You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
I was disappointed with Consumer Reports review
- Thread starter satwar
- Start date
CX-7's=LOVE said:I Think the tires that come with CX-9's are Bridgestone Turanza's, and those are not very high performance tires.
As with most manufacturers, there are a number of tires that come on CX-9's. Mine (20") happens to have shipped with Bridgestone Dueler H/L. I have also seen Bridgestone Turanza EL42. Not sure about 18".
ParkerZoom
Member
Consumer Reports is the last place to get good infomation on cars. You don't want to go to a place that reviews toasters for accurate reviews. Check out all the professional reviews from Motortrend, Motorweek, Automobile Magazine, and Car and Driver. They all give the Mazda CX-9 top marks. IN fact, Motor Trend places the CX-9 above the Acura MDX.
Btw, a question.. Does anyone know what the difference in real world terms in braking between 18" vs. 20" wheels? I remember vaguely from high school physics that the 20" carry more inertia and would perform worse, but I have no idea how much. Has anyone looked at a real world study between the too and is it worth it to upgrade the brakes???
ryguy said:Btw, a question.. Does anyone know what the difference in real world terms in braking between 18" vs. 20" wheels? I remember vaguely from high school physics that the 20" carry more inertia and would perform worse, but I have no idea how much. Has anyone looked at a real world study between the too and is it worth it to upgrade the brakes???
The contact patch is the same for both wheels so I doubt that there will be any real world difference. You are simply getting a lower profile tire with the 20" rims. The overall diameter and width are the same for both and they both come with the same Bridgetone HL tires. I drove a CX-9 w/20"rims for a week and then drove a Touring w/18"s. The 18"s rode a bit smoother, but not by much. The wife liked the interior color better in the Touring so that is what we ended up with.
satwar said:That's a good point, you may be on to something. Anyone have any insight into the difference in performance rating of factory installed tires for CX-9 versus competitors ? Has Mazda factory installed a sub-par tire design ?
I tend not to laugh off the CR braking test results, I believe their test results are real (hopefully this is not a naive statement). The question is why does braking performance fall behind the others, although I'm puzzled why a extra 10 ft out of a nominal 140 ft stopping distance, should bring the overall rating of the CX-9 down so low. I realize shorter is better, but how much difference does 10 feet make in the real world, when there are so many factors affecting braking a vehicle safely ?
Out of interest I checked out Car & Driver test sheets and they show a similar braking result to Consumer Reports compared to similar sized vehicles (see attachments)
Attachments
ParkerZoom
Member
Now tell me if this makes any sense. Here are all the results Car and Driver has gotten from similar type vehicles, pulled out of an article on the Acadia.
the last BMW X5 we tested [C/D, November 2004] required 168 feet for its 70-mph stop. The last Porsche Cayenne [C/D, January 2005]: 175 feet. The Honda Pilot, now celebrating its sixth C/D 5Best Trucks award: 195 feet. The latest Tahoe: 201 feet, two-thirds of a football field.
Here is what consumer reports says about the Pilot
Consumer Reports rates Honda Pilot "Excellent" in performance tests
- October 25, 2002
Yonkers, NY- Consumer Reports rated the new-for-2003 Honda Pilot EX "Excellent" in performance test of four models of eight-passenger sport-utility vehicles for the November issue. The tests pitted the Pilot against three bigger and heavier full-size SUVs, the Toyota Sequoia, Ford Expedition, and Chevrolet Tahoe.
The Pilot outscored Consumer Reports' previously top-rated midsize sport-utility vehicle, the Toyota Highlander Limited V6. The Highlander was CR's Top Pick for midsize SUVs in the Annual Auto Issue published in April 2002.
http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=8166
And you might say, well that was their take in 2002, but look at accident avoidance rating in 2007.
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/ConsumerReportsSnapshot.aspx?year=2007&make=Honda&model=Pilot
Accident avoidance very good according to Consumer Reports with a 70-0 stopping distance of 195 feet.
Look through Consumer Report's bible of car ratings, one comes out every year. And compare how their reviews differ from Car and Driver and Motor Trend. There are some large discrepancies.
the last BMW X5 we tested [C/D, November 2004] required 168 feet for its 70-mph stop. The last Porsche Cayenne [C/D, January 2005]: 175 feet. The Honda Pilot, now celebrating its sixth C/D 5Best Trucks award: 195 feet. The latest Tahoe: 201 feet, two-thirds of a football field.
