Spied: 2017 Mazda CX-9

[RedHotFuzz]

Tested the highlander. Decently optioned but feels so cheap inside/out, ugly frontend and lacks some luxury features over the Sorento.

You think the Highlander front end is ugly now, wait until the 2017 refresh shows up. Toyota took it out back for a second beating with the ugly stick. (puke)

 

[crikey]

You think the Highlander front end is ugly now, wait until the 2017 refresh shows up. Toyota took it out back for a second beating with the ugly stick. (puke)

Compared to the CX-9, the Highlander front end is not as attractive. However, beauty is subjective and looks alone are not the main criteria for buying a vehicle.

The 2017 Highlander gets standard Toyota Safety Sense (TSS), i-Activsense in Mazda-speak. One would have to buy a CX-9 GT before even getting i-Activsense. Along with that, the Highlander gains the new Lexus RX350 direct-injection V6 engine and 8-speed transmission, which kinda makes it the 3-row RX350 until the real 3-row RX350 comes along. The Limited trim also gains back the 2nd-row bench, something that potential buyers were wanting instead of captain's chairs which it also offers. These changes, at least to me, make the Highlander an option.

 

[JPL]

Highlander has been a love it or hate it design. I love both renditions (2014/2017). I've considered it the best looking in class since it came out. Durango and Explorer next. New CX-9 takes the mantle now though.

 

[Aviboy97]

So more "demanding" frontal crash test by IIHS ended up couldn't find front passenger in 2016 CX-5 may suffer more severe injury than others in certain frontal crash situation like NHTSA crash test did?

Actually it doesn't matter whether you trust the crash test rating by the government or not. NHTSA has different way to perform the test, and people would like to see a vehicle performed well under all kind of test criteria so that more possibility of crash situation can be covered. A better crash-test rated vehicle under ANY test environmen has to be safer than a vehicle performed well ONLY under one test environment. After all, they're all testing frontal and side collisions. You can't simply pick-and-choose and dismiss the test result from NHTSA. Besides, NHTSA also conducts rollover test which IIHS doesn't do.

Remember, NHTSA which you don't trust also conducts many additional tests for car safety and initiates safety recall of your vehicles. For example, the recent fuel filler pipe safety recall on Mazda CX-5 was initiated by NHTSA who spotted the fuel leakage during a rear-end collision test. IIHS didn't and couldn't find such flaw during its crash tests on CX-5!

Mazda reported the fuel leak recall to the NHTSA. The NHTSA did not discover it. It was discovered in Mazda's own testing.

 

[yrwei52]

Remember, NHTSA which you don't trust also conducts many additional tests for car safety and initiates safety recall of your vehicles. For example, the recent fuel filler pipe safety recall on Mazda CX-5 was initiated by NHTSA who spotted the fuel leakage during a rear-end collision test. IIHS didn't and couldn't find such flaw during its crash tests on CX-5!

Mazda reported the fuel leak recall to the NHTSA. The NHTSA did not discover it. It was discovered in Mazda's own testing.

So you really think Mazda is such a proactive car company and found safety flaw during the rear-end crash test by itself? Sorry your believe is totally false! Here is the document from NHTSA which showed excessive amount of fuel spillage problem during rear-end crash was found by NHTSA's compliance test, NOT by Mazda itself:

"Description of the Cause : When the vehicle was tested according to S6.2 (b) of FMVSS No. 301, a rupture on the filler pipe appeared to be created during the impact. NHTSA performed a compliance test of FMVSS No. 301 on a 2015MY Mazda CX-5 at KARCO Engineering LLC, CA. There was no fuel spillage during the test of S6.2. When the vehicle was rotated according to S6.4, the amount of fuel spillage exceeded the limit of S5.6. Mazda attendees for the test observed this phenomenon on site and reported it to Mazda Motor Corporation in Japan."

Mazda actually performed a "quick and dirty" fix for this recall to all the existing CX-5's except some early 2013 MY by removing a metal bolt on the fuel filler pipe. This will make fuel filler pipe already wobbling even worse. The permanent fix is to use a rubber pad and a plastic fastener replacing the metal bolt but that only happens to the new CX-5's produced after Feb. 1st, 2016.

Some good info here

http://www-odi.nhtsa.dot.gov/acms/cs/jaxrs/download/doc/UCM497833/RCLRPT-16V064-9283.PDF

Vehicle : 2014-2016 Mazda CX-5
Vehicle Type : LIGHT VEHICLES
Body Style : SUV
Power Train : GAS
Descriptive Information : 2014 - 2016 model year CX-5, built from June 27, 2013 through January 20, 2016 at
Hiroshima plant of Mazda Motor Corporation, Japan.
Production Dates : JUN 27, 2013 - FEB 02, 2016

Update on 2/6/2016, the total number of subject vehicle and the VIN range of 2016MY vehicles, production period have been revised.
S6.4 of FMVSS No. 301 requires that, when a vehicle is rotated on its longitudinal axis to each successive increment of 90 degrees, following an impact crash test of S6.2 (b), fuel spillage shall not exceed the limit of S5.6. There was no spillage during the impact crash test of S6.2 (b), however when the vehicle was rotated according to S6.4, the amount of fuel spillage exceeded the limit of S5.6.
FMVSS 1 :301 - Fuel system integrity
FMVSS 2 :NR
Description of the Safety Risk :There is a possibility the fuel filler pipe could rupture during an impact crash similar to S6.2 (b) of FMVSS No. 301 and for the fuel to leak from the rupture if the vehicle has a rollover similar to S5.6 of FMVSS No. 301. Leakage of gasoline presents the risk of a fire.
Description of the Cause : When the vehicle was tested according to S6.2 (b) of FMVSS No. 301, a rupture on the filler pipe appeared to be created during the impact. NHTSA performed a compliance test of FMVSS No. 301 on a 2015MY Mazda CX-5 at KARCO Engineering LLC, CA. There was no fuel spillage during the test of S6.2. When the vehicle was rotated according to S6.4, the amount of fuel spillage exceeded the limit of S5.6. Mazda attendees for the test observed this phenomenon on site and reported it to Mazda Motor Corporation in Japan.
January 19, 2016: Mazda Motor Corporation in Japan started the investigation.
January 29, 2016: On the basis of the test result and investigation, Mazda concluded that the test performed by the NHTSA was valid and decided to conduct a noncompliance recall campaign on 2014 2016MY Mazda CX-5 vehicles.

Owners of record will be notified of this issue and instructed to take their vehicles to a Mazda dealer for repair. The repair will be to remove an attachment bolt on a left rear side member attaching the bracket of the fuel filler pipe. This will prevent the rupture on the fuel filler pipe by changing the load path during the rear crash impact. For the remedy in the field and at ports, a tape will be applied to cover the hole for the bolt mount.. For the production on or after February 1, 2016, a rubber pad will be placed between the body member and the bracket and a plastic fastener will be used for attaching the bolt. The repair will be performed free of charge to the vehicle owners.
How Remedy Component Differs from Recalled Component : The attachment between the fuel filler pipe and the left rear side member will be changed, so it can be distinguished easily when it is inspected the area.
Identify How/When Recall Condition was Corrected in Production : Implementation date will be February 1, 2016.

 

[crikey]

Talking Cars with Consumer Reports #96: Mazda CX-9

[video=youtube;o5hu2PElS_U]Talking Cars with Consumer Reports #96: Mazda CX-9[/video]

Consumer Reports seems to like the CX-9 very much. They did point out the driver's seat adjustment issue at 7:23.

 

[Brucie66]

Can we PLEASE get past the seat adjustment??!! Most drivers will not even notice! I sat in a CX9 and fell in love...instantly. However...I do agree that for the money and market place. They should have more movement options

 

[JPL]

Can we PLEASE get past the seat adjustment??!! Most drivers will not even notice! I sat in a CX9 and fell in love...instantly. However...I do agree that for the money and market place. They should have more movement options

Seriously. It's amazing how spoiled we have become. There was a time when all there was available was a one size fits all totally flat bench seat with a back that only went up below the shoulders, no head rest. Now we complain if there isn't 14 ways of adjustment and ventilation.

In 10 years we'll be complaining if the car doesn't come with massaging seats.

 

[Maybe]

Sorry to change topics from seat bottom (not really) but can anyone tell me if the optional CX-9 trailer hitch is a 2" or 1 1/4" receiver? I use a 4 bike Yakima hitch mount rack that requires a 2" receiver. If I can't get a 2" on the CX-9, it's a deal breaker for me.

Thanks

 

[jal142]

So more "demanding" frontal crash test by IIHS ended up couldn't find front passenger in 2016 CX-5 may suffer more severe injury than others in certain frontal crash situation like NHTSA crash test did?

The IIHS tests are absolutely more demanding from a structural standpoint: more force is focused on a smaller portion of the car's frame.

Actually it doesn't matter whether you trust the crash test rating by the government or not. NHTSA has different way to perform the test, and people would like to see a vehicle performed well under all kind of test criteria so that more possibility of crash situation can be covered. A better crash-test rated vehicle under ANY test environmen has to be safer than a vehicle performed well ONLY under one test environment. After all, they're all testing frontal and side collisions. You can't simply pick-and-choose and dismiss the test result from NHTSA. Besides, NHTSA also conducts rollover test which IIHS doesn't do.

Mazda made the front end of the car stiffer to do better on the small overlap test. No mystery there. Prior to the change, the cx5 got a "marginal" on the small overlap, it now gets a "good." The trade off is that it deforms less during the NHTSA test, so the dummies saw higher deceleration. The NHTSA test is a 35 mph test into a non-deformable barrier. One of the main reasons for the IIHS's formation and the testing they do is that the insurance industry felt that the NHTSA test was a) not representative of real world crashes, and b) not very challenging to pass. Ideally, the car would get 5 stars in all three types of frontal impacts, and if you are starting from scratch, it can be done. However, the CX5 design was probably mostly finished before the IIHS started small overlap testing, so Mazda had to band-aid the existing design.

Remember, NHTSA which you don't trust also conducts many additional tests for car safety and initiates safety recall of your vehicles. For example, the recent fuel filler pipe safety recall on Mazda CX-5 was initiated by NHTSA who spotted the fuel leakage during a rear-end collision test. IIHS didn't and couldn't find such flaw during its crash tests on CX-5!

Again, the IIHS intends their testing to be complementary to the NHTSA testing. In a nutshell, they look at what types of accidents are costing them the most money, then come up with a test to reduce their exposure.

I have no doubt the CX-9 will do well on the IIHS tests, and with a clean sheet redesign, Mazda should have been able to design it to get 5 stars on the NHTSA tests too. Time will tell.

 

[Kedis82ZE8]

Sorry to change topics from seat bottom (not really) but can anyone tell me if the optional CX-9 trailer hitch is a 2" or 1 1/4" receiver? I use a 4 bike Yakima hitch mount rack that requires a 2" receiver. If I can't get a 2" on the CX-9, it's a deal breaker for me.

Thanks

No idea what size receiver is on stock unit. If not 2" though...a short wait from 3rd parties will give you a 2" receiver. Keep an eye on eTrailer website.

 

[crikey]

Can we PLEASE get past the seat adjustment??!! Most drivers will not even notice! I sat in a CX9 and fell in love...instantly. However...I do agree that for the money and market place. They should have more movement options

LOL. Sorry, dude. Didn't mean to further extend the pain and suffering inflicted upon everyone regarding the incessant whining about the driver's seat adjustment. I was merely pointing out that Consumer Reports did notice it also, but chalked it up to individual preference.

The CX-9 is a driver's CUV and I'm sure anyone who buys one will enjoy driving it.

 

[tex2670]

Can we PLEASE get past the seat adjustment??!! Most drivers will not even notice! I sat in a CX9 and fell in love...instantly. However...I do agree that for the money and market place. They should have more movement options

So since it's fine for you, it should be fine for everyone? This is an internet forum--people use it to talk about stuff, vent, and sometimes go on and on.

 

[tex2670]

Seriously. It's amazing how spoiled we have become. There was a time when all there was available was a one size fits all totally flat bench seat with a back that only went up below the shoulders, no head rest. Now we complain if there isn't 14 ways of adjustment and ventilation.

In 10 years we'll be complaining if the car doesn't come with massaging seats.

Yeah--we should all buy cars with crank windows, AM radio, vinyl seats and no A/C. And you should sign the paperwork when you buy your car with a quill, by candlelight. (hand)

 

[yrwei52]

The IIHS tests are absolutely more demanding from a structural standpoint: more force is focused on a smaller portion of the car's frame.

I'd not agree IIHS crash test is more demanding than NHTSA crash test even from a structural standpoint. By looking at the outcomes from these tests, a more demanding crash test should be easier to show the flaws of structure design, but the fact of matter is it didn't! I'd only say IIHS crash test is concentrating at different area of frontal structure, hence it has different outcome. But both crash tests are valuable and we should not put more weight one way or the other. Every car should do well in both crash tests to be qualified as a safer car!

Mazda made the front end of the car stiffer to do better on the small overlap test. No mystery there. Prior to the change, the cx5 got a "marginal" on the small overlap, it now gets a "good." The trade off is that it deforms less during the NHTSA test, so the dummies saw higher deceleration. The NHTSA test is a 35 mph test into a non-deformable barrier. One of the main reasons for the IIHS's formation and the testing they do is that the insurance industry felt that the NHTSA test was a) not representative of real world crashes, and b) not very challenging to pass. Ideally, the car would get 5 stars in all three types of frontal impacts, and if you are starting from scratch, it can be done. However, the CX5 design was probably mostly finished before the IIHS started small overlap testing, so Mazda had to band-aid the existing design.

A well designed car shouldn't need "patch" work only to resolve poor rating from a new and different crash test criteria. In addition, your statement is incorrect as "band-aided" 2015 CX-5 has better IIHS crash test rating and 5-star rating on NHTSA crash test. But somehow NHTSA crash test on 2016 CX-5 has found the passenger suffered more severe injury than 2015 CX-5. Only Mazda knows what they did to the 2016 CX-5 and totally screwed up the safety on passenger side!

Again, the IIHS intends their testing to be complementary to the NHTSA testing. In a nutshell, they look at what types of accidents are costing them the most money, then come up with a test to reduce their exposure.

Agreed. IIHS crash test is complementary to NHTSA crash test. Every car should do well in both tests. If a vehicle failed on a basic and fundamental crash test, it doesn't matter how well it can do in complementary test! And remember, only NHTSA crash test ratings are listed on your window sticker, not IIHS's.

I have no doubt the CX-9 will do well on the IIHS tests, and with a clean sheet redesign, Mazda should have been able to design it to get 5 stars on the NHTSA tests too. Time will tell.

I sure hope so. I merely use 2016 CX-5 as an example and you never know the outcomes from those crash tests! When we purchased our 2016 CX-5, the window sticker said the NHTSA crash test ratings were not available yet just like current new CX-9. We assumed the NHTSA crash ratings would be 5 stars like 2015 CX-5's, but turned out they're not!

 

[Antoine]

Can we reduce the abrasiveness in this thread as of late, I really do not want to start quoting rules etc...We're all adults here, let's keep the conversation Fun, Friendly and Informative, thank you.

Looks like it's time for another reminder...Please and thank you.

 

[Brucie66]

Standard hit h from mazda will be for class II receiver.

 

[CrazyBiker]

Seat adjustment is one thing and most drivers won't notice it. But no Android Auto and Carplay when virtually every competitor is offering it? Sorry, but with the lack of seat adjustments, smartphone integration, 360 deg camera, pana roof, small interior and storage spaces (smaller than even my Mazda6), CX9 is not getting my hard earned $45K.

 

[deepfriedsushi]

Consumer report's quick drive video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UigcJd7PVY

It basically closely reflects what's been discussed here.

"Mazda focused it's efforts on driving dynamics and missed a few details along the way"

As consumers, we just gotta try these out and see if those missed details are worth the driving dynamics. Regardless, it's a sweet ride!

 

[jrtouareg]

No idea what size receiver is on stock unit. If not 2" though...a short wait from 3rd parties will give you a 2" receiver. Keep an eye on eTrailer website.

I was at my dealer this past week getting a schedule on arrival of my 16' CX-9 and the trailer hitch package for my CX-9 was already in. It comes with a 1-1/4" receiver but I'm just purchasing the wiring harness and ordered the hitch from etrailer.com. 2" receiver hitches are already available for the 16' CX-9. Draw-tite and Curt brands are already available. Its a lot less expensive than the Mazda 1-1/4" receiver.