1st Gen CX-9 versus 2nd Gen Cx-9

That a nice feature to have, but if that's a deal breaker, then plenty of other options out there....

I think every new model has compromises too, doubt this is just a Mazda issue... and every new model always goes UP in price - I can't think of a new model being cheaper...

I had the 1st Gen Murano - loved it, especially the roominess. 2nd Gen - they made it more curvy and lost a ton of cargo space ( I couldn't put my hockey sticks in back without angling it), the price went way up - so I passed and went with the 1st Gen CX9...
 
Aviboy97 said:
The 3.5 in 07 was better than the 3.7 in 08-15? You're out of your mind. With 8more Hp and 25 ft-lbs of torque and the same mpg, the 3.7L was better.

BTW, check out Fuelly.com. The 2016+ CX-9 gets was better fuel economy than Gen 1.

Also, what features has Mazda taken away year after year? You claim they "decontent" over the years? Please tell me what was taken away? My 2016 has more features than ever before.

Get out of here with your VW fanboy nonsense.
Click to expand...

Didn't mean to hurt your feelings there. Like I said we've had 4 CX-9s and how many have you had? That 8 hp was never felt and fuel mileage decreased with the 3.7 ltr. I also remember having LED interior lights in the doors and it went away. The LED tail lights also went away in 2013. I said this is the best of the bunch but the wife constantly complains about the driver's seat leaning forward as you raise it. She said she was a lot more comfortable in her 2013. The reason we traded it for the 2016 was for the supposed better fuel mileage but its no better. I think this has been discussed thoroughly in another thread. No seat height adjustment for the driver's seat in 2016 & 17. They might have it on 2018 but its too late. You wanna buy my 2016 GT AWD?
 
jrtouareg said:
2nd gen is not faster. The old V6 sounded a lot better and basically the same mpg. The best engine was the 3.5 ltr v6 that first came in the CX-9. Fuel mileage was better than 3.7 ltr or the new 4 banger, which sounds like a lawnmower when accelerating. We've had 4 CX-9s and as a whole, the 2nd gen is the best but Mazda messed up some items on this car that it should have corrected. Infotainment system is sluggish, seems about 4 years behind everyone else's and the car has been decontented over the years. Most glaring is lack of adjustments to the drivers seat. Passenger seat should have at least a height adjustment, even a manual one. The most basic VWs have height adjustments for goodness sakes.
Click to expand...

Every single publication and test provide facts that state the second gen is faster (0-60 in 7.4 vs 7.5 and 1/4 in 15.7 vs 15.9 and faster on the passing tests). Not to mention the power/weight ratios and the gearing ratios point to an advantage with the new gen. Not sure where you get your "seat of the butt" dyno facts from, but they are simply wrong. Add to this the easy tuneability of a turbo platform and the point is totally moot.

Sure, the car lost driver height adjustment and a little bit of interior room- but it gained LED lighting, collision detection, lane departure, auto cruise, an amazing interior (The previous high end interior was a joke), 20" wheels, better brakes, way better mpg's and a drivetrain that is better in real world conditions.

I wouldn't have been caught dead in a 1st gen cx9- the second gen I have is almost as nice as my RRS, and that is saying a lot. They are essentially selling something that has driving dynamics and exterior/interior that look just as good as high end luxury competitors. Cost cutting had to be done at some point.
 
Last edited:
Aviboy97 said:
Be respectful? Respect was paid.

The 2016+ has LED high + low beam lights, LED fogs, I-ACTIVSENSE safety suit of tech (08-15 had nothing but BSM), better FE, better infotainment (still lacking in ways compared to competitors), 2nd row USB ports, HUD

I'm sorry, but 2016+ was not decontented. Yes, it's smaller inside, but overall offers more.
Click to expand...

Providing facts doesn't' work in this forum. There is no point- I have tried in the past and been lambasted by "seat of pants" dynos, "my wife likes it better" facts, and the huge impact of the apocalyptic bad decision of removing seat height adjustment...
 
And why that stupid middle seat hump in such a large SUV? My sorento or Santa Fe or pilot or highlander or pathfinder dont have it. It makes that middle seat unusable. See savagegeese review on YouTube. That hump looks huge from below the SUV. You could pass 2 drive shafts through it.

And all these are faster 0-60 with that pilot being stupid fast for a v6 in 6 seconds. CX-9 handles best no doubt but my sorento in AWD form is not far behind. Kia tuned them at Nurburgring
 
Last edited:
CrazyBiker said:
And why that stupid middle seat hump in such a large SUV? My sorento or Santa Fe or pilot or highlander or pathfinder dont have it. It makes that middle seat unusable. See savagegeese review on YouTube. That hump looks huge from below the SUV. You could pass 2 drive shafts through it.

And all these are faster 0-60 with that pilot being stupid fast for a v6 in 6 seconds. CX-9 handles best no doubt but my sorento in AWD form is not far behind. Kia tuned them at Nurburgring
Click to expand...

Sit in all of them, CX-9 has the most comfortable 2nd row because they lowered the floor on the outboard seats that are used all the time rather than seldomly used middle seat. Most others have little thigh support. Drive shaft/exhaust is there in all of them so guess what they do to create flat floor? Raise the whole floor up.
 
I just know that I never took interest in the first gen. Didn't care for the looks, cheap interior, etc...

The 2nd gen has me drooling over it. That's a huge improvement to me.
 
thewraith said:
Every single publication and test provide facts that state the second gen is faster (0-60 in 7.4 vs 7.5 and 1/4 in 15.7 vs 15.9 and faster on the passing tests). Not to mention the power/weight ratios and the gearing ratios point to an advantage with the new gen. Not sure where you get your "seat of the butt" dyno facts from, but they are simply wrong. Add to this the easy tuneability of a turbo platform and the point is totally moot.

Sure, the car lost driver height adjustment and a little bit of interior room- but it gained LED lighting, collision detection, lane departure, auto cruise, an amazing interior (The previous high end interior was a joke), 20" wheels, better brakes, way better mpg's and a drivetrain that is better in real world conditions.

I wouldn't have been caught dead in a 1st gen cx9- the second gen I have is almost as nice as my RRS, and that is saying a lot. They are essentially selling something that has driving dynamics and exterior/interior that look just as good as high end luxury competitors. Cost cutting had to be done at some point.
Click to expand...


The fact of the matter is, the wife drives the car 90% of the time. I don't think she (or you for that matter) will notice the .1 sec difference in 0 - 60. Just under 16 sec in the quarter mile is pretty slow BTW. After owning 4 of these, I have a pretty good sense on where they've gone with this car. But to each his own. Since our first CX-9, our little kids are now college graduated but wife is so used to the CX-9, we ordered the 2016 when the dealer received his order sheets in Jan. 2016. We were expecting the items that were on the 2013 to be on the 2016, and the supposed better fuel mileage. If we had known the mileage was not going to improve and the tilt adjustment on the seat removed, we probably would have gotten her the Q5 since we no longer need the 3rd seat. Their brochures were also misleading saying the seat was 8 way adjustable but its only 6 way adjustable. So you can see our frustration with this purchase. No issues with any of these items with my Q7. Everything is better.(but more expensive)
 
Providing facts doesn't' work in this forum.
Click to expand...
True statement. There appears to be certain posters that throw out "facts" that are not actual facts:
Cx9 lost driver seat height adjustment
Click to expand...
Why get rid of power folding
Click to expand...
These in turn get repeated by others:
No seat height adjustment for the driver's seat in 2016 & 17.
Click to expand...
Sure, the car lost driver height adjustment
Click to expand...

I find it's a good practice to fact check "facts" posted by individuals before reposting them.

To be clear, decontenting means removing a feature. The CX-9 still has driver seat height adjustment (I just went out in the garage and raised my seat up and down)
so everybody lamenting about that loss can stop lamenting. Never had folding side mirrors so you can't lose something you never had.

The only content that appears to have been removed was the outside mirrors memory function and the auto tilt feature.
 
That is seat slope adjustment. Height adjustment is not independent. It's an after effect of the former.
 
tbensous said:
my 2014 has auto tilt reverse mirrors as well as memory seats with mirror position memory associated to the seat memory.

silly they removed these options from the new one.

this, the engine sound and lack of space + gap in the boot where the 3rd row seats fold are deal breakers for me.

shame because I really love my current cx-9 and would have upgraded if it was not for these.
Click to expand...

confirming Reverse auto-tilt and mirror position memory...

if only HUD, smart city brake support and intelligent cruise control were on at least the 2015 model, that would be amazing!

one interesting question for those who switched, do they have the same handling feel considering the older is a bit heavier?
 
Last edited:
CrazyBiker said:
That is seat slope adjustment. Height adjustment is not independent. It's an after effect of the former.
Click to expand...

I may have said that wrong. The tilting adjustment of the bottom cushion of the seat seat is gone. In the older CX-9s, when you push the front of the bottom cushion adjustment knob up, for example, the front of the seat tilts up or down if you push the front of the knob down, independent of the height of the seat. This is important as it provides thigh support as needed and you can lower the back of the seat bottom to cradle your backside. As it is know, when you raise the seat, the whole seat assembly tilts forward, making you feel like you're going to slide forward when applying the brakes. If you're tall, you may not notice this as you probably have the seat adjusted all the way down, but you'll have no thigh support. My wife, who's 5'4", not overly short has noticed this. You folks that have not owned both generations are probably not aware of this. Also, Mazda labeled in their brochures that it was an 8-way adjustable seat, like the first gen., when in fact its only a 6-way (forward-back, up-down, seat back tilt forward-back). They have since removed that from the brochures. This has been discussed ad nauseam in previous threads as folks started to buy the newer generation when it came out.
 
we probably would have gotten her the Q5 since we no longer need the 3rd seat.
Click to expand...
I considered the Q5, we don't need a third row either. But after the recalls (engine fires, shrapnel in
airbags, chronic sunroof leaks), the generic German car presentation and the prior experience with
over the top repair bills that await you after warranty, I passed. Besides, I only drove one Q5 I liked
better than the CX-9. It sported a supercharged V6 and it was a hoot. It also cost more than $60K,
which was more than I wanted to spend. The rest of the Q5s, with the vanilla 2.0L left me uninspired.
That is seat slope adjustment. Height adjustment is not independent. It's an after effect of the former.
Click to expand...
So if I understand correctly, you are saying the seat does not have independent height and seat base tilt,
but a combined height/tilt function, I see that when manipulating the controls. So the content that
was actually removed was independent driver seat bottom tilt.

So to summarize, Gen 2 decontent consist of auto tilt and memory side mirrors and independent seat
bottom tilt control.
 
997 said:
It sported a supercharged V6 and it was a hoot. It also cost more than $60K,
which was more than I wanted to spend. The rest of the Q5s, with the vanilla 2.0L left me uninspired.
Click to expand...

The 2017 Q5 base has more horsepower than 2016 SQ5. The 2017 SQ5 is twin turbo this year, 354HP, but still 55K+

997 said:
So if I understand correctly, you are saying the seat does not have independent height and seat base tilt,
but a combined height/tilt function, I see that when manipulating the controls. So the content that
was actually removed was independent driver seat bottom tilt.

So to summarize, Gen 2 decontent consist of auto tilt and memory side mirrors and independent seat
bottom tilt control.
Click to expand...

Correct, there were some more items but insignificant and they added it back to the Signature Edition
 
Not to mention luxury quality interior - nappa leather, real wood and aluminum in designer style vs the old economy style interior made up of all hard plastic. You can note a few deletions, but this is a vastly more upscale vehicle.
 
jrtouareg said:
Didn't mean to hurt your feelings there. Like I said we've had 4 CX-9s and how many have you had? That 8 hp was never felt and fuel mileage decreased with the 3.7 ltr. I also remember having LED interior lights in the doors and it went away. The LED tail lights also went away in 2013. I said this is the best of the bunch but the wife constantly complains about the driver's seat leaning forward as you raise it. She said she was a lot more comfortable in her 2013. The reason we traded it for the 2016 was for the supposed better fuel mileage but its no better. I think this has been discussed thoroughly in another thread. No seat height adjustment for the driver's seat in 2016 & 17. They might have it on 2018 but its too late. You wanna buy my 2016 GT AWD?
Click to expand...

I worked for Mazda for over a decade. I have thousands of miles of seat time in every model year of CX-9 and I own a 2016 GT.

LED door lights? Ok, how about LED overhead lights and door lights in the 16+?

Yes, I have a gripe with the power drivers seat. But, seriously, there is so much more in The 16+. The tilt mirrors were only available in the GT in 13-15 and are overrated because of the backup camera and rear sensors in the second gen. Useless feature were those mirrors if you ask me.

The second gen get better efficiency by far. On average of 4 mpg according to real world data, fuel consumption tests and the EPA. Just go to Fuelly.com and see for yourself.
 
JPL said:
Not to mention luxury quality interior - nappa leather, real wood and aluminum in designer style vs the old economy style interior made up of all hard plastic. You can note a few deletions, but this is a vastly more upscale vehicle.
Click to expand...

But tilting mirrors and a missing seat adjustment make it inferior if you've been reading this thread.

Let's not even talk about the vast array of safety features not available in gen 1.
 
Wow, I took my eyes off this thread for a day and there's been lots of good discussion. Clearly we're all really passionate about our CX-9s (as it should be) and offer a lot in terms of opinion and facts.

Ultimately, I think the things that people liked about their Gen 1 CX-9 over their Gen 2 Cx-9 include:
- More Space
- Greater Adjustment in the Driver Seat
- No Hump
- Tilt Reverse Mirrors (later Gen 1s)
- Auto Folding Mirrors (later Gen 2s)

Things that owners really like about their 2nd Gen CX-9:
- Better efficiency
- Better interior styling
- More safety features

Also, you guys touched on the fact the Gen 1s had different features as the model years advanced. My 2008 window switches are all lit on all doors, but I understand that this was not the case in the more recent models. Heated seats had more settings on the more recent models versus my 2008's On / Off. More recent GT models lost the overhead ambient blue LED. More recent models gained a MPG rating on the center display. Rear ventilation settings are also digital on more recent models.

Personally, I had been waiting on the Gen 2, but for me the space of my 2008 and the way I can adjust my seat are really important. I have my seat set comfortably in a proper autocross position, but I do not think that I could adjust the Gen 2 this way.

Good passion guys. That's what I've liked about this community.
 
Last edited:
Aviboy97 said:
I worked for Mazda for over a decade. I have thousands of miles of seat time in every model year of CX-9 and I own a 2016 GT.

LED door lights? Ok, how about LED overhead lights and door lights in the 16+?

Yes, I have a gripe with the power drivers seat. But, seriously, there is so much more in The 16+. The tilt mirrors were only available in the GT in 13-15 and are overrated because of the backup camera and rear sensors in the second gen. Useless feature were those mirrors if you ask me.

The second gen get better efficiency by far. On average of 4 mpg according to real world data, fuel consumption tests and the EPA. Just go to Fuelly.com and see for yourself.
Click to expand...

My wife could care less about the wood and napa if she cannot get comfortable in the seat. This is a basic function that should have been included. It is on just about any other car with power seats. How much money did that save Mazda? Infotainment system has already gone blank on her a few times and scared the sh** out of her. Of course the dealer can not replicate the problem. We have a thing for Mazdas as I owned a 1982 RX7. I was a badass in college with that car. When I met my wife, she was driving a 1984 626. I put over 160k miles on that RX7. I think it used almost as much oil as it did gasoline! Anyway, I was spoiled growing up as my dad and uncles drove Mercedez and Porches. I got used to german handling and vault solid builds of these cars and boy they are made to be driven at high speeds for long periods of time. The Mazda CX-9 in my opinion reminds me of german handling more than any of the other SUVs.

At a constant 70 mph on flat Florida interstate, the most we got on a tank of fuel is 23mpg. And we were getting run off the road for going too slow. At 75 mph, we got 21mpg. Same mileage as our 2013 and neither me or my wife are lead foots. My 2018 Q7 v6 is getting 20 mpg around town and 24 on the highway and it has less than 1000 miles on it. Bear in mind that vehicle weighs 4700 lbs. 0 - 60 in 5.7 sec., quarter mile speed trap at 100 mph.
 
I will say that my previous Gen CX-9, could get no better than 18-19 mpg on the highway, whether is was 65 or 75.

So on both your CX-9 and Q7 - are you using 93 octane on both as well?
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
In the market…Tilt and Slide Seats question
Replies
9
Views
1K
gphin
G
P
Wiper blade issue (2016.5 CX-9)
Replies
1
Views
1K
sm1ke
sm1ke
L
2019 CX-9 Whining noise from engine bay when > 40km/h
Replies
3
Views
3K
racermp
racermp

Latest posts

Back