Before we bought our 2009 AWD GT CX9, we narrowed our choices to the Acadia, Pilot, and CX9. The Acadia felt "heavy" when test driving. On the positive side, the interior is well laid out and getting in/out, etc. was very easy, especially the third row since it had captains chairs in the second row. We could have probably lived with it, but for what you got, the price was way too high in comparison and they never would have gotten down to our budget. So from there, it was between the Pilot and the CX9.
We were very close to buying a Pilot. We like it a lot, especially the roominess inside. I think there is more headroom, so it feels like there is a lot more space, even though I believe there is technically less cargo space in the back. Overall I thought it felt like there was more interior room. I also was attracted to the historic reliability of the Pilot and Honda brand in general. It wasn't as "fun" to drive and didn't handle as well, but it could hold it's own. It's not particularly pretty on the outside, but it kind of grew on me over time, and I could get used to that. Another kind of negative, but not a deal killer, was the long braking distance vs. the CX9.
In the end, it was a toss up for us between the CX9 and Pilot, they each have there own advantages and disadvantages, none of which swayed us one way or the other. We ended up with the CX9 because at the time we were able to get a killer deal on it ($7-$8K off sticker). I think in general, even now, you get much more for your money with the CX9. It has 30,000 miles on it now (in less than 2 years!), but it's been a very reliable vehicle with only a couple minor hiccups related to accessories, nothing engine or drive train related. It is our first Mazda (we are Toyota folks), and from what I can tell so far, the CX9 is a very well built and solid vehicle. We take is back and forth from St. Louis to Chicago to visit family during the holidays, and it holds a ton of stuff behind the second row!
The cargo room was the selling point, when I was shopping just the storage numbers online. Being a car nut, I've known about Mazda for a long time now, obviously, and know that they're an underrated, understated brand that usually does really well, injecting performance, or at least fun, in to its vehicles. I'm right there alongside anyone who mourns the loss of the Mazdaspeed 6, in particular not getting one in wagon form.
Anyway, my wife loves the Pilot for its interior, we've not driven one yet. She may try it, but she really doesn't like the styling. She plainly won't buy a car she doesn't love to look at!
I'll just chime in and say you'll probably be very happy with the CX-9 since it drives smaller and handles a helluva lot better than it's competition. It's also better looking IMO and a helluva lot better value. We just got out 2010 demo for 7K off invoice and love it. We had a Pilot and my wife hated that it felt so big.
One thing to consider though is that some people find the ride with the GT 20-inch wheels a bit harsh. I don't, since I prefer a tighter handling car. But it's a compromise at this price point. to get better handling with a more compliant ride you would need to move into a Porsche Cayenne. So make sure you test drive the GT and Touring models with the 18 inch wheels back to back over some rough roads to see if you like the overall ride.
I'm not sure what wheels the Grand Touring had, that we drove. I don't see a wheel choice as an option for the 2011 models, so maybe that's new for this year? I think you could choose, on the 2010s. Good point, though, we'll be sure to check that out, when we re-drive!
To see clear handling capabilities of the Acura, you need to drive it hard into corners. Otherwise, the CX9 is just as good during normal driving.
I took an Acura out for an extended test drive and the handling at the limit with the SH-AWD is much better than the CX9.
Like you, I backed away due to the $8-10k price premium.
We actually took it through some pretty good twisties. My wife said that the CX-9 definitely felt bigger, but the MDX felt more top-heavy. She felt more sure-footed in the CX-9, which surprised us both. I'm sure we'll drive again, before we buy.
I have and love a CX9 GT so I'm a fan but I am wondering if you need a vehicle this big with just one kid and a dog. Coming from an Outback you will be shocked with the fuel consumption in a bigger crossover so think hard about whether you need such a big vehicle. I average something in the mid teens MPG for city driving and barely over 20 on the highway at 70mph. The CX9 is certainly a bigger vehicle but there are downsides to that as well. Try parallel parking the CX9 (or similar sized vehicle) compared to the Subaru.
I know the Subaru doesn't have a third seat but I'm sure the dog won't mind sitting in the back anyway. I assume therefore that the real issue is luggage space with a kid in the middle seat and dog owning the whole back on longer trips. Have you considered putting a Yakima/Thule roof carrier on a Subaru? Even the CX9 with all its space can be a challenge if you need to have both a dog and a collapsed stroller in the vehicle. A roof box big enough for the stroller would actually work better. The Subaru is long enough to handle even a bigger roof box than the CX9 which is limited by the degree of windshield and rear hatch sloping. As far as total cargo volume, the CX9 would still win but I betcha the two would be much closer when max'd out with roof boxes.
I drove the 2010 Outback (I still own a 1998 Outback) when shopping for the CX9. I liked the remarkable upgrades to ride and finish that Subaru has accomplished in the past decade. The lack of third seat and the rather anemic Boxer engine crossed it off my list (I didn't drive the six) but it was a very nice car otherwise.
Check out the new Mazda 5 too. Not so much zoom zoom but has three rows (six seats) and is a very flexible vehicle.
Finally, I just want to assure you that I'm not down on the CX9 at all. I love mine but am just pointing out some of the potential disadvantages/trade offs.
And you have some good points.
