Why did you purchase a CX-9?

To lighten things up a bit, Im reminded of when I was in grade school some 50 years ago. Every day on the walk home, (at that time there was no bussing and everyone walked), my one classmate and I carried on for hours, day after day, about whether Ford or Chevy made the BEST cars. He always insisted Ford was better, and I always argued that Chevy was better; neither of us was even old enough to drive! His Dad had a Ford, and mine drove a Chevy, but I can assure you that we knew more about cars than any other 10 year olds around.

Best is very much a subjective and relative distinction, and media accolades have mounted in favor of the CX-9. Oddly, many discussions in this forum for and against in various threads focus on car-play, vented seats, folding mirrors, or even panny moon-roofs and autonomous control settings. Obviously everyones wish-list can never be met all at once. (Is there a thread somewhere about when the new models come with headlight wipers? If Mercedes Benz has them, they MUST be important!) Fads don't survive the test of time, but most everyone here has already put their money where their mouth is; theyve bought a 9.

I bought mine because after 12 years it was time. My first Mazda was the newly introduced 2007 CX-7 AWD GT bought in the fall of 2006. At that time, it was one of the first true crossover designs, with a new type engine. Coming from a 1993 Ford Bronco XLT, it was the radical change I had been craving. I still love driving it, and that is what hooked me on the Mazda Zoom-Zoom. I absolutely loved the DISI turbo 4 with AWD; coming from a V8, the gas mileage was an improvement, and I never thought twice about using the recommended premium fuel. We also drive Subaru Legacy GTs as day beaters, so the boxer 4 AWD was already a favorite set-up as well. I began to consider the 9 as a potential option once they ditched the six cylinder engine in favor of a turbo 4 set-up. The 9 is a more conservative feel than the 7, but I am older now as well. (The 5 is too small, plus there are way too many on the road. Our 3rd row is down permanently.)

For me, as many others here, I found the overall combination of the 9s many attributes very desirable, at a price point that was a compelling value. Once taking a test drive, although quite a different feel than the 7, it did not disappoint. The most personal thing for me however, is how incredibly beautiful, sleek, elegant, and understated the design is. In a world with so many horribly ugly and gaudy designs, it was a standout to my eyes. It may seem like kool-aid to some, but I think the current team at Mazda is genuinely breaking some new ground with all the Kodo design, car as art stuff. Combine that with their commitment to a driver-centric experience, and what is not to like?

My son turned me on to the Mazda CX-9...He said Dad just drive it a least. So I did, drove the CX-9 Signature...I test drove the Pilot, GMC, Highlander, Explorer and a few others and I kept coming back to the CX-9 Signature with it's beautiful Auburn interior. Driven in torrential downpours and other storms, my wife and I were happy we had this vehicle. I paid ~$300.00 for ACP installation, and of course, I have bought some additional accessories:

1). JL Audio dual 8" Subwoofer, changed out the 12" sub, too large, the dual 8" sub fits perfectly
2). Mazda CX-9 all weather mats all around
3). Mazda CX-9 Hood Deflector
4). Sun Roof Wind Deflector
5). Center Console Organizer Tray
6). Window Deflectors
7). Cross Bars

I'm extremely happy with this purchase and still enjoy driving it. YMMV of course.

Peace and blessings,

Azeke

singlemalt_18 said:

*snip*

Click to expand...

(drinks)

The exterior design is definitely a cut above. Some are too wild (Lexus) and some are too mild (VW, KIA), while others that fall in between just don't execute as well. Speaking strictly on exterior design, the top two on my list were the F-Pace and the CX-9.

sm1ke said:

(drinks)

The exterior design is definitely a cut above. Some are too wild (Lexus) and some are too mild (VW, KIA), while others that fall in between just don't execute as well. Speaking strictly on exterior design, the top two on my list were the F-Pace and the CX-9.

Click to expand...

Yes! I have always thought the Lexus front end grill thing was hideous... and they committed the entire line-up to it. Cadillac is another one that has been on my ugly list for many years, but they seem to to be coming around by copying the Mazda grill shape in their new models which makes them look better - because its like Mazda! But they still have some gaudy lights front and rear IMO. Oh, this could be a whole other thread... and then the real arguments will unfold!

sm1ke said:

(drinks)
Speaking strictly on exterior design, the top two on my list were the F-Pace and the CX-9.

Click to expand...

Agreed. In fact, I wonder, sometimes, whether one of them stole from the other.....