Here is what consumer reports says about the Pilot
Consumer Reports rates Honda Pilot "Excellent" in performance tests
- October 25, 2002
Yonkers, NY- Consumer Reports rated the new-for-2003 Honda Pilot EX "Excellent" in performance test of four models of eight-passenger sport-utility vehicles for the November issue. The tests pitted the Pilot against three bigger and heavier full-size SUVs, the Toyota Sequoia, Ford Expedition, and Chevrolet Tahoe.
The Pilot outscored Consumer Reports' previously top-rated midsize sport-utility vehicle, the Toyota Highlander Limited V6. The Highlander was CR's Top Pick for midsize SUVs in the Annual Auto Issue published in April 2002.
http://www.iberkshires.com/story.php?story_id=8166
And you might say, well that was their take in 2002, but look at accident avoidance rating in 2007.
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/ConsumerReportsSnapshot.aspx?year=2007&make=Honda&model=Pilot
Accident avoidance very good according to Consumer Reports with a 70-0 stopping distance of 195 feet.
Look through Consumer Report's bible of car ratings, one comes out every year. And compare how their reviews differ from Car and Driver and Motor Trend. There are some large discrepancies.
Last edited:
ParkerZoom said:Now tell me if this makes any sense.......Accident avoidance very good according to Consumer Reports with a 70-0 stopping distance of 195 feet.
Yes, I am very confused by the terminology used by reviewers. Sometimes I get the impression that they are being deliberately vague and imprecise to avoid making negative comments.
ParkerZoom
Member
To further complicate things, throw in the MDX, Acadia, CX-9 review at Motor Trend.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/112_0706_acura_mdx_gmc_acadia_mazda_cx_9/specs.html
How can the Cx-9 that is stopping at 123 feet 60-0, beating out the Acadia at 138 feet, lose so much ground in 10 feet?
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/112_0706_acura_mdx_gmc_acadia_mazda_cx_9/specs.html
How can the Cx-9 that is stopping at 123 feet 60-0, beating out the Acadia at 138 feet, lose so much ground in 10 feet?
ParkerZoom said:To further complicate things, throw in the MDX, Acadia, CX-9 review at Motor Trend.
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/112_0706_acura_mdx_gmc_acadia_mazda_cx_9/specs.html
How can the Cx-9 that is stopping at 123 feet 60-0, beating out the Acadia at 138 feet, lose so much ground in 10 feet?
Maybe 10 mph?????????????
ParkerZoom
Member
Whoops, yeah I meant 10 mph.
How does the Acadia gain so much stopping power in that 10 mph, and the Mazda lose so much?
If you are worried about stopping at less than 60 mph the CX-9 is significantly better.
How does the Acadia gain so much stopping power in that 10 mph, and the Mazda lose so much?
If you are worried about stopping at less than 60 mph the CX-9 is significantly better.
Last edited:
CX9 SportOwner
Member
Let me apply the truth to these statements:
1. Too big outside, too small inside.
For a 7 passenger, SMALL outside, BIG inside.
2. Too hard to get in and out of.
Im 6'0 with a neuroi-muscular disorder and can get into EVERY seat just fine and sit comfortably.
3. Style over substance, in nearly every department.
VERY stylish, and LOTS of substance. Little touches that make it a lot more practical.
4. Too damned much money.
Not even close for what you get. Arent all cars overpriced?
5. All said, mini-vans are better. There, I said it.[/QUOTE]
This car makes minivans look like a bad dream of an idea.
1. Too big outside, too small inside.
For a 7 passenger, SMALL outside, BIG inside.
2. Too hard to get in and out of.
Im 6'0 with a neuroi-muscular disorder and can get into EVERY seat just fine and sit comfortably.
3. Style over substance, in nearly every department.
VERY stylish, and LOTS of substance. Little touches that make it a lot more practical.
4. Too damned much money.
Not even close for what you get. Arent all cars overpriced?
5. All said, mini-vans are better. There, I said it.[/QUOTE]
This car makes minivans look like a bad dream of an idea.
