New Mazda SUV...

[NewMazdaFan01]

I think you are right. I have couple of friends who have CX-9's and ask them why they won't consider buying another CX-9. The most common response is the dealer and 2nd is going from a V6 to a 4 cylinder. Mazda needs a bigger car with more HP.

I have a 2016 Signature Metallic Gray CX-9. I must be missing what others are seeing/experiencing when your friends mean when they say “more HP”. My first question is what should the SUV be able to do that it cannot do now, without taking HP, Torque , 4 cylinder, etc. into consideration. There is enough motor there to literally spin the wheels in second gear (TSC off) and go well over 100MPH without breaking a sweat. Being in central Texas I can say that we have a lots of less mountainous driving than other states but I just don’t get it. Please tell me what I’m missing?

On a side note I recently watched MotorWeek’s quarter mile and 60 MPH acceleration test of the 2017 Toyota Highlander. I believe they called both results respectable or something close to it. When they performed those same tests on the 2016 CX-9 whose numbers were both better, they referred to one of the results as lethargic of something close. Talk about a double standard and something that is clearly BS in my opinion.

This is my first Mazda and get that people don’t see Mazda as luxurious. I know people who drive various Mercedes, Acuras, Toyota Highlander, Volvo XC90, BMWs. I can honestly say that for the most part, the CX-9 Signature holds its own against any of those vehicles at similar price points. For me it comes down to bring just “a Mazda”. I could go on but won’t but do ask if you can go back to your friends and ask the simple question of what they they think vehicle should be able to do that it cannot do today. Such as need to run quarter mile in “ “ time ,etc. Not increasing any numbers just for the sake of doing so. Also please let us know what their responses are.

This is by no means an intention to be rude or discourteous. Just keep seeing these type of comments about more HP pop up with no real substance behind them.

Thank you for your time.

 

[Kaps]

I have a 2016 Signature Metallic Gray CX-9. I must be missing what others are seeing/experiencing when your friends mean when they say “more HP”. My first question is what should the SUV be able to do that it cannot do now, without taking HP, Torque , 4 cylinder, etc. into consideration. There is enough motor there to literally spin the wheels in second gear (TSC off) and go well over 100MPH without breaking a sweat. Being in central Texas I can say that we have a lots of less mountainous driving than other states but I just don’t get it. Please tell me what I’m missing?

On a side note I recently watched MotorWeek’s quarter mile and 60 MPH acceleration test of the 2017 Toyota Highlander. I believe they called both results respectable or something close to it. When they performed those same tests on the 2016 CX-9 whose numbers were both better, they referred to one of the results as lethargic of something close. Talk about a double standard and something that is clearly BS in my opinion.

This is my first Mazda and get that people don’t see Mazda as luxurious. I know people who drive various Mercedes, Acuras, Toyota Highlander, Volvo XC90, BMWs. I can honestly say that for the most part, the CX-9 Signature holds its own against any of those vehicles at similar price points. For me it comes down to bring just “a Mazda”. I could go on but won’t but do ask if you can go back to your friends and ask the simple question of what they they think vehicle should be able to do that it cannot do today. Such as need to run quarter mile in “ “ time ,etc. Not increasing any numbers just for the sake of doing so. Also please let us know what their responses are.

This is by no means an intention to be rude or discourteous. Just keep seeing these type of comments about more HP pop up with no real substance behind them.

Thank you for your time.

I will be in market for a CX-9 soon. I think it has some flaws which become serious for certain types of buyers:
Lack of a V6 is obviously one. It is considered necessary for hauling that much payload. I am not in this category and i dont believe people who test drive Cx9 will complain as well.
2nd issue is interior volume. This can be a problem for families having taller / larger members. In the sense having 1 inch extra legroom or not is make or break for few buyers.

For me CX9 and Highlander will compete. I understand my CX-9 might be a daily driver which is where Mazda's really shine. If it was only for people / cargo hauling and not a daily - a Toyota or Honda would fit better.
I am ready to give up on cargo - ready to love the 2.5T, for the driving dynamics / looks and feel.

Recently a friend got a brand new Atlas for about 32 ish. It was mid trim which stickers for 37. I told him for my money a used MDX or CX-9 were top two contenders. But the volume of Atlas is significant, it has a 2.0 T and V6 option. It has AA and Carplay but otherwise design element is not as lux as CX-9.

 

[jaypdx]

CX-5 with more power... someone mentioned a hybrid, which would be great, since the around-town mileage sucks on the current CX-5. Would be nice to see a version with sportier handling - maybe some adjustable damping to firm things up when desired. And they really have to get AA/carplay going (and generally improve the infotainment - start-up with a bluetooth phone attached is well over a minute). Oh and come up with a backup camera that doesn't get water drops all over it .

 

[Kaps]

CX-5 with more power... someone mentioned a hybrid, which would be great, since the around-town mileage sucks on the current CX-5.

Welcome to the forums.

 

[Xeler8ing]

I will be in market for a CX-9 soon. I think it has some flaws which become serious for certain types of buyers:
Lack of a V6 is obviously one. It is considered necessary for hauling that much payload. I am not in this category and i dont believe people who test drive Cx9 will complain as well.
2nd issue is interior volume. This can be a problem for families having taller / larger members. In the sense having 1 inch extra legroom or not is make or break for few buyers.

For me CX9 and Highlander will compete. I understand my CX-9 might be a daily driver which is where Mazda's really shine. If it was only for people / cargo hauling and not a daily - a Toyota or Honda would fit better.
I am ready to give up on cargo - ready to love the 2.5T, for the driving dynamics / looks and feel.

Recently a friend got a brand new Atlas for about 32 ish. It was mid trim which stickers for 37. I told him for my money a used MDX or CX-9 were top two contenders. But the volume of Atlas is significant, it has a 2.0 T and V6 option. It has AA and Carplay but otherwise design element is not as lux as CX-9.

Recent comparison was done between CX-9 and Highlander (Kluger here) and CX-9 beat it.

 

[Red MC]

I have a 2016 Signature Metallic Gray CX-9. I must be missing what others are seeing/experiencing when your friends mean when they say more HP. My first question is what should the SUV be able to do that it cannot do now, without taking HP, Torque , 4 cylinder, etc. into consideration. There is enough motor there to literally spin the wheels in second gear (TSC off) and go well over 100MPH without breaking a sweat. Being in central Texas I can say that we have a lots of less mountainous driving than other states but I just dont get it. Please tell me what Im missing?

On a side note I recently watched MotorWeeks quarter mile and 60 MPH acceleration test of the 2017 Toyota Highlander. I believe they called both results respectable or something close to it. When they performed those same tests on the 2016 CX-9 whose numbers were both better, they referred to one of the results as lethargic of something close. Talk about a double standard and something that is clearly BS in my opinion.

This is my first Mazda and get that people dont see Mazda as luxurious. I know people who drive various Mercedes, Acuras, Toyota Highlander, Volvo XC90, BMWs. I can honestly say that for the most part, the CX-9 Signature holds its own against any of those vehicles at similar price points. For me it comes down to bring just a Mazda. I could go on but wont but do ask if you can go back to your friends and ask the simple question of what they they think vehicle should be able to do that it cannot do today. Such as need to run quarter mile in time ,etc. Not increasing any numbers just for the sake of doing so. Also please let us know what their responses are.

This is by no means an intention to be rude or discourteous. Just keep seeing these type of comments about more HP pop up with no real substance behind them.

Thank you for your time.

I like the powerband of the 2.5T in the CX-9 better than its V6 competitors. The current crop of ~3.5L V6s are all tuned for top end power. They need to spin over 5000 rpm to pull ahead of Mazda's 2.5T. Below that, the 2.5T makes more power. Down at cruising RPM, it makes a lot more power.

The problem is perception, not performance. When we were shopping for a 7-passenger car earlier this year, and telling people how much we liked the CX-9, several people questioned our sanity for spending >$40k and only getting a four cylinder, as if Mazda was cheaping out. FWIW, the reason we didn't buy the CX-9 was interior space. We really wanted to make it work but too many of our hypothetical use cases would have required reconfiguring child seats, packing tetris, and/or riding in discomfort.

 

[dougal]

I have a 2016 Signature Metallic Gray CX-9. I must be missing what others are seeing/experiencing when your friends mean when they say “more HP”. My first question is what should the SUV be able to do that it cannot do now, without taking HP, Torque , 4 cylinder, etc. into consideration. There is enough motor there to literally spin the wheels in second gear (TSC off) and go well over 100MPH without breaking a sweat. Being in central Texas I can say that we have a lots of less mountainous driving than other states but I just don’t get it. Please tell me what I’m missing?

On a side note I recently watched MotorWeek’s quarter mile and 60 MPH acceleration test of the 2017 Toyota Highlander. I believe they called both results respectable or something close to it. When they performed those same tests on the 2016 CX-9 whose numbers were both better, they referred to one of the results as lethargic of something close. Talk about a double standard and something that is clearly BS in my opinion.

