CX-9 or not?

[Lindyrect]

Does anyone think that this looks like the CX-9? Hmm, GM copy cat. I guess because their sales are low they need to copy to bring up sale. Kinda like Ford did to Dodge Ram.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K4O6ilvx_Q (protest)

 

[CX9 SportOwner]

looks like lamda #4, based more on the Enclave than the Outlook/Acadia. If so, it's the best thing GM has made in 40 years. But still not a CX-9.

 

[sp535]

go with CX9

design-wise, CX9 is far better and it is made in Japan.
Most importantly, Mazda is very fun to drive.

 

[jabba]

Actually, the Chevy Traverse will supposedly have a direct injection engine, and put out 286 HP. So it might put the CX-9 to shame, performance-wise. Any word on a DI engine for the CX-9?

The Traverse will be the "affordable" Lambda platform, so it will likely start below the price of a CX-9. Probably will have a somewhat junky interior, but then again the current Lambdas aren't too bad.

As for looking like the CX-9, to me it's the Buick Enclave that looks the closest.

 

[clarko]

I reckon the CX9 is a copy of the Audi Q7, but thats not a bad thing cause its heaps cheaper over here! ($60g compared to $95g)

 

[ceric]

Reliability wise, I will take a Mazda over Audi anytime.

 

[CX9 SportOwner]

GM has proven many times that horsepower ratings alone don't make their cars perform well. Their clunky drivelines do everything to suck the HP right out of their engines.

I have no doubt that even our '07 CX-9 will smoke a 286 HP Traverse. And how come GM had to make the middle row do all that finger-pinching tumbling to acheive the same entry space that the CX-9 does by simply sliding forward? Ick

 

[clarko]

Reliability wise, I will take a Mazda over Audi anytime.

Really?

I have never owned an Audi so I can't comment, but over here they are prestige, which eqauls big bucks, as does BMW, Mercedes and Porsche. I would atleast expect reliability from them.

 

[CX9 SportOwner]

Prestige price tag. But these days, especially, there is a lot less difference between something like a CX-9 and a 'luxury' crossover, as is the case with the sedans and sport coupes. Have you noticed the recent trend of luxury manufacturers adding even more gimmicky features to try to justify the extra $$$$? (Self parking, seat belts that hand themselves to you, air flowing THROUGH the leather seats, etc. That's why resale values on those cars is zip. They depreciate a lot more when you drive them off the lot than a regular car.

The fact is, I'd take the CX-9 over any of the more pricey cars anyway, even if the cost was the same. Mazda put a LOT more thought into how things work practically, and less into "gee whiz" gimmicks that I'm too able-bodied to need anyway. It's more stylish, has more room, and will perform at least as well as them, other than possibly the Cayenne Turbo. Cheaper to own, too. Game over

 

[clarko]

After we made our purchase, we then went to the Brisbane Motor Show and checked out every SUV available in Oz, just to make sure we made the right choice. Nothing else there came close to having the same amount of room inside, and only a few had similar quality.
We did like the new Subaru Tribeca 3.6, it was very stylish inside but had no where near the room or the zoom ( 0-100kmh: Mazda = 8.2sec, Subaru = 9.8sec)
Toyotas Kluger (I think you call them Highlanders) was close to having the room and zoom but has no style inside or outside. Just boring(sleep).
Audi Q7 was impressive and looked good inside and out with similar quality and near line ball engine specs, but not worth 50% more money.

In fact, out of all the above, Mazda was the cheapest to buy(first)