Why did you purchase a CX-9?

:
2018 Mazda CX-9 GT
Just like the title says, why did you purchase your CX-9?

I've always been a Mazda fan. Their taglines, "The Soul of a Sports Car" and, "Zoom Zoom" speak to me.
My first car in High School was a 1985 Mazda RX-7 and I learned about wrenching on them. I've still got it along with several other 1st and 2nd gen RX-7s. (One is a Spec RX-7 Track car.)
I've had other Mazda vehicles including a 1989 B2600i 4x4 pickup and a 2003 Mazda MPV as my first family hauler. They too handled fairly respectably for a pickup truck and minivan.

Recently, the MPV was involved in a couple of wrecks.
The first one didn't total it out: https://imgur.com/a/M3ZIF
The second one was more minor, but severed a main wiring harness that disabled the engine and caused the repair bill to go sky high: https://imgur.com/a/WFDJyBG
Last mileage on that MPV was 202K miles and it was in great shape before the wreck.

I was originally looking at Ford Explorers, specifically ex Police Interceptors to aid in the safety of my family... People see one of those and they slow down and drive carefully.

But I've heard horror stories about how the water pump leaks into the oil pan and necessitates an engine rebuild before you realize the water pump is leaking. This flaw in the Ford 3.7 L V6 also turned me off of the older CX-9s.

Test drove the Honda Pilot and Toyota Highlander and Hyundai SantaFe. The first two were automtoive equivalents to Valium. The SantaFe was nice, but the 3rd row seat was very cramped and uncomfortable.

Naturally, I was drawn back to Mazda. Started looking at a CX-7s and Mazda 5s as well. In the end, my wife drives so much, we decided to go new and bought our CX-9 with 2 miles on the clock in June of 2018. (As of December 2018, it just had its 10K mile service.)

https://imgur.com/a/7T5OPND

Every ass that has sat in the driver's seat other than mine has been an official Mazda employee. I was there for its unloading off the truck from Baltimore Harbor. I was there when the plastic wrap was pulled. Nobody test drove this car on the dealer's lot. The battery never ran down while being stored on the dealer's lot.

In the end, she meets my family's needs...

  • Tows our 2800 lb pop-up camper.
  • Seats 4 plus cargo capacity for the dogs... Or seating capacity for friends.
  • Plenty of room in the engine bay; Easy to maintain and repair when the time comes
  • Fun and engaging to drive
  • My past Mazda vehicles have lasted a long time with little more than basic maintenance.
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking of trading in my 2016 CX-5 GT for a 2018/19 CX-9 for more space and towing capacity. Curious if you cross shopped the 5? We don't need a 3rd row so that is not part of my decision.
 
The CX-9 is the best 3-row crossover. Most auto publications/journalists will tell you.

You definitely need to go to your Mazda dealer and drive both (CX-5 turbo) back to back. Dealer will easily accommodate multiple test drives. I had to do the same to come to the conclusion that I wanted a Maxda 6 turbo over the base engine. I drove a Touring and GT back to back.

I think when you compare the 2, the $7K difference or so between each signature trim is well worth it. CX-9 is just way more vehicle. I'm perplexed as to why the CX-5 sells so much more.

Think about it. There's a $13K difference between the base and signature trims within each model. But only a $7K difference to get an entirely different and higher class of vehicle. Looking at it this way makes it a no brainer to me. Unless someone just thinks the CX-9 is too big.
 
The CX-9 is the best 3-row crossover. Most auto publications/journalists will tell you.

While I, and pretty much anyone on this board, agrees with this statement, it's not necessarily true. I would say it's the best driving 3-row CUV, and that is, of course, why the auto press loves it. But in the grand scheme of things the enthusiast population is a minute fraction of the car-buying public. Indeed, the CX-9 is not the best 3-row CUV if you care about something other than driving dynamics. It doesn't get the best gas mileage. It doesn't have the most room (for cargo or for people). It doesn't have the smoothest ride. It doesn't have the best 0-60 time. And until this year it didn't even offer the best tech.

But for me . . . for what I was looking for in a 3-row CUV . . . it is definitely the best. I only occasionally need to haul around 5 or more people, and even then it's almost always for drives of less than an hour. So I didn't need the third row to be "comfortable", but I still needed it. Instead I needed (well, wanted) something that was fun to drive dynamically, had decent pick-up-and-go, and could hold all the gear I regularly keep in the cargo area during warmer weather (mountain biking gear, rock climbing gear, and golf clubs). It also helped that adding a hitch for my bike rack (but not for towing) was super easy.

