Purchasing a CX-9
- Thread starter PGN
- Start date
Hello Gents (and Ladies, if there be any about) --
Hope I'm posting this in the right place!
New here and joined for just one reason (so far):
Wife and I are having a hard time deciding between buying the CX-9 Sport (who needs Touring with all the great stuff you get on that nicely priced entry level baby?) and ... dum dum dum, the Chevrolet Traverse.
Obviously, you all will steer me toward the CX-9 (just as your compatriots at traverseforum do for their favorite truck), so I'm not naive.
But I'm not looking for Chevy bashing and the woes of a possible GM bankruptcy.
What I need especially is advice from anyone who was in a similar position, who drove/compared the Traverse (or other Lambda sibling) before going for the CX-9.
> What convinced you to buy the CX-9 and do you have any twinges of regret about your decision?
> I've got a pretty good offer (I think) for a Blue?/black 2009 Sport FWD with the power driver seat, and heated cloth for $25,700 [total out the door w/NY taxes and DMV fees: $28,100] Have no interest in Nav/DVD Moonroof, etc. etc. Just wish Satellite radio was standard, as it is in the Chevy line.
> Is that as good of a deal as I think it is?
> FYI - My Chevy guy wants $27,300 ($30,100 out the door) for the 1LT Traverse, with no options.
> We like the interior space of the Chevy, all the storage nooks, the ease of entry and leg room in 2nd and 3rd row (we have 3 teens). Really like the extra space behind the 3rd row for both storage and a buffer zone in case of rear-end collision -- one reason the Highlander and Veracruz was never in the running.
> Don't like how wide and tall it is in town traffic.
> Don't like paying more for it than the CX-9 lol
> We like the CX-9's more svelte looks, and easier maneuverability in street driving. I'm sure it's easier to park, too.
And the interior is nicer (except for the unpainted bottom door panels -- what the heck happened there? Chevy's are painted to match the exterior color!)
> Like the value you get for your money -- 18" wheels (but bad in the snow, I hear?); alarm, bluetooth, etc.
> Not sure about the CX-9 "firm" ride. Does it get tiring over long trips (or if you're mostly on bumpy streets a lot?) I'm not going to be driving along many winding roads at 65 mph to get that full zoom-zoom feeling.
> Don't like the lower MPG's and what's this rumor that we may need to use premium gas? Say that ain't so!
OK, this is way too long I know. And I'll have followup questions I'm sure, too!
Any and all help appreciated. Thanks!
Hope I'm posting this in the right place!
New here and joined for just one reason (so far):
Wife and I are having a hard time deciding between buying the CX-9 Sport (who needs Touring with all the great stuff you get on that nicely priced entry level baby?) and ... dum dum dum, the Chevrolet Traverse.
Obviously, you all will steer me toward the CX-9 (just as your compatriots at traverseforum do for their favorite truck), so I'm not naive.
But I'm not looking for Chevy bashing and the woes of a possible GM bankruptcy.
What I need especially is advice from anyone who was in a similar position, who drove/compared the Traverse (or other Lambda sibling) before going for the CX-9.
> What convinced you to buy the CX-9 and do you have any twinges of regret about your decision?
> I've got a pretty good offer (I think) for a Blue?/black 2009 Sport FWD with the power driver seat, and heated cloth for $25,700 [total out the door w/NY taxes and DMV fees: $28,100] Have no interest in Nav/DVD Moonroof, etc. etc. Just wish Satellite radio was standard, as it is in the Chevy line.
> Is that as good of a deal as I think it is?
> FYI - My Chevy guy wants $27,300 ($30,100 out the door) for the 1LT Traverse, with no options.
> We like the interior space of the Chevy, all the storage nooks, the ease of entry and leg room in 2nd and 3rd row (we have 3 teens). Really like the extra space behind the 3rd row for both storage and a buffer zone in case of rear-end collision -- one reason the Highlander and Veracruz was never in the running.
> Don't like how wide and tall it is in town traffic.
> Don't like paying more for it than the CX-9 lol
> We like the CX-9's more svelte looks, and easier maneuverability in street driving. I'm sure it's easier to park, too.
And the interior is nicer (except for the unpainted bottom door panels -- what the heck happened there? Chevy's are painted to match the exterior color!)
> Like the value you get for your money -- 18" wheels (but bad in the snow, I hear?); alarm, bluetooth, etc.
> Not sure about the CX-9 "firm" ride. Does it get tiring over long trips (or if you're mostly on bumpy streets a lot?) I'm not going to be driving along many winding roads at 65 mph to get that full zoom-zoom feeling.
> Don't like the lower MPG's and what's this rumor that we may need to use premium gas? Say that ain't so!
OK, this is way too long I know. And I'll have followup questions I'm sure, too!
Any and all help appreciated. Thanks!
I was in the same situation 2 weeks ago and looked at the Acadia, Traverse and CX-9. I liked the room of the Acadia/Traverse with the 2nd row captains chairs, but both the wife and I loved the drive of the Mazda. GMC felt like to much plastic comprised the majority of the interior and the Mazda was a little more luxurious.
What it came down for both of us was price. GMC would not discount much on the Acadia and a little more on the Traverse...I am assuming to the 0% financing. Mazda was a little better and fell into our price range.
We got a 2009 CX-9 AWD Sport with custom 2 tone leather( they gave us the option to pick out colors of 60 swatches) for $27,000. I feel I paid a little to much, but the 2 tone black with grey leather is saaaweeet!!!
The drive is great, the wife absolutely loves it and although it doesnt have captains chairs, I am very happy. I wanted the CX-9 GT, but couldnt justify or afford the price. I am handy, so I will be able to add remote start, HID kit and headrest DVD for a minimal price. In the end that is all we want anyhow with the kids.
Let me know if you have any questions. I am a person who researches everything before I buy, and then researches after I buy to make sure I got a good deal. Jury is still out on the price I paid for my CX-9.
What it came down for both of us was price. GMC would not discount much on the Acadia and a little more on the Traverse...I am assuming to the 0% financing. Mazda was a little better and fell into our price range.
We got a 2009 CX-9 AWD Sport with custom 2 tone leather( they gave us the option to pick out colors of 60 swatches) for $27,000. I feel I paid a little to much, but the 2 tone black with grey leather is saaaweeet!!!
The drive is great, the wife absolutely loves it and although it doesnt have captains chairs, I am very happy. I wanted the CX-9 GT, but couldnt justify or afford the price. I am handy, so I will be able to add remote start, HID kit and headrest DVD for a minimal price. In the end that is all we want anyhow with the kids.
Let me know if you have any questions. I am a person who researches everything before I buy, and then researches after I buy to make sure I got a good deal. Jury is still out on the price I paid for my CX-9.
Last edited:
By the way, we went to GMC in Dublin, CA. and we looked at a 2009 Chevy Traverse AWD with leather and DVD and they wanted $29,000. We offered $27,000 and the let us walk out the door. I think anything over $30,000 out the door for a GMC product is crazy!! Unless its an Escalade!!
For the Acadia they were only giving a few thousand off and actually wanted $31,000(before TTL) for a 2008 Acadia AWD with 13,000 miles on it....we laughed at them and left.
For the Acadia they were only giving a few thousand off and actually wanted $31,000(before TTL) for a 2008 Acadia AWD with 13,000 miles on it....we laughed at them and left.
CX9 SportOwner
Member
This may sound biased, but I own a CX9 because I looked at literally every vehicle with a third row. The only one never considered was the Pilot. That was because Honda tried to screw us when we had our CR-V. The new Pilot is easily the least competitive, anyway.
If you NEED the higher towing and extra seat, the Traverse is the only choice. I'm not a fan of GM, and their quality is still not where it should be, but, the Lambdas are the best thing GM has ever made, from what I've seen. The Traverse is a lot more svelte than the other 3 Lambdas. Only the GM's and the CX9 have really usable space behind the third row. Also, the other 3 row vehicles have less overall room that then CX9, including all the luxury models.
We didn't need 8 seats, so it was never a contest. The CX9 is firm but nimble like no other 3-row, or most cars. Style, check. Quality, check. Performance, check.
CX9 was well thought out. Lots of nice standard features, both convenience and safety. The best seating system at any price. (I tried the GM flip and tumble system, but could never get the seat cushion to re-latch. It's also unnecessarily complicated for the same amount of entry space as the CX9. The third seat mechanics on the CX9 are brilliantly simple.
Features that the other charge more for, or don't offer include: 3 Zone Automatic climate control, Leather steering with with audio and cruise, tilt AND telescope, rollover control (uses a second gyro) with sustained curtains, Driver Information Display (2009), MP3/iPOD jack, Bluetooth interface (2009)...
You also get the totally superior Aisin adaptive transmission with manual mode.
I'll take the firmer ride over the typical boat feel any day. It's still a very good ride, and quiet. It's just gets the bumps over with quicker. I was on the interstate and kept hearing a weird metallic tink. Turned out I was hearing my new watch tick, even at 80mph. Tighter turning circle, too (3 FEET tighter than the Traverse).
The CX9 is simply a blast to drive, yet very versatile. After 2 years I still get a thrill every time it's my turn to drive it. If you get one, you will be looking for those winding roads. The performance is had with regular gas, too.
Fnally, I think the CX9 is more than competitive with the luxury CUVs. They all talk endlessly about engineering, but it seems like they engineer for the sake of engineering, not to make the car better, whereas the CX9 displays a lot more intelligence, as well as some pretty nice engineering.
No regrets.
By the way, what's with that tiny little rear wiper on the GMs?
.
If you NEED the higher towing and extra seat, the Traverse is the only choice. I'm not a fan of GM, and their quality is still not where it should be, but, the Lambdas are the best thing GM has ever made, from what I've seen. The Traverse is a lot more svelte than the other 3 Lambdas. Only the GM's and the CX9 have really usable space behind the third row. Also, the other 3 row vehicles have less overall room that then CX9, including all the luxury models.
We didn't need 8 seats, so it was never a contest. The CX9 is firm but nimble like no other 3-row, or most cars. Style, check. Quality, check. Performance, check.
CX9 was well thought out. Lots of nice standard features, both convenience and safety. The best seating system at any price. (I tried the GM flip and tumble system, but could never get the seat cushion to re-latch. It's also unnecessarily complicated for the same amount of entry space as the CX9. The third seat mechanics on the CX9 are brilliantly simple.
Features that the other charge more for, or don't offer include: 3 Zone Automatic climate control, Leather steering with with audio and cruise, tilt AND telescope, rollover control (uses a second gyro) with sustained curtains, Driver Information Display (2009), MP3/iPOD jack, Bluetooth interface (2009)...
You also get the totally superior Aisin adaptive transmission with manual mode.
I'll take the firmer ride over the typical boat feel any day. It's still a very good ride, and quiet. It's just gets the bumps over with quicker. I was on the interstate and kept hearing a weird metallic tink. Turned out I was hearing my new watch tick, even at 80mph. Tighter turning circle, too (3 FEET tighter than the Traverse).
The CX9 is simply a blast to drive, yet very versatile. After 2 years I still get a thrill every time it's my turn to drive it. If you get one, you will be looking for those winding roads. The performance is had with regular gas, too.
Fnally, I think the CX9 is more than competitive with the luxury CUVs. They all talk endlessly about engineering, but it seems like they engineer for the sake of engineering, not to make the car better, whereas the CX9 displays a lot more intelligence, as well as some pretty nice engineering.
No regrets.
By the way, what's with that tiny little rear wiper on the GMs?
.
Last edited:
Oh, so that's what it finally boils down to: Your wiper's bigger than mine, eh? lol
But seriously, I can't speak for the other Lambdas, but the Chevy has a small rear window (not a good look, especially given how big the butt of the vehicle is and how hard it is to see out when backing up), so I suppose the wiper is proportionate.
Trey & Sport -- Thanks to you both for your prompt, thoughtful and very helpful replies.
Trey, so you ordered yours, instead of taking one off the lot? (you must have, to get your choice from 60 color combos)
Man, don't give the deal another moment's thought.
$27,000 for AWD and leather seats was a great deal! Let no one tell you differently. Sure, you can always work yourself into a frenzy to get another couple of hundred off, but at a certain point, it's just not worth the hassle of going back into the haggling ring.
I agree with you that Mazda's a winner on the interior comparison (which is why the unpainted bottom of the door panel stuck out like a sore thumb to me).
I thought the drive of the CX-9 was clearly better, but not by leaps and bounds. And my commute to work is all straight lines, which both vehicles handle about the same. Still, I like the tighter turning circle of the CX-9.
GM is being so dumb on Traverse pricing. Any wonder the company is in trouble?
Its base model is a lot more stripped down that the CX-9 Sport, so the Chevy should be easily undercutting Mazda straight-up on price, and especially after factory incentives.
Honestly, if the Traverse 1LT (the trim most directly comparable to the Sport) were priced a little lower or even the same as the Mazda, I would have bought one already.
By the way, Trey, more folks need to do what you did at those GM dealerships -- just walk away. You've got the last laugh, especially on the overpriced Acadia, which will very soon start to look outdated and they won't be able to give 'em away. (glare)
One more question for you: Does the cockpit feel just a little tight with the way the console and gearshift area is raised so high?
CX9 SportOwner:
Naw, I don't want towing at all. 8 seats are nice to have when you need 8 seats, but not essential, either.
Agree with you on all your major points: CX9 IS very well thought out. I'm impressed that safety was not an afterthought at all. And with practical convenience features, not frou-frou stuff.
The Chevy has only one major advantage in that area: OnStar.
Bluetooth's not a big deal; I have a BT headset, and I rarely make calls in my car anyway. Chevy has most of the other stuff (info display, mp3 jack, controls on the leather-wrapped steering wheel).
Good point about the extra rollover safety devices!
Oh you mentioned the Aisin adaptive transmission.
I've heard good things about it, BUT, this car will have three drivers (primarily me, but also my wife and teen son), how the heck does it adapt to 3 different styles of driving?
I guess the Sport AWD CX-9's are hard to come by out her in CA. The one I got was on a different delears lot(not sure where) and initially had black cloth interior. The Mazda dealer then had someone come in and do leather, thus the choice of all the colors.
At first I was a little worried about after market leather, but it is actually nicer leather then the fully loaded GT they had on their lot. When I asked the Mazda manager about the difference in the leather, he said the leather in the GT's is a combo of real leather and vinyl and the one put in my car was all leather.
One thing I do find, like you said, the cockpit of the CX-9 does feel small. However, after 2 days of driving the car I dont notice it anymore. I think I initially noticed it due to test driving the Acadia and Traverse, but now not a big deal. Im only 5'9" so maybe that is why it doesnt feel that small. If I were bigger and had trouble getting in and out of the vehicle or felt cramp while driving it, then maybe I would look at buying a different car.
If I could do it all over again and the Acadia/Traverse and the CX-9 were offered to me with the same options and cost, I would still pick the CX-9.
At first I was a little worried about after market leather, but it is actually nicer leather then the fully loaded GT they had on their lot. When I asked the Mazda manager about the difference in the leather, he said the leather in the GT's is a combo of real leather and vinyl and the one put in my car was all leather.
One thing I do find, like you said, the cockpit of the CX-9 does feel small. However, after 2 days of driving the car I dont notice it anymore. I think I initially noticed it due to test driving the Acadia and Traverse, but now not a big deal. Im only 5'9" so maybe that is why it doesnt feel that small. If I were bigger and had trouble getting in and out of the vehicle or felt cramp while driving it, then maybe I would look at buying a different car.
If I could do it all over again and the Acadia/Traverse and the CX-9 were offered to me with the same options and cost, I would still pick the CX-9.
CX9 SportOwner
Member
I think the Acadia wiper is actually smaller than the Traverse because it has an odd bend in it. First time I saw an Acadia I noticed how small it was, and because it had been used, I could see what a tiny area it actually cleared. Just an odd design.
When I first drove the CX9, the cockpit felt awkward compared to our open CR-V, but now I'm much more comfortable being tucked in all snug now. Very comfortable, and the bigness of the car overall is gone.
