New to Mazda and to forum

ArkanDan · Aug 8, 2014

Hello all. Just got our "new" to us 2011 Mazda CX-9 in the yard on Wednesday. It was a little bit intimidating for the first few miles with all the buttons and knobs. Drove it down from KC to our home here some 225 miles SSE of there. Has very good ride and handles very well. Drove an '05 Sable with the Mazda 3.0L engine in it up there and followed the CX-9 back. The CX-9 got 19 MPG and the Sable got 27 MPG. Was hoping the mileage on the Mazda would be a little closer to the 24 MPG advertised for trip mileage. Will be reading on this forum a lot and hoping to pick up on any quirks these guys might have. Also always looking for little add ons that might come in handy. So far we're (my wife and I) happy with the vehicle and will be giving it a few thousand miles to look at come September. Might take a bit to get the hang of this forum too. Hope y'all are a forgiving group.

tex2670 · Aug 8, 2014

Welcome. I hope your mileage meets your expectations--it's probably the biggest minus of the CX-9. I'm averaging 16.5 in mixed driving.

IgoZoom · Aug 9, 2014

Congratulations on the 'new-to-you' 2011 CX-9 Touring! Just out of curiosity, what color did you get?

Quick trivia lesson- The 3.0L in the 2005 Sable that you mention is actually a Ford engine. The Taurus/Sable was available with two different 3.0L V6 engines, the base 'Vulcan' pushrod V6 (155-160hp) and the DOHC Duratec V6 (201hp). Mazda used a version of the Duratec 3.0L V6 for the 2003-2008 Mazda6. It made 220hp thanks to the addition of Variable Valve Timing (VVT).

Ford started buying stock in Mazda back in 1979 and by 1996, they owned 33.3% of the company which gave them controlling interest. During much of that time, Mazda was responsible for development and engineering of 4-cylinder engines and Ford handled the V6 engines for both companies. Ford lost controlling interest in 2008 when it sold more than half of its Mazda stock to generate cash flow and sold the rest in 2010.

The CX-9 engine was actually the Ford designed 3.7L 'Cyclone' V6, but was/is manufactured in Hiroshima by Mazda. The 3.7L V6 has been used in most Lincolns and in everything from the Ford Mustang to F150 and everything in between. But the very first example of this engine was manufactured by Mazda and installed in the 2008 CX-9. It didn't debut in a Ford product until the following year when the 2009 Lincoln MKS was introduced.

Not that you asked or wanted to know all of that, but there you have it anyway! =)

As for the CX-9's fuel economy, it is usually the only disappointment that most new owners have with the vehicle. But in fairness, the real-world fuel economy of the CX-9 is actually in line with most of the big selling 3-row Crossovers like the Honda Pilot and GM trio (Buick Enclave, Chevy Traverse and GMC Acadia. The Pilot is rated at 18/25 and the GM models at the same 17/24 as the CX-9. But in real-world tests by various websites and auto magazines, the GMs trail the CX-9 by at least 1mpg and the Pilot is usually no more than 0.3mpg +/- of the CX-9.

I have a 2012 CX-9 Grand Touring and I only averaged 16.8mpg over the first 2,000 miles. But that included the break-in period as well as adapting my driving style and habits. I wasn’t overly concerned because the 2007 Explorer Eddie Bauer that I traded in was down to 14.3mpg overall. And it was a 2WD and had the base 210hp “Boat Anchor” 4.0L V6, so I’d hate to think how bad it would have been with 4WD and/or the 4.6L V8. (BTW, Ford’s 4.0L V6 earned the nickname “Boat Anchor” because that’s about all it was good for…it could barely get out of its own way).

By the time I hit the 15k mark, I was consistently seeing an average of 17.5-18mpg per fill-up. That was with no more 40% highway miles. On highway trips with the cruise set at 80mph and A/C on, I usually managed 20mpg. With the A/C off, 21.5mpg at 80mpg was no problem, but here in North Georgia the A/C stays on most of the year. Over the last six months, 90% of my driving is on two-lane highways and backroads and my average was down to 16.8mpg.

I replaced the factory tires at 26k miles (they were worn but probably had another 5k left in them). I wasn’t a fan of the road noise and the ride quality was a little stiff, so I went ahead and replaced them with a set of Yokohama YK580s. I’m not sure how many miles your 2011 has on it or if it has the original tires, but keep in mind that my GT has the larger 245/50VR20 tires. Your Touring has 245/50HR18 tires and the factory Bridgestones tend to last a lot longer than the larger ones on the GT. The YK580 tires are LRR (Low Rolling Resistance) tires which are intended to improve fuel economy. Most manufacturers use a harder rubber compound and very stiff sidewalls (as well as specifying greater air pressure than usual). As a result, most LRRs diminish ride quality to some degree and handing and traction (which relates directly to braking) have suffered.