I think when you compare the 2, the $7K difference or so between each signature trim is well worth it. CX-9 is just way more vehicle. I'm perplexed as to why the CX-5 sells so much more.

Think about it. There's a $13K difference between the base and signature trims within each model. But only a $7K difference to get an entirely different and higher class of vehicle. Looking at it this way makes it a no brainer to me. Unless someone just thinks the CX-9 is too big.

I would say that most people probably don't need or even want something the size of the CX-9. That's why the RAV4, not the Highlander, is the best-selling CUV in Toyota's lineup. Same with the CRV vs. the Pilot, the Rogue vs. the Pathfinder, and the Escape vs. the Explorer. Mainly people want the seating position/height, not the size. That, and $7K is a lot of money to most people.
 
Last edited:
We purchased a CX-9 Grand Touring because it met nearly every one of our criteria for a new vehicle with a much higher value proposition than any of its competitors, including those costing a great deal more. We were a bit unsure about the 2018 but once ventilated seats and Apple CarPlay/Android Auto were added to the 2019 our choice was clear.
 
Traded a 2017 Pathfinder Platinum for the 2019 CX-9 GT. Wife was adamant we still needed a 7-seater and probably use it a couple times a month, though additional cargo space over a 5-seater is an advantage as well. Pathfinder drove like a boat, the rear end sagged noticeably (which always annoyed me), and was starting to get that tired look having been around since the 2013 model year. Interior tech and layout was just staring to look old. Essentially we just wanted an upgrade, as the Nissan was only 2 years old with 27K miles and still under plenty of warranty.

I test drove a 2019 Pilot after test driving the 2019 CX-9 and the Pilot felt like a cavern inside. Wanted something on the smaller side of 7-seaters that handled and drove well with good tech and a handsome exterior and interior. Found that all in the CX-9. Also considered an MDX and Highlander. The MDX was obviously in another price bracket as well as starting to look tired, especially on the interior. I own a 2019 TLX and am not a huge fan of the 2 screen setup that is also present in the MDS. MDX is definitely due for a revision in the next year to resemble some form of the new RDX. Highlander has also been around in the current format seemingly forever and, frankly, the boxy look didn't do it for me.

3 months and 3400 miles into the CX-9 and we couldn't be happier with it.

One negative I have found, however, is the horrid OEM tires. Ours came with the Bridgestone Ecopia 422 and they are basically below average in all categories. Wife got a nail in one of the sidewalls last week that made the tire unrepairable. Instead of spending $275 to replace this crappy tire, I opted to change out all 4 to the very highly rated Bridgestone Dueler H/L Alenza Plus. Expensive choice to change out all four, but now I feel better about the quality and safety of my wife's tires.
 
I got the 9 because I wanted the 3rd row "just in case". Turns out I've used it more often than I ever thought I would. I also prefer the exterior and interior styling of the 9 over the 5. Got the Signature because I wanted something different from the single tone leather I had in my previous Accord and IS250, and also for the ambient LED lighting and the Signature grille-lighting.

16,000 kms later, no regrets.. though a test drive in a new CX-5 Signature may change that..

As far as why I chose the CX-9 over the competition, that's easy. None of them could match the driving experience. It's fun when I want it to be, quiet when I want it to be, and it looks good inside and out.
 
Last edited:
We went from a 2008 Motor Trend SUV of the year......... yep the Mazda CX9, Touring, to a 2019 CX 9 Grand Touring. Why? Because the 2008, was the best vehicle we have ever owned. That vehicle never gave us 1 iota of trouble, and we still enjoyed driving,and looking at it after 10+ years of ownership. The decision to buy another CX9 was easy. Zoom Zoom
 
I agree with JPL and Colnago. Like JPL I examined the price differential between trims and models. No brainer to get the base model cx-9. Same friggin engine as the top of the line model... an engine that I would have to pay extra for in another model. I like fabric and a metal roof and I care about the 300ft/lbs motor and handling and not much else. Wood trim.. yeah can't afford it don't understand why its a thing. I'd have preferred a 6 sedan turbo if it were out at the time, but we have babies here. Two of them adult size, two of them not so big. So anyway yeah.. would have ended up with the cx9 over the sedan either way.

