CX9 SportOwner
Member
I still wouldn't buy an MDX. The CX9 is still the best combination of performance, price, and real world function.
Last edited:
CX-9 vs. MDX
- Thread starter GEEBO
- Start date
I would buy a MDX 
However, I have 4 kids and I need a USABLE 3rd row. When it's all said and done, you do your homework and test drive all available vehicles in this segment, it's really hard not to put the CX-9 at the top of the list. If we are talking about smoothness and drivetrain feel, you can't deny the fact that the CX-9 is silky smooth and Lexus like. Factor in the current discount and incentives, it's really a no brainer.
However, I have 4 kids and I need a USABLE 3rd row. When it's all said and done, you do your homework and test drive all available vehicles in this segment, it's really hard not to put the CX-9 at the top of the list. If we are talking about smoothness and drivetrain feel, you can't deny the fact that the CX-9 is silky smooth and Lexus like. Factor in the current discount and incentives, it's really a no brainer.CX9 SportOwner
Member
I'd challenge an MDX to a curvy mountain run any day.
Honda + $10k = Acura
Honda + $10k = Acura
Mazda is alot bigger name in Canada than it is in the US. Resale is exceptional on all Mazda's here. The CX-9 has far better resale than the MDX in Canada. The Mazda 3 is the number one vehicle in the country for resale. Mazda is as highly regarded here as Honda and Toyota. The US market hasn't been as big of a success yet, but it's slowly coming along.
CX9 SportOwner
Member
...and the CX9 is really helping change the perception of Mazda here.
- :
- 2022 CX-5 Turbo
I love my CX9 for its value and proformance. However, I also have my respect for SH-AWD, which is argueably one of the best AWDs on the market. It shines at hard turns. It can pull more than 0.80g compared with 0.76-0.78g for CX9 according to auto-mag tests. Not many CUVs can pull more than 0.80g (some even claimed 0.84g). That is a number some sports sedans get. The active yaw rate control is really helping at hard turns. I give credit where it is due. However, for $10K more, I will pass.
CX9 SportOwner
Member
It MAY be technically superior, but it can't compensate for a lack of driving skills. The difference in drivers is where my confidence stems.
Be nice to see the CX9 hit that 300HP mark.
Be nice to see the CX9 hit that 300HP mark.
M
my3needsaname
Hehehe...
Make sure it isn't a sport MDX with the self dampening suspension...that thing can pull some gnarly turns.
The 04 MDX that I was very friendly with was bought for about $38-40K brand new and sold it 4 years later coming off a lease for $34K. I mean for any car that's just an amazing resale value when you only lose $1K/year but the car was immaculate. I mean there was a very tiny puncture through the leather in the back seat and it was filled with fingernail glue and smoothed out. I know that my car is only 10 months old and I could MAYBE sway the guy to give me $17K, stretching for $18K for it when I paid $23K for it.
CX9 SportOwner
Member
Sport, Tech, doesn't matter. Odd that you spend more but can't get the same performance on any MDX model.
I'll take predictable suspension over 'self dampening or adjusting' any day. Those gimmicks are for people who don't know how to handle a car, anyway, to try and keep them out of trouble.
In fact, the stability control actually almost got me into trouble once. I'd like to see an off switch for it.
I'll take predictable suspension over 'self dampening or adjusting' any day. Those gimmicks are for people who don't know how to handle a car, anyway, to try and keep them out of trouble.
In fact, the stability control actually almost got me into trouble once. I'd like to see an off switch for it.
Last edited:
and it doesn't look like origami either. i drove both, just couldn't see the 10k worth of value. the Cx9 looks great and does not try to be something it is not.
As far as tires go, should anyone put a three season tire to use in the winter? acura/mazda/ whomever, its physics not brand. wide tires are for anything but winter. Buy the winter tires and enjoy the awd, the mazda lets you kick the rear out with the throttle before the stability control kicks in, that's great engineering to the zoom-zoom ideal.
D
As far as tires go, should anyone put a three season tire to use in the winter? acura/mazda/ whomever, its physics not brand. wide tires are for anything but winter. Buy the winter tires and enjoy the awd, the mazda lets you kick the rear out with the throttle before the stability control kicks in, that's great engineering to the zoom-zoom ideal.
D
CX9 SportOwner
Member
He said origami... (rei)
Good point about the tires. Wider tires are terrible for winter. They plow and act like skis on ice. TOO wide will actually decrease traction on dry pavement by distributing the weight over a larger area, reducing contact pressure.
Vehicles like the X5 use premium gas and wider tires to fudge their performance figures, but that makes them less practical for normal use.
When I replaced my tires I got a much better tire but kept the size the same. What a difference.
Good point about the tires. Wider tires are terrible for winter. They plow and act like skis on ice. TOO wide will actually decrease traction on dry pavement by distributing the weight over a larger area, reducing contact pressure.
Vehicles like the X5 use premium gas and wider tires to fudge their performance figures, but that makes them less practical for normal use.
When I replaced my tires I got a much better tire but kept the size the same. What a difference.
- :
- 2022 CX-5 Turbo
The fact that MDX can pull serious g at turns is not because of the suspension.
If you look into the SH-AWD and study its merits, you will see that the AWD actually rotates the vehicle (by driving the outer rear wheels more up to 5-10% rotation) to change yaw rate. As a result, it does not fully rely on the passive tire friction to change direction. Everything else being equal, SH-AWD would give you an edge over other AWD. This SH-AWD does not shine on snow or ice. It shines on dry pavement at hard turn.
However, putting SH-AWD on CUVs does not make much sense to me. No one will take MDX and race against any sports sedan. MDX is gonna lose every time. Any BMW can pull AT LEAST 0.84g. Acura should have revive the NSX and put SH-AWD on it. That would make so much more sense to me.
Drivers definitively make big difference. No doubt about that.
I agree. Wider tires are bad for snow. If I have to put snow tires on my CX9, I would probably go for 225 or 235 instead of 245. Toyota put 225 on all Highlanders to save fuel and perform better on snow. Dry pavement performance is compromised.
If you look into the SH-AWD and study its merits, you will see that the AWD actually rotates the vehicle (by driving the outer rear wheels more up to 5-10% rotation) to change yaw rate. As a result, it does not fully rely on the passive tire friction to change direction. Everything else being equal, SH-AWD would give you an edge over other AWD. This SH-AWD does not shine on snow or ice. It shines on dry pavement at hard turn.
However, putting SH-AWD on CUVs does not make much sense to me. No one will take MDX and race against any sports sedan. MDX is gonna lose every time. Any BMW can pull AT LEAST 0.84g. Acura should have revive the NSX and put SH-AWD on it. That would make so much more sense to me.
Drivers definitively make big difference. No doubt about that.
I agree. Wider tires are bad for snow. If I have to put snow tires on my CX9, I would probably go for 225 or 235 instead of 245. Toyota put 225 on all Highlanders to save fuel and perform better on snow. Dry pavement performance is compromised.
Last edited:
CX9 SportOwner
Member
I'm going to try my Paradas first, and see how they do. I can't wait for winter.
M
my3needsaname
I'm just saying the Sport MDX that comes standard with self dampening suspension and SH-AWD is much nicer. It's not that the suspension self dampens all the time, there's a button right by the shifter that is a Sport/Comfort mode and in comfort it's regular 'ol suspension that's got a really nice ride and in the sport mode it self dampens and is amazingly good at it combined with the SH-AWD and you've got the best ride and handling in any crossover out there.
BMW's are s*** so they don't count to me. You can't get a resale, quality, or intuity in a BMW that you can get in an Acura. Not to mention BMW's are $50K overpriced for what you get.
Just wanted to add my 2 cents here. We wer shopping for a 3-row crossover type vehicle last fall. We settled on the CX9 mainly on price (at the time, $10k off MSRP) and quality.
For us it was the CX9 vs the Enclave vs the MDX. In the process we ruled out
-- Pilot (no headroom for me; all leather models come with headroom-robbing sunroof);
-- Highlander (crummy 3rd row, only had a shot with us as a hybrid but at the time gas was $4 a gallon and hybrids were selling for MSRP or more with 6 month waiting list);
-- X5 (drove the best out of all of them but tiny 3rd row and not enough cargo room and too pricey);
-- XC90 (best engine, with the V8, but interior wasn't as convenient and price was staggering);
-- Benz GL-class and R-class diesels (mpg's were amazing, loved the torque and Benzi-ness, but ultimately just as nice on the inside as a CX9 for high $50k's).
-- Flex (I loved the car, but my spouse hated the styling and they were into 40k equipped they we wanted and at the time dealers weren't dealing much on them)
We ruled out the MDX mostly on functionality -- only one side of the 2nd row flips forward to access the rear, clipping car seats into the latches was nigh impossible because they were located so far down in the seat. Cargo room with all 3 rows up was smaller. We loved the ride/handling on the MDX -- frankly, it was better and less jarring than the CX9 (we have to GT with 20" wheels). I also loved all the technology; while the CX9 has it too, Acura's seems more complete and useful. I also loved the extra power, which was noticeable over the CX9, and the really comfortable leather seats (CX9's leather is a little tough, in the BMW mold). The Acura dealer wass 30 minutes away; the Mazda dealer is either 20 minutes from our house or 10 minutes from work. Finally, the straw that broke the camels' back with the MDX wasnt anything problematic with the MDX itself but was the price on CX9. The MDX offered incrementally more but at a price that was 7-8k more than the CX9 (at the time, MDX's were going for 5-7 k less than MSRP; CX9's enjoy MSRP price advantage already and we were offered ours at about 10k less than MSRP).
