Super dissatisfied with the CX-9 2.5 Turbo

Status
Not open for further replies.
So we have a 14 GT and with the exception of the front seat comfort (bad), we dig the car. I looked forward to swapping it with the new turbo next year so I drove the cx9 signature. Now I understand the 9 is heavier but the new turbo is a real pig. I read sketchy reviews of the new cx5 turbo being unexciting and I concur. Ill be looking at the new Q3 (228hp/258tq) instead for a few grand more. With a JB4 piggy back, it should be very GTI like (good).
Rick


You should have posted this in the CX-9 forum. And where are the driver "reviews" for the CX-5 w/turbo?
 
I*m sticking with my QX70 as long as I can. Then it*s Stelvio time. Woot woot!

I got no issues w/that choice suds buddy;)..visibility was about my only gripe (ok dash quality/layout not great but the way that thing drives- who cares) Well also a bit a reliability fear not gonna lie..and dlr ain't close!
 
Last edited:
I got no issues w/that choice suds buddy;)..visibility was about my only gripe (ok dash quality/layout not great but the way that thing drives- who cares) Well also a bit a reliability fear not gonna lie..and dlr ain't close!

Ideally this will be in about 7 years. I expect them to have the quality issues resolved and for the interior to be upgraded from some of the cheapness thats been noted.

All of this is providing theyre still being sold in the US. Closest dealer is about a 30 mile drive from me right now.
 
Cool- hey I'm pulling for them truly engaging and fun to drive vehicles- all of them even in base form..sport pkg is baked in which is exceedingly rare in mainstream-ish options today.
If they offered a RWD manual Giulia I don't think I could possibly resist it..
 
Last edited:
Ideally this will be in about 7 years. I expect them to have the quality issues resolved and for the interior to be upgraded from some of the cheapness that*s been noted.

All of this is providing they*re still being sold in the US. Closest dealer is about a 30 mile drive from me right now.


Alfa has not sorted their quality issues in the last 70 years! (rlaugh)
 
Beautiful car.

Hope the new Q3 fills your boots. Spend more to get what you want, nothing wrong with that. With that said, since you mentioned a JB4 piggyback with the Q3, would you have considered the CX-5 with an aftermarket tune?

I have a JB4 piggy back on the TT. It adds 45whp and about 60 torques. I bought the car used with a CPO 100k warranty so I*m not tuning it until 2022. APR would do about 40% better but I won*t void my warranty. Same holds with a turbo cx5, won*t risk the warranty.
The Q3 is appealing because the same JB4 I use on the TT translates to the Audi. Magazines are guessing 6.3 to 60, the JB4 would be sub 6 seconds. When it needs to go to the dealer, I simply remove it and it leaves no trace.
With the JB4, I can hang with manual Golf Rs and closely follow real TTS*s.
 
Last edited:
I*m sticking with my QX70 as long as I can. Then it*s Stelvio time. Woot woot!

Drove the Stelio small turbo version. This is a GREAT example of what*s possible in an affordable 4 banger turbo. It*s a blast.
Oh, these are selling for $10k off (leftovers)
 
Last edited:
Lol, I think people are expecting for the turbo to blow the doors off things. But I don't imagine it will at all, I mean it's a crossover we all drive not a miata. It's too heavy for a 4 cylinder turbo to smoke tires off the line with it. And it seems like Mazda builds them for fuel economy not for smoking tires. I do think the turbo will make the CX-5 a much more viable option for towing a travel trailer, since turbos drastically boost torque. But as far as speed is concerned, well I just don't see much breakaway speed will be added.

My 4 cylinder non-turbo would light 'em up if it were the Fail Wheel Drive model. I think it's pathetic if the CX5T won't see low 6-second to 60 times. Absolute trash, that.
 
Just like with the Audi/VW products, there is tuning available for the 2.5 turbos as well.