Also like Colnago said, its obviously its not the best choice for everybody. It doesn't have as much cargo or interior room as some... but the torque and handling are great. IMHO its one of the few SUV's that lives up to the "S" in the title. If you're not getting the "S" you may as well give up your SUV shaped minivan, and get a real minivan. No offense to those with SUV shaped minivans out there. I get it. I know why they exist and why people buy them.
 
I bought my 2018 CX-9 because of its GREAT VALUE!

I also have a 2018 Cadillac XT5 (wife*s car) - (It is also a great looking, great driving vehicle, maybe slightly sportier than the Mazda), they both had a sticker price of about $42,000.

While they both have many great features, the Mazda also included the following important extras that at 42k, the Caddy did not, including*

Three Row Seating GREAT!
Full Stop/Go Radar Cruise Control SUPER SUPER GREAT!
Lane Keeping Assist (Poor correction * but it warns!)
Rear Cross Traffic Alert SUPER GREAT!
Side Blind Spot Alert SUPER GREAT!
Autonomous Braking SUPER GREAT!
Front Parking Sensors GREAT!
Automatic Hi-beam Lights SUPER GREAT!
Dynamic Corner Beams GREAT!
Rain Sensing Wipers SUPER GREAT!
Heads Up Display SUPER SUPER GREAT!

(And probably other things I*ve missed). Other manufacturers charge a mint for all these features. I am now totally spoiled and likely will never buy another vehicle without all these helpful features!
 
While I, and pretty much anyone on this board, agrees with this statement, it's not necessarily true. I would say it's the best driving 3-row CUV, and that is, of course, why the auto press loves it. But in the grand scheme of things the enthusiast population is a minute fraction of the car-buying public. Indeed, the CX-9 is not the best 3-row CUV if you care about something other than driving dynamics. It doesn't get the best gas mileage. It doesn't have the most room (for cargo or for people). It doesn't have the smoothest ride. It doesn't have the best 0-60 time. And until this year it didn't even offer the best tech.

But for me . . . for what I was looking for in a 3-row CUV . . . it is definitely the best. I only occasionally need to haul around 5 or more people, and even then it's almost always for drives of less than an hour. So I didn't need the third row to be "comfortable", but I still needed it. Instead I needed (well, wanted) something that was fun to drive dynamically, had decent pick-up-and-go, and could hold all the gear I regularly keep in the cargo area during warmer weather (mountain biking gear, rock climbing gear, and golf clubs). It also helped that adding a hitch for my bike rack (but not for towing) was super easy.



I would say that most people probably don't need or even want something the size of the CX-9. That's why the RAV4, not the Highlander, is the best-selling CUV in Toyota's lineup. Same with the CRV vs. the Pilot, the Rogue vs. the Pathfinder, and the Escape vs. the Explorer. Mainly people want the seating position/height, not the size. That, and $7K is a lot of money to most people.

So--the CX-9 is not the best because it's not big enough; but most people want something that's not as big?? (uhm)

Don't you think the RAV-4 is better selling than the Highlander because of cost, not size?
 
This is a far more intelligent and objective discussion than typically found on automobile discussion boards (and I have an Aston Martin DB9 and frequent those forums, too!).
I needed to replace my 2011 Mini Cooper S Countryman All4, and was thinking Audi Q7 or Mercedes GLE. I wanted a solid, sure-footed vehicle that would serve my wife and me well on our 4x/year 1,400-mile roundtrips to visit family, and would also work well as my daily driver. The Mini, while fun, squirty, and the best ice-and-snow car I ever owned, was just not enough of a mobile safe-room for me, and my adult children would occasionally join us on our long trips, rendering a new Mini a poor choice.
My wife and I test drove a CX-5, but found the CX-9 to be more stable and more solid-feeling as well as offering significantly more room, while not sacrificing much in the fun-to-drive department.
I could not justify the combination of high price, service, and poor fuel economy the Q7 and GLE presented when compared with the CX-9. Yes, the CX-9's gas mileage is not stellar, but it's better than the Audi and the Merc and the capital outlay is significantly less. I bought a 2018 Signature, and the cabin is at least in the same ballpark as the Audi.
I just returned from one of those 1400-mile roundtrips yesterday (700 miles in one day), my first since buying the CX-9. There were four of us in the car, the third row was folded flat and the cargo area filled, and I had a hitch-mount cargo carrier with an 11-cubic foot bag hanging off the back. The CX-9 was the excellent balance of capital cost, operating cost, comfort, safety, driving dynamics, and appearance I had been looking for, and it was the least stressful long drive I've ever done.
 