This is my first Mazda and get that people don’t see Mazda as luxurious. I know people who drive various Mercedes, Acuras, Toyota Highlander, Volvo XC90, BMWs. I can honestly say that for the most part, the CX-9 Signature holds its own against any of those vehicles at similar price points. For me it comes down to bring just “a Mazda”. I could go on but won’t but do ask if you can go back to your friends and ask the simple question of what they they think vehicle should be able to do that it cannot do today. Such as need to run quarter mile in “ “ time ,etc. Not increasing any numbers just for the sake of doing so. Also please let us know what their responses are.

This is by no means an intention to be rude or discourteous. Just keep seeing these type of comments about more HP pop up with no real substance behind them.

Thank you for your time.

I think you are reading too much into my statement. Yes, the CX-9 has more than enough power for most people and is fast or faster than the older model. But those guys can't stand the idea of going from a V6 to a 4 cylinder. They think they are loosing out - even if they are not. They believe they are.

Me, I love the CX-9 and recommend it to everyone but I do believe it would have sold better if it had a V6.

 

[ceric]

And, there are people who worry about reliability associated with a turbo.
Rightfully so or not, it is a concern for some customers.

 

[Monterra]

Dealer proximity/network, cargo capacity for trips, resale and some reliability concerns may keep us in the Kluger(dreadful name) for another go round. Heart wants another Mazda (for wife) head says its a bit compromised. Wife gets final say as my sanity is job #1.

 

[cyterio]

Welcome to the forums.

Slightly off topic, but my CX-5 never shows anything in the Average Fuel Economy display under the 2,3,4,5, or 6 graph. I always get the avg for the trip but I’ve never had anything show up to the left of that for the history. Is there a setting I need to change?

 

[Xeler8ing]

Slightly off topic, but my CX-5 never shows anything in the Average Fuel Economy display under the 2,3,4,5, or 6 graph. I always get the avg for the trip but I’ve never had anything show up to the left of that for the history. Is there a setting I need to change?

After you fill a new tank, make sure MZD connect is loaded on this screen before you reset the trip meter (the option in MZD that links reset trip meter automatically resets current is ticked)

 

[Unobtanium]

enter your speculation below!

https://www.autoblog.com/amp/2017/11/25/mazda-new-crossover-2021/

They need to get the CX5 up to par, first. That INCLUDES getting the promised Diesel state-side, fixing the absolutely lack-luster acceleration, and offering a pano-roof option.

 

[dougal]

I have made comments (part joking) previously about Mazda just selling CX type cars and Mazda is starting to see the same thing. At the same time, me thinks Mazda is really grasping as straws. They only have one car that sells in volume in the USA. The CX-5. That is it.

If anything, they should expand that car and do things to double or triple the sales. A CX-5 Signature with a 2.5T engine would be great. A CX-5+ with more room and an optional 3rd row would bring more people in.

 

[Monterra]

I'm all for the 2.5T and/or diesel on a sig trim halo CX-5, that's a good play..the CX-5 plus w/optional 3rd not as I think it makes more sense to re-introduce the tweener CX-7 for that role..yes semantics you could say but clearly the market is there. It needs to make better use of physical size than the 9 while not locking ppl into cargo robbing 3 rows would also be smart I think..then make the 9 more space competitive at least w/Highlander..

 

[ColoradoDriver]

I have made comments (part joking) previously about Mazda just selling CX type cars and Mazda is starting to see the same thing. At the same time, me thinks Mazda is really grasping as straws. They only have one car that sells in volume in the USA. The CX-5. That is it.

If anything, they should expand that car and do things to double or triple the sales. A CX-5 Signature with a 2.5T engine would be great. A CX-5+ with more room and an optional 3rd row would bring more people in.

I'd consider a Speed CX-5

It would have to have Gen 1-esque styling though. Gen 2 is fugly.

 

[murky]

I'm all for the 2.5T and/or diesel on a sig trim halo CX-5, that's a good play..the CX-5 plus w/optional 3rd not as I think it makes more sense to re-introduce the tweener CX-7 for that role..yes semantics you could say but clearly the market is there. It needs to make better use of physical size than the 9 while not locking ppl into cargo robbing 3 rows would also be smart I think..then make the 9 more space competitive at least w/Highlander..

The CX-7 was the same size as the CX-5

 

[Xeler8ing]

They need to get the CX5 up to par, first. That INCLUDES getting the promised Diesel state-side, fixing the absolutely lack-luster acceleration, and offering a pano-roof option.

I actually prefer regular sunroof to panoramic

 

[Xeler8ing]

It would have to have Gen 1-esque styling though. Gen 2 is fugly.

Think you need your eyes checked! (lol)

 

[ColoradoDriver]

The CX-7 was the same size as the CX-5

Interior space was actually smaller than the CX-5 wasn't it?

Think you need your eyes checked! (lol)

Hey! Leave my glasses out of it! (lol)

 

[Xeler8ing]

(rofl)