The Outback is definitely my wife's favorite - in part due to the brand loyalty, but she's good at setting that aside. She likes how it rides, better than the rest... but of course it's a car, not a crossover/SUV. We drove the 3.6R, which is a huge boost over the standard EJ25/2.5-liter four, particularly since they don't sell the EJ25 with the turbo anymore, as an Outback XT. That variant died in 2009, with the last-gen Outback. A shame, but it didn't sell well, I guess.
We would definitely consider a roof box, but I think my wife wants to have a vehicle that has the interior room we'd need, most of the time. We don't have any kids yet, just the dog. The trip on Christmas 2009 was definitely more stuff than usual: dog crate (collapsed), presents, luggage, other bags, dog stuff, etc. etc. We normally wouldn't have that much, and I'm also not a person who believes that, once you have kids, you NEED a large vehicle. My brother and I rode around in my father's 1988 Civic hatchback for 10 years, *with* a Labrador retriever.
Now, I won't say that it was comfy..........but in the '80s you didn't really have a choice, beyond buying a Tahoe or something.
I truthfully won't be surprised at all, if my wife simply can't say "no" to a new Outback 3.6R Limited, which is what we'd get. For 2011 they finally re-added folding exterior mirrors, a feature I think was dumb to omit in the first place. 2012 should see a re-freshening, so I'm hoping for some spy pics and specs, so we can make a decision. An outgoing 2011 would obviously be less money, if there's no benefit to waiting for a 2012.
www.cars101.com is a Subaru site with specs on all models, run by a salesman in WA. Awesome resource, I email him (Joe) sometimes for info. So I keep my eye there, since he keeps a good pulse on the auto shows and corporate news.
That brings up a good point, actually, about outgoing models... The CX-9 was refreshed for 2010. Do you guys expect a new model for 2012? I wouldn't be surprised, since it was introduced in, what, 2007? I'd think it's due...
I think I know where you're coming from. Our last car was an 05 Legacy GT Wagon Limited with Manual Transmission. We loved it but we have a big dog and once we had our second kid it was a little tight for space. I'll echo the earlier comment that a Yakima roof box helped a lot. We still use it on occasion on the CX-9 but it was a permanent fixture on top of the Legacy GT.
We looked at the Pilot, Highlander, Acadia, Enclave, Tribeca and MDX.
I too wanted to love the Tribeca. We did like it a bit but the 3rd row is pretty useless and it didn't offer that much more space than the Legacy wagon. It also gets pretty much the worst mpg in the class while being smaller than the other options.
The Pilot and Highlander were just not that impressive. The MDX was but not much more so than the CX-9 or the GM options and the price was much higher.
Don't dismiss the GM options. They drive very nicely and offer a bit more space than the CX-9. But they were quite a bit more expensive and the inability to slide the 2nd row seats forward while a carseat is installed is a real negative.
I'm thrilled with the CX-9. Our Legacy GT was a car that I loved. When making the switch I was prepared not to love the CX-9 but merely to appreciate it. This has changed now that I've spent a year and a half with the CX-9. It's really good at what it does. It's not exciting to drive but still can be engaging. It's not the biggest crossover out there but it still fits a lot of stuff.
I'd just add that you might want to take a look at the Ford Flex. It's a very nice package. If you don't need the ground clearance and you're OK with the styling, it's worth a look. The new Ford Explorer and Dodge Durango might be other options.
The good news with the crossover segment is that it's so diverse. There are really a lot of choices and they're all a bit different. A few years down the road and they may all start to converge like the mid-size sedan or minivan markets where everything is about the same. For now it's nice to have a variety of options that are truly different.
We don't like the Flex at all, and I in particular can't stand its looks. Someone on NASIOC also suggested it, though. Honestly if the Edge had more cargo space, I'd have it atop my short list - that one, I like a lot. And Ford has made huge strides in quality, over the last few years. Explorer/Durango would be a no - another boxy style that she doesn't like.
Glad you liked your LGT. I actually personally drive an '05 LGT Limited sedan (white, 5MT).
Awesome car, I bought it in 2008 to replace my 2000 Impreza 2.5RS sedan that I'd bought new. I still miss that car, but the GT is so much nicer.
I disagree with the not so exciting to drive comment sjg.
I find even on winter tires the CX-9 is a real hoot to drive hard. I can't wait to get the 20's back on in the spring and really push it. Like my Mz6 sGT you need to push the CX-9 to make it dance. At first I was a bit apprehensive about pushing such a large SUV around the curves but the DSC is really well tuned and the car turns on a dime, feeling lighter and smaller as you push it's limits. Taking curves and accelerating through the gears while that sweet V6 sings is pretty exciting for any car much less an SUV. Try really wringing it's neck and it comes alive. Or drive it calmly and it returns a very enjoyable and relaxing ride. It's one of the reasons I keep coming back to Mazda. Honda and Toyota can't hold a candle to the Mazda's personality.
Be warned though that when you wring it's neck you'll see your gas needle plummet. I almost gagged when I saw 2.9- 5.0 mpg on the trip computer when I was hitting the red line in every gear. The V6 is responsive but very thirsty.
Yeah driving with frenzy, definitely increases the gas bills!! My wife's more of a leadfoot, than I am. :lol: