CX-90 competition

I have spent my time and I have compared videos of alex on autos and I realize that the mazda figures seem underestimated, particularly the 3rd row, it offers more space than the figures advertise. impression that each manufacturer measures in its own way
Inline 6 with rear wheel drive + a hybrid setup with a battery is not great for interior packaging.

Also it somehow has the lowest roof of the three and it the highest ground clearance.
Mazda USA shows now all specifications so you can easily compare CX-90 to CX-9. 1st and 2nd row are very similar for shoulder and hip room. Leg room is also practically the same. The biggest advantage is in the 3rd row - hip room is 9 cm wider and almost 4 cm of headroom and 2 cm more leg room comparing to CX 9. Trunk space is slightly bigger - not much bigger however - only minimal difference behind the 3 rd row (14 to 15 cubic feet) and slightly more behind the 2nd row (38 to 40 cubic feet). There is even bigger difference with all seats folded flat but this is the space I rarely use anyway.

I am not complaining because I really like my CX 9 and there is plenty of space for me in it. Actually Kia Telluride during my test drive felt almost too wide in the front seat. I had a problem to find comfortable position for my elbows. I am 6'1 and I have no problem to find space for my knees as a driver - plenty of room and head room is also not an issue in my CX 9. I agree that almost like Mazda underestimates their numbers because although it feels slightly tighter, ergonomics is much better and once you seated there is just enough room even in the 3rd row. Trunk is also much bigger than in my CX 5. I don't understand people saying that CX9 is practically the same as CX5 with added 3rd row. I was transporting recently some sofa extension parts from IKEA. Total of 4 big boxes and several smaller items and there was no way they all would fit in my CX 5. CX 9 - no problem.

The way the car drives - smooth as a butter, and the materials and finish. I have seen videos of the new Pilot and Grand Highlander - not impressed - they look cheap and actually not that practical for me - just bigger. I don't need hundreds of bottle holders - I need practical door pockets - just one example.
My 2007 CX-9 is actually big in cargo than the modern models (especially both rows folded down) . List I created for cargo area:

2007 CX-9 17.2/48.4/100.7
2023 CX-9 14.4/38.2/71.2
2023 Highlander (including Hybrid) 16.0/48.4/84.30
2023 RX Hybrid 29.6/46.2
2023 MDX 16.3/39.1/71.4
2023 GLE 33.3/74.9
2023 XC90 Recharge 15.8/41.8/85.7
2023 Santa Fe Hybrid 36.4/72.1
2023 GLS 17.4/48.7/84.7
2023 Q7 14.2/35.7/69.6

2024 Grand Highlander Max 20.6/??/98
2024 CX-90 14.9 / 40.0 / 74.2 (3-person 3rd row) ,
15.9 / 40.1 / 75.2 (2-person 3rd row)

Generally use it with 3rd row down mainly.. 2nd row down for the rare large items.

The most direct comparison appears to be Turbo S Premium Plus vs MDX Advance with Turbo S having better performance and MDX Advance having slightly better luxury items (ELS stereo, mood lighting , appears to be better comfort seats (have not sat in either of course, so just on looks) and slightly better memory/seating controls. But MDX has that nasty trackpad control.. a serious no from me and my wife on that.. plus the silly button based shifting vs real knob on CX-90.

The PHEV was outed at 37km on EV only mode - 22 miles - consistent with 21 miles seen in the reveal videos. IF Mazda/Toyota finance passes through the $7500 tax credit then PHEV may be a good option to lease (Premium Plus model in my case) , but if not, then I think the Turbo S Premium Plus has a lot better features for a bit more. PHEV with less features sux, but w/ $7500 tax credit pass through would be a great deal. If not and I have to pay more, then i6 model with all the features would be worth the extra (again would be leasing).

The MDX Type S Advance pricing and gas usage is ouch [close to my 2007 CX-9].. though MDX leasing is discounted more, will see how CX-90 deals are.

GH Max may be better for people who need more room, but not very nice looking.. Pilot going squared is popular with older Pilot fans, but again not great MPG and no hybrid on Pilot/MDX.
Can't see the handling being that great on GH Max and Pilot.. too truck like..
Meh. People who want a highlander, are going to buy a highlander. They want a specific thing. A boring, people hauling SUV that can tow their boat.
Yup. And not even really a big boat, 5000 lb limit IIRC. Actually lower than some of the midsize class like the Telluride and Pathfinder. No increase over the less than Grand Highlander.
I want a CX-5 that is PHEV, better Infotainment, higher towing capacity, look as good as CX-90 (I think the CX-60 is the worst looking recent Mazda).

I want play/pause function without going into a menu, preferably on the steering wheel.

I hope it isn't shorter than the CX-5, and don't want it much wider. A little longer is okay.

I'd like 5000lb towing capacity with brake controller integrated. It would be great if I could tow my Kubota tractor.

Want Soul Red Crystal or equivalent.

Want medium to dark interior that doesn't clash with black (dark brown with black looks terrible).