Yokohama is unique from all other manufacturers in how they achieved Low Rolling Resistance for the YK580 and several other lines of their tires. They replace a significant amount of petroleum oil used in the process with Orange oil (as in the citrus fruit)! The handling and traction (wet and dry) performance is at least equal to the Bridgestones they replaced. But the ride quality and reduction of road noise are nothing short of amazing. My CX-9 drives better now than it did brand new! In the 4,000 miles since I got them, I have seen an overall increase of 0.7mpg (from 16.8 to 17.5mpg) and I expect it to increase more as the tires continue to break-in. So keep that in mind when you eventually need new tires!

If nothing else, perhaps you can take some comfort (or satisfaction) in the fact that the CX-9 FWD is one of the quickest Large Crossovers (0-60mph in 7.1sec). It is also THE best handling in the class!

One other thought- the transmission also plays a role in the less than stellar fuel economy. The Aisin 6-speed automatic in the CX-9 is easily the most responsive and best performing automatic transmission that I have ever encountered! When you need a burst of acceleration for merging or passing, it will often downshift two or even three gears before the pedal makes it all the way to the floor. You will never find it in too high of a gear when you’re going up a steep enough grade that you need a downshift to maintain your speed. A lot of cars will lug the engine in O/D top gear for a few seconds going uphill, then reluctantly slam into a lower gear after you’ve lost 10 or 15mph of speed.

The CX-9’s transmission also will hold a lower gear as you enter a curve so you’ll have immediate power to accelerate out of the curve and on the other side. A feature that I love is that it will downshift when going downhill if you tap the brake pedal. I cross over a small mountain daily on my way home and for about mile going down either side it is a rather steep grade. In my previous cars, I could start at the top going 55mph and, if I didn’t stay on the brakes or manually downshift, I would be going 70mph when I reached the bottom. In the Mazda, I tap the brake as I start going down and it downshifts from 6[SUP]th[/SUP] to 5[SUP]th[/SUP] and I maintain 55-60mph without touching the brakes. It works much like a truck transmission with a tow/haul mode in this respect.

The transmission is ‘adaptive’ which means that it will learn your driving style and you will most likely see a fuel economy improvement from that also. To be honest, I’m a fairly aggressive driver and I tend to drive a little on the fast side. As you get know the vehicle, you’ll also learn how to drive it a little more efficiently.

I hope at least some of this helps…I didn’t mean to ramble on and on, but I kept thinking of things that might be useful for you to know. I hope you enjoy your CX-9 and you couldn’t have made a better choice!!! =)
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

ceric · Aug 9, 2014

Welcome, ArkanDan.

ArkanDan · Aug 10, 2014

Thanks IgoZoom (like your handle) for that "trivia update". Not sure how I got the impression that the Sable/Taurus Duratecs were Mazda, but that is how I had it stored. I did spot check on Wikipedia and found that the primary engineering for that engine came from Porsche and was sold to Ford Cosworth for the Mondeo, or so that's how I am reading it. Anyway, that is a very good engine in either the 3.0L or the 2.5L. Had the 2.5L in a '00 Contour and have the 3.0L in the Sable and an '08 Mariner. Comparatively easy on fuel and lots of spunk, for me anyway. Thanks for straightening that out.

I'm not real crazy about the MPG thing on the CX-9, but in it's defense it is a big vehicle and comfortable. Surprisingly agile for it's size and quick. I've got to learn to be a little gentler on the take offs or "pay the piper". We'll likely use the CX-9 for our fall vacations (north to Wisconsin and west to New Mexico and surrounding area)and for when there is a large load involved and use the Mariner for day to day stuff. Would like to hang on to the Sable, but lack of room and insurance and other fees are going to make that not doable. Thanks again for the "short/long story. Enjoyed reading and got a lesson in the process.

jlanger · Aug 10, 2014

ArkanDan said:
Thanks IgoZoom (like your handle) for that "trivia update". Not sure how I got the impression that the Sable/Taurus Duratecs were Mazda, but that is how I had it stored. I did spot check on Wikipedia and found that the primary engineering for that engine came from Porsche and was sold to Ford Cosworth for the Mondeo, or so that's how I am reading it. Anyway, that is a very good engine in either the 3.0L or the 2.5L. Had the 2.5L in a '00 Contour and have the 3.0L in the Sable and an '08 Mariner. Comparatively easy on fuel and lots of spunk, for me anyway. Thanks for straightening that out.

I'm not real crazy about the MPG thing on the CX-9, but in it's defense it is a big vehicle and comfortable. Surprisingly agile for it's size and quick. I've got to learn to be a little gentler on the take offs or "pay the piper". We'll likely use the CX-9 for our fall vacations (north to Wisconsin and west to New Mexico and surrounding area)and for when there is a large load involved and use the Mariner for day to day stuff. Would like to hang on to the Sable, but lack of room and insurance and other fees are going to make that not doable. Thanks again for the "short/long story. Enjoyed reading and got a lesson in the process.

Funny you said the 2.5 was a "good" motor. I had one as well. it was a good motor when Porsche handed the designs off to the Ford engineers... There's a significant reason why they went to the 3.0 duratech very quickly once they dropped the contour. (which is a whole other discussion lol) I had a 96 contour 2.5l while a fun car, it had it's share of problems (who in there right mind uses a plastic impeller on a water pump??)

Enjoy the new ride. I love mine, lots of very good power, room, etc. in addition, I don't feel beat up when I drive it like my protege used to make me feel. While I miss that car, I don't miss the effort it took to drive it, longer distances.

IgoZoom · Aug 10, 2014

Wasnt 2005 the final year for the Sable? Oh, never mind, I forgot they renamed the Mercury Montego as the Mercury Sable for 2008 and 2009. Too bad, otherwise you might have been able to sell off your 2005 as a future classic! =) Or maybe not? Im just messing with you.

Since 1997, my best friend gets a new Ford company car every two years of 60k miles. His first was a 1997 Mercury Sable with the Vulcan V6 and the transmission failed at just over 40k miles. Then he had a 1999 Ford Taurus and the transmission didnt even make it to 30k miles. Next was a 2001 Sable and (guess what) the transmission made it to 52k miles, so he got order his next car early since he was so close to the two year mark. I know the fleet manager at his company and he told me that he had at least three Taurus/Sable transmission replacements every week on 1996-2003 models. They all had the Vulcan V6 (which was such a dog) and it used a different version of the Ford AXOD tranny than the 3.0L Duratec. He nicknamed the Sable as the Disable.

Ford upgraded the Vulcan engine to the same transmission as the Duratec for 2004, if Im not mistaken. My friend decided to try a Ford Escape after that 2001 Sable and he stuck with SUVs until the recession hit. Then he downgraded to a Fusion, which suffered a rash of transmission problems in the redesigned 2010 model. He had two replaced during his 60k miles with his 2010 Fusion! It earned the nickname ConFusion.

Thankfully, even though the 3.7L V6 in the CX-9 is Ford-designed, the transmission is NOT! Ford uses a 6-speed AT with the 3.7L (and the 3.5L that it was derived from) that they co-developed with GM. Both Ford and GM have had some issues with durability in some applications of the unit. The 2010 Ford Fusion is a prime example.

But the CX-9 uses an Aisin-built 6-speed automatic with a MUCH better reliability and durability record. Its performance is in an entirely different league compared to the Ford-GM unit also.

The next CX-9 is expected to arrive as a 2016 model and most of the development work is complete. But they dont have an engine for it yet! It is most likely that theyll used a turbocharged version of the 2.5L Skyactiv 4-cylinder used in the Mazda3, Mazda6 and CX-5. A version of the engine is expected to be used in the next MAZDASPEED3 and any other high-performance MAZDASPEED variants of other Mazda models. But the CX-9 version will be tuned for low-end torque. Ive read unofficial comments from insiders that their fuel economy target for the next CX-9 is a 10mpg increase, at minimum. But well see.
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:TrackMoves/> <w:TrackFormatting/> <w

unctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w

oNotPromoteQF/> <w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther> <w:LidThemeAsian>X-NONE</w:LidThemeAsian> <w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <w

ontGrowAutofit/> <w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/> <w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/> <w

ontFlipMirrorIndents/> <w:OverrideTableStyleHps/> </w:Compatibility> <m:mathPr> <m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/> <m:brkBin m:val="before"/> <m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/> <m:smallFrac m:val="off"/> <m:dispDef/> <m:lMargin m:val="0"/> <m:rMargin m:val="0"/> <m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/> <m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/> <m:intLim m:val="subSup"/> <m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/> </m:mathPr></w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

Rawyzf · Aug 10, 2014

Congrats and welcome!

New to Mazda and to forum

ArkanDan

Member

tex2670

Grand Poobah

IgoZoom

Member

ceric

ArkanDan

Member

jlanger

IgoZoom

Member

Rawyzf

Similar Threads and Articles

New Posts and Comments

New Threads and Articles