I just purchase a leftover 2018 CX-9 GT AWD yesterday. Got a great deal on a machine gray/black that had been dealer driven ( met the GM who put the miles on it so it as not a demo). The retro fit install of the Car Play and Android was included in the deal so that takes car of the #number 1 issue that most had with Mazda's infotainment. Not a big to me but essential for better resale down the line. Not sure when vented front seats became such a big deal but I've lived without them for 40 years so I won't miss it. As far as the "pano" sunroof that everyone makes a big deal about I could care less. I think in our 2016 CX-5 GT that roof was opened maybe 6 times in 4 years. It's makes a car heavier and less rigid. Honestly the biggest thing I wish the 2018 had was the automatic folding mirrors.

We are a family of two childless adults and two small dogs so we didn't need a 3rd row or additional cargo space. I'm fine with the size of this SUV. To me it's like an upsized version of the CX-5. I wanted the bigger far more plush ride and comfort that the CX-9 provides. The CX-5's are great but they reduced the rear cargo area significantly for the 2017 Re-do and that was the deal killer for me on that. The Turbo is plenty powerful enough to tow my motorcycle ( 2000 lbs with trailer) and the refinement and class of the cabin leaves all there other competitors in the dust. Yes the Highlander is a solid vehicle. The engine is the high point there. The rest feels cheaper and just not as nice. I like Toyota and my 9 year old Tundra is a great truck with no issues but the Highlander still feels like my old Tundra in places and that's not great in 2019. If they nail the refresh that is coming I'll take look at it in a few years.

The Hyundai Sante Fe was on the list but I can't go there with this new design. The headlights being so low ( as well as the rear turn indicators) was a huge mistake. I had one behind me in the dark and it's just bizarre with those lights so low. I bet they change that in a few years.

The Pilot is decent but felt like driving a mini van. Not for us. I still care about the driving experience even though I am in the minority.

Kia Sorrento has a lot going for it but resale values are suspect and well.... its a Kia. Not for me.

Ford, Chevy and Dodge? Not for me. Still questionable reliability for the domestics in my book.

The CX-9 for us provided the best value and the best size ( even tho we will never use the 3rd row.) Yes there are some "cons". Cabin space for driver is pretty snug but we are small so not a big deal. The left dead pedal is a bit too close to the brake. Inside storage is lacking a bit. Other than that there is not much we don't like about it and the deal was too good to pass up so it's in the garage. Now it's all about reliability. I'd like to hear from some 2016/2017 owners that have more than 50k miles to see how that's been.

colnago1331 said:

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.

Click to expand...

I absolutely get it. You want to keep whacking up the customer base so you can take varying positions as to what various customer segments will like, or not like.

And where is it written that everyone with 2.5 kids needs the max cargo room all the time? There are plenty of posters here that have said that their CX-5 or wagon is all they need, even with kids. In a generic comparison, where you have to quantify all characteristics, more CuFt of cargo room tends to get scored higher than less CuFt--but I don't see anyone saying "To heck with the CX-9, I'm going with the Suburban because more cargo room > less cargo room."

Which just goes to show why it doesn't make sense to say what is the "best" is. Most "mass appealing"? Sure.

Montanaman said:

I just purchase a leftover 2018 CX-9 GT AWD yesterday. Got a great deal on a machine gray/black that had been dealer driven ( met the GM who put the miles on it so it as not a demo). The retro fit install of the Car Play and Android was included in the deal so that takes car of the #number 1 issue that most had with Mazda's infotainment. Not a big to me but essential for better resale down the line. Not sure when vented front seats became such a big deal but I've lived without them for 40 years so I won't miss it. As far as the "pano" sunroof that everyone makes a big deal about I could care less. I think in our 2016 CX-5 GT that roof was opened maybe 6 times in 4 years. It's makes a car heavier and less rigid. Honestly the biggest thing I wish the 2018 had was the automatic folding mirrors.

We are a family of two childless adults and two small dogs so we didn't need a 3rd row or additional cargo space. I'm fine with the size of this SUV. To me it's like an upsized version of the CX-5. I wanted the bigger far more plush ride and comfort that the CX-9 provides. The CX-5's are great but they reduced the rear cargo area significantly for the 2017 Re-do and that was the deal killer for me on that. The Turbo is plenty powerful enough to tow my motorcycle ( 2000 lbs with trailer) and the refinement and class of the cabin leaves all there other competitors in the dust. Yes the Highlander is a solid vehicle. The engine is the high point there. The rest feels cheaper and just not as nice. I like Toyota and my 9 year old Tundra is a great truck with no issues but the Highlander still feels like my old Tundra in places and that's not great in 2019. If they nail the refresh that is coming I'll take look at it in a few years.

The Hyundai Sante Fe was on the list but I can't go there with this new design. The headlights being so low ( as well as the rear turn indicators) was a huge mistake. I had one behind me in the dark and it's just bizarre with those lights so low. I bet they change that in a few years.

The Pilot is decent but felt like driving a mini van. Not for us. I still care about the driving experience even though I am in the minority.

Kia Sorrento has a lot going for it but resale values are suspect and well.... its a Kia. Not for me.

Ford, Chevy and Dodge? Not for me. Still questionable reliability for the domestics in my book.

The CX-9 for us provided the best value and the best size ( even tho we will never use the 3rd row.) Yes there are some "cons". Cabin space for driver is pretty snug but we are small so not a big deal. The left dead pedal is a bit too close to the brake. Inside storage is lacking a bit. Other than that there is not much we don't like about it and the deal was too good to pass up so it's in the garage. Now it's all about reliability. I'd like to hear from some 2016/2017 owners that have more than 50k miles to see how that's been.

Click to expand...

Post some pictures when you get a chance. Would love to see what it looks like with the appearance package.

tex2670 said:

I absolutely get it. You want to keep whacking up the customer base so you can take varying positions as to what various customer segments will like, or not like.

And where is it written that everyone with 2.5 kids needs the max cargo room all the time? There are plenty of posters here that have said that their CX-5 or wagon is all they need, even with kids. In a generic comparison, where you have to quantify all characteristics, more CuFt of cargo room tends to get scored higher than less CuFt--but I don't see anyone saying "To heck with the CX-9, I'm going with the Suburban because more cargo room > less cargo room."

Which just goes to show why it doesn't make sense to say what is the "best" is. Most "mass appealing"? Sure.

Click to expand...

Agreed. If "best" was a scientific conclusion, then only one vehicle in each category/class would ultimately sell, right? Because personal opinion and preference goes out the window. Minivans from a purely rational standpoint are regarded as the "best" family vehicle. Yet, a majority of families now choose crossovers. In part because of the stigma of minivans but also because people just prefer the more rugged adventurous qualities of crossovers as well as the higher clearance and AWD.

When I point out the CX-9 has won a majority of comparisons conducted by the press, it's just a general consensus in opinion. And really, it's much deeper than just driving dynamics as people like to point out. It's easily the most luxurious interior - best materials, most stylish design. Most commonly regarded best exterior. All these things in the opinion of car lovers beat out extra cu ft of volume which are rarely used. You DRIVE the car and appreciate its interior and exterior design everyday. How often do you load it to the ceiling?

JPL said:

Agreed. If "best" was a scientific conclusion, then only one vehicle in each category/class would ultimately sell, right? Because personal opinion and preference goes out the window. Minivans from a purely rational standpoint are regarded as the "best" family vehicle. Yet, a majority of families now choose crossovers. In part because of the stigma of minivans but also because people just prefer the more rugged adventurous qualities of crossovers as well as the higher clearance and AWD.

When I point out the CX-9 has won a majority of comparisons conducted by the press, it's just a general consensus in opinion. And really, it's much deeper than just driving dynamics as people like to point out. It's easily the most luxurious interior - best materials, most stylish design. Most commonly regarded best exterior. All these things in the opinion of car lovers beat out extra cu ft of volume which are rarely used. You DRIVE the car and appreciate its interior and exterior design everyday. How often do you load it to the ceiling?

Click to expand...

Well said...

JPL said:

Agreed. If "best" was a scientific conclusion, then only one vehicle in each category/class would ultimately sell, right? Because personal opinion and preference goes out the window. Minivans from a purely rational standpoint are regarded as the "best" family vehicle. Yet, a majority of families now choose crossovers. In part because of the stigma of minivans but also because people just prefer the more rugged adventurous qualities of crossovers as well as the higher clearance and AWD.

When I point out the CX-9 has won a majority of comparisons conducted by the press, it's just a general consensus in opinion. And really, it's much deeper than just driving dynamics as people like to point out. It's easily the most luxurious interior - best materials, most stylish design. Most commonly regarded best exterior. All these things in the opinion of car lovers beat out extra cu ft of volume which are rarely used. You DRIVE the car and appreciate its interior and exterior design everyday. How often do you load it to the ceiling?

Click to expand...

So far, only twice for me. Though I have picked up a bunch of other gym equipment in the CX-9 (flat and incline benches, 45-degree back extension, a couple of 7' barbells), I just haven't loaded it down as much as these two times. The second pic was taken after making a 12 hour drive over two days across two provinces. Cargo includes ~1,000 lbs in iron.

Montanaman said:

Curious if you cross shopped the 5? We don't need a 3rd row so that is not part of my decision.

Click to expand...

I did not cross shop the CX-5, as I wanted the towing capacity for the camper.
I also have two children and two dogs, so the added space with the 3rd row folded (Or 3rd row occupied if going somewhere with friends) was a consideration.

Unlike many SUV owners, I use my SUV for Sport Utility type things.

https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123866108-Towing-with-your-CX-9

JPL said:

A Mercedes S-class may be regarded as the best car, but how is it off road or hauling a refrigerator?

Click to expand...

Is that a personal challenge?

It looks like it handles mud pretty well.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaVYxewX1iM

It can haul several fridges with a 5x8 trailer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WulOmcQxhGY

FWIW, I did do a little digging into the the Diagonal test thread before my purchase...
https://www.mazdas247.com/forum/showthread.php?123861788-CQ-CX-9-diagonal-and-offroad-test-Fail!

I do take the CX-9 on gravel and hardpack dirt from time to time.

Honestly, for us it was easy. We got a puppy about a year and a half ago and he's now giant (a very lean 120lbs...and still growing). Coming from cars we wanted something that didn't feel that large but still had decent room. The CX-9 drove better than any other crossover in its price range, and even better than some others we were looking at (Volvo XC90). And since Odin (our dog) could fit comfortably in the CX-9 it was a no-brainer.

singlemalt_18 said:

To lighten things up a bit, Im reminded of when I was in grade school some 50 years ago. Every day on the walk home, (at that time there was no bussing and everyone walked), my one classmate and I carried on for hours, day after day, about whether Ford or Chevy made the BEST cars. He always insisted Ford was better, and I always argued that Chevy was better; neither of us was even old enough to drive! His Dad had a Ford, and mine drove a Chevy, but I can assure you that we knew more about cars than any other 10 year olds around. *snip*

Click to expand...

Just for the record, I HAVE NO PART IN THIS!

https://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2019/05/ford-vs-chevy-debate-ignites-shooting-virginia-family-dinner/

We were looking for a larger car to replace my 2008 Mazda CX-7. We briefly considered a minivan, but it takes all fun out of driving, so we started looking into 3-row SUVs. Naturally, Mazda CX-9 was our first choice, but I also looked at other vehicles in this class, but nothing out there looks or drives as good as CX-9. I even looked at some luxury brands, so I ended up choosing between 2019 Audi Q7 Premium Plus + Driver Assist package and 2019 Mazda CX-9 Grand Touring. They are roughly equivalent in major features, comfort and interior quality, but the price difference was about $20K.

There were a few CX-9 features that were missing in Audi:

- HUD. You can get this with Prestige trim, but it was even more expensive.
- Touchscreen. Audi has a touchpad that you can use to enter addresses by scribbling letters and also to pan and zoom the map, but I didn't find it very convenient.
- Heated steering wheel. I wanted warm weather package that comes with ventilated seats and rear window shades, but the heated steering wheel can only be a part of cold weather package and they are mutually exclusive.
- Headlights will not turn with the steering wheel. They do have some extra LEDs in the headlights though that illuminate corners.
- There is downhill assist, but it's not clear if it has uphill start assist. The dealer said no.

The list of features that were present in Audi, but absent in Mazda is larger, but these are mostly minor improvements:

- Better cross-traffic alert (brake jolt and I believe it also shows direction from which the car is approaching).
- Can automatically apply breaks to prevent collision when backing up
- Traffic warning when opening doors, so you don't open a door into an approaching bicyclist
- Self-parking. Dealer had no idea how to use it, so I learned by trial and error. It works well, but it makes you work much harder for that, as you still have to work accelerator and breaks. I can park faster and with less effort just using 360 camera.
- Better cameras and display - crisp and very high res; that's my major gripe with Mazda - there is no excuse to have such a low res blurry camera in 2019. In Audi, wide frontal view is actually very usable, you can see cars approaching from the sides clearly.
- Traffic jam assist. Automatically resumes driving when cars ahead of you start moving and can also steer following the path of vehicle ahead (not just lane markings). However, Mazda's implementation is smoother, Audi is a bit more aggressive with breaking and accelerating.
- Auto-dimming side mirrors
- Quieter, but 2019 Mazda is very close
- More comfortable seats (both front are 8 ways with 4 way lumbar support)
- Memory for mirror settings and steering wheel. I don't understand why Mazda didn't do it for mirrors as they are power adjustable.
- Panoramic sun roof
- Retractable shade on the liftgate - useful when you have 3rd row passengers
- Hands-free liftgate operation. I really wish Mazda implemented something like that. You just need to put your foot under the rear bumper and the liftgate opens.
- Much more configurable instrument cluster. You can make gauges smaller or larger, place map there, or audio info / menu, etc. Very nice.
- Motorized 3rd row seats with controls both in the truck and at 2nd row. This is a bit gimmicky though and manual folding/unfolding in Mazda is faster.
- More space to enter 3rd row, but you have to collapse the 2nd row seat completely, so you can't use it for entrance if there is a car seat/booster installed. In Mazda you can.
- Independent middle-row seats, all three with LATCH. So, they have 30/30/30 split vs 60/40. You can fold the center seat and have easier access to 3rd row. Handy if you travel with children in the back.
- 4-zone climate control with 2 zones for 2nd row passengers.
- Slightly better interior lighting. Overhead LEDs are not as blinding in dark, more accent lighting and small things like illuminated stalks behind the steering wheel. Also, illuminated glovebox.
- Tunable transmission and throttle response settings (comfort, dynamic, etc). However, I love default driving mode in Mazda and rarely find myself switching to "Sport" mode. In Audi I had to switch to "Dynamic" to make driving it more enjoyable and comparable to Mazda.
- LATCH and tether for both seats in 3rd row!! It's a head scratcher why Mazda made only one tether hook for 3rd row seats and didn't implement LATCH at all.
- Can easily install car seats in the middle AND adjacent seat in the second row. You can do it in Mazda two, but not with all car seats.
- Child door safety locks controllable from driver seat. No fiddling with the rear door.
- Engine shutoff during stops. Helps save some fuel in heavy traffic.
- 8-speed transmission
- Audi connect (remote lock/unlock, car location and status, valet restrictions, including geofencing). However, you have to pay for the subscription.
- Built-in wireless charger and signal booster for cell phones. Don't know if the signal booster works, but wireless charger does. But no wireless CarPlay. And the charger takes lots of space in the center console.
- CD-player

Also, Audi has 4 year warranty / 50K miles standard and 4 years of roadside assistance, however maintenance is more expensive.

What I didn't like in Audi:

- Too many knobs, levers and buttons. I like technology, but I find Mazda more intuitive and convenient in terms of controls. For instance, cruise control is operated by a lever at the left side of the steering wheel and I found myself using a wrong lever or pushing it in the wrong direction, while I had absolutely zero issues with Mazda. The touchpad is confusing - I would expect it to work everywhere, but it seems to control only maps and text input.
- Also related to controls, and my biggest gripe with Audi - drive mode selector. I'm sure you can get used to it, but it works very different from any other car. It works like a joystick and it doesn't provide you a good feedback. You have to press a side button for Parking mode and switch between Reverse and Drive/Manual by tilting it forward and backward. During my 3 test drives I just couldn't get used to this thing.

What I don't like in Mazda:

- Infortainment system takes ages to boot up, and speech recognition even longer. By the time it's available, I'm out of my garage and on my way. Hopefully a firmware update will fix it at some point. It also can be slow at times, especially switching between screens. Audi's is much snappier.
- Blurry cameras
- While driver seat has memory settings, you have to adjust mirrors manually

Overall, I liked Q7 just a little bit more, mostly because of greater attention to details and slightly better interior and convenience features. But not enough to justify the price tag. And with Mazda you get an excellent car that satisfies 95% of my needs for much less money. And it feels as luxurious inside as Q7, looks better from outside, it drives a little better, and I expect it to be more reliable. Also, maintenance is cheaper.

So I bought Mazda again

Eugr said:

......I ended up choosing between 2019 Audi Q7 Premium Plus + Driver Assist package and 2019 Mazda CX-9 Grand Touring. They are roughly equivalent in major features, comfort and interior quality, but the price difference was about $20K.

...

Click to expand...

Just curious.... what engine did you have in the Q7? For 20k price difference, i expect it was the 3.0T engine.
If that's the case, the Audi also has a much more superior engine. Their V6 supercharged engine has tons more power, better towing capacity, better acceleration, more torque, it can be easily tuned for more power, etc.

In other words, i wish i had the Audi 3.0T engine in my CX-9. .... and the Quattro superior AWD system too.

danmm7 said:

Just curious.... what engine did you have in the Q7? For 20k price difference, i expect it was the 3.0T engine.

Click to expand...

It had 2.0T engine. V6 would push the price closer to 30K difference for the trim level that is equivalent or superior to Mazda*s GT.

V6 is better, but 2 liter one was OK too. Not as much torque as CX-9 and turbo lag is a bit more noticeable, especially in modes other than dynamics.

Eugr said:

It had 2.0T engine. V6 would push the price closer to 30K difference for the trim level that is equivalent or superior to Mazda*s GT.

V6 is better, but 2 liter one was OK too. Not as much torque as CX-9 and turbo lag is a bit more noticeable, especially in modes other than dynamics.

Click to expand...

Yep. The 2.0T in the Q7 is just too small in my opinion. I would not purchase this combo. Not enough power for a heavy SUV like the Q7. I wish Audi kept the 3.0 TDI (diesel). Such an amazing engine for this platform, and in general.

Were getting a certified 2016 CX-9 to replace a 13 year old Sienna. My wife sort of wanted a car or another mini van, but we both have a soft spot for Mazda (this will be our fourth, after owning a 626, Millenia, and 3.)

She test drove a Rogue and Altima, but the Nissan salesman was pushy and we dont like pushy (not matter how good the car.) We sort thought about Honda or Toyota. I think they look old and drive boring.

Jumping to Mazda, we test drove a 2015 CX-9, which was nice. But the tan leather was stained and it was a two owner. We wanted to see something a little gentler used.

Next, we tried a CX-5, and I think the 9 spoiled us because it felt and sounded like a go-cart.

So, we found out there was a 2016 CX-9 Grand Touring with 40k+ on the lot in our looking price range, and wow was it nice. The turbo 4 has great pickup, and the black leather was clean and luxurious. I like the new design that started in 2016.


Some negatives: Im not a huge fan of the Mazda infotainment; even my 2013 Ford Sync and Bluetooth connects faster.) So were going to have the CarPlay addition installed. The third seat is tight, but we wont use it a lot (or well move one of the middle seats up.) Our two daughters like to spread out in our vehicles (mine is a 2013 Expedition, which replaced a Mazda 3 so we could tow a travel trailer), so the third seat is a bonus but not necessary.

We pickup our 9 this week. Very excited and ready for some family Zoom, Zoom.

We purchased a "new" 2018 CX-9 Signature AWD last month to replace my wife's 13 year old Mustang GT. Because she was used to driving her Mustang and my BMW 5 series, she is used to having a car that has a pulse. She wanted to get a crossover because we've had a lot of trips where we wished we had more room for luggage or other carrying capacity. As others said before, I didn't "need" a three row SUV but the CX-5 was just simply far too small. I've always been a fan of Mazda's philosophy and we bought my son a Mazda 6 for his first car. Peppy and fun to drive.....but not too fast. In my initial searches, it was clear that the CX-9 was the vehicle in the price range we wanted to be in that would meet that driving dynamics measurement. Having owned two BMW's, I had no desire to buy a German made crossover only to watch it depreciate 20% every year until it's not worth it's scrap value any more.

We looked at the Acadia and the Traverse and both of them felt too big to my wife. On top of that, a comparably equipped GMC ran nearly $10k more than the CX-9 in Touring trim. We also drove a Hyundai Sante Fe. I felt like the Hyundai had superior "driver assist" features that worked better than the Mazda, but the driving experience was decidedly weak. During our search, we found the 2018 that we ended up buying. It was a "hail sale" vehicle and was marked about $7k under MSRP. We drove it and my wife was amazed at how small the CX-9 felt considering its size. Also, Mazda has done a masterful job of tuning in low end grunt that satisfied her need for speed requirements. Before we sealed the deal, we test drove a brand new Chevy Equinox with the 2.0T engine and mid-level trim. Unfortunately for the Chevy, it felt like a Yugo after being in the Mazda. It was definitely quicker, but the interior felt very pedestrian and the overall driving dynamics weren't as good, even though it was smaller.

I browbeat the dealership into letting us buy the vehicle for almost $11k under MSRP and haven't regretted the decision so far.