It will be interesting how it plays out. The one thing that impresses me with the German and Italian cars is the amount of performance built into cars and then seemed to be tuned down on the lower trims so they do not outshine the expensive trims. For instance a coworker flashed the DSG tune on his GTI last week on a Cobb AccessPort. His 17 GTI SE was out the door at $24K (added $3K with Cobb AccessPort 91 and DSG, lowered, down pipe, air intake) and if it were not for tire slip it would be performing at the $40K Golf R level. He says the DSG tune eliminated some of the gripes that people have about dual clutch and it now shifts in regular drive mode about as well as it does in manual mode using the paddle shifters (manual mode is even more aggressive). His GTI is dyno'd over 300 whp and is in the low 5 second 0-60 range. If it were not for tire slip 1st/2nd gears he would be low 4 probably. Several have mentioned the AR Stelvio and it also has a lower trim at $42K, but I bet for cheap one can really raise the performance of that base model with tuning and not spend the $80K on the upper level beast.

But as I think you noted on the 2019 thread Mazda will likely be limited by the transmission, whereas, the dual clutch on some of the European cars can be tuned as well. What I find interesting is Hyundai / Kia brought on German engineers to add performance to their line up. I know it is early, but it shows that this Korean car company ain't messing around and have intentions to have some cars in the future that will be in line with the European performance cars. The Stinger, Veloster and Genesis is probably just a very early glimpse.

Again it is just casual car news conversation in my post, but I do like how European base models can be easily/cheaply modded as they seem to have tuned down performance on the lower trims.
 
It will be interesting how it plays out. The one thing that impresses me with the German and Italian cars is the amount of performance built into cars and then seemed to be tuned down on the lower trims so they do not outshine the expensive trims. For instance a coworker flashed the DSG tune on his GTI last week on a Cobb AccessPort. His 17 GTI SE was out the door at $24K (added $3K with Cobb AccessPort 91 and DSG, lowered, down pipe, air intake) and if it were not for tire slip it would be performing at the $40K Golf R level. He says the DSG tune eliminated some of the gripes that people have about dual clutch and it now shifts in regular drive mode about as well as it does in manual mode using the paddle shifters (manual mode is even more aggressive). His GTI is dyno'd over 300 whp and is in the low 5 second 0-60 range. If it were not for tire slip 1st/2nd gears he would be low 4 probably. Several have mentioned the AR Stelvio and it also has a lower trim at $42K, but I bet for cheap one can really raise the performance of that base model with tuning and not spend the $80K on the upper level beast.

But as I think you noted on the 2019 thread Mazda will likely be limited by the transmission, whereas, the dual clutch on some of the European cars can be tuned as well. What I find interesting is Hyundai / Kia brought on German engineers to add performance to their line up. I know it is early, but it shows that this Korean car company ain't messing around and have intentions to have some cars in the future that will be in line with the European performance cars. The Stinger, Veloster and Genesis is probably just a very early glimpse.

Again it is just casual car news conversation in my post, but I do like how European base models can be easily/cheaply modded as they seem to have tuned down performance on the lower trims.

I disagree. You may get the horsepower numbers, but will it last? Is it as refined? Does the rest of the car support that one singular achievement?
 
I disagree. You may get the horsepower numbers, but will it last? Is it as refined? Does the rest of the car support that one singular achievement?

No problem with your disagreement. Your opinion wouldn't change mine.
What singular achievement?
 
I have a JB4 piggy back on the TT. It adds 45whp and about 60 torques. I bought the car used with a CPO 100k warranty so I*m not tuning it until 2022. APR would do about 40% better but I won*t void my warranty. Same holds with a turbo cx5, won*t risk the warranty.
The Q3 is appealing because the same JB4 I use on the TT translates to the Audi. Magazines are guessing 6.3 to 60, the JB4 would be sub 6 seconds. When it needs to go to the dealer, I simply remove it and it leaves no trace.
With the JB4, I can hang with manual Golf Rs and closely follow real TTS*s.

