The Mazda CX-9 sales mystery

[JPL]

CrazyBiker, you fail to realize that the CX-9's "shortcomings" are substantially outweighed by so much if it's superiorities.

Most of us don't care that it's not the biggest inside. We're not caught up with the fact that it is missing a couple features. What it is is so much more important than what it isn't.

Stand near or sit in the CX-9 vs anything else in the segment and it looks like $15K+ more. It's the only one that just feels and looks special.

 

[tekbiz]

CrazyBiker, you fail to realize that the CX-9's "shortcomings" are substantially outweighed by so much if it's superiorities.

Most of us don't care that it's not the biggest inside. We're not caught up with the fact that it is missing a couple features. What it is is so much more important than what it isn't.

Stand near or sit in the CX-9 vs anything else in the segment and it looks like $15K+ more. It's the only one that just feels and looks special.

I think CrazyBiker never really went on the CX9 bandwagon to begin with judging from his previous posts and have been biased obviously due to his Kia Sorrento...from a space capacity stand point I don't really see any significant advantage the Sorrento has over the CX9 but from a value for features the Sorrento may have an edge but not by much. It simply is a vehicle that "ticks the box" but doesn't stand out in any aspect more like a jack of all trades. CX9 however differs as it stands out in some aspects.

 

[CrazyBiker]

CrazyBiker, you fail to realize that the CX-9's "shortcomings" are substantially outweighed by so much if it's superiorities.

Most of us don't care that it's not the biggest inside. We're not caught up with the fact that it is missing a couple features. What it is is so much more important than what it isn't.

Stand near or sit in the CX-9 vs anything else in the segment and it looks like $15K+ more. It's the only one that just feels and looks special.

Same can be said about a Sorento SXL. Looks much more expensive than everything else, even MDX. The CX9 is large on just the exterior. Interior volume is impractical and more in line with a CR-V. The load floor is high, the height to small to load taller objects without blocking the rear window.

I think CrazyBiker never really went on the CX9 bandwagon to begin with judging from his previous posts and have been biased obviously due to his Kia Sorrento...from a space capacity stand point I don't really see any significant advantage the Sorrento has over the CX9 but from a value for features the Sorrento may have an edge but not by much. It simply is a vehicle that "ticks the box" but doesn't stand out in any aspect more like a jack of all trades. CX9 however differs as it stands out in some aspects.

I waited for a year for the CX-9 to arrive only to be disappointed from the practicality standpoint. CX9 is a standout only from the aesthetic viewpoint. Sorento stands out aesthetically as well as from the feature viewpoint.

 

[jal142]

I think Mazda messed up the redesign to be honest. Don't get me wrong, it is definitely a nicer vehicle inside and out than the model it replaced.

However, the overall package seems somehow less compelling. I sat in a signature model, and my first impression was that it is *a lot* smaller inside than the old one. The drivers seat and front row seemed cramped. My leg was pressed up against the center console, and I felt like my wife, who was sitting in the passenger seat, was a lot closer to me than in our 2010. This is not an improvement. The cargo volume stats bear this out - the new model has 10 to 30% less interior cargo capacity than the old one, depending on whose numbers you use.

 

[tekbiz]

Same can be said about a Sorento SXL. Looks much more expensive than everything else, even MDX. The CX9 is large on just the exterior. Interior volume is impractical and more in line with a CR-V. The load floor is high, the height to small to load taller objects without blocking the rear window.


I waited for a year for the CX-9 to arrive only to be disappointed from the practicality standpoint. CX9 is a standout only from the aesthetic viewpoint. Sorento stands out aesthetically as well as from the feature viewpoint.

I disagree the CX9 stands out only on the aesthetics...having test driven several 3-row SUVs even when I compared it to premium ones like RX350, MDX and XC90 the CX9 stood out on the handling and driving dynamics side of things. In terms of the quality of materials, fit and finish yes it stands out vs other mainstream brands and on par with other premium brands. The aesthetics is purely subjective topic and I have to disagree on the Sorrento as the design is similar to its sibling Santa Fe that just looks average or ordinary. In terms of value and features standpoint sure I'll hand it to the Sorrento like I said it just ticks the boxes and that must have been the priority of the Koreans trying to win over buyers with their best in value proposition. If there is anything they excel in then that must be it but definitely not on the "driving matters" aspect.

 

[CrazyBiker]

I disagree the CX9 stands out only on the aesthetics...having test driven several 3-row SUVs even when I compared it to premium ones like RX350, MDX and XC90 the CX9 stood out on the handling and driving dynamics side of things. In terms of the quality of materials, fit and finish yes it stands out vs other mainstream brands and on par with other premium brands. The aesthetics is purely subjective topic and I have to disagree on the Sorrento as the design is similar to its sibling Santa Fe that just looks average or ordinary. In terms of value and features standpoint sure I'll hand it to the Sorrento like I said it just ticks the boxes and that must have been the priority of the Koreans trying to win over buyers with their best in value proposition. If there is anything they excel in then that must be it but definitely not on the "driving matters" aspect.

Sorento has a different, modern stiffer frame than Santa Fe. It just shares technology and drivetrain with Santa Fe. Sorento uses same steel as Porsche. Looks much more upscale than dated Santa Fe

 

[JPL]

I think Mazda messed up the redesign to be honest. Don't get me wrong, it is definitely a nicer vehicle inside and out than the model it replaced.

However, the overall package seems somehow less compelling. I sat in a signature model, and my first impression was that it is *a lot* smaller inside than the old one. The drivers seat and front row seemed cramped. My leg was pressed up against the center console, and I felt like my wife, who was sitting in the passenger seat, was a lot closer to me than in our 2010. This is not an improvement. The cargo volume stats bear this out - the new model has 10 to 30% less interior cargo capacity than the old one, depending on whose numbers you use.

For many of us, the new CX-9 has more than enough space. Family of four here and it has plenty for a road trip. I've gone cross country with 4 and luggage for a week in a Corolla. If you have 4 or more kids than space becomes the ultimate priority but most people don't have 4+ kids.

The new CX-9 is far more compelling to me than the 1st gen. Didn't like the first gen, bought the 2nd. Don't car if there's less volume. I like the cockpit style front. Some may consider it cramped others see as it as being surrounded by fine materials.

Fact is, three 6 footers can sit back to back to back in the CX-9 in actual comfort. You can't in the Highlander, Sorento, or Santa Fe. The only real volume compromise is if you have to stack stuff to the ceiling which most people don't do most of the time.

People seem to forget there's reasons for differently shaped vehicles. If I wanted a big box I would've gotten one. I didn't want something like a Pilot that essentially looks like a jacked up minivan.

I specifically was drawn to the CX-9's long hood and thinner green house knowing full well it's not going to match the big boxes for volume.

 

[CrazyBiker]

For many of us, the new CX-9 has more than enough space. Family of four here and it has plenty for a road trip. I've gone cross country with 4 and luggage for a week in a Corolla. If you have 4 or more kids than space becomes the ultimate priority but most people don't have 4+ kids.

The new CX-9 is far more compelling to me than the 1st gen. Didn't like the first gen, bought the 2nd. Don't car if there's less volume. I like the cockpit style front. Some may consider it cramped others see as it as being surrounded by fine materials.

Fact is, three 6 footers can sit back to back to back in the CX-9 in actual comfort. You can't in the Highlander, Sorento, or Santa Fe. The only real volume compromise is if you have to stack stuff to the ceiling which most people don't do most of the time.

People seem to forget there's reasons for differently shaped vehicles. If I wanted a big box I would've gotten one. I didn't want something like a Pilot that essentially looks like a jacked up minivan.

I specifically was drawn to the CX-9's long hood and thinner green house knowing full well it's not going to match the big boxes for volume.

Sorento Santa Fe have more legroom and headroom CX9. Don’t know where you get your facts from??? I have tested all three rows of all the SUVs you have mentioned.

 

[JPL]

Sorento Santa Fe have more legroom and headroom CX9. Don’t know where you get your facts from??? I have tested all three rows of all the SUVs you have mentioned.

I climbed into the 3rd row of all the segment while at an auto show. I'm 6'1" 250 so it took some energy. The Sante Fe was very uncomfortable. It still amazes me all the room and comfort there is in the CX-9's way back considering the styling.

 

[jal142]

For many of us, the new CX-9 has more than enough space. Family of four here and it has plenty for a road trip. I've gone cross country with 4 and luggage for a week in a Corolla. If you have 4 or more kids than space becomes the ultimate priority but most people don't have 4+ kids.

The new CX-9 is far more compelling to me than the 1st gen. Didn't like the first gen, bought the 2nd. Don't car if there's less volume. I like the cockpit style front. Some may consider it cramped others see as it as being surrounded by fine materials.

Fact is, three 6 footers can sit back to back to back in the CX-9 in actual comfort. You can't in the Highlander, Sorento, or Santa Fe. The only real volume compromise is if you have to stack stuff to the ceiling which most people don't do most of the time.

People seem to forget there's reasons for differently shaped vehicles. If I wanted a big box I would've gotten one. I didn't want something like a Pilot that essentially looks like a jacked up minivan.

I specifically was drawn to the CX-9's long hood and thinner green house knowing full well it's not going to match the big boxes for volume.

Not trying to critique your purchasing decision here, but your commentary is not consistent with several reviews I've read and my own personal experience. Specifically, C&D rated the CX9 best overall (drives better than everything else), but called out the size (or lack thereof) as a big negative if you had a family of more than 2 adults and 2 kids. They specifically called the second row tight when compared to others in its class (direct quote: "Once you really, truly need your minivan surrogate, youve already sized yourself out of this tall wagon."). Further, when I sat in it, although it was very nice inside, it felt small. Maybe it was partly due to the dark colors of the interior...

The more I read, the more I think this was a miss on Mazda's part. Mazda allegedly designed the CX9 specifically for the US market, but doesn't appear to understand what Americans want. Basically every SUV it competes against is bigger. If gas was still $4+ /gal, this might have made sense. The "tall wagon" comment is telling, I think. Mazda made the most car-like SUV/CUV, which makes it the most nimble and fun to drive. It's a shame the general public seems to value cargo capacity more than everything else, but that's what the sales stats seem to indicate... Mazda's sales goal was 40,000 in the US per year and they will be lucky to get 25,000.

 

[JPL]

Not trying to critique your purchasing decision here, but your commentary is not consistent with several reviews I've read and my own personal experience. Specifically, C&D rated the CX9 best overall (drives better than everything else), but called out the size (or lack thereof) as a big negative if you had a family of more than 2 adults and 2 kids. They specifically called the second row tight when compared to others in its class (direct quote: "Once you really, truly need your minivan surrogate, you’ve already sized yourself out of this tall wagon."). Further, when I sat in it, although it was very nice inside, it felt small. Maybe it was partly due to the dark colors of the interior...

The more I read, the more I think this was a miss on Mazda's part. Mazda allegedly designed the CX9 specifically for the US market, but doesn't appear to understand what Americans want. Basically every SUV it competes against is bigger. If gas was still $4+ /gal, this might have made sense. The "tall wagon" comment is telling, I think. Mazda made the most car-like SUV/CUV, which makes it the most nimble and fun to drive. It's a shame the general public seems to value cargo capacity more than everything else, but that's what the sales stats seem to indicate... Mazda's sales goal was 40,000 in the US per year and they will be lucky to get 25,000.

I have found much exaggeration when it comes to certain specs. If you've sat in the 2nd row you know they are among the most comfortable in class. A guy 6'6" could easily fit, I think kids will be fine. In most vehicles in the segment, your thighs are floating in the air, not so in the CX-9.

Why is it that two of the biggest sellers in the segment are pretty similar in interior size? Sorento and Highlander both sell like crazy. Most of Sorento's actual numbers are smaller. The Highlander's marginally larger. CX-9 has a better 3rd row than either. Why are these vehicles practical, and CX-9 not?

 

[CrazyBiker]

You clearly haven’t sat and compared actual competitors SUVs. I have and cx9 is the most cramped of them all.

 

[JPL]

You clearly haven’t sat and compared actual competitors SUVs. I have and cx9 is the most cramped of them all.

As I said before I spent a whole day sitting in each row of competitors back to back (auto show). I'm not saying it's as roomy as the Pilot, Atlas, Traverse, Explorer, Durango, etc. but I don't need to run around inside. One must also remember that those with 2nd row captains chairs "feel" roomier because of the empty middle space. I concede that leg space in the front is snug but it doesn't bother me at 6'1". If adults are comfortable in each seat, then I don't know why there needs to be so much open air. That's fine but you get a boring looking vehicle.

 

[tekbiz]

Sorento has a different, modern stiffer frame than Santa Fe. It just shares technology and drivetrain with Santa Fe. Sorento uses same steel as Porsche. Looks much more upscale than dated Santa Fe

The CX9 isn't a perfect vehicle and it definitely has its shortcomings as you've pointed out in your previous postings which made you go for another brand which is fine but from an objectivity stand point so does your beloved Sorrento with these shortcomings as examples:

Styling both inside and out are bland (subjective but am sure most owners here will agree to the point of saying it looks like a minivan disguised as as SUV), no front parking sensors, no Key linked memory seat, no rain sensing wipers, no auto high beam, no access lever to 3rd row on driver side, no LED headlights, some of the safety warnings (beeps) are very annoying, limited 3rd row cargo space, mediocre fuel economy, mediocre handling, interior materials not as luxurious, etc. I am not trying to knock on your purchase as we all have different priorities nor am I looking for you to defend Sorrento's shortcomings as it is not a perfect vehicle as well.

Just wanted to point those out as CX9 owners only see its shortcomings when they're pointed out by both owners and non-owners as this is a Mazda forum. I bet if we all looked at the Kia forums that we'll also see a lot of gripes about their vehicles.

 

[DeepCrystal17]

The CX-9 and Sorento have about the same amount of cargo volume on paper. 71 vs 73 cu ft overall, 38.2 vs 38.8 behind the 2nd row, and 14.4 vs 11.3 behind the 3rd row.

For comparison the 2018 Traverse, which they say is fully class competitive again, has a third more volume overall, 50% more behind the 2nd row and double the volume behind the 3rd row.

 

[JPL]

It's like politics, there's no consensus when it comes to cars.

 

[JPL]

The CX-9 and Sorento have about the same amount of cargo volume on paper. 71 vs 73 cu ft overall, 38.2 vs 38.8 behind the 2nd row, and 14.4 vs 11.3 behind the 3rd row.

For comparison the 2018 Traverse, which they say is fully class competitive again, has a third more volume overall, 50% more behind the 2nd row and double the volume behind the 3rd row.

The new Traverse is decent for what it is. I just think it's another borefest in the segment. It's not hard to make a big roomy vehicle. Just like the shoebox on wheels Atlas, the most boring of them all.

Don't we think if Mazda's biggest focus was room, they could've done it? Of course, but then we wouldn't have a "Mazda". People are comparing to boxes. That would fundamentally change everything that the CX-9 aims to be if it fought an interior volume war.

There's people like me who actually place more value in styling than space, even when crossover shopping. That's not weird. I even went to college for design, that is just always of high interest to me. This is where CX-9 is 2nd to none inside and out. It accomplishes this while also being by far the best driver and being sufficiently roomy. Can't ask for more IMO.

 

[jal142]

The new Traverse is decent for what it is. I just think it's another borefest in the segment. It's not hard to make a big roomy vehicle. Just like the shoebox on wheels Atlas, the most boring of them all.

Don't we think if Mazda's biggest focus was room, they could've done it? Of course, but then we wouldn't have a "Mazda". People are comparing to boxes. That would fundamentally change everything that the CX-9 aims to be if it fought an interior volume war.

There's people like me who actually place more value in styling than space, even when crossover shopping. That's not weird. I even went to college for design, that is just always of high interest to me. This is where CX-9 is 2nd to none inside and out. It accomplishes this while also being by far the best driver and being sufficiently roomy. Can't ask for more IMO.

So you value form over substance. Great. Is that the takeaway here?

In reading the comparisons, the CX-9 is a little cheaper than everything it is competing with, so that's a plus, but I can't remember any relatively small car or truck that sold very well trying to be upscale.

The reviews of this vehicle are all uniformly positive. I just think they missed the boat. When people are looking for a family hauler, "fun to drive" is way down the list. It might be the best driving, but it doesn't seem to translate into sales. The other vehicles in the segment offer more utility.

 

[jal142]

Maybe they should have called the new one the CX-8. It kind of fits between the old CX-9 and CX-7 in terms of size. They didn't really have much momentum to capitalize upon with respect to the old model (in terms of sales and perception), so a "brand new" model might have helped spur more interest.

 

[JPL]

So you value form over substance. Great. Is that the takeaway here?

In reading the comparisons, the CX-9 is a little cheaper than everything it is competing with, so that's a plus, but I can't remember any relatively small car or truck that sold very well trying to be upscale.

The reviews of this vehicle are all uniformly positive. I just think they missed the boat. When people are looking for a family hauler, "fun to drive" is way down the list. It might be the best driving, but it doesn't seem to translate into sales. The other vehicles in the segment offer more utility.

The CX-9 has much more substance than the competition. Space and utility is different from substance. The CX-9 "hauls" families very well and with a lot if stuff. If you have 5 kids, you better be searching for minivans or full-size SUV's. Most people that buy 3-row crossovers have 2-3 kids. 3rd row is for occasional carpooling.

It may be a minority, but some of us want a vehicle that isn't just some appliance to go A-B. We want something that stirs some emotion, that makes a connection between man and machine which is actually a thing. For most of us, it's one vehicle we own so this idea that we can satisfy that side with a sports car is silly.