Why do you insist on comparing the more expensive luxury class? I take that as a compliment to Mazda. Just to get ventilated seats in the Q7 you have to buy the $65K Prestige.
Just received New 2018 CX-9 Info from Dealer
- Thread starter jmonkie
- Start date
Why do you insist on comparing the more expensive luxury class? I take that as a compliment to Mazda. Just to get ventilated seats in the Q7 you have to buy the $65K Prestige.
Probably because that's what you have to compare the CX-9 with.
Hey, I would much rather have a "prestige" brand like Audi or BMW, but the least expensive Audi with some of the CX-9's trim and safety features has an invoice of $54,000 and an MSRP of $58,000.
Sure, the Audi is probably a better vehicle in many ways. But, is it $15,000 (40%) better than the street price on the CX-9? I don't think so, and that's why I went with Mazda. Also, I have a hunch that I couldn't walk onto a dealer's lot and buy an Audi configured the way I want, without a bunch of extra stuff that's already on the car.
For those of us who pay cash for our cars (instead of some sort of financing that's based on a fantasy future) $15,000 is a lot of money! For many here, equal to two or three months total income, or a year's worth of savings. Just sayin'.
That said, if I were single and using my car to troll for a superficial (but great looking) woman, or trying to boost my prestige for business purposes, I would definitely go with the Audi.
CX-9 isn't even close to being in the same league as a Q7. Just sayin'.
Agreed, but are you buying a "league" or a car? Just saying'.
At a starting price with comparable features at $55,000 or more, it should be better.
If Mazda had an extra 10 G's to play with, I'm sure it would be well worth it and something truly awesome.
So how does the 2.0T in the Q7 have better performance?
Q7: HP 253, Torque 273 lb ft - has turbo lag
CX-9: HP 250, Torque 310 lb ft - virtually no turbo lag
0-60 very close, within 2/10's of a second. More importantly, CX-9 has much more low end responsiveness.
CX-9 engine better and for $10K less.
I'd take the CX-9 Signature without hesitation over the Q7 even if someone offered it to me for CX-9 price.
IMO, CX-9 is far better looking inside and out. Q7 is boring with an awkward looking grill. And I normally like Audi grills but this application doesn't work. Q7's wood looks like plastic. Cheaper leather. Cup holders you need to bend to reach.
So how does the 2.0T in the Q7 have better performance?
Q7: HP 253, Torque 273 lb ft - has turbo lag
CX-9: HP 250, Torque 310 lb ft - virtually no turbo lag
0-60 very close, within 2/10's of a second. More importantly, CX-9 has much more low end responsiveness.
CX-9 engine better and for $10K less.
I'd take the CX-9 Signature without hesitation over the Q7 even if someone offered it to me for CX-9 price.
IMO, CX-9 is far better looking inside and out. Q7 is boring with an awkward looking grill. And I normally like Audi grills but this application doesn't work. Q7's wood looks like plastic. Cheaper leather. Cup holders you need to bend to reach.
You need to drive the Audi 4 cylinder turbo before you start talking about turbo lag. They've been at this longer than Mazda. Plus the Audi at least can match the EPA stated mileage while the wife's CX-9 struggles to get 20 mpg in mixed driving. The Audi power is more linear and does not fall on its face after the initial torque rush. Audi engine has a much longer torque curve, which is better for passing at speed and towing. And the Audi doesn't sound like a lawn mower when you gas it. I don't think Germans really believe in cupholders as even Mercedez cupholders sucks.
Didn't mean to ruffle feathers but we own both cars and my contention is while the Audi cost more, you do get a lot more. All the stuff you guys want in the CX-9 is standard on the Audi and yes you can get the ventilated seats in the 4 cyl. Audi. I got the V6 because of the #7700 lb towing capacity (even the 4cyl has 4400 lb capacity-I race motorcycles and tow a 4000 lb trailer). Owning both cars I can see where Mazda saved cost and why the Audi cost more. One thing that Mazda boasts about is fuel economy. The Audi V6 is getting better fuel mileage than the CX-9; and it weighs 4700 lbs. No comparison in how much more solid the Audi is built. I thought the CX-9 is quiet until I drove the Audi. Paint finish on the Audi is superior. The paint on the CX-9 chips very easily. The metal panels are also noticeably thinner on the CX-9. Lighting-no contest here, Audi is much better than CX-9. Foglights on CX-9 are useless. Audi pioneered the LED headlights and just that much better. The Audi seats are all leather, not just on the top surfaces, even the third row and much better quality. And both front seats are 14-way adjustable, even on the base model you get leather seats. I can keep going, but I think you get my point. At the end of the day, you get what you pay for. These are just a couple of examples where I think SkyActive has gone a little bit too far. Electronics are far superior on the Audi. I still can't understand how far behind Mazda is on the infotainment system. You really can't compare the two unless you've been in both and driven both. Yes, the Mazda looks better but I think the Audi is more butch. Not being sexist but the wife even says the Audi is more a man's car and CX-9 looks better for a woman whatever the hell that means. No ill feeling on my part as the wife is on her 3rd CX-9. She loves it but noticed it does not get any better fuel mileage than her 2013 CX-9 and she complains about the front seat with no tilting bottom cushion. One last thing, AC on the Audi works great, specially the ventilated seats here in the south. CX-9 AC, meh. (drive)
Last edited:
I figure that the price difference would mean that for every day I drive it, the Audi would cost about $12 more than the Mazda. Not a big deal but if I were renting a car and the Mazda came with a free $12 breakfast, I'd probably take the Mazda over the Audi.
After shopping around a bit, I decided that for myself the Mazda is just at the upper end of "getting what you pay for" and any additional cost is subject to diminishing returns. I test drove both (a couple of my friends have new Audis), and a bunch of other vehicles and greatly prefer the Audi's styling but not for the higher cost.
People are just getting worked up here on the Q7 vs CX9 comparison...yes better quality, features, build, etc on Q7 which at end of day is a premium or luxury brand which is why it's priced accordingly while CX9 isn't...I do however get the similarities of the CX9 vs the Q7 but not in terms of build, features, price and quality but rather from a "value for money" proposition stand point that for $10-15K less you do get a vehicle that at the end of the day does pretty much same thing with features being close (ex. Both 7 seats, similar cargo utility, takes u from pt A to pt B, etc). 2 diff levels of vehicle (prem vs mainstream) but competing in the same class (7-passenger CUV). Yes we've all seen and analyzed the price differences bet the 2 models as well as the brand image/prestige associated but 1 other thing that no one mentioned is the cost of maintenance where Mazda parts and servicing will cost less vs Audi so again this is just part of the value for money you get with CX9. I've never driven the Q7 and only have the CX9 and my experience with Audis were only based from test driving them in the past but I did own a Volvo CUV before and I can definitely relate to what most are saying about the solid feel, build and quality of the luxury vehicles vs the non luxuries. Bottom line here is it just comes down to choice and preference.
Last edited:
I'm buying a car, and not fooling myself to discredit the contents by comparing it to a car out of its league. It's like saying that the MX-5 Miata is nice, but not as fast as a Ferrari.
Last edited:
This makes no sense. At $45,000, how does a Signature compare with a $45,000 Pilot, Highlander, Santa Fe or Explorer? THAT is the comparison, and that is Mazda's target. And it seems that they have succeeded in their goal--they made the interior nice enough that people here are "thinking" that a CX-9 properly compares to a Q7; that is a win for Mazda. But the fact that the interior of a Signature is "just as nice" as a Lexus RX or an Acura MDX does't make it comparable to those cars--it just makes the interior nicer than its true competitors. Period.
If Mazda had $10K more to play with, no one would buy it. No one's buying a $55,000 Mazda SUV.
Last edited:
I totally agree. For me, I need a tow vehicle but hate pickup trucks, where here in the south, everyone seems to have one. And have you guys priced out pickups lately? The Audi for me because being an engineer, I like all the technology that comes with it. The wife's CX-9 is better looking though.
This is very true. Like the VW Touareg, it is every bit as good as the Cayenne (they're even built in the same factory) but no one wants to pay 65K for a VW. Now that model is being discontinued and the Cayenne is Porche's cash cow at an average price of $85k. I don't understand it.
I guess I don't see the boundaries as clearly as you do. When I started looking, I figured that Range Rovers and the Jaguar would be the top end of the vehicles I'd consider and that, I dunno, I guess Ford would be the bottom end. That gave me a lot of SUV's to look at and my final choices included the Q7, the Volvo XC 60 and 90, the Honda Pilot, and the Toyota Sequoia and Highlander. Maybe I'm not the typical buyer, but from my perspective, those cars are all directly comparable.
I would have been happy with any of those and felt that they were all similar enough in performance and styling that I never thought about my final choice in terms of side-by-side comparison of specific specifications. My final decision on the Mazda was more along the lines of, "Except for the prestige of the brand, in terms of daily use I like the CX-9 as much as any of other alternatives and it costs a heck of a lot less." (And, of course, the exorbitant maintenance costs of luxury cars entered into the decision.)
But the real bottom line is, if I had a Q7 and a CX-9 parked in my driveway, which would I jump into for a trip to the store? Even though the Q7 is generally considered to be a much "nicer" car, I think I'd be just as likely to take the Mazda.
This.
It makes perfect sense, you just missed my point entirely and took my statement to an area I didn't even bring up.
My point was for $10K more, a "luxury" brand should be better. In fact, there are times where they are not. In all, you are paying for the name rather than the content in many applications.
My point was if, (I stress "if"), had $10k more to put into the CX-9, it would be simply amazing. But for obvious reasons, they don't. Mazda is not marketed as a "luxury" brand therefore they are not playing in that field. What Mazda has successfully done is give you a near luxury type of feeling with Kodo design, content and high quality interior better than their direct competitors.
Luxury branded models are typically de-contented for that entry level pricing. In other words, a Toyota Highlander Limited at $43K is much more vehicle than a base Lexus RX at $43K. The Lexus is that price because it is engineered to a higher level, better overall materials, and dealer service. But the Limited Highlander is an extra row bigger and roomier in every way and has more useful features. Similar situation with Pilot Elite and base MDX. Top end Atlas and Q7. So the mainstream brand top spec model price runs right up to the base luxury model. One must understand that there's a big difference between the vehicles even when priced the same. Depends what type of "value" you're looking for. They are two different values. Just know there is indeed cost associated with a badge alone. For me, I don't want a luxury badge because some people don't like to portray that image even if you can afford it.
But real world experience doesn't always bear that out. Just a couple of months ago (late ski season this year in California) we opted to take my CX-9 instead of my buddy's fully loaded MDX (about $15,000 more than the CX-9) simply because the Mazda "felt better" on a long drive. So, yeah, it does depend what "kind of value" you're looking for. And I don't see anyone getting slack-jawed over an Acura instead of a Mazda. except for perhaps the Acura mechanics who want to pretend their pricing should be more along the lines of BMW or Mercedes.
And when I was shopping, it seemed like a comparable Highlander was about eight or ten thousand more than the Mazda, with no clear advantages to justify the extra money. I don't really care what kind of marketing theory the sellers are using. I have my own theory to suit my needs.
Last edited:
