help with huge problem! lead foot!
- Thread starter table5511
- Start date
I must disagree...
52 more lbs of torque than the CX-9 likely cannot much overcome the the additional 1,000 lbs of curb weight the Q7 has over the CX-9.
The Edmunds road test revealed the 2011 Q7-S line to be good for 7.7 seconds 0-60. CX-9 is rated at 7.9 0-60. CX-9 1/4 mile 15.9, Q7-S 15.7. The Q7-S 3.0T has a .2 second lead in both the 0-60 and the 1/4 mile.
AND, these figures are with the CX-9 using regular unleaded, while the Q7-s 3.0T is using premium unleaded.
I can't exactly say this is "blowing the CX-9 away."
So if we were to compare apples to apples and put premium gasoline in the CX-9 and say, oh lets put a supercharger on the CX-9 and now you have 427hp @ 344lb of torque @ 8 psi... I wonder what the roadtest comparisons would reveal?
Now for arguements sake, lets eliminate that idea of putting a supercharger in the CX-9. Lets try that roadtest again using Premium unleaded in BOTH vehicles.
I could only imagine that they are going to score about the same numbers, as the CX-9 only needs .2 in the 0-60 and the 1/4 mile to make up the difference.
Q7-S Road Test: http://www.edmunds.com/audi/q7/2011/road-test-specs.html
CX-9 Road Test: http://www.edmunds.com/mazda/cx-9/2011/road-test-specs.html
OUCH!!
52 more lbs of torque than the CX-9 likely cannot much overcome the the additional 1,000 lbs of curb weight the Q7 has over the CX-9.
The Edmunds road test revealed the 2011 Q7-S line to be good for 7.7 seconds 0-60. CX-9 is rated at 7.9 0-60. CX-9 1/4 mile 15.9, Q7-S 15.7. The Q7-S 3.0T has a .2 second lead in both the 0-60 and the 1/4 mile.
AND, these figures are with the CX-9 using regular unleaded, while the Q7-s 3.0T is using premium unleaded.
I can't exactly say this is "blowing the CX-9 away."
So if we were to compare apples to apples and put premium gasoline in the CX-9 and say, oh lets put a supercharger on the CX-9 and now you have 427hp @ 344lb of torque @ 8 psi... I wonder what the roadtest comparisons would reveal?
Now for arguements sake, lets eliminate that idea of putting a supercharger in the CX-9. Lets try that roadtest again using Premium unleaded in BOTH vehicles.
I could only imagine that they are going to score about the same numbers, as the CX-9 only needs .2 in the 0-60 and the 1/4 mile to make up the difference.
Q7-S Road Test: http://www.edmunds.com/audi/q7/2011/road-test-specs.html
CX-9 Road Test: http://www.edmunds.com/mazda/cx-9/2011/road-test-specs.html
OUCH!!
First let me make it clear I was not bashing the CX-9--just having fun. I truly enjoyed my CX-9, think it's a great vehicle, and highly recommend it to friends, family, coworkers, and at other car forums.
The Edmund's 0-60 time you quote is for the Q7 Premium, not S-Line. The S-Line has 333HP.
Car and Driver says 2011 Q7 S-Line 0-60 in 6.6 seconds, 1/4 mile 15.0 sec @ 94.
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezf...lication/40e49060868440d8503ac2568592dfbc.pdf
0-60 Times says 6.8 seconds
http://www.zeroto60times.com/Audi-0-60-mph-Times.html
Audi says 6.9 seconds
http://models.audiusa.com/q7/detailed-specifications
I've seen other sites list it at 6.5 seconds, and none higher than 6.9 seconds.
The Edmund's 0-60 time you quote is for the Q7 Premium, not S-Line. The S-Line has 333HP.
Car and Driver says 2011 Q7 S-Line 0-60 in 6.6 seconds, 1/4 mile 15.0 sec @ 94.
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezf...lication/40e49060868440d8503ac2568592dfbc.pdf
0-60 Times says 6.8 seconds
http://www.zeroto60times.com/Audi-0-60-mph-Times.html
Audi says 6.9 seconds
http://models.audiusa.com/q7/detailed-specifications
I've seen other sites list it at 6.5 seconds, and none higher than 6.9 seconds.
Hey, I see you have the Nitto NT850 tires. I started a thread on those.
http://www.mazdas247.com/forum/show...bility-For-CX-9-Nitto-850-CUV&highlight=nitto
I believe you are one of a few that runs them.
Last edited:
First let me make it clear I was not bashing the CX-9--just having fun. I truly enjoyed my CX-9, think it's a great vehicle, and highly recommend it to friends, family, coworkers, and at other car forums.
The Edmund's 0-60 time you quote is for the Q7 Premium, not S-Line. The S-Line has 333HP.
Car and Driver says 2011 Q7 S-Line 0-60 in 6.6 seconds, 1/4 mile 15.0 sec @ 94.
http://www.caranddriver.com/var/ezf...lication/40e49060868440d8503ac2568592dfbc.pdf
0-60 Times says 6.8 seconds
http://www.zeroto60times.com/Audi-0-60-mph-Times.html
Audi says 6.9 seconds
http://models.audiusa.com/q7/detailed-specifications
I've seen other sites list it at 6.5 seconds, and none higher than 6.9 seconds.
Using premium and a K and H filter in the 2010 CX-9 improves it performance a bit. Enough to be quite noticeable.
- :
- 2022 CX-5 Turbo
Premum fuel will actually slow down the vehicles that are not designed for premium fuel (though
one might not be able to feel the difference).
Premium fuel has less energy per volume than regular unlead 87.
Premium 91 reduces knocking, therefore, allowing higher compression, thus more torque per ignition.
Using 91 in CX9 will not give you more torque unless your CX9 engine has knocking issue already.
In that case, I would try 89 first.
one might not be able to feel the difference).
Premium fuel has less energy per volume than regular unlead 87.
Premium 91 reduces knocking, therefore, allowing higher compression, thus more torque per ignition.
Using 91 in CX9 will not give you more torque unless your CX9 engine has knocking issue already.
In that case, I would try 89 first.
Wisconsin Proud
Member
K&H? Is that a new brand??
shodanusmc
Member
The CX-9 is not a spped machine. You want that, wait until 2012 and get a Jeep SRT with the new 6.4 Liter engine. I had a 2007 Jeep SRT, and when they said 0-60 in less than 5 secondswet or dry out, they were not kidding. It cost back then about 5K more than my new CX-9 GT
Which is why aircarft use higher octane fuel?????????????????????????????? oh and funny cars. Ceric, your arguement holds no weight. Higher octane fuel leads to detination at higher TDC rather than lower. Pre-detination causes the knocking. Designed for lower octane does not mean reduced performance at higher octane.
You missed the part where he said "vehicles that are not designed for premium fuel." Unless the ECU can advance the ignition timing enough to take advantage of the higher octane fuel, you will see no benefit. Since Mazda's power specs are generated with regular unleaded, I'd assume the tune is set up for regular.
If the ECU could take advantage of premium gas, Mazda would no doubt advertise this fact (for example, see the Hyundai Genesis Sedan V8).
