I have long been what could be called a "driving enthusiast". I've had a Miata, an RX-7, and even equipped the Protege I bought to carry my son with the MazdaSpeed suspension, so that it could handle like a sports car. I love to drive quickly through corners, I love winding mountain roads, I love racing autocross. I love to drive, and drive hard. I'm a sports car fanatic.
That said, I also appreciate the practicality of a mini-van, even though they are not particularly fun to drive. I have a nearly two-year-old son, my family and my wife's family live 3 states away, and we make road trips home to see them 2 or 3 times a year. We bought the MPV with these trips in mind. It gives us more than enough room for 3, tons of room behind the second row for all of our stuff, and gets pretty good gas mileage on the highway. Around town, it drives well enough and is not too large to park. The sliding doors make it very easy to load and unload my son from the middle row of seats.
When I heard that the MPV was not to be continued in the U.S. and that Mazda would "replace" it with the CX-9 SUV, I was very disappointed. I found years ago when when the SUV trend was in full bloom that the "utility" of SUV's is severely overrated, especially in 3-row models. Most could carry two rows of people and significant cargo, or 3 rows of passengers and virtually no cargo. When we shopped for the MPV, I was impressed with the usable space behind the third row of seats, and vast amount of overall space in the vehicle, and more confused than ever about the trend of SUV's replacing mini-vans for kid hauling duties. One main advantage I find to mini-vans over SUVs is interior height. The roof height is generally comparable between mini-vans and SUVs, but with the higher ground clearance of an SUV, the floor is higher and vertical space inside the vehicle is lost. The trade off of interior height, which I can use every day, for additional ground clearance, which I would almost never need, is unacceptable to me.
Today, I went to check out the CX-9 for myself, and found it to be a very poor "replacement" for the MPV. I remain disappointed by Mazda's new option in a 7-passenger vehicle. To explain why, I will work from back to front, comparing the MPV to the CX-9.
The upper half of the CX-9's rear hatch slopes sharply toward the front of the vehicle, providing a sporty look similar to the CX-7. While this looks nice, anytime you have a sloped rear glass, you loose some interior room, specifically diminishing the capacity to carry bulky objects such as the toddler bed (in a very large box) that I brought home easily in my MPV.
Space behind the third row is not noticeably longer or wider in the CX-9 than it is in the MPV, and the usable height is much less, due to the sloped glass and the flat floor in the CX, vs. the deep well behind the MPV's third row. For a practical comparison, this means that I am able to fold up our larger stroller and place it upright behind the MPV's third row, taking only half of the space and not blocking the rear window, while in the CX-9, I'd have to lay it on it's side, filling most of the rear hatch space. We have on occasion driven places with friends of ours and their son, who is the same age as ours. With the MPV, we can put both strollers upright behind the third row and the six of us can travel in one vehicle. We would not be able to fit both strollers behind the third row of the CX.
The third rows themselves also bear comparison. The MPV's rear bench is one-piece, and the headrests must be removed and put somewhere for folding. Folding is very easy, though and the seat folds into the well behind it, creating a large flat cargo area. There are three seatbelts for the MPV's third row, though space for three across is fairly tight. The CX-9 by contrast seats two in the rear, and the seats can be folded individually. Headroom in this row is terrible in the CX-9. At 5'11", my head hits the ceiling, due almost certainly to the sloped hatch and swooping roof line. The MPV's box shape works much better for interior height, and there is plenty of headroom. The third row seats themselves are comfortable enough in both vehicles, with the seat-back being adjustable in the MPV and, I believe, in the CX-9. Third row leg room is not great in either vehicle and depends largely on the position of the second row seats, but seemed more cramped in the CX-9 than in the MPV.
Access to the third row is easier in the MPV, due to the ability to slide the center-row's right seat in to the center, the lower step-in height and the relatively higher ceiling. The rear doors on the CX-9 are quite long, one assumes to allow better for better access to the back row, but long doors swing wide, and are tough to deal with in tight parking situations.
The middle row of the CX-9 is quite comfortable, with seats that slide fore-aft for leg room, tilt seatbacks and decent legroom. The middle row seats three in the CX-9, and should be wide enough to do that more comfortably than the third row in the MPV. The CX-9's middle row seats, like it's rear seats, individually fold flat to accommodate large loads. This row may be the CX-9 interior's strongest point. The MPV's middle row slides fore-aft, has tilt seatbacks and allows plenty of legroom. The middle row is designed to seat two, and does so very comfortably in a pair of captain's chairs with individual armrests. The seat on the right is also able to slide laterally to create a bench seat in the middle row, or to allow excellent access to the rear seats. The seats can be removed individually, though they are very heavy. With the middle row removed and the rear row folded the interior space is enormous and the floor is flat. The dual sliding doors, powered on later models, allow excellent access to the middle row, especially when dealing with a child seat.
