The Mazda CX-9 sales mystery

OK, almost every comparison. Which one's beat the CX-9 and on what merit on CR? Once you look at, sit in, and drive the CX-9 it's not even that close which is why the CX-9 is the only one on class that is often mentioned alongside Volvo XC-90, Audi Q7, and Acura MDX.

This "poor" predicted reliability score is nonsense. Not sure what issue that is but the issue I looked at this past month had a predicted reliability of average (hollow circle). And even then, what is that based on? The Ford based first gen? This model just came out a year and a half ago with mostly trouble free reporting from owners. Car and Driver has perhaps the longest term example at 25,000 miles and not a single problem. Do you honestly think this car will be poor? What would that make a Jeep, Fiat, Land Rover, etc.?

Whoa dude, simmadownna, I didn't assign the rating.

US News also gave the nod to the Pilot over the CX-9. https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/mazda-cx-9-vs-honda-pilot

FWIW Some of their complaints which I agree with and which crossed it off my shopping list are 1) low tow rating 2) cramped cargo area 3) cramped driving position 4) no ventilated front seat option and 5) no apple carplay.
 
Last edited:
Whoa dude, simmadownna, I didn't assign the rating.

US News also gave the nod to the Pilot over the CX-9. https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/mazda-cx-9-vs-honda-pilot

FWIW Some of their complaints which I agree with and which crossed it off my shopping list are 1) low tow rating 2) cramped cargo area 3) cramped driving position 4) no ventilated front seat option and 5) no apple carplay.

Reading that USNews article and it feels like they know nothing about cars.

"The Pilot is better in almost every measure", LOL.
Well I guess if we're talking measurements and bigger is better?

Under interior comfort and refinement they make no mention of the refinement. Pilot a sea of hard plastic. CX-9 is far more refined and upscale with luxury vehicle materials and design.

Under performance they simply give it to Pilot for more HP. No mention of the far more torque in the CX-9. The CX-9 easily wins on performance because that includes all driving dynamics not just which is quickest on the highway.

No mention of design, something that many people put a lot of weight in. Pilot is a bloated mess, CX-9 a work of art.

Pilot got last place in this Car and Driver comparison:
https://www.caranddriver.com/compar...arison-test-2017-honda-pilot-elite-awd-page-2

CX-9 1st place also beating all new Atlas.
 
Funny enough, when I was making my final choices of which car to buy, the Pilot, Atlas and CX-9 came up tops. I have to qualify this by saying we bought this car because our family is expanding and we have some relatives staying with us for a while, so we needed a large capacity people mover (but I couldn't force myself to buy a minivan...just...couldn't ...do...it). Having driven these three back to back in a relatively short period of time, I have to say that in my opinion, they are all really close. Meaning, I think I'd be happy with any of them for the "people mover" purpose.

The Honda looks like a slouch but the '18 has a 9-speed gearbox with a sports mode that makes it feel quite responsive. It's not the best looking, but what it gives up in "sexy" it gains in pure interior room. The thing is comfy for me, in any seat in the car (including the third row). Also, it's got that pano roof that everybody loves, and the entertainment setup (both front and rear) is pretty cool. I ruled it out because it wasn't fun to drive except in a straight line...from a stoplight...a 1/4 mile at a time. (ha). That and our local dealers wanted a $5k premium ON TOP of msrp...ummm, nope.

The Atlas came in at #2 on our test. The interior was the largest of the three, and was plush...all of the seats are super soft. Access to the third row was the best/easiest of the three. The entertainment package was a bit weak, and the only way to get navigation was to buy the Premium model. (I need navigation for work). Although the virtual cockpit is something special! The fake wood on the dash/doors looked like a cheap sticker. And the car has Carplay/AA. Even with all that, there were no incentives on the car since it's so new. Two dealers tried to bait and switch me, which turned me off. Lastly, although the V6 was strong, it felt numb...just didn't do it for me.

We chose the CX-9 not because it was the best at everything, but because it was the best compromise of all the things we wanted/needed. I think it looks the best of the three by far. The seats aren't cooled like the pilot, and aren't as plush as the atlas, but are plenty good enough for me. The third row is comfortable for me (not as much so as the pilot but close), which means everyone else in my house can fit. The interior is the cleanest (read much less clutter) of the three, although it may be missing a few small features. The standard options on the GT model were far and above anything you can get on the other two without getting their "top of the line" versions. And when it came time to actually drive them...well, the torque of the 2.5T just felt good. The body also had less roll than the other two (I used the same route to test drive all three - actually all of the many cars we test drove). The final nail in the coffin (of the Atlas/ Pilot) was the dealership and incentives. I feel like I got a great deal on the car, despite the limited stock around here (of the '18's).

In my opinion, you really can't go wrong with any modern SUV. It's just a matter of picking one that speaks to you more than the others.
 
Funny enough, when I was making my final choices of which car to buy, the Pilot, Atlas and CX-9 came up tops. I have to qualify this by saying we bought this car because our family is expanding and we have some relatives staying with us for a while, so we needed a large capacity people mover (but I couldn't force myself to buy a minivan...just...couldn't ...do...it). Having driven these three back to back in a relatively short period of time, I have to say that in my opinion, they are all really close. Meaning, I think I'd be happy with any of them for the "people mover" purpose.

The Honda looks like a slouch but the '18 has a 9-speed gearbox with a sports mode that makes it feel quite responsive. It's not the best looking, but what it gives up in "sexy" it gains in pure interior room. The thing is comfy for me, in any seat in the car (including the third row). Also, it's got that pano roof that everybody loves, and the entertainment setup (both front and rear) is pretty cool. I ruled it out because it wasn't fun to drive except in a straight line...from a stoplight...a 1/4 mile at a time. (ha). That and our local dealers wanted a $5k premium ON TOP of msrp...ummm, nope.

The Atlas came in at #2 on our test. The interior was the largest of the three, and was plush...all of the seats are super soft. Access to the third row was the best/easiest of the three. The entertainment package was a bit weak, and the only way to get navigation was to buy the Premium model. (I need navigation for work). Although the virtual cockpit is something special! The fake wood on the dash/doors looked like a cheap sticker. And the car has Carplay/AA. Even with all that, there were no incentives on the car since it's so new. Two dealers tried to bait and switch me, which turned me off. Lastly, although the V6 was strong, it felt numb...just didn't do it for me.

We chose the CX-9 not because it was the best at everything, but because it was the best compromise of all the things we wanted/needed. I think it looks the best of the three by far. The seats aren't cooled like the pilot, and aren't as plush as the atlas, but are plenty good enough for me. The third row is comfortable for me (not as much so as the pilot but close), which means everyone else in my house can fit. The interior is the cleanest (read much less clutter) of the three, although it may be missing a few small features. The standard options on the GT model were far and above anything you can get on the other two without getting their "top of the line" versions. And when it came time to actually drive them...well, the torque of the 2.5T just felt good. The body also had less roll than the other two (I used the same route to test drive all three - actually all of the many cars we test drove). The final nail in the coffin (of the Atlas/ Pilot) was the dealership and incentives. I feel like I got a great deal on the car, despite the limited stock around here (of the '18's).

In my opinion, you really can't go wrong with any modern SUV. It's just a matter of picking one that speaks to you more than the others.

Well said! It is a matter of what speaks to you which and also the reason why we have different vehicles to choose from.
 
Well said! It is a matter of what speaks to you which and also the reason why we have different vehicles to choose from.


Exactly. While I personally say the CX-9 is best in class, there is no official best vehicle in any class for the very reason that it's subjective. Each car is best in class for the person who chooses to buy it.

There are cars that are widely rated by reviewers as worst in class yet they still sell. This just means it still fulfilled the wants of some people.

One person wants the most room.
Another just wants the best looking car.
Someone else wants the most powerful in class.
This guy wants the most reliable car.
She wants the most comfortable ride.
He wants the best resale value.
 
A minor data point, at least here in the rust belt...The first gen Mazda 3 sold extremely well here in Canada, challenging the Civic some years for top car. All those buyers, many of them young buyers, owned Mazda 3s. Fast forward 13 years, and these people are married with kids, and may be looking for a 3 row SUV.

I have had many, many people casually compliment us on our CX-9. Many of them follow that comment with a "We had a Mazda 3, and it rusted out so badly".

Mazda turned many people off their brand up here with that fiasco. Thousands of young buyers moved to Honda/KIA/Hyundai/etc becasue they got burned on their Mazda 3.
 
A minor data point, at least here in the rust belt...The first gen Mazda 3 sold extremely well here in Canada, challenging the Civic some years for top car. All those buyers, many of them young buyers, owned Mazda 3s. Fast forward 13 years, and these people are married with kids, and may be looking for a 3 row SUV.

I have had many, many people casually compliment us on our CX-9. Many of them follow that comment with a "We had a Mazda 3, and it rusted out so badly".

Mazda turned many people off their brand up here with that fiasco. Thousands of young buyers moved to Honda/KIA/Hyundai/etc becasue they got burned on their Mazda 3.

I do believe Mazda has addressed the premature rust issues. I do notice some of those 3's from that era here in New England with rust but I've never seen rust on a CX-7, 1st Gen CX-9, or any Mazda newer than 10-12 years old.
 
I do believe Mazda has addressed the premature rust issues. I do notice some of those 3's from that era here in New England with rust but I've never seen rust on a CX-7, 1st Gen CX-9, or any Mazda newer than 10-12 years old.

Agreed...it was the 1st gen 3. But perceptions are what they are, and a large group of people will not touch a Mazda again. Just like my dad, who still complains about his 80s Fords. People have long, often irrational, memories.
 
No it doesn't. For example, Consumer Reports ranks it 11th in midsize SUVs in overall score, 6th in road test score, and rates its predicted reliability poor. That's only 2 spots above the 7 year old Explorer design (which I just bought). Granted that doesn't seem to hurt the Explorer's sales since it's still the best selling SUV (including police sales).

A lot of people look at Consumer Reports.


How can Consumer Reports possibly have a predictive model for projecting "reliability" of a vehicle that came out in 2016, and for which CR itself admits that it did not have sufficient data to establish its public predictive profile for 2017? It would seem to me that Consumer Reports is more concerned with making posts on its Website, as opposed to conducting real hard hitting data analysis as the empirical basis for its predictive analysis.

I did my own data analysis across every serious competitor within the seven passenger cross-over SUV category and then juxtaposed that analysis with analysis across the top three Mid Size SUVs in the market today (Volvo XC-90, BMW X5 M and Audi Q7). In 92% of the comparison dimensions against existing seven passenger cross-over SUVs, the 2017 CX-9 Signature came out on top. In 49% of the comparison dimensions against existing (leading) Mid Size SUVs, the 2017 CX-9 Signature came out on top.

The 2017 CX-9 Signature is not just good, it is significantly better than its seven passenger cross-over competition and for the price only marginally less stellar than Luxury Mid Size SUVs that are designed to be better than the CX-9. I call that called a whipping by any measure.

I've said it before - you can go out and buy Volvo's best at $81k and you will have a supremely fine XC-90 Inscription. That vehicle will satisfy most all of your desires in a Mid Size SUV. The same could be said about the Audi Q7. Or, for nearly half the cost, you can buy nearly 85% of the same thing with the Mazda CX-9 Signature. To get top of the line BMW X5, you can't even come close for under $110k and I've seen some M's selling for as much in $124k in certain high end parts of Southern California. I consider the BMW X5 M a wannabe Porsche Ceyenne Turbo S. The X5 M is a glorious Performance SUV (absolutely brilliance), but it is no Ceyenne Turbo S (nothing else is).

A lot of people look at CR, but they should also query CR on their data collection methods and the manner in which they establish their empirical findings.
 
Last edited:
1) low tow rating

How many Seven Passenger Cross-Over SUVs have you seen actually towing something (anything) on the highway over the past month - have not seen any out there. If I'm going to tow anything (anything at all) it would be behind the Tundra 1794's 32 valve, double-over-head cam, iForce 5.7L V8 with a 10.2-1 compression ration spitting out 401lb/ft at just 3,600rpm, a cruising range of over 630 miles to the tank and maximum trailering capacity of over 8,800lbs. I would not be towing in a Seven Passenger Luxury Cross-Over designed to carry kids to soccer practice and put a smile on dad's/mom's face in the twisties when by themselves. Not many people (at all) will do any serious towing with a 7-pass X-over. Just not realistic for the vast majority of trailer itching people out there.


2) cramped cargo area

The Toyota 4Runner is a pure class body on frame mid size SUV. Motor Trend ranked it as #1 in cargo capacity among all top selling Mid Size SUVs. The 4Runner has 89.7 cubic feet of space with all seats folded. The 2017 CX-9 has 71.2 cubic feet of space with all sets folded. Differential between the largest true Mid Size SUV and one of the largest Cross-Over SUVs = 18.5 cubic feet. What can you fit inside 18.5 cubic feet that is going to make the difference between you buying a Seven Passenger Cross-Over CX-9 and a true Mid Size SUV 4Runner. Now, how does that extra space make a difference for the Daily Driver - the one who actually drives their SUV back and forth to work every day looking for parking spaces? And, that's a comparison of the CX-9 against something that was designed to have more cargo space.

Comparing that same CX-9's 71.2 cubic feet to something in its own size class like the Honda Pilot (which CR places ahead of the CX-9), you get a differential of 12.7 cubic feet with the Pilot's 83.9 cubit foot advantage. That's 5.8 cubic feet less and still no major advantage when compared to the luxury-like interior of the CX-9 Signature and certainly no advantage at all when vehicle driving dynamics are mixed into the equation - one of the real reasons why people buy Mazdas. What are you going to obtain in value with that extra 12.7 cubic feet. Sounds good on paper, but how does it matter to the Daily Driver comforted in Napa Leather and Sports Car'ish handling performance. It doesn't compare if you concern is drive-ability, comfort handling and performance.

I just carried six (6) people through the Wine Country out where I live through over 300 miles of driving. Everybody fell asleep on the way up and on the ride back home. That's how comfortable it was in the CX-9 Signature. Nobody was asked to leave their bags behind for lack of room either. And, we were out accelerating and out maneuvering every Honda Pilot we encountered. My car camera proves that people got out of their vehicles after parking, stopped and snooped around the CX-9 Signature before going on their way. I don't recall ever doing that with a Honda Pilot, Consumer Reports!

The CX-9 is well played by Mazda. Perfect, no. But, better than most anything in its class and price point - if not absolutely hands down better than everything in its class and price point, IMO. This whole Cargo Capacity gig is truly over played (given the differential in space when compared) in real world conditions.


3) cramped driving position

I have no issues whatsoever with the driving position in my Sig. Fits me like a Rawlings baseball glove. And, we are just now breaking in those Napa Leather seats, so I expect the comfort level to go slight higher after the leather softens up a bit. I similar feeling of ergonomics in the cockpit of the new Cirrus SR22 Carbon as I do in the cockpit of the Mazda CX-9 Signature.

This is why Mazda put a touch point button called Return To Cockpit on the Navigation screen! Less we forget. ;) You don't merely drive a CX-9 -0 you Pilot it! Why else would Mazda intentionally use that language. Maybe they did it to capture buyers like me. I'm starting to see more CX-9 Signatures parking at the local airport now, LOL!


4) no ventilated front seat option

True and it is not absolutely needed - but it would be a very nice to have item. Still, nothing that puts the CX-9 behind any of its competition. There is no ventilated seat in any of the comparison vehicles that I tested that caused me to think the CX-9 was not every bit as good if not a whole lot better in most cases (excluding the Mid Size Luxury and Performance SUVs I used to compare the CX-9 Signature to).



5)no apple carplay.

Use AIO-Tweaks and you can play all the MP3 Music you want with a Video Player for your MP4 Movie conversions to boot. Sure, its a hack and not OEM grade. But, again - it is not something that pushes (for example) the Honda Pilot's lack of handling dynamics and interior comfort ahead of the CX-9.
 
A lot of people look at CR, but they should also query CR on their data collection methods and the manner in which they establish their empirical findings.

Ha ha, good luck asking Joe Lunchbox to "query CR on their data collection methods and the manner in which they establish their empirical findings." I'm guessing they look at CR's overall reliability rating and in the CX-9's case it's a big CON in their Pros / Cons list. I'm not defending CR. Just kinda stating what should be the obvious about the vast majority of car shoppers.
 
How many Seven Passenger Cross-Over SUVs have you seen actually towing something (anything) on the highway over the past month - have not seen any out there.

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).

The Toyota 4Runner is a pure class body on frame mid size SUV. Motor Trend ranked it as #1 in cargo capacity among all top selling Mid Size SUVs. The 4Runner has 89.7 cubic feet of space with all seats folded. The 2017 CX-9 has 71.2 cubic feet of space with all sets folded. Differential between the largest true Mid Size SUV and one of the largest Cross-Over SUVs = 18.5 cubic feet.

Your research is flawed. The GM Lambda's have 116 cu. ft. of space. They may be classified as full-sizers by the EPA but realistically they compete directly against the CX-9. And the Atlas is 97. 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'm sorry but that is a substantial amount of extra volume for luggage or boxes. In most cases that extra volume is all available behind the 2nd row which is all important for road trips where you have kids in the 2nd row and a large dog behind it with all the luggage. 10 extra cubic feet can be almost critical. 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.

And, we were out accelerating and out maneuvering every Honda Pilot we encountered.

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!

True and it is not absolutely needed - but it would be a very nice to have item. Still, nothing that puts the CX-9 behind any of its competition. There is no ventilated seat in any of the comparison vehicles that I tested that caused me to think the CX-9 was not every bit as good if not a whole lot better in most cases (excluding the Mid Size Luxury and Performance SUVs I used to compare the CX-9 Signature to).

My Explorer has them and I LOVE the feature, especially here in Florida.

Use AIO-Tweaks and you can play all the MP3 Music you want with a Video Player for your MP4 Movie conversions to boot. Sure, its a hack and not OEM grade. But, again - it is not something that pushes (for example) the Honda Pilot's lack of handling dynamics and interior comfort ahead of the CX-9.

Sorry but I'm not hacking my $40,000 vehicle.
 
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)



Your research is flawed.

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.



And the Atlas is 97.

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.
 
My goodness, you sure beat me. On sheer word volume and hyperbole. I scanned your post, I don't have the time to fully read it and I certainly don't have the time to type out point by point rebuttals. My last post was the longest I've written in.... a long time.

A few quick points though. I don't think you want to poo-poo the other brands on reliability. Mazda is no champ there. Look at CR, and JD Power. Ford is ranked 4th in initial quality. Mazda...... 27th (5th from last and below Jeep, Dodge, and all the GM brands).

"I've always wanted to like the Durango, but had issues getting past the fact that it was a "Dodge."

I think this says it all. I don't get the feeling you're really comparing all the competitors purely subjectively. You seem to value Brand and style very highly. And handling. And that's fine, if your 3-row SUV's handling is your top priority then the CX-9 is a fine choice. I have the Mazda6 to satisfy that requirement. My SUV fulfills completely different needs, roominess being one of the top priorities. I spent 4 1/2 years with the Durango. I fully inspected the CX-9 in the showroom last month when my 6 was in for service. I climbed in and out of the 3rd row every which way, sat in all the seats, did some gut measurements of the rear cargo area. It was just crystal clear to me it would be a significantly bigger challenge to pack the family and dog in it for a week-long road trip compared to the more roomy competitors. That's why it was not on the list to replace the Durango.

In short, I have the 6 to satisfy my pure driving needs. I need my SUV to fulfill completely different needs.

Some of y'all asked why would anyone in their right mind NOT pick the CX-9 for their 3-row crossover? I hope I've shed some light on that perplexing question.
 
I love the car but if you ask me I would still want a lower loading floor and better infotainment system with carplay and AA.
 
I love the car but if you ask me I would still want a lower loading floor and better infotainment system with carplay and AA.

SUV's don't have low load floors. Get a minivan. Seriously though, the CX-9 seems to have a bit of a higher cargo area than some of the competitors but this is due in part to having the highest ground clearance in class. Also, the seats seam to be thicker than some to. The 3rd row seats are actually well padded seats. Have you seen the Highlander's thin, low back seats?

Also, you might wonder how the Explorer has such a low cargo hold out back? Surely you've noticed when behind an Explorer you clearly see the whole exhaust system hanging down well below the bumper. There's always ways companies utilize space differently. With the CX-9, it's not like there's a layer of unused space somewhere.
 
Also, you might wonder how the Explorer has such a low cargo hold out back? Surely you've noticed when behind an Explorer you clearly see the whole exhaust system hanging down well below the bumper. There's always ways companies utilize space differently. With the CX-9, it's not like there's a layer of unused space somewhere.

True, but at least they make it look halfway decent with a symmetric winged look. And it doesn't hang below the suspension putting it at risk of damage. That's how the Explorer gets 50% more volume behind the third row than the CX-9 and more than most other crossovers, even more than the Expedition. They even squeeze a spare tire back there, unlike minivans.

https://www.autoblog.com/photos/2011-ford-explorer-first-drive/#slide-261173

https://www.autoblog.com/photos/2011-ford-explorer-first-drive/#slide-261223
 
SUV's don't have low load floors. Get a minivan. Seriously though, the CX-9 seems to have a bit of a higher cargo area than some of the competitors but this is due in part to having the highest ground clearance in class. Also, the seats seam to be thicker than some to. The 3rd row seats are actually well padded seats. Have you seen the Highlander's thin, low back seats?

Also, you might wonder how the Explorer has such a low cargo hold out back? Surely you've noticed when behind an Explorer you clearly see the whole exhaust system hanging down well below the bumper. There's always ways companies utilize space differently. With the CX-9, it's not like there's a layer of unused space somewhere.
Yeah I hate companies that put super low bench there to create more headroom and volume on paper too, but I was just trying to find anything that hasn't been mentioned previously.
 
Cessna is high on cx9 coolaid if you see his posts and threads. [emoji12] this thread pretty much reemphasizes what I have been harping for all along about the cx9 shortcomings. It’s should be called the cx7, it’s that small.
 
Cessna is high on cx9 coolaid if you see his posts and threads. [emoji12] this thread pretty much reemphasizes what I have been harping for all along about the cx9 shortcomings. It’s should be called the cx7, it’s that small.

A CX-7 would be a 2-row and be 2 feet shorter. Considering the CX-9 is one of the biggest in class (exterior), how huge would it have to be to earn the CX-9 designation?
 
Back