Consumer Reports finally mentions the Cx9

[jlanger]

go to 19:50

Pretty much sums up what it is. Somewhat ancient, fun to drive, reliable but bad mileage and not the most crash worthy SUV out there anymore.

 

[tex2670]

go to 19:50

Pretty much sums up what it is. Somewhat ancient, fun to drive, reliable but bad mileage and not the most crash worthy SUV out there anymore.

Bad link? I got nothing?

 

[jlanger]

 

[Brucie66]

Hate the mpg bashing my 9 gets...if you are easy on the throttle and actually use the manual mode in city driving the mpg is as good as ANYTHING else in this class! Driving dynamics as good as BMW for 1/2 price.. can't wait for updated model!

 

[TTubrag]

It's a shame then that the new CX-9 is tipped to come fitted with a 2.5 litre turbo engine. Hope you don't have to rev the guts out of the thing to get it to perform...

 

[LH451]

It's a shame then that the new CX-9 is tipped to come fitted with a 2.5 litre turbo engine. Hope you don't have to rev the guts out of the thing to get it to perform...

Considering how new turbo engines are nowadays, there should be a good deal of low end torque but the question is, will it be able to successfully haul a CX-9 around--even if its been Skyactiv'd and is lighter--without constantly digging into the turbo? I much prefer a V-6 over a turbo four just because its much smoother and its easier to keep it from getting overly stressed, and there's no turbo there to suck down a lot more fuel than necessary when accelerating. One's driving style is going to be a big factor for sure, but from what I've gathered from my car shopping when I bought my '14 3 S is that some of these turbo engines--especially the sub 2.0-liter ones don't really deliver in the real world (case and point Hyundai/Kia, Ford Ecoboost, Mini(just got downgraded), Nissan(the Juke), and GM). The only turbo motors that seem to do ok are the brands that have had them awhile like VW and Audi.

 

[tex2670]

Considering how new turbo engines are nowadays, there should be a good deal of low end torque but the question is, will it be able to successfully haul a CX-9 around--even if its been Skyactiv'd and is lighter--without constantly digging into the turbo? I much prefer a V-6 over a turbo four just because its much smoother and its easier to keep it from getting overly stressed, and there's no turbo there to suck down a lot more fuel than necessary when accelerating. One's driving style is going to be a big factor for sure, but from what I've gathered from my car shopping when I bought my '14 3 S is that some of these turbo engines--especially the sub 2.0-liter ones don't really deliver in the real world (case and point Hyundai/Kia, Ford Ecoboost, Mini(just got downgraded), Nissan(the Juke), and GM). The only turbo motors that seem to do ok are the brands that have had them awhile like VW and Audi.

I did read a pretty good review of the new Kia 2.4T Sorrento, which said it had plenty of power; however, the CX-9 is about a foot longer, and that version of the Sorrento didn't have a 3rd row.

 

[LH451]

The 2016 Sorento's is a 2.0T, and it seems pretty good so far, haven't had a chance to try it out yet but the reviews prefer it over the V-6 because its torque comes on right away. It's the nice thing about turbo-4s. The fact that that the turbo-4s that are actually doing fine mpg wise are 2.0-liters or larger might be proof that sub-2.0-liter turbo-4s are best kept to small cars and cars that aren't heavy and ones that are aerodynamic. If Mazda does go turbo-4, using the 2.5-liter as the basis might be the right way to go, though, it still wouldn't be a surprise if they go 2.5T or V-6. Seems like both are pretty viable for the CX-9, and I would like to see it in a Mazda6 too, I'd so trade my 3 in for a Mazda6 with either engine.

 

[IslandTractor]

Hate the mpg bashing my 9 gets...if you are easy on the throttle and actually use the manual mode in city driving the mpg is as good as ANYTHING else in this class! Driving dynamics as good as BMW for 1/2 price.. can't wait for updated model!

I'd say the mpg bashing is deserved. That is the main weakness of the vehicle IMO. It doesn't even get the same mpg as a minivan and has much less room. Don't get me wrong, I loved my CX9 but it wasn't a fuel efficient vehicle. I don't see what playing with manual mode in the city would do to help. Over the five years I owned mine, city mpg was in the 15-16 range consistently except worse in winter and highway cruising at 65 maxed out at about 22mpg. Not stellar unless you are using a Suburban as the comparator.

 

[Scott91370]

Yeah, the MPG bashing is well deserved. We took a trip to Colorado three months after we bought ours, it had about 6000 miles on it at the time. Got 23-24, we were ok with that since it met the windows sticker. Then last year for Thanksgiving we did the same trip but on the way up we had a strong head wind and struggled to get 17. Quite embarrassing.

 

[Brucie66]

Don't know how u guys drive..... I do a lot of highway cruising for my sales job. Last week was 25.5 between the Poconos to Philly and NYC! My minivan best was 26 in the same area!

 

[tex2670]

I'd say the mpg bashing is deserved. That is the main weakness of the vehicle IMO. It doesn't even get the same mpg as a minivan and has much less room. Don't get me wrong, I loved my CX9 but it wasn't a fuel efficient vehicle. I don't see what playing with manual mode in the city would do to help. Over the five years I owned mine, city mpg was in the 15-16 range consistently except worse in winter and highway cruising at 65 maxed out at about 22mpg. Not stellar unless you are using a Suburban as the comparator.

An SUV is unlikely to get as good MPG as a minivan, especially when it has AWD. On my list trip of all highway and open road miles, I got 20 mpg. I knew this going it, though, so I can't bash Mazda. The next version with Skyactive should rectify this.

 

[tex2670]

Don't know how u guys drive..... I do a lot of highway cruising for my sales job. Last week was 25.5 between the Poconos to Philly and NYC! My minivan best was 26 in the same area!

Philly suburbs to Greely PA and back 2 weeks ago--20.1 mpg. (ugh)