Finally, the front row. The driver's seat in the CX-9 is quite comfortable, a bucket seat nestled down behind the very attractive instrument cluster, separated from the passenger by the inexplicably huge center console. The console mounted shifter is sporty looking and features a manual-shift mode that the MPV never offered, at least in the U.S. The cupholders are deep and centrally mounted on the console, they look like they'd hold any beverage container you threw in there, including the road trip-sized 1L bottles of iced tea I am fond of. The huge center console includes a surprisingly small lidded compartment with a 12V power source and auxiliary input for the factory stereo. There's enough room in there for your Ipod and your gum, but not much else. I kept looking for the release that gave me access to the compartment below, but there isn't one. Door pockets in the CX-9 were oddly shaped and seem to serve some purpose that I'm unfamiliar with. The CX-9's front seats seemed to me like a very comfortable place to spend a road trip or daily commute. The MPV's front captain's chairs are certainly comfortable, though the driving position is not as sporting as that of the CX-9. The cupholders extend from the dash below the radio, and at least on my 2000 model, are terrible. I'm told they were improved on later models. Below the cupholders is a large storage bin with room for cd's or other items. Later models were available with a center tray between the seats that could fold away. This allowed MPV owners to have a sort of center console, but also allowed movement from the passenger seat to the middle row. We used this access quite a lot on road trips with our MPV when our son was very young. The door pockets on the MPV are quite large. The gear selector for the automatic transmission is on the steering column and unfortunately blocked my view of a few of the knobs on the stock radio when in drive. This problem was solved for me when I installed an aftermarket stereo in my MPV. I find the MPV quite suitable for daily driving and an absolute joy on road trips.
Some stats:
MPV/CX-9
Length: 187.8 in./199.6 in. (+11.8)
Width: 72.1 in./76.2 in. (+4.1)
Height: 68.7 in./68.1 in. (-.6)
Wheel Base: 111.8 in./113.2 in. (+1.4)
Curb Weight: 3794 lbs./4312 lbs. (+518)
Gross Weight: 5229 lbs/5805 lbs. (+576)
The CX-9 is much larger than the MPV, yet seems to offer less interior room and function. I consider this it's greatest failure. It's also significantly more expensive than the MPV, putting it out of reach of many families, such as mine.
While I didn't drive the CX-9, I don't need to to evaluate it for my purposes. Though I love fun-to-drive vehicles, the MPV for me is the practical family hauler of the fleet, and the fun-to-drive-factor falls at the bottom of the list of priorities. The CX-9 wouldn't work as my family vehicle, as the interior space and features are inadequate. When the time comes to replace our MPV, I will look for a 2006 MPV, a Mazda5 if we can live with the smaller size, or move on to another manufacturer altogether.
That said, I also appreciate the practicality of a mini-van, even though they are not particularly fun to drive. I have a nearly two-year-old son, my family and my wife's family live 3 states away, and we make road trips home to see them 2 or 3 times a year. We bought the MPV with these trips in mind. It gives us more than enough room for 3, tons of room behind the second row for all of our stuff, and gets pretty good gas mileage on the highway. Around town, it drives well enough and is not too large to park. The sliding doors make it very easy to load and unload my son from the middle row of seats.
When I heard that the MPV was not to be continued in the U.S. and that Mazda would "replace" it with the CX-9 SUV, I was very disappointed. I found years ago when when the SUV trend was in full bloom that the "utility" of SUV's is severely overrated, especially in 3-row models. Most could carry two rows of people and significant cargo, or 3 rows of passengers and virtually no cargo. When we shopped for the MPV, I was impressed with the usable space behind the third row of seats, and vast amount of overall space in the vehicle, and more confused than ever about the trend of SUV's replacing mini-vans for kid hauling duties. One main advantage I find to mini-vans over SUVs is interior height. The roof height is generally comparable between mini-vans and SUVs, but with the higher ground clearance of an SUV, the floor is higher and vertical space inside the vehicle is lost. The trade off of interior height, which I can use every day, for additional ground clearance, which I would almost never need, is unacceptable to me.
Today, I went to check out the CX-9 for myself, and found it to be a very poor "replacement" for the MPV. I remain disappointed by Mazda's new option in a 7-passenger vehicle. To explain why, I will work from back to front, comparing the MPV to the CX-9.
The upper half of the CX-9's rear hatch slopes sharply toward the front of the vehicle, providing a sporty look similar to the CX-7. While this looks nice, anytime you have a sloped rear glass, you loose some interior room, specifically diminishing the capacity to carry bulky objects such as the toddler bed (in a very large box) that I brought home easily in my MPV.
Space behind the third row is not noticeably longer or wider in the CX-9 than it is in the MPV, and the usable height is much less, due to the sloped glass and the flat floor in the CX, vs. the deep well behind the MPV's third row. For a practical comparison, this means that I am able to fold up our larger stroller and place it upright behind the MPV's third row, taking only half of the space and not blocking the rear window, while in the CX-9, I'd have to lay it on it's side, filling most of the rear hatch space. We have on occasion driven places with friends of ours and their son, who is the same age as ours. With the MPV, we can put both strollers upright behind the third row and the six of us can travel in one vehicle. We would not be able to fit both strollers behind the third row of the CX.
