It was ~5" longer but whatever point is it needs to be a bit bigger than gen1 CX7..
New Mazda SUV...
- Thread starter banjos-n-beer
- Start date
It was ~5" longer but whatever point is it needs to be a bit bigger than gen1 CX7..
Mazda already make this, I believe they call it the CX-9. (cabpatch)
- :
- 2021 CX-9 Sig
- :
- 2021 CX-5 GT
I know, but nobody is buying it!
But really, a car that has a little 3rd row jump seat, like the rogue could sell some more. The main point is that Mazda has only 1 car that sells well in the USA. The CX-5. They should exploit that in some way.
I know, but nobody is buying it!
Probably due to being ignorant and or clueless.
Sells a decent amount here though.
Lackluster acceleration? I have no issues. As for the panoramic roof, it’s just a fad. The regular moonroof is just fine. Bought that Lexus yet?
I'm going to go against the grain and suggest car manufacturers stop stuffing a third row seat into an SUV that should only have 2 rows.
So many 3 row SUV's out there have cramped second and third row seats not meant for normal adults.
How many people really need 3 anyway?
If you really need three rows of seating, buy a minivan.
Example: I remember when the Pathfinder remodeled in 2005, and they added a third row, but forgot to make the damn thing bigger.
Horrible results. (My 2002 Pathy is a much better vehicle.)
I'd much rather see an enlarged CX-5 with roomier two row seating, than a stretched version with cramped seating and no storage room.
Even better, offer the consumer a choice of seat layout.
Imagine a CX-9 with only two rows of seats. Awesome.
Yeah but its a bit small for similar $ with worse resale than Highlander while getting minimally better FE. Its the one you want but HL is the one you need and its a need type category. I like it will strongly consider it but its a tough comp.
It's worse resale because of industry's perception. It does have better FE than Highlander
The third row of the Highlander/Kluger is even tighter than the CX-9, with less legroom and headroom. I'm 70 inches tall and I could sit in the third row of the CX-9, albeit in a slouched position to keep my head off the roof, and with the second row seat moved forward a few inches. I wouldn't say it was comfortable, but I'd be OK riding back there for an hour long trip. In order to sit in the third row of the Highlander, I had to move the second row seat way forward, which in turn required moving the front row several inches forward to fit someone in the second row. Also, I couldn't slouch enough to keep my head off the roof in the Highlander without tilting it over to the side.
On the other hand, the Highlander just feels larger inside. For some strange reason, the upper trims of the CX-9 have a black headliner. That black headliner, combined with the small windows and dark leather seating surfaces, made the CX-9 GT and Signature feel claustrophobic in the second row and especially the third row. Also, in the upper trims of the Highlander, you can get captains chairs in the second row, which makes third row access easier in some circumstances.
With the third row stowed, the Highlander is marginally better than the CX-9 for carrying cargo. Although on paper it's only slightly bigger, it seemed to have a lower load floor and the cargo area was more square and could fit taller items. But it's not a big difference.
The one thing I liked about the Highlander was the cockpit. I test drove a Limited Platinum with the saddle tan leather and I thought it matched the CX-9 Signature in terms of materials quality but it was more functional, more cleanly designed, more aesthetically pleasing to my eye, and it felt more spacious. The seating position in the Highlander is more upright, and you have better visibility, and more room to move around on a long drive. The CX-9 was comparatively tank-like.
The CX-9 may have slightly better fuel economy, but the difference is small enough (1 MPG) that I doubt anyone is making a decision on that basis. In terms of driving though, the Highlander drives like a sponge with soft suspension, numb handling, and sluggish transmission response. Not surprisingly, the CX-9 was much more enjoyable to drive and that's why my wife and I wanted it.
On the other hand, the Highlander just feels larger inside. For some strange reason, the upper trims of the CX-9 have a black headliner. That black headliner, combined with the small windows and dark leather seating surfaces, made the CX-9 GT and Signature feel claustrophobic in the second row and especially the third row. Also, in the upper trims of the Highlander, you can get captains chairs in the second row, which makes third row access easier in some circumstances.
With the third row stowed, the Highlander is marginally better than the CX-9 for carrying cargo. Although on paper it's only slightly bigger, it seemed to have a lower load floor and the cargo area was more square and could fit taller items. But it's not a big difference.
The one thing I liked about the Highlander was the cockpit. I test drove a Limited Platinum with the saddle tan leather and I thought it matched the CX-9 Signature in terms of materials quality but it was more functional, more cleanly designed, more aesthetically pleasing to my eye, and it felt more spacious. The seating position in the Highlander is more upright, and you have better visibility, and more room to move around on a long drive. The CX-9 was comparatively tank-like.
The CX-9 may have slightly better fuel economy, but the difference is small enough (1 MPG) that I doubt anyone is making a decision on that basis. In terms of driving though, the Highlander drives like a sponge with soft suspension, numb handling, and sluggish transmission response. Not surprisingly, the CX-9 was much more enjoyable to drive and that's why my wife and I wanted it.
Agreed on the 3rd row being better in CX9 but we hardly use it anyway and just seems like I won't be able to jam as much crap in it when the need presents- at least a few times in summer..
Curious to know what a Subie owner thinks about the new Ascent that debuted last night in LA? Looks a little Piloty (rear quarter) but seems to be right sized...turbo DI 4 260/277
Curious to know what a Subie owner thinks about the new Ascent that debuted last night in LA? Looks a little Piloty (rear quarter) but seems to be right sized...turbo DI 4 260/277
I have to disagree with this. My wife and I test drove a new highlander just before we bought our CX-9. Per my wife "The highlander feels cheap, and underpowered and those 3rd row seats are horrible", she disliked everything about that car except for the fact that it was a toyota. I feel very similar about it, to me it felt very heavy when cornering (too much body roll), the V6 didn't ever really "wake up", even at redline. The 3rd row seats were so thin, they felt like a childs toy. And the styling was about as bland as styling can get. There were some 7pass cars that we drove that rivaled the CX-9, the Highlander was not even in the running.
It is true that the resale is likely going to be much better (unknown as the resale values on the 2018 aren't in yet) but, for me, that's not a reason to buy a car.
Not sure exactly which comment you're disagreeing with..but I haven't driven the refresh with di and the 8 speed but Im surprised you thought it lacked power. Handling has gotten much better with better tires...though it clearly lags in that dept. If resale doesn't matter go for the Q7 bc that's basically saying $ is no object..may as well treat yourself- tick that 5k B&O stereo box while you're at it!!
Re: 3rd row yeah it totally sucks but it ain't like the 9 is a treat either..just a little less bad...
Re: 3rd row yeah it totally sucks but it ain't like the 9 is a treat either..just a little less bad...
Last edited:
- :
- 2014 QX70 AWD
While visiting my brother in Virginia, I got to spend some time in the 3rd row of their newish XC90. It was tolerable for an hour's drive, and my head was millimeters from touching the ceiling. I'm 5'8".
That was 5 adults, and 2 kids in car seats. I did notice the engine seemed to have some new noisy racket though.... but i didn't bother bringing it up. I'd asked my SIL if she still liked it. She said it was okay, but still regretted not getting an Audi/Benz/BMW.
That was 5 adults, and 2 kids in car seats. I did notice the engine seemed to have some new noisy racket though.... but i didn't bother bringing it up. I'd asked my SIL if she still liked it. She said it was okay, but still regretted not getting an Audi/Benz/BMW.
There was a comparison done recently between Santa Fa, CX-9 & Kluger (Highlander).
Have a read of the article below, quite a few negatives for the Kluger:
Hyundai Santa Fe v Mazda CX-9 v Toyota Kluger 2017 Comparison
Have a read of the article below, quite a few negatives for the Kluger:
Hyundai Santa Fe v Mazda CX-9 v Toyota Kluger 2017 Comparison
Well, that just isn't true. The 3 sells pretty close to the CX-5. Looks like the 3 is down a little this year as its due for an update soon while class competitors have recent refreshes.
http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/mazda/mazda3/
http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/mazda/mazda-cx-5/
- :
- 2021 CX-9 Sig
- :
- 2021 CX-5 GT
They sold 4,000 Mazda 3's and over 10,000 CX-5s last month. How is that pretty close?
The Mazda 3 and Mazda 6 sales have been dropping by every month and they will only sell ~70,000 Mazda 3's this year. Car sales in the USA are crashing.
Last edited:
I think this is what a lot of Subaru owners have been asking for, a Subaru they can move up to when their family outgrows the Outback or Forester. It looks to be about the same size as the Pilot, with a third row that's usable for adults. Basically, a thinly disguised AWD minivan. But with that engine, and CVT, and long travel suspension, I think it's going to be slow and soft, with lots of body roll, and not at all fun to drive. Subaru also seems to be continuing their trend of cluttered interior design.
I don't think I'd buy another Subaru. I'm only driving one now because it was my wife's car until 6 months ago when we needed to get a 7-seater. Ours is a nice practical car, superb in the snow, comfortable on trips, and has decent passing power when you floor it. But it's awfully boring to drive, gets poor mileage, and has been expensive to own. I can't wait to replace it actually.
^^Thanks..yeah I think it will probably be pretty boring/boaty but per MT they claim: 'benchmarking the Pathfinder’s size and seating, the CX-9’s dynamics, the Highlander’s packaging, and the Explorer’s appeal.' Which sounds good but I think wife is equating this to her Subaru experience with her 06 For XT manual that actually was actually pretty entertaining drive- this is obviously a different beast but if they mostly succeed on distilling the 9s dynamics w/Toyota's packaging..I think they may be on to something.
Another MT excerpt:
The flat-four is mounted low in the structure, giving the crossover a lower center of gravity. On our brief drive, the prototype felt planted and exhibited minimal body roll on roads that had a competitor wallowing. In terms of dynamics, the benchmark was the Mazda CX-9, and the Ascent compared favorably. Steering was responsive without needing a lot of input.
Another MT excerpt:
The flat-four is mounted low in the structure, giving the crossover a lower center of gravity. On our brief drive, the prototype felt planted and exhibited minimal body roll on roads that had a competitor wallowing. In terms of dynamics, the benchmark was the Mazda CX-9, and the Ascent compared favorably. Steering was responsive without needing a lot of input.
Last edited:
If it doesnt, you will buy whatever the leftover vehicles are right? I hope someone high up at Mazda is reading this.
