CX-9 vs Outback?

:
19 CX-5 Signature
Wife has a 19 CX5 Signature and I love it. It's a blast.

Looking to replace my Ford Edge (yuck) and drove a 20 CX9 and a 20 Outback. I really liked both cars. Salespeople are confused why I'm comparing these two (different segment) cars but for me it's about interior space. It felt like the Outback was just as big inside as the Mazda. I also am partial to both brands. I owned an 06 Outback for many years and it was an awesome, very versatile car for me and I mentioned above how much I like our CX5.

Are these correct for the 9 cargo floor?
48" from the back of the 2nd row seat to the liftgate?
40" inside wheel well to opposite wheel well?
Anyone know floor to ceiling measurement?


Just throwing it out there in case anyone has any relevant information or experience.
 
Last edited:
The Outback is not as big as the CX-9 inside, I assure you. It may "feel" bigger than it is, even look similar to CX-9 on paper, but in day to day, practical terms, it is not. I went through this comparison years ago. I have 3 little kids and there is no way for me to fit them comfortably in the Outback, especially if I have to fit all of their little stuff (toys/sports gear). Putting them all 3 next to each other on the second-row seat, in the Mazda is very possible and I do it all the time. In the Outback - it's a real challenge. I actually took a tape measure and measured the space between the rear doors to see how wide the 2nd-row seat is. The CX-9 has one of the widest 2nd row seat space in its class (door to door). Also, 3rd-row seat in the CX-9 is not huge, but it is certainly useful for kids. It is not too claustrophobic and it's relatively easy to get to. The Outback will not offer the same.

If you care about interior space and you like Subaru, why not consider the Ascent?
 
I went out and did some measurements on my 2018.

Measuring right at the cargo floor, the depth, or distance from the 2nd row seat back to it's shortest points (left or right side, by the cubby holes) is about 45". 2nd row seat back to it's longest point (center) is about 50". Distance between wheel wells/3rd row armrests, or width, is about 40" as mentioned. Floor to ceiling height at it's lowest point (the opening) is about 29".

Some important notes:
  • 2018 models did not have captain's chairs as an option, so I'm not sure if having captain's chairs affects the depth measurement.
  • My 2nd row seats were adjusted as far back as possible when I took the measurements. It's possible to gain a few more inches of depth by sliding the 2nd row forward a bit.
  • I have the OEM cargo mat installed. Without the mat, you might gain an extra .25" of height.
  • Again, depth measurements were taken from the cargo floor. You may want to keep the seat back angle of the 2nd row and the sloped rear windshield in mind when considering usable cargo space.
 
I have a 2016 CX9 GT and 2016 Outback Limited. The CX9 is quite a bit roomier. I’ve been very impressed and happy with the Mazda and it is my favorite. I get just a little better, not much, fuel economy in the outback; but I can’t believe how good of MPG I get out of the Mazda. As far as engine power and performance, the outback is slow and boring while the Mazda is powerful and fun to drive....both are 2.5L, obviously one with a turbo and one without. The difference is stark. I like both cars but I love the Mazda.
 
To add more details, it's just my wife, our lab, and me. My kids are grown.

As for the Subaru Ascent idea, I hate the look of it - looks very minivan to me.

Thanks, all.
 
looks very minivan to me.

If I'm being honest, part of the reason why I opted for the CX-9 was how much it doesn't look like your typical SUV. The sloping roofline and rear windshield do affect cargo room - I bought a large 130 gallon aquarium once and transported it in the back of the CX-9, but I had to move the driver's side forward a little bit because the top of the aquarium would have made contact with the rear windshield if I didn't. But I'm okay with making small sacrifices like that because I love the look of my car.
 
Cubic ft in back of mazda is about the same as a crv, so don't go putting to much faith in the space back there. Wouldn't surprise me if the actual cubic ft in the outback wasn't too far off the cx9.

And like sm1ke said, you know how your cx5 has the hatch which angles in toward the front of car, kind of a fastback look? Same deal with cx9, but more. So depending what you put back there, you run out of space in the upper half of the cargo area fast. If moving a chest of drawers, the neighbor with a Pilot is your best friend.

Low lying stuff, like duffel bags, then you're good to go.
 
If I'm being honest, part of the reason why I opted for the CX-9 was how much it doesn't look like your typical SUV.

I find all Subarus to be a bit frumpy looking. So much glass...big windows, which I assume give them great visibility, but the look is just top heavy. Esp the forester and outback.

The cx9 almost has gunslit windows. Great look. When I drive my crv, i feel on display there's so much window. Even with tint. Fishbowl. Not a fan.

Now if visibility is concern, points for outback. And it would be much better in city driving. And snow (not to start that debate again... but OP you can search AWD performance if that is a concern).

And it's long. OP, ensure you can park it wherever it needs to park.
 
Both nice cars.

Outback is so much cheaper. if I didn't have the need for a 3rd row, I would have gotten an outback in a Ny minute.

But, if you have the money or need 3rd row, get the CX9. It's a more enjoyable car than Outback.
 
Back