, Toyota Sequoia, Lexus GX460, Infinity QX50 or Mercedes ML350 (they like lining up for this one too).

These pics of the CX-9 driveshaft design and placement may explain what you are referring to. I took these when I did my last oil change recently. You will note that Mazda design engineers decided to keep the driveshaft and initial exhaust run on top of the vehicles longitudinal line. I'm guessing this was done to improve lateral balance. Doing that required them to "stack" the two components vertically under the vehicle. And, as someone else has already mentioned, you will also note that the CX-9 has one of the tallest clearances of any seven passenger SUV in its price range:

This is an SUV but it is also kind of sporty as well and I like that combination. Designers at Mazda specifically stated that they wanted to give the driver and occupants the feeling that they were sitting "in" the vehicle, not "on top" of the vehicle. This is why the vehicle "surrounds" you more than making you feel like you are riding on top of a Yacht in the bridge somewhere.

 

[CrazyBiker]

You sure it was a XC90 ? [emoji12] XC90 is very roomy in all compartments. More than the CX9. Love the comfort and look of the Volvo seats too.

 

[Guest2018]

How come I have more headroom, equal thigh support, no center driveshaft hump in my Sorento or Highlander compared to the CX9.

Which might explain why the on-road driving dynamics of the CX-9 are so vastly better than the Sorento and why the Sorento weight almost 700lbs MORE than the CX-9 while actually having a smaller body and wheel base. This design differential pushes the occupants further out to the exterior of the vehicle's structure. To better understand the net result of this design differential, go take a closer look at the differences in the sizing of the A/B/C pillars between the two vehicles (primarily the A pillar). The CX-9 keeps its occupants closer to the longitudinal axis of the vehicle while providing them with more crash protection through the use of more substantial pillars. That won't show up in the IIHS Small Overlap Crash Test, but it would show up if the vehicle unfortunately found itself in a Rolling Crash.

I am not sure why they have left so much room around the shaft.

Focusing the Center of Mass a bit more. The CX-9 inspires you to drive it in a spirited fashion. The Kia Sorento came off my list quickly after the first test drive when I threw it into a turn. It scared the crap out of my Wife and the Salesman - me too. We said bye-bye to the Sorento, because I wanted an SUV that forced me to buy it based on its relative performance and price as compared to the XC-90 which was used as our "Benchmark" target buy. So, we were not merely comparing the Sorento to the CX-9. We were comparing the Sorento and the CX-9 to the XC-90. When it came to handling performance relative to comfort, there simply was no comparison left to make. The CX-9 in juxtaposition to the XC-90 forced us to buy it. The Acura MDX was Number #2 and almost won. However, I felt that its SH-AWD was a bit overdone.

 

[CrazyBiker]

What? Sorento weighs the same as CX9 and handles pretty well if not better but close.