Mazda want more CX-5 sales in the USA?. Make it a bit wider and longer

Red MC said:

I don't know how they would fit a new model in between the CX-5 and CX-9. Although the CX-9 seems a lot bigger from the outside, it's not that much bigger on the inside. The driver and front passenger have about the same amount of room as in the CX-5. The second row seat is only about 2 inches wider, and has the same legroom and headroom as the CX-5. If you're trying to fit three children in the second row, the extra width may be appreciated. But otherwise you probably wouldn't notice. The cargo area is slightly wider at its widest point, but the wheel housings encroach more, so the usable width for large items is actually a bit less than in the CX-5. The load floor is pretty high, so the height of the cargo area is also less than in the CX-5. With the third row folded, the length of the cargo area is nearly a foot longer than CX-5, which is the only place I can think of where you see a real benefit from the larger body.

I think Mazda made a design mistake with the CX-9. It's too compact inside for most buyers who need a third row, and too compact inside considering the exterior dimensions.

Click to expand...

Cx5Funtime said:

Same here. Really wanted sub compact SUV but Cx-3 had too little storage and everything else in the class was meh.

Click to expand...

Red MC said:

I don't know how they would fit a new model in between the CX-5 and CX-9. Although the CX-9 seems a lot bigger from the outside, it's not that much bigger on the inside. The driver and front passenger have about the same amount of room as in the CX-5. The second row seat is only about 2 inches wider, and has the same legroom and headroom as the CX-5. If you're trying to fit three children in the second row, the extra width may be appreciated. But otherwise you probably wouldn't notice. The cargo area is slightly wider at its widest point, but the wheel housings encroach more, so the usable width for large items is actually a bit less than in the CX-5. The load floor is pretty high, so the height of the cargo area is also less than in the CX-5. With the third row folded, the length of the cargo area is nearly a foot longer than CX-5, which is the only place I can think of where you see a real benefit from the larger body.

I think Mazda made a design mistake with the CX-9. It's too compact inside for most buyers who need a third row, and too compact inside considering the exterior dimensions.

Click to expand...

Unobtanium said:

Kona Turbo is pretty legit.

Click to expand...

jmhumr said:

A lot of other companies have found a way and a strong market for a larger 2-row...

Escape and Edge
CRV and Passport
Rogue and Murano

Click to expand...

sm1ke said:

How large are these children? Lol. I went on a road trip last weekend, and I had my 7-mo pregnant sister, my mom, and my 17-mo old daughter in her car seat in the 2nd row. They had plenty of room.

Click to expand...

Unobtanium said:

Kona Turbo is pretty legit.

Click to expand...

Red MC said:

The Edge is roomier than the CX-9 in the first and second row, and has equal cargo volume behind. The interior measurements of the Passport are also very slightly bigger than the CX-9. The Murano is slightly smaller than the CX-9 in the first and second row, but has a significantly shorter cargo area (even the Rogue has more cargo volume than the Murano). So my point is, the CX-9 is already an in-between size. If they were to redesign the CX-9 to be similar in size to Pilot/Explorer/Atlas/Ascent, then there might be room in the lineup for something in between.



With my two kids in car seats on either side, you can't really fit another person in the middle, at least not with any degree of comfort. And you definitely can't fit three car seats. If all the kids are old enough to be out of car seats, then no problem.

Click to expand...

Cx5Funtime said:

Honestly, the dual clutch transmission made me cross that off the list. Already been burned on that before, although I know they're not all equal, I was hesitant to go down that path again.

Click to expand...

jthj said:

I believe theirs is a dry clutch which probably has a much longer, maybe lifetime, interval. That being said even though they require more frequent fluid changes I very much prefer wet clutch DCT. On my GTI its every 40k so not a big issue to me.

Click to expand...

jthj said:

The main issue Ford had was oil leaking from the gear box into the bell housing which then fouled the clutches (that were not designed to be wet) and caused those issues. I would not assume every other automakers DCT would have the same issue. Some conventional autos are bad. Some are good. Same applies here.

Also FWIW we had a Ford with a DCT and put 76k on it with no repair or issue. Wife just wanted something different and we traded for the CX-5. And it was a early version as it was a 2011.

Click to expand...

7eregrine said:

And that's what you should buy if your fat ass doesn't fit in a Mazda. [emoji23]

Click to expand...

Red MC said:

The Edge is roomier than the CX-9 in the first and second row, and has equal cargo volume behind. The interior measurements of the Passport are also very slightly bigger than the CX-9. The Murano is slightly smaller than the CX-9 in the first and second row, but has a significantly shorter cargo area (even the Rogue has more cargo volume than the Murano). So my point is, the CX-9 is already an in-between size. If they were to redesign the CX-9 to be similar in size to Pilot/Explorer/Atlas/Ascent, then there might be room in the lineup for something in between.
.

Click to expand...

jmhumr said:

I don*t know if you*re being facetious or not, but my interest in a mid-size 2-row has nothing to do with people size. I just like a slightly wider stance and slightly wider tires because it looks sportier.

Click to expand...

jthj said:

See this is what I don*t get. You want a CUV yet you want something more fun and sporty. So those to me are just in conflict because physics. Sure Porsche pulls it off but that*s a lot of money.

CUV should not be the answer to everything. And that isn*t to say it isn*t the answer to anything. Just I hope we can go back to having variety of car types not just 19 different variations of CUV.

Click to expand...