Will you still test drive the CX-5 with the 2.5T? Or have you already written it off based on your experience with the CX-9? It sounds like you're heavily leaning towards the latter.
 
What you guys think of the Volvo xc40 t5? Seems close to the signature price wise with similar space, faster acceleration but less features?
 
What you guys think of the Volvo xc40 t5? Seems close to the signature price wise with similar space, faster acceleration but less features?

It is not bad and made right here in the USA (I think it is in the Volvo Charleston location). A base T5 with heated seats and the premium package that you need to select to get power front seats and keyless entry and the vision package to get blind spot monitoring is only ~40K, which is not bad in my mind. Good option to the CX-5 signature.
 
Last edited:
It is not bad and made right here in the USA (I think it is in the Volvo Charleston location). A base T5 with heated seats and the premium package that you need to select to get power front seats and keyless entry and the vision package to get blind spot monitoring is only ~40K, which is not bad in my mind. Good option to the CX-5 signature.

Went through this before...

No, it is not made in Charleston, SC. It is made in Belgium.

The only car currently made in Charleston is the S60, and once the new line is added in the next couple of years, the XC90 will also be built there...Keep me busy why don*t ya...
 
What you guys think of the Volvo xc40 t5? Seems close to the signature price wise with similar space, faster acceleration but less features?

They do unquestionably make the best std seats in the business but..

Well, once we exited the expressway for twisty, turny roads, we found a few things. If the Jaguar is the playful one, the Volvo is the befuddled one. Asked to exert itself beyond a casual pace, the XC40 reveals its uncoordinated nature. The steering system, which feels fine at high speeds, is massively overboosted at slower ones. It*s easy to lose touch with the goings-on of the front tires. And what*s going on with the front tires, all too often, is that they are losing purchase on the pavement. The Volvo actually develops more grip than the Jaguar, wearing the same model and size of tire, but it can*t match the Brit*s balance. The XC40*s front end just gives up in a way that the Jag*s doesn*t.

The Volvo*s power delivery is also the least linear of the three, surging and receding slightly out of step with throttle-pedal inputs. And that engine, which allows the XC40 to run neck and neck with the BMW all the way up to 120 mph, doesn*t actually sound like an engine at all. Instead, it emits a series of whooshing noises and horse farts.

^^That's me being lazy and quoting C&D but its pretty much how I've felt about most modern Volvos I've driven- really nice interiors and seats but they just don't get me...well the old S60R pretty much did but..
 
Last edited:
They do unquestionably make the best std seats in the business but..

Well, once we exited the expressway for twisty, turny roads, we found a few things. If the Jaguar is the playful one, the Volvo is the befuddled one. Asked to exert itself beyond a casual pace, the XC40 reveals its uncoordinated nature. The steering system, which feels fine at high speeds, is massively overboosted at slower ones. It*s easy to lose touch with the goings-on of the front tires. And what*s going on with the front tires, all too often, is that they are losing purchase on the pavement. The Volvo actually develops more grip than the Jaguar, wearing the same model and size of tire, but it can*t match the Brit*s balance. The XC40*s front end just gives up in a way that the Jag*s doesn*t.

The Volvo*s power delivery is also the least linear of the three, surging and receding slightly out of step with throttle-pedal inputs. And that engine, which allows the XC40 to run neck and neck with the BMW all the way up to 120 mph, doesn*t actually sound like an engine at all. Instead, it emits a series of whooshing noises and horse farts.

^^That's me being lazy and quoting C&D but its pretty much how I've felt about most modern Volvos I've driven- really nice interiors and seats but they just don't get me...well the old S60R pretty much did but..

Yeah, but it has a better 0-60 time, so it must be better than the 2.5T CX-5.
 
Yep..and here's another reason (at least for me)..23mpg observed- sure they run em hard but still 2 less than bmw and holds almost 2 less gallons to boot @14.3..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back