Last edited:
I bought the Signature trim 2 yrs ago and no regrets so far, almost pulled trigger on the RX350 but glad we didn't...we came from a Volvo XC60 and cross shopped premium/luxury brands and a few mainstream as comparison before pulling trigger: RX350, XC90, MDX, QX60, Pilot and Highlander

Reasons for our decision:

-a lot of features and value for the money vs competition
-didn't want to sacrifice the luxurious amenities we had and the Signature gave us just that
-best looking CUV inside & out vs the rest we cross-shopped
-better fuel mileage, runs on regular gas & cheaper to maintain than premium/luxe brands
-updated safety features & technology
-7 seats vs 5 seats (for the times we need add'l seating)
-drove/handled the best vs. the rest
-didn't want to drive a CUV that you see every 5-10mins on the road (a sense of exclusivity/not very common)
-lastly, reliability (built in Japan therefore well built)
 
So--the CX-9 is not the best because it's not big enough; but most people want something that's not as big?? (uhm)

Ummmm . . . no. Did you read my WHOLE post? If so, you'd see that I listed a myriad of potential reasons as to why the CX-9 is not the best CUV in certain situations. And yes, size is one of those reasons. And if you think a CX-9, as a smaller 3-row CUV, is on par size-wise with a CX-5, RAV4, CRV, or anything in that size then you're as smart as your question makes you out to be.

Don't you think the RAV-4 is better selling than the Highlander because of cost, not size?
Again - read the WHOLE post. Did I not say ". . . and $7K is a lot of money to most people"? But actually, I don't think cost is the main reason the smaller CUVs outsell their larger counterparts. People who choose the RAV4 over the Highlander, or the CX-5 over the CX-9, have clearly determined that they don't need the extra room/size. And I'd venture to guess that even if the Highlander and RAV4 were the same price trim level for trim level, most people would go with the RAV4. Three-row CUVs are big, which means they can be more difficult to drive, more difficult to park, etc. If I didn't have 3 kids I would've gotten a CX-5 . . . not because it's less expensive but because I wouldn't have needed the space.
 
Last edited:
While I, and pretty much anyone on this board, agrees with this statement, it's not necessarily true. I would say it's the best driving 3-row CUV, and that is, of course, why the auto press loves it. But in the grand scheme of things the enthusiast population is a minute fraction of the car-buying public. Indeed, the CX-9 is not the best 3-row CUV if you care about something other than driving dynamics. It doesn't get the best gas mileage. It doesn't have the most room (for cargo or for people). It doesn't have the smoothest ride. It doesn't have the best 0-60 time. And until this year it didn't even offer the best tech.

But for me . . . for what I was looking for in a 3-row CUV . . . it is definitely the best. I only occasionally need to haul around 5 or more people, and even then it's almost always for drives of less than an hour. So I didn't need the third row to be "comfortable", but I still needed it. Instead I needed (well, wanted) something that was fun to drive dynamically, had decent pick-up-and-go, and could hold all the gear I regularly keep in the cargo area during warmer weather (mountain biking gear, rock climbing gear, and golf clubs). It also helped that adding a hitch for my bike rack (but not for towing) was super easy.

While I did suggest that the CX-9 is the best 3-row crossover [in class], I admit that "best" is a relative term when it comes to cars. "Best" is in the eyes of the beholder and to that persons needs and desires. Regardless, the auto press does often come down to a general consensus on the winners and losers in the auto industry. They conduct tons of comparison tests. The CX-9 has won the majority of these comparisons. It certainly isn't just because it's the best driving. With the understanding that most people won't use every cu ft of space in the bloated turds that is the competition, the CX-9 is such a compelling package.

Still, people are free to make their own determination on what is best. Space, space, space? Atlas, Traverse, and Pilot is the "best" 3-row. Plan on owning your CUV for 20 years? Highlander is probably the "best". What if you just want the fastest 3-row? V-8 Durango is the "best". Point is, no vehicle can be the best at everything. A Mercedes S-class may be regarded as the best car, but how is it off road or hauling a refrigerator?
 
