2016 CX9 questions
- Thread starter CX9ner
- Start date
I guess some here are getting very serious about performance , or not
We bought MAZDAs not Toyota or Honda for it's road performance more than looks and style ....
Yes, but Mazda isn't about big power and straight line speed. Interestingly enough, Mazda is now one of the last companies you go to if you're looking for 0-60 times. They are one of the few companies operating in the US that offer only 4 cyclinder engines.
So while Mazda is very much about driving dynamics and fun, they aren't going to win races.
It is a bit of irony that the "boring" car brands make the faster cars. Isn't it weird that you can get a really fast V-6 Camry and yet the sporty Mazda6 only comes with an underpowered 4 banger. It all comes down to the fact that huge companies like Toyota, Ford, and GM have all kinds of engines in their parts bin to use across model lines. You can get a Ford Focus with more power than the CX-9, for example.
What is your use with the CX-9? Is it not to truck your family around? Just seems pointless worrying about 0-60 times. What matters is being able to easily merge onto highway speeds with a full load safely and comfortably. With 310 lb ft of torque, it easily does the job.
Sure agreed there , my question is , what affect in acceleration and mpg will 93 octane have ? My previous 2.0t 2006 Passat would be very different on 87 vs 93 and mpg was much better on 93 oct.... CX9 is still unanswered question . Can anyone test or post their observations? I need to know not to race other cars just to know what to expect before I may buy it .
From everything I've read, the only difference you'll notice from 87 & 93 is way up around 4000 RPM where the top end of the HP band is utilized. Remember it's 227 HP with 87, 250 HP with 93. Those extra ponies are only going to be noticeable if you're flooring it to 80+mph. This engine was designed to run just as nice on regular gas as opposed to vehicles the recommend premium and you put regular in.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
According to test data from Car and Driver, 0 - 60 with 91-octane gasoline from 2016 Mazda CX-9 AWD is 7.2 seconds. The FWD CX-9 could be 0.0 ~ 0.2 seconds faster at most!
Car and Driver said:
ilovecoffee
Member
- :
- 2016 Mazda CX-9 Signature
Fwiw I had filled up with 94 octane on the first fill-up and did not notice a change before or after switching back to regular 87 in terms of acceleration nor did I really feel anything in top end power. But maybe I need to be in the car a little longer for me to feel subtle differences and for it to break-in.
I'm not sure how quickly engine computers adapt to new fuel. Is it almost instant? Or should have run a second tank with premium.
I'm not sure how quickly engine computers adapt to new fuel. Is it almost instant? Or should have run a second tank with premium.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
I think you're too optimistic for 0-60 on a 2016 CX-9 FWD with a little higher 93 octane. Based on what CX-5 FWD can do over AWD, and other 0-60 data, I believe 0.0~0.2 seconds faster is the best you could get. In other words, 0-60 under 7 seconds on 2016 FWD CX-9 is very much unlikely!
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
I merely compare the difference of 0-60 between FWD and AWD with the same engine. And you definitely don't get 10 hp by using 93-octane than 91-octane gasoline! Upper power band? Although the redline on SkyActiv-G 2.5T turbo is at 6,300 rpm, but the maximum horsepower happens at only 5,000 rpm. With maximum torque happens at 2,000 rpm, that simply means this SA 2.5T is not designed for fast acceleration but for better low-end torque!
Car and Drive said:
so 227hp vs 250hp is difference of 23hp , that is based of jump from 87 to 93 oct , so gain of 23hp for 6 octanes = almost 4hp per each added octane .
So gain of 8hp in upper rpm range with loss of 250 lbs of weight should be more than noticeable on 93 octanes and reving this engine higher than it low end torque wants you to say and most of people will do ...
Was car and drive quote done after testing cx9 on regular 87oct with 23 less peak HP where power definitely falls off in the upper rpm band ???
My point is that for every day city driving where torque is lot more usable than upper rpm band Hp , CX9 will do just fine on regular gas.
But if you go on the highway trip and when at 70 or 80 mph were during more spirited acceleration rpm easily exits low torque sweet spot than extra 23hp in upper rpm band will be nice to have and should be very noticeable.... there is a perception in almost all reviews that CX9 dies off at higher speeds , I hope these impressions are based on 87 octane test drives and in reality at highway drive 93 octane maybe adding more spark when passing and could be worth the ticket....
So gain of 8hp in upper rpm range with loss of 250 lbs of weight should be more than noticeable on 93 octanes and reving this engine higher than it low end torque wants you to say and most of people will do ...
Was car and drive quote done after testing cx9 on regular 87oct with 23 less peak HP where power definitely falls off in the upper rpm band ???
My point is that for every day city driving where torque is lot more usable than upper rpm band Hp , CX9 will do just fine on regular gas.
But if you go on the highway trip and when at 70 or 80 mph were during more spirited acceleration rpm easily exits low torque sweet spot than extra 23hp in upper rpm band will be nice to have and should be very noticeable.... there is a perception in almost all reviews that CX9 dies off at higher speeds , I hope these impressions are based on 87 octane test drives and in reality at highway drive 93 octane maybe adding more spark when passing and could be worth the ticket....
if what you are saying is true, i don't think it's noticeable until above 80 mph....i have been using 87 octane and sometimes catch myself at 78-80 mph without even knowing it....meaning i don't find the car wanting for power <80 mph on the highway.....i suppose if you're used to a Porsche Cayenne Turbo S then you would notice the difference....or perhaps if we're going uphill i might notice the lack of power.
i have never put anything more than 87 in any tank, and i have yet to drive faster than 85 mph (and rarely over 80). sorry, if i wanted to do that with a 3-row crossover, i would've gotten a Q7.
Really ?
Have some more trust in your Mazda , my 2013 cx9 is very stable at up to 100mph , new set of Falken summer tires did transform it too
There are stretches of highways where you stretch you CX9 and push it little harder than your average 70mph mini van speed limits
Supposedly this new gen CX9 handles even better.
Remember you bought a Mazda and it's handling encourages you to drive faster and do it with total control , it is not a Highlander or Pilot after all...
Really ?
Have some more trust in your Mazda , my 2013 cx9 is very stable at up to 100mph , new set of Falken summer tires did transform it too
There are stretches of highways where you stretch you CX9 and push it little harder than your average 70mph mini van speed limits
Supposedly this new gen CX9 handles even better.
Remember you bought a Mazda and it's handling encourages you to drive faster and do it with total control , it is not a Highlander or Pilot after all...
Lot of performance and fun, but not designed to drive at 100mph. It's a family SUV. You don't want to put your little joy at risk.
I had a 3 hour trip home and had it up to 110. The car was very stable and I could easily have went faster. I'm very impressed with how this turbocharged 4 banger drives. I also got 22.3 mpg on the 164 mile trip.Really ?
Have some more trust in your Mazda , my 2013 cx9 is very stable at up to 100mph , new set of Falken summer tires did transform it too
There are stretches of highways where you stretch you CX9 and push it little harder than your average 70mph mini van speed limits
Supposedly this new gen CX9 handles even better.
Remember you bought a Mazda and it's handling encourages you to drive faster and do it with total control , it is not a Highlander or Pilot after all...
astriuminc
Member
- :
- CX-9 2013 AWD
what ?? I'm really surprised how low that is for a 4 cylinder 2016 CX-9 ?? I get about 24 mpg on my old V6 CX-9 on highways 150 mile trip.
