I personally don't see many, but I know my coworker tows a camper with her Explorer and I know from the Explorer and Durango forums that plenty of people tow stuff with theirs. I personally like the ability to tow a big utility trailer if I ever needed to, or maybe tow a friend's small boat to the ramp, and I feel better doing so with my Explorer's 5,000 lb tow rating versus the CX-9's 3,000 lb (a 40% reduction - and that's on the off chance you can actually find a CX-9 in stock with a factory tow package).
For me personally, neither the Explorer nor Durango made it to my finalist list. Neither one of them have the kind of build quality, mechanical reliability or soundness of engineering that would enable them to make the list. If you can get beyond the Gas Fumes leaking into the cabin of the Ford Explorer and the towering inferno Durangos that spontaneously burst into flames from electrical and transmission failure problems, then you might find yourself taking a serious of test drives only then to discover the driving dynamics of an M1 A2 Ahbrams Tank to be more fulfilling and enjoyable. That's when you know that neither of those vehicles belongs on any finalist list where contemporary SUV design is a deciding factor.
So, if a truly "off-road" Ahbrams experience is what one seeks, or the excitement of being the center of a potential fireworks display with electrical causation is more attractive to one, then surely there is a Ford Explorer and/or a Dodge Durango out there waiting, on doubt about it. (drunk)
Is it possible that I got my data wrong? Yes - I have to admit that. Is it probably that I got my data wrong? No - in fact it would highly improbably that the CX-9 continued to score so well against all other Seven Passenger Cross-Over SUVs at or below $50k. And, in the Signature trim - there was literally nothing (no competitor) within eye shot that could keep up.
The GM Lambda's have 116 cu. ft. of space.
Let's stop right there because you are talking about a GM product. I owned the quintessential slam dunk GM flagship. I know how GM treats its customers. I know how GM rushes through production engineering. I know how much attention to detail that GM consistently fails achieve. I know about their lack of tolerances and I know how they love to Stack Tolerances. I know how GM creates one error and then implements another error to solve the first error. I have been through hell and back with GM on their flagship product and they could not even spend the time necessary to get that right. GM single handily put me out of the new vehicle market for over a decade because of their Bind, Torture, Kill mentality when it came to making sure their customer was taken care of. If we are going to discuss a GM platform, then I would need to get massively drunk before doing it. That's the only way I can tolerate such a discussion. Got Beer? (drunk) Let's do several six packs (and I don't even drink beer!) and then talk about GM.
Now, about that GM Lame-Da platform. The one that continues to spit out problem after problem after problem without ever being fixed. Yeah, that Platform. Next to the GM Epsom-Salt platform, I really don't know which one is worse.
They may be classified as full-sizers by the EPA but realistically they compete directly against the CX-9.
And, they do so very poorly. Whether Acadia, Enclave or Traverse, you will enjoy the never ending feel of cheap and never get the real sense that either design was intended to even hint at being Luxurious while still offering on-road performance through adept ride handling. And, speaking of that lack of on-road ride handling, all you have to do is examine the suspension design of the Lambda off spring to know why. How many 50,000 mile Rear Control Arm replacements have these vehicles been through already by the way. Cheap front struts and poor design have lead to many complaints of front end noise coming from these Lambdaites as well. This Lambda Platform and several other GM products are also notorious for Front End Vibration issues they can't seem to solve. It runs down from their Truck Lines all the way into their SUV Lines - hmmmm, I wonder why that might be the case. My research is flawed? It is because I did the homework that I knew to stay far away from a GM 'based' SUV.
Yes, the beautiful looking Atlas parked right next to the CX-9 Signature that I took on its 4th test drive at the same dealer, was endowed with a leather interior that simply fell far short of the inspirational name, Atlas. And, at that price level, the same price level where I could have had a decently appointed Volvo XC-90, it simply made no sense at all to put myself in the position of having to visit my chiropractor merely because I wanted to own the Atlas. The interior seating was something out of a GM product, not an SUV proclaiming to be headed into the Luxury Category. In addition, the design aesthetic was barely Volkswagen and fairly disappointing, IMO. I passed on the Atlas after its first test drive. It simply did not inspire me to drive like the CX-9 sitting right next to it on the same showroom floor.
But let's just take the mainstream Explorer, Highlander and Pilot each with about 84 cu. ft. They have extra space of 1 foot long by 4 feet wide by 3.25 feet high.
I', sorry - but that's not how Spatial Geometry works in the real world application of "capacity." On paper, you can make a Volkswagen "Buggy" look large enough in terms of its "capacity," but when you map out the interior components in the rest of the vehicle, shape/angle/slope from "B" to "C" pillars, rear wheel suspension (strut) accommodations and the overall two-dimensional shape of the rear lift opening - you come out with Usable Space that's no dramatic differential in any of those vehicles than what can be calculated on paper using simple math.
From a real world functional standpoint, I still get multiple sets of golf clubs, gun gear, travel gear and weekend get-a-way supplies along with being able to carry three people with me. That's the 'Sport' and the 'Utility' competence inherent in the new CX-9 design. It does what the others do, but it does it in more style, more luxury and while offering ride quality and road handling that literally makes you want to drive more. It is not a joke when Mazda says they engineer their vehicles to inspire driving. You have to drive one to fully understand - its actually a genuinely true statement. Every single time I climb into the cockpit of the CX-9 and take the first turn, I want more turns and I want them at a faster speed.
I drive this SUV like its a sports car... and... you just not supposed to be able to do that in a Soccer Mom Seven Passenger Cross-Over SUV! This is only part of what separates the CX-9 from the "competition." We have not even touched a discussion about the wickedly smart engineering that went into both its iSkyActive-D and iSkyActive-G designs. Combine those two things with its firmly planted suspension and you get an SUV that begs you to drive it. Neither the Explorer, Highlander or Pilot begged me to do anything - except walk away. I walked form the Explorer because, well, its a Ford mostly, but also because it lacked comparable ride handling and I knew there would be mechanical problems down range because of either poor design or bad build quality. I walked from Honda Pilot because it lacked better ride handling and interior comfort, though it was a fine SUV for the money and I'm sure Pilot owners love it. I walked from the Highlander because Toyota lost its mind and blew a quality time tested design right out of the water. Rather than improve the older design, the created a space alien that I could not understand or figure out. What does the new Highlander want to be when it grows up - I have no idea. It does not handle well, it bounces all over the place, the interior is worse than GM (if that's possible) and it has little to no design sense at all. Very little makes any sense with the new Highlander design and its a shame, because I really liked the older design.
I'm sorry but that is a substantial amount of extra volume for luggage or boxes.
Are you a Wedding Planner, or a Personal Chef? If not, then who cares! You get similar Usable Capacity (not mathematically capacity) in the CX-9 within a Luxury package and a very well balanced vehicle around its center of gravity that makes throwing it into turns a breeze - not to mention loads of fun! Come on and join the CX-9 family, so you can see just what you are missing in the Driving Dynamics category. Then, slow it down, take it out on a long drive out into the forest and experience the Quiet Comfort that it offers its occupants. This SUV does a lot of things very well and that's why I bought it.
I can drive it like I stole it. Or, I can drive like a great grandmother on her way to mass on a Sunday morning. Either way, I get descent fuel economy, quietness, amazing handling, comfort, solid build quality,
positive and predictable control (very important in any SUV) and mechanical reliability. Some of those things will be lacking in the SUVs you mentioned above - if not all of them to a significant degree.
Glad your recent road trip in the CX-9 went well but on several recent road trips we've taken with the dog and a week's worth of luggage behind the 2nd row, we had it PACKED. The CX-9 has about 10 cu. ft less behind the 2nd row than the Durango. That literally would have meant several fewer pieces of luggage, or exterior luggage stowage for us.
I'm sure the Durango is a good hauler and if that's your priority, then hauling things is probably going to work out for you in that vehicle. I've always wanted to like the Durango, but had issues getting past the fact that it was a "Dodge." A little to dodgy for me, if you know what I mean. They did some nice upgrades to it. They made it look better with a more contemporary, yet still classic/iconic SUV shape. It has good size for its class and you can (or used to) get it in a Hemi V8. However, it has at best, a 50/50 torque split and its AWD system is a real weak link when compared to the CX-9's Predictive iACTIV AWD System which is significantly better in all driving conditions and will only improve as Mazda's G-Vectoring is introduced across the board in all its vehicles.
That's funny since the Pilot is by most of the reviews I've seen at least 1.5 seconds quicker than the CX-9. You must've been runnin' nitro!
So, its a tad quicker. The Honda Pilot survived my exam and made the final cut list because for what it is, its a good SUV. But, after you've reached 60mph in the Pilot, you can't turn it like you can the CX-9 with the same level of confidence and that is what pulled the Pilot from the list. At the end of the day, it was the Acura MDX that was the only SUV still standing (aside from the benchmark Volvo XC-90 Inscription).
I picked the CX-9, as the MDX's SH-AWD was too intrusive for me and paying $10k to $12k more for something that did not give me $10k to $12k more in real useful Value, simply made no sense to me. If Ford had a better history of build quality, tighter tolerances and better grade interior design/materials, the Explorer might have survived longer during my exam and maybe even challenged the Acura MDX for the number #2 spot. But, from an overall comprehensive standpoint, right now for at or below $50k you won't find much if anything at all that seriously competes or beats the Mazda CX-9 Signature.