Again - read the WHOLE post. Did I not say ". . . and $7K is a lot of money to most people"? But actually, I don't think cost is the main reason the smaller CUVs outsell their larger counterparts. People who choose the RAV4 over the Highlander, or the CX-5 over the CX-9, have clearly determined that they don't need the extra room/size. And I'd venture to guess that even if the Highlander and RAV4 were the same price trim level for trim level, most people would go with the RAV4. Three-row CUVs are big, which means they can be more difficult to drive, more difficult to park, etc. If I didn't have 3 kids I would've gotten a CX-5 . . . not because it's less expensive but because I wouldn't have needed the space.

You may be right that if cost was equal, more people would still get the compact CUV over the 3-row. I tend to think sales would line up more equally.

For me personally, I'm not crazy about how compact CUV's look. They look compressed and stubby while 3-row or at least mid-size 2 rows look more naturally proportioned. Just like mid-size and full sedans always look better proportioned than compact/sub-compact sedans. I got a CX-9 for a family of 4 when a CX-5 would have sufficed but for the once a year road trip and possible extra passengers, I knew I'd want a CX-9. But above the reason of extra space and seats, the proper proportions made the CX-9 my only choice.

It's actually for this reason that when I recently picked up the Mazda 6 as my new daily driver (wife now uses the CX-9). I could have gotten the CX-5, but because I prefer a fully proportioned design, I went with a mid-size sedan.
 
While I did suggest that the CX-9 is the best 3-row crossover [in class], I admit that "best" is a relative term when it comes to cars. "Best" is in the eyes of the beholder and to that persons needs and desires. Regardless, the auto press does often come down to a general consensus on the winners and losers in the auto industry. They conduct tons of comparison tests. The CX-9 has won the majority of these comparisons. It certainly isn't just because it's the best driving. With the understanding that most people won't use every cu ft of space in the bloated turds that is the competition, the CX-9 is such a compelling package.
I would actually disagree with this. Overwhelmingly when I read reviews and comparison tests where the CX-9 is involved the press always says something along the lines of "it's not the roomiest; it's not the best for towing capacity; but it drives great and looks fantastic." I am, therefore, led to believe that if the CX-9 had a blah personality when it comes to the fun-to-drive factor it wouldn't actually be chosen as the best CUV.

Still, people are free to make their own determination on what is best. Space, space, space? Atlas, Traverse, and Pilot is the "best" 3-row. Plan on owning your CUV for 20 years? Highlander is probably the "best". What if you just want the fastest 3-row? V-8 Durango is the "best". Point is, no vehicle can be the best at everything. A Mercedes S-class may be regarded as the best car, but how is it off road or hauling a refrigerator?
And this was my only point. I wasn't looking to call you out or anything; I was just saying that while the CX-9 is certainly the best 3-row CUV for the money among car enthusiasts (i.e. people who think driving is more than just about getting from Point A to Point B), for the majority of people it's not the best, because they (for strange, odd, unknown reasons :D) don't care about driving fun. (headshake


You may be right that if cost was equal, more people would still get the compact CUV over the 3-row. I tend to think sales would line up more equally.

For me personally, I'm not crazy about how compact CUV's look. They look compressed and stubby while 3-row or at least mid-size 2 rows look more naturally proportioned. Just like mid-size and full sedans always look better proportioned than compact/sub-compact sedans. I got a CX-9 for a family of 4 when a CX-5 would have sufficed but for the once a year road trip and possible extra passengers, I knew I'd want a CX-9. But above the reason of extra space and seats, the proper proportions made the CX-9 my only choice.

It's actually for this reason that when I recently picked up the Mazda 6 as my new daily driver (wife now uses the CX-9). I could have gotten the CX-5, but because I prefer a fully proportioned design, I went with a mid-size sedan.
I agree that compact CUVs can look compressed and stubby. The new CX-5, while, IMHO, a very pretty vehicle, can't hold a candle to the CX-9 in the looks department. Same (at least for me) with the RAV4 vs. the Highlander. But there are a few compact CUVs that I think actually look better than their stretched counterparts; the Edge looks better than the Explorer, and both the Outback and Forester look better than the Ascent. Again, though, that's purely subjective....
 
We purchased the CX-9 to be our "big" car. We had an Odyssey mini-van that served that purpose and which was driven primarily by my wife. I had a 2014 CX-5 and my son had a 2017 Mazda 3. I was all set on buying the new CX-5 Signature but the wife mentioned the desire to drop the mini-van. Mini-vans are great and can not be beat if you have kids. But our kids are now all grown. The CX-9 fit the bill very nicely as a car that could handle 5 people with a whole bunch of stuff for longer trips.