The third rows themselves also bear comparison. The MPV's rear bench is one-piece, and the headrests must be removed and put somewhere for folding. Folding is very easy, though and the seat folds into the well behind it, creating a large flat cargo area. There are three seatbelts for the MPV's third row, though space for three across is fairly tight. The CX-9 by contrast seats two in the rear, and the seats can be folded individually. Headroom in this row is terrible in the CX-9. At 5'11", my head hits the ceiling, due almost certainly to the sloped hatch and swooping roof line. The MPV's box shape works much better for interior height, and there is plenty of headroom. The third row seats themselves are comfortable enough in both vehicles, with the seat-back being adjustable in the MPV and, I believe, in the CX-9. Third row leg room is not great in either vehicle and depends largely on the position of the second row seats, but seemed more cramped in the CX-9 than in the MPV.
Access to the third row is easier in the MPV, due to the ability to slide the center-row's right seat in to the center, the lower step-in height and the relatively higher ceiling. The rear doors on the CX-9 are quite long, one assumes to allow better for better access to the back row, but long doors swing wide, and are tough to deal with in tight parking situations.
The middle row of the CX-9 is quite comfortable, with seats that slide fore-aft for leg room, tilt seatbacks and decent legroom. The middle row seats three in the CX-9, and should be wide enough to do that more comfortably than the third row in the MPV. The CX-9's middle row seats, like it's rear seats, individually fold flat to accommodate large loads. This row may be the CX-9 interior's strongest point. The MPV's middle row slides fore-aft, has tilt seatbacks and allows plenty of legroom. The middle row is designed to seat two, and does so very comfortably in a pair of captain's chairs with individual armrests. The seat on the right is also able to slide laterally to create a bench seat in the middle row, or to allow excellent access to the rear seats. The seats can be removed individually, though they are very heavy. With the middle row removed and the rear row folded the interior space is enormous and the floor is flat. The dual sliding doors, powered on later models, allow excellent access to the middle row, especially when dealing with a child seat.
Finally, the front row. The driver's seat in the CX-9 is quite comfortable, a bucket seat nestled down behind the very attractive instrument cluster, separated from the passenger by the inexplicably huge center console. The console mounted shifter is sporty looking and features a manual-shift mode that the MPV never offered, at least in the U.S. The cupholders are deep and centrally mounted on the console, they look like they'd hold any beverage container you threw in there, including the road trip-sized 1L bottles of iced tea I am fond of. The huge center console includes a surprisingly small lidded compartment with a 12V power source and auxiliary input for the factory stereo. There's enough room in there for your Ipod and your gum, but not much else. I kept looking for the release that gave me access to the compartment below, but there isn't one. Door pockets in the CX-9 were oddly shaped and seem to serve some purpose that I'm unfamiliar with. The CX-9's front seats seemed to me like a very comfortable place to spend a road trip or daily commute. The MPV's front captain's chairs are certainly comfortable, though the driving position is not as sporting as that of the CX-9. The cupholders extend from the dash below the radio, and at least on my 2000 model, are terrible. I'm told they were improved on later models. Below the cupholders is a large storage bin with room for cd's or other items. Later models were available with a center tray between the seats that could fold away. This allowed MPV owners to have a sort of center console, but also allowed movement from the passenger seat to the middle row. We used this access quite a lot on road trips with our MPV when our son was very young. The door pockets on the MPV are quite large. The gear selector for the automatic transmission is on the steering column and unfortunately blocked my view of a few of the knobs on the stock radio when in drive. This problem was solved for me when I installed an aftermarket stereo in my MPV. I find the MPV quite suitable for daily driving and an absolute joy on road trips.
Some stats:
MPV/CX-9
Length: 187.8 in./199.6 in. (+11.8)
Width: 72.1 in./76.2 in. (+4.1)
Height: 68.7 in./68.1 in. (-.6)
Wheel Base: 111.8 in./113.2 in. (+1.4)
Curb Weight: 3794 lbs./4312 lbs. (+518)
Gross Weight: 5229 lbs/5805 lbs. (+576)
The CX-9 is much larger than the MPV, yet seems to offer less interior room and function. I consider this it's greatest failure. It's also significantly more expensive than the MPV, putting it out of reach of many families, such as mine.
While I didn't drive the CX-9, I don't need to to evaluate it for my purposes. Though I love fun-to-drive vehicles, the MPV for me is the practical family hauler of the fleet, and the fun-to-drive-factor falls at the bottom of the list of priorities. The CX-9 wouldn't work as my family vehicle, as the interior space and features are inadequate. When the time comes to replace our MPV, I will look for a 2006 MPV, a Mazda5 if we can live with the smaller size, or move on to another manufacturer altogether.
Last edited: