2 Interior ???s

[aciurczak]

Works fine. We use it with a 60 GB iPod video. Just make sure to get the Airclick with dock connector, not the one that hooks to the old Mini's:

https://www.amazon.com (commissions earned)

If that link doesn't work, just go to Amazon and search for "airclick dock connector".

 

[totalcarnage]

So you need a computer to tell you how to get around. Okay

That's a whitty response, but just becuase you couldnt afford the GT doesnt give you the right to insult those who appreciate the finer things.


Enjoy your stock CX-9 & i'll enjoy my fully loaded one. (cabpatch)

 

[PsyDoc]

You are probably...

That's a whitty response, but just becuase you couldnt afford the GT doesnt give you the right to insult those who appreciate the finer things.

Enjoy your stock CX-9 & i'll enjoy my fully loaded one. (cabpatch)

So, you call "CX9 Sport Owner" on the whole insult thing that you believe he does not have a right to do and then turn around and insult him by basically call him "poor." There is a word for this...hmmmm...what could it be? Perhaps CX9 Sport Owner does not need or want all the bells and whistles. The CX-9 we purchased did not have Sirius because we HATE the looks of that, or any, satellite antenna; it totally detracts from the lines of the vehicle.

You are probably old enough that you actually had to read a map (e.g. Thomas Guide, etc.) to find your way around and you have those skills. So many younger drivers do not have such skills, which is a shame. I know, because I teach such kids at the university level. They rely on factory nav systems (many aftermarket navs are better AND portable) to tell them how to get somewhere; anti-lock brakes, traction control, etc. to compensate for their lack of driving skills; airbags and other safety items that give them a false sense of security; cell phone integration into the car that further distracts them (and others), etc. Pretty soon, we will no longer be drivers but rather passengers, even when we are in the driver' seat a la "Demolition Man."

 

[aciurczak]

You are probably old enough that you actually had to read a map (e.g. Thomas Guide, etc.) to find your way around and you have those skills. So many younger drivers do not have such skills, which is a shame. I know, because I teach such kids at the university level. They rely on factory nav systems (many aftermarket navs are better AND portable) to tell them how to get somewhere; anti-lock brakes, traction control, etc. to compensate for their lack of driving skills; airbags and other safety items that give them a false sense of security; cell phone integration into the car that further distracts them (and others), etc. Pretty soon, we will no longer be drivers but rather passengers, even when we are in the driver' seat a la "Demolition Man."

By that logic, it all went downhill when we didn't have to hand-crank engines to start them; or perhaps when we stopped having to reset the points every 200 miles. Since then drivers have been a bunch of wussies compared to the real men (and women) who drove in that era. Yes, it's true that technology advancements that have improved cars to the point to in some sense protect drivers from themselves.

But it's a large leap of faith to then say that drivers are getting stupider or more unsafe because of that technology. Frankly that's close to the "Anyone born after me is an idiot because I had to learn all these things they didn't" school of thought. If you look at accidents per mile, fatalities per mile, or just about any other safety statistic you choose; it has never been safer to drive a car in the U.S. Sure, one could argue (in a futile manner) that the cars are getting better faster than the drivers are getting worse, and that's the only explanation for the improvement, but in my opinion that's a pretty arrogant thought process.

Personally I think there have always been bad drivers. Even if they may have had good map reading skills.

 

[tviera]

That's a whitty response, but just becuase you couldnt afford the GT doesnt give you the right to insult those who appreciate the finer things.


Enjoy your stock CX-9 & i'll enjoy my fully loaded one. (cabpatch)

I also have a bone stock sport. My wife and I picked it up because it had everything we needed to haul the kids around and for me to stay with a brand that I have owned and loved for years. I so glad that you can afford the supperdupperdeluxeihaveasmallpenislookatmynav/bose/rearentertainmentsystem I spent $ 300 dollars on a 10.7" aftermarket rear entertainment and it works awesome. So go burn your ass on the hot leather and comment on response so we all can see how big e-penis is.

 

[PsyDoc]

By that logic, it all went downhill when we didn't have to hand-crank engines to start them; or perhaps when we stopped having to reset the points every 200 miles. Since then drivers have been a bunch of wussies compared to the real men (and women) who drove in that era. Yes, it's true that technology advancements that have improved cars to the point to in some sense protect drivers from themselves.

But it's a large leap of faith to then say that drivers are getting stupider or more unsafe because of that technology. Frankly that's close to the "Anyone born after me is an idiot because I had to learn all these things they didn't" school of thought. If you look at accidents per mile, fatalities per mile, or just about any other safety statistic you choose; it has never been safer to drive a car in the U.S. Sure, one could argue (in a futile manner) that the cars are getting better faster than the drivers are getting worse, and that's the only explanation for the improvement, but in my opinion that's a pretty arrogant thought process.

Personally I think there have always been bad drivers. Even if they may have had good map reading skills.

Perhaps. I think the "safe" technologies developed in an attempt to protect drivers from themselves. And, new technologies are on the horizon. New technologies are in development to help drivers avoid collisions. Driver inattention accounts for roughly 30% of all accidents in the U.S. and roughly 800,000 accidents occur due to lane change blind spots.

Given that the New York Times reported July 24th of this year that the United States now ranks 42nd of the 48 developed countries when measured in terms of the number of traffic fatalities per capita, it would not be too difficult for "safe driving" to improve in the U.S. given that rank. By the way, the U.S. used to rank #1. Funny how the NHTSA celebrates a low fatality rate in 2006 where 42,642 people were killed that was the lowest fatality rate ever recorded and the largest drop in the past 15 years. However, various agencies report that this number is not a statistically significant decline from previous years. As you probably know, the NHTSA uses "fatality rate per vehicle miles traveled" as a way to convince "us" that highway safety is progressing. As you probably do not know, the fatality rate per vehicle miles traveled has been steadily declining ever since it was first used in 1921.

We could go back and forth on whether driving has actually gotten safer or worse in the U.S. and why that might be the case. If you look solely at the drivers, I would argue it has not. I would argue that drivers have become even less courteous and have almost zero lane discipline. If you look at the safety improvements in vehicles, then I'd agree with you as safer vehicles tend to decrease fatalities.

 

[aciurczak]

For the most part we agree. Autoweek (the Aug 27 issue) has a long article on traffic safety in regards to teen driving, with a bucketload of statistics. They even make the point that depending on which statistics are used, safety can be shown to be going up, going down, better than other countries, worse than other countries, etc. Depends on the specific statistic and mindset in making the case.

But back to the earlier point in this thread, the implication that someone choosing a vehicle with more features and technology (the GT version compared to the Sport), is somehow choosing a safer vehicle, just isn't supported. I wouldn't even go as far as to say that the GT is a "better" vehicle; depends on one's perspective. But clearly the money that Mazda charges for the uplevel version seems like a fair increase to quite a few consumers, myself included. The comparison that sticks with me is that the MDX with all comparable gadgets is about $53K OTD, while the CX-9 GT AWD with all gadgets can be had for around $40K OTD. It's a good deal.

 

[IanKen]

P.S. I prefer running water and indoor toiletry as well, Gramps.

LOL. In my time we had FWD and it was uphill both ways to the acid mines, in the snow, with racing slicks!

Why I like NAV:

I'm in some city where I don't live and street maps don't tell you where food and coffee is. I need coffee. Now. Nav tells me where and how to get there.

I'm off to visit my in-laws in Sacramento. I've never been there. I could map-quest it, but then I'm still using a "computer to tell me where to go" and printing out paper maps. Lame.

The CX9 nav unit is a bit dated to be honest, but it works and it is fairly snappy and has it's uses. Do I use it day to day for the commute? No. If it had XM Nav Traffic I would.

Like the BSM it is just another tool. I think they charge too much for it, but the price they charge is what the market will bear. I think in the next ten years nav will be standard on pretty much every ride. There was a time when FM radio was an extra cost. I'm sure there were people then who scoffed at those who paid for it when everything you could ever want was on AM.

 

[ux149]

Ouch! And just when I thought that this was a nice place to visit. Nearly everyone who purchases a new car believes that they got THE best vehicle for them. Several people on this thread must believe that they also chose what should be the perfect car for everyone else also. This makes no sense.

So enough with the insults and name calling!

I purchased an '08 GT AWD with nearly every available option - not to impress anyone. I certainly wouldn't have purchased a Mazda if I was that status consious. My CX-9 won't arrive for a couple of weeks and several of my employees don't believe me when I tell them I puchased a Mazda. They're just sure that I got a Mercedes or something.

But my wife and I have owned 16 vehicles in the last 28 years including lately two Lexus, an Escalade, a Chrysler 300C, and a Jaguar, and while there are many options I would just as soon not have, I appreciate and enjoy a variety of options.

My wife purchased an IS-250 last year with almost no options because she only drives 5,000 miles a year. She thought it would be "fun". She traded it in 15 months later because she just didn't enjoy it. (She absolutely loves her new G37.)

I will always purchase a sunroof, even if it means I have to get a powered liftgate and can't use a cargo screen.

I will always get driver memory seats because my wife is much shorter than I. The more difficult the manual repositioning of the seat and mirrors, the less we drive each others vehicles.

I spend over $100,000 annually in TV and radio ads for my business because the ads work. But I've never seen or heard them (except via email attachments.) We TIVO everything, and I haven't listened to hour of commercial ridden radio in years. I will always get satelite radio.

I appreciate NAV and use it most often to find interesting new places near my original destination.

It is only a matter of time before hand-held cell phones may not be used by drivers in any state. Bluetooth, or something like it will be invaluable to everyone who frequently drives alone.

I don't even test drive vehicles that are not 4-wheel or all-wheel drive. I have walked away from too many immobile FWD and RWD cars in my life.

The CX-9 does't have a lot of the options that I have used and enjoyed in the past - heated second row seats, puddle lamps, tilt in reverse mirrors, etc. And it doesn't hve a lot of options that some other new models offer. But we all must have liked it enough, or we wouldn't have purchased it.

 

[IGCAM]

It is only a matter of time before hand-held cell phones may not be used by drivers in any state. Bluetooth, or something like it will be invaluable to everyone who frequently drives alone.

QUOTE]

You make a valid point here. They are now looking at passing a bylaw that prohibits cell phone useage. Bluetooth is definately a viable answer to hands free operation. Let's face it, you aren't going to eliminate the use of cell phones while driving so why not embrace the technology.

We just purchased a 2007 CX9 GT with NAV and all the options partly because it was one of the last model left, but also because we didn't like the look of the Sport model.

I thought the idea of these forums was to share details about each others vehicles and help each other with information - not decide who is better or more or less intelligent based on the options one has on their car.

If you are happy with your choice of vehicle then great - Aren't we supposed to support each other and discuss why we all bought Mazdas in the first place??

 

[AreYouWithMe]

Some comments:

1. When looking for a car I had three criteria: Beefy V6 / V8, Bluetooth (NJ passed "hands free" laws), and third row. Complete hands-free is extremely convenient.

2. I did not want "built-in" Navigation but will probably get a portable one. It isn't that I can't read a map, but with my long commute if traffic is choked and I need to take some of the "back roads" it is nice to be able to get turn-by-turn directions and be able to keep my eyes on the road. And with a portable one I can share it with my Camaro like I do with my EZ-Pass tag.

3. I also wanted FWD for a few reasons: better MPG, with traction control and reasonable tires any FWD car should be ok in reasonable snow, if it is ever that bad where I *must* have AWD chances are I won't be driving. I am not judging those who wanted AWD I wasn't one of them.

4. I preferred the Touring over the GT becasue I didn't need all of the bells and whistles and I did not like the wood trim. The black and chrome of the Touring with the black leather looked sharp. Just my personal preference.

5. The biggest reason I got a CX-9 over the Highlander and GM Lambda's were how it drove. All three lines of XUV's are solid performers but I just liked the CX-9.

 

[mixmasterlove]

I bought a fully loaded GT (-sat. radio), because I didn't want to get ***** later for something I could get from start. The GT had everything that I needed and wanted (-the cargo cover....PL). I also got a great deal using the s plan pricing and taking the 08' they just put on the floor.