CQ: CX-9 diagonal and offroad test --- Fail!

boybi

Member
:
Mazda CX-9 Grand Touring
Have you watched this?


Did the traction control fail to engage? Shouldn't the spinning wheels be braked by the TCS?
 
FAIL but WHY? Mazda CX-9 I-ACTIVE AWD vs Diagonal test



Because Mazda SUV: S stands for Sport as in Sports Car not off road 4x4 sport.


So if I get my Chevy 2500 plow truck stuck this winter don't pull it out with the wife's CX-9?
 
Last edited:
A. What kind of CX-9 owner is going to be doing this sort of nonsense

B. Off road potential largely depends on tires and their grip

C. In the second test on the grassy s***, notice how he purposely slowed down and killed any momentum he had? Yea... stupid test on so many different levels.
 
There's an older thread that discusses tho - no resolution, but supposedly a Mazda tech tried replicating this and report it to the higher ups...
 
I don't think any CX-9 owner going to do this to their car but still looks bad for the CX-9 because other cars made it through including the CX-5 and even the Sienna AWD van.
 
A. What kind of CX-9 owner is going to be doing this sort of nonsense

B. Off road potential largely depends on tires and their grip

C. In the second test on the grassy s***, notice how he purposely slowed down and killed any momentum he had? Yea... stupid test on so many different levels.


Bingo. You can rig any test to make a car look bad; in real life there are many other variables at work. Everyone touted Jeeps as being good off-road, but after being stuck multiple times using them in average off-road environments, I avoid them life the plague. And +1 on the tire/grip.

If your deciding factor is off-road use, and 1 in a million scenario, then you need a different vehicle - like quad runner. :)
 
Focusing on edge cases is not what manufacturers do folks. There's not a vehicle out there that can't be put in a bad situation. Even so, if you look at the followup video Mazda responds with an explanation that makes perfect sense to anyone who understands how drive systems and TCS do/don't work together.

If you want to go off-road or test vehicles in situations with one or more wheels off the ground, then there's no substitute for lockers and limited slip differentials. Some TCS systems will "fool" your differential by stopping the wheel spin, but that's a poor substitute since they only work AFTER the wheel starts spinning. You won't see serious off-roaders depending on TCS to keep them going. LOL

As for the other 99% of CX-9 buyers that will never do something as stupid as this video shows, they will be just fine with the vehicle as delivered.



BTW, I hate the crazy-aggressive braking from the TCS in my 2008 CX-9 as it has almost gotten me t-boned numerous times pulling out in slippery conditions. Hopefully the newer systems are better.
 
Last edited:
This does nothing to dissuade my interest in the CX-9. I understand what Mazda's priorities are and it's not riding on 2-3 wheels.

Sad to read the YouTube comments. I love how people who will never perform such off road maneuvers completely write it off. Meanwhile 90% of Wrangler owners don't even go off road. The CX-9 does great in the snow but people think the CX-9 will be useless because it can't articulate in a nearly roll-over scenario.
 
Focusing on edge cases is not what manufacturers do folks. There's not a vehicle out there that can't be put in a bad situation. Even so, if you look at the followup video Mazda responds with an explanation that makes perfect sense to anyone who understands how drive systems and TCS do/don't work together.

If you want to go off-road or test vehicles in situations with one or more wheels off the ground, then there's no substitute for lockers and limited slip differentials. Some TCS systems will "fool" your differential by stopping the wheel spin, but that's a poor substitute since they only work AFTER the wheel starts spinning. You won't see serious off-roaders depending on TCS to keep them going. LOL

As for the other 99% of CX-9 buyers that will never do something as stupid as this video shows, they will be just fine with the vehicle as delivered.



BTW, I hate the crazy-aggressive braking from the TCS in my 2008 CX-9 as it has almost gotten me t-boned numerous times pulling out in slippery conditions. Hopefully the newer systems are better.

Why not just turn off the traction control?


This does nothing to dissuade my interest in the CX-9. I understand what Mazda's priorities are and it's not riding on 2-3 wheels.

Sad to read the YouTube comments. I love how people who will never perform such off road maneuvers completely write it off. Meanwhile 90% of Wrangler owners don't even go off road. The CX-9 does great in the snow but people think the CX-9 will be useless because it can't articulate in a nearly roll-over scenario.

10% of Jeep owners use it for off-road? What a bunch of dumbasses...
 
10% of Jeep owners use it for off-road? What a bunch of dumbasses...


That's the interesting thing about the Wrangler. It is specifically designed for off road which makes it the worse on road vehicle you can buy. Yet the vast majority of owners just use it as a typical commuter.
 
That's the interesting thing about the Wrangler. It is specifically designed for off road which makes it the worse on road vehicle you can buy. Yet the vast majority of owners just use it as a typical commuter.

all those consumers are so naive and misinformed. Jeeps are just about the worst vehicle you can buy for actually driving on a road.
 
How come they did not install LSDs on the rear of the CX-9? I think the Mazdaspeed 6 had it.
 
Jeeps are POS, both on and off road.

They are the Kaiser Soze of automobiles.


Woe! If I've just got to go off road, then I would want to be in a Jeep, hands down. It crawls over everything, plows through water like a submarine and takes it all in stride. Else, it would be a 4Runner Pro on 17s. A bit more comfort, better fuel economy and much better appearance on the road. Unfortunately, Toyota, instead of making the FJ Cruiser better (improving it) they decided to kill it. I would have preferred the FJ Cruiser's styling and off road capabilities to the Jeep. However, it also suffered from really bad fuel Econ as well - but boy, it could climb nearly anything.

Sometimes, car manufacturers do dumb things. For Toyota, killing the FJ Cruiser instead of bringing it into the 21st century by improving it was one of them.
 
Sometimes, car manufacturers do dumb things. For Toyota, killing the FJ Cruiser instead of bringing it into the 21st century by improving it was one of them.

I didn't realize they made the FJ through summer 2016 for other markets. I had just assumed 2014 was last year everywhere. I have a Wrangler for the real treacherous stuff but don't do that much. My GX has a surprisingly adept 4WD.... just need more ground clearance. 4Runner, FJ and Prado 120/150 (GX 460) all utilize the same core frame....bodies and other powertrain options are what really separates them. KDSS also works well for a stock suspension and some off-roading.

On the CX-9... I've done this on my CX-5 in snow/ice & on hills... a little bit of brake while on the skinny pedal seems to simulate what I think of as Toyota ATRAC and can push power over to wheel with grip.
 
Woe! If I've just got to go off road, then I would want to be in a Jeep, hands down. It crawls over everything, plows through water like a submarine and takes it all in stride. Else, it would be a 4Runner Pro on 17s. A bit more comfort, better fuel economy and much better appearance on the road. Unfortunately, Toyota, instead of making the FJ Cruiser better (improving it) they decided to kill it. I would have preferred the FJ Cruiser's styling and off road capabilities to the Jeep. However, it also suffered from really bad fuel Econ as well - but boy, it could climb nearly anything.

Sometimes, car manufacturers do dumb things. For Toyota, killing the FJ Cruiser instead of bringing it into the 21st century by improving it was one of them.

Toyota obviously killed the FJ for a reason. They wouldnt just stop production of a car that meets sales requirements.
 
Woe! If I've just got to go off road, then I would want to be in a Jeep, hands down. It crawls over everything, plows through water like a submarine and takes it all in stride. Else, it would be a 4Runner Pro on 17s. A bit more comfort, better fuel economy and much better appearance on the road. Unfortunately, Toyota, instead of making the FJ Cruiser better (improving it) they decided to kill it. I would have preferred the FJ Cruiser's styling and off road capabilities to the Jeep. However, it also suffered from really bad fuel Econ as well - but boy, it could climb nearly anything.

Sometimes, car manufacturers do dumb things. For Toyota, killing the FJ Cruiser instead of bringing it into the 21st century by improving it was one of them.

Been stranded by two different Jeep, all expertly maintained. They do not, in my experience, live up to the hype.

I would take an FJ any day, or a Land Rover (old style).
 
Back