The Enclave was incredibly nice and had the option of 2nd row captain's chairs, which was a terrific theoretical utility (except that getting a carseat into one of them proved difficult), Massive interior space, dead quiet, nice composed (but softish) ride. Enough power, but hampered by lame transmission programming. High 40's MSRP was being discounted to the low 40's, but why go for that car when you get an equally nice, and much nicer to drive, CX9?
No need for anyone to slag the MDX -- really nice car, with tons of useful technology and almost perfectly executed from a driver standpoint. If you need the 3rd row on a regular basis, though, and you need come cargo capacity, the MDX falls down a little compared to the CX9.
Which is why we went CX9. And so far, we love the car.
For us it was the CX9 vs the Enclave vs the MDX. In the process we ruled out
-- Pilot (no headroom for me; all leather models come with headroom-robbing sunroof);
-- Highlander (crummy 3rd row, only had a shot with us as a hybrid but at the time gas was $4 a gallon and hybrids were selling for MSRP or more with 6 month waiting list);
-- X5 (drove the best out of all of them but tiny 3rd row and not enough cargo room and too pricey);
-- XC90 (best engine, with the V8, but interior wasn't as convenient and price was staggering);
-- Benz GL-class and R-class diesels (mpg's were amazing, loved the torque and Benzi-ness, but ultimately just as nice on the inside as a CX9 for high $50k's).
-- Flex (I loved the car, but my spouse hated the styling and they were into 40k equipped they we wanted and at the time dealers weren't dealing much on them)
We ruled out the MDX mostly on functionality -- only one side of the 2nd row flips forward to access the rear, clipping car seats into the latches was nigh impossible because they were located so far down in the seat. Cargo room with all 3 rows up was smaller. We loved the ride/handling on the MDX -- frankly, it was better and less jarring than the CX9 (we have to GT with 20" wheels). I also loved all the technology; while the CX9 has it too, Acura's seems more complete and useful. I also loved the extra power, which was noticeable over the CX9, and the really comfortable leather seats (CX9's leather is a little tough, in the BMW mold). The Acura dealer wass 30 minutes away; the Mazda dealer is either 20 minutes from our house or 10 minutes from work. Finally, the straw that broke the camels' back with the MDX wasnt anything problematic with the MDX itself but was the price on CX9. The MDX offered incrementally more but at a price that was 7-8k more than the CX9 (at the time, MDX's were going for 5-7 k less than MSRP; CX9's enjoy MSRP price advantage already and we were offered ours at about 10k less than MSRP).
The Enclave was incredibly nice and had the option of 2nd row captain's chairs, which was a terrific theoretical utility (except that getting a carseat into one of them proved difficult), Massive interior space, dead quiet, nice composed (but softish) ride. Enough power, but hampered by lame transmission programming. High 40's MSRP was being discounted to the low 40's, but why go for that car when you get an equally nice, and much nicer to drive, CX9?
No need for anyone to slag the MDX -- really nice car, with tons of useful technology and almost perfectly executed from a driver standpoint. If you need the 3rd row on a regular basis, though, and you need come cargo capacity, the MDX falls down a little compared to the CX9.
Which is why we went CX9. And so far, we love the car.
I know these get good winter ratings, but I'm confused as to why, based on your earlier post saying "Wider tires are terrible for winter. . . . When I replaced my tires I got a much better tire but kept the size the same."
If the Paradas are just as wide as the Duelers, how come they are supposed to perform so much better in snow?
CX9 SportOwner
Member
Not snow, ICE. Although, they should do better in snow too. The Duelers don't stink on ice because of their width, they do so because they have a lousy tread design.
So far the Paradas are superior in every way. Noise, cornering, ride comfort, and stopping. Where the Duelers would let go under hard braking and never regain grip, you can feel the Paradas regrab instantly if they happen to lose their grip on something loose, or when the brakes pulse.
So far the Paradas are superior in every way. Noise, cornering, ride comfort, and stopping. Where the Duelers would let go under hard braking and never regain grip, you can feel the Paradas regrab instantly if they happen to lose their grip on something loose, or when the brakes pulse.
Similar Threads and Articles
New Threads and Articles
-
-
New 2025 CX-5 with highway vibration problem; tires?- By DarkskiesIL
- Replies: 9
-