We had driven things like the highlander, pilot and MDX and the MDX was the only other car I considered. I was thinking of a 2016 CPO MDX, which I really liked overall but hated the infotainment unit, and the third row was even smaller than the C-9. The MDX's also have lots of nooks and crannies that collect dirt and junk and all of the cars we looked at appeared to need some serious detail work, which was a major turn off.

Overall, the CX-9 struck a great balance of size, price, and driving enjoyment that was hard to beat.
 
Last edited:
Ummmm . . . no. Did you read my WHOLE post? If so, you'd see that I listed a myriad of potential reasons as to why the CX-9 is not the best CUV in certain situations. And yes, size is one of those reasons. And if you think a CX-9, as a smaller 3-row CUV, is on par size-wise with a CX-5, RAV4, CRV, or anything in that size then you're as smart as your question makes you out to be.


Again - read the WHOLE post. Did I not say ". . . and $7K is a lot of money to most people"? But actually, I don't think cost is the main reason the smaller CUVs outsell their larger counterparts. People who choose the RAV4 over the Highlander, or the CX-5 over the CX-9, have clearly determined that they don't need the extra room/size. And I'd venture to guess that even if the Highlander and RAV4 were the same price trim level for trim level, most people would go with the RAV4. Three-row CUVs are big, which means they can be more difficult to drive, more difficult to park, etc. If I didn't have 3 kids I would've gotten a CX-5 . . . not because it's less expensive but because I wouldn't have needed the space.

Yes--I read the whole post. And in that same post, you said that a mark against the CX-9 was it's interior size, and you also said suggested that a major reason the RAV4 outsells the Highlander is most people don't need a larger vehicle.

Which just shows the fallacy of listing what any individual doesn't like about any vehicle.

It doesn't get the best gas mileage.
This is probably one of the most important issues for any SUV buyer. But most other direct competitors to the CX-9 have V-6s, so is this really the case? What's the mileage of a Highlander, Pathfinder, Pilot, Traverse and Explorer?

It doesn't have the most room (for cargo or for people).
You have already argued that this is not important to most people.

It doesn't have the smoothest ride.
Sure.

It doesn't have the best 0-60 time.
Well this seems like an odd argument to make when you are pointing out things that the non-enthusiast cares about.

And until this year it didn't even offer the best tech.
Very much agree. Of course, there are plenty of tech-fearing SUV shoppers out there. Just look around and see people holding their cell phones while driving in a relatively new car because they can't figure out how to pair the Bluetooth.
 
Yes--I read the whole post. And in that same post, you said that a mark against the CX-9 was it's interior size, and you also said suggested that a major reason the RAV4 outsells the Highlander is most people don't need a larger vehicle.

Which just shows the fallacy of listing what any individual doesn't like about any vehicle.

It doesn't have the most room (for cargo or for people).

You have already argued that this is not important to most people.
I'm not sure if you're being purposely obtuse, or if you simply don't get it. Non-enthusiast buyers who want/need a 3-row CUV will cross-shop the CX-9 against other 3-row CUVs. For those buyers, cargo/people room is likely more important than driving dynamics, and that's where the CX-9 falls short and why it's not "the best" 3-row CUV in these (which are most) situations. But in a more general sense, non-enthusiast buyers who just want a vehicle with the higher seating position a CUV offers will not want/need a 3-row CUV. Those buyers will look to a smaller, 2-row CUV like the RAV4 or the CX-5. And those buyers outnumber the buyers looking for 3-row CUVs. So yes, people looking at CUVs generally can want a smaller CUV (i.e. a 2-row CUV as opposed to a 3-row CUV) while people looking within the 3-row CUV segment can still want the bigger 3-row CUV.

As to my mention of 0-60 time - I actually think that this "statistic" matters more to non-enthusiasts than to enthusiasts. Manufactures and, sadly, the automotive press like to hype 0-60 times, when it's very very unlikely you'll ever need to go from 0 to 60. And the enthusiasts who do care about 0-60 time almost always will be modding their vehicle, which probably isn't but could be a CUV, to take to the drag strip (and ultimately are more concerned with 1/4 mile time, not 0-60 time). Most enthusiasts I know are more concerned with handling/cornering ability than with 0-60 times.
 
Last edited:
Back