The Chevy does have a lot of those features, but you have to get a higher trim level. OnStar isn't quite as functional as they represent it. Not free, either. And if it's such a valuable safety feature, why doesn't GM allow other car makers to incorporate it, like Mercedes did when they invented crumple zones? Just my thoughts on that.
As far as the transmission, it doesn't matter who drives, it will adjust to their style of driving. Exactly how they drive will determine how fast it adjusts. If they drive conservative, it will adjust for best economy, driving hard, like me, it adjusts for performance. Works quite well. Just frustrating when I drive it right after my wife does.
Finally, the Traverse is already part of a couple of big recalls.
When I first drove the CX9, the cockpit felt awkward compared to our open CR-V, but now I'm much more comfortable being tucked in all snug now. Very comfortable, and the bigness of the car overall is gone.
The Chevy does have a lot of those features, but you have to get a higher trim level. OnStar isn't quite as functional as they represent it. Not free, either. And if it's such a valuable safety feature, why doesn't GM allow other car makers to incorporate it, like Mercedes did when they invented crumple zones? Just my thoughts on that.
As far as the transmission, it doesn't matter who drives, it will adjust to their style of driving. Exactly how they drive will determine how fast it adjusts. If they drive conservative, it will adjust for best economy, driving hard, like me, it adjusts for performance. Works quite well. Just frustrating when I drive it right after my wife does.
Finally, the Traverse is already part of a couple of big recalls.
The Touring FWD is the one hard to find here on Long Island. Dealers have only AWD for that and the GT, for some reason.
Glad to hear that leather is primo. See, I told you that you got a good deal!
I'm shorter than you, so maybe it'll only take me 1 day to get used to the cockpit. lol
Thanks for ending on such a positive note.
> Okay, two new questions:
Did you get the (extra cost) Sirius radio installed?
(I don't mind them charging extra, since so much else is standard, but really, almost $500 more? A bit much, don't you think?)
At first, I thought I'd prefer XM (GM standard), but Sirius has all the NFL games, which means I'd be able to hear "Touchdown! Kan-sas City!" even here in N.Y.!
> I have a mountain bike. If I fold down the 3rd seat (and 2nd, if necessary), does it look to you like I can stow the bike flat inside?
Thanks. Funny, though, after driving a Traverse, the CX-9 doesn't have much "bigness" to it. And I mean that in a good way, because I know it actually is a pretty big vehicle overall.
Appreciate the details on the transmission!
The way I see it with dealers is anything that you want, which makes you have to spend thousands more$$$$ to get it, can be had after market. I wanted XM/satellite radio, but the cost to get it was not worth it. What I found that by buying the sport, I can put in an after market (pioneer/eclipse/kenwood) navigation +dvd deck that is equipped for XM or sirius. The cost of doing that is much less than having to jump up to the GT model.
As far as putting in a mountain bike!!! As a fellow biker(roadie) I am not putting anything that has grease on it inside the car(except the kids). Just go to a place like performancebike.com and get a $30 bike rack that straps on the trunk and that is the best way to transport the bike. you can also look on ebay and spend $140 for the hitch attachment and pay someone/or DIY to put it on.
You sound like me when it comes to research, so look into the aftermarket decks with navigation/DVD and satellite radio. The only problem I have found thus far is there is no double din kit for the CX-9. That is the plastic moulding that conforms to the new navigation deck and fits in the vacant space. I am sure a company will come out with it soon, at least I hope.
I would find the car you want at the price you want...then worry about these other small things later. There is always an aftermarket electronic for almost anything.....except the room in the car.
As far as putting in a mountain bike!!! As a fellow biker(roadie) I am not putting anything that has grease on it inside the car(except the kids). Just go to a place like performancebike.com and get a $30 bike rack that straps on the trunk and that is the best way to transport the bike. you can also look on ebay and spend $140 for the hitch attachment and pay someone/or DIY to put it on.
You sound like me when it comes to research, so look into the aftermarket decks with navigation/DVD and satellite radio. The only problem I have found thus far is there is no double din kit for the CX-9. That is the plastic moulding that conforms to the new navigation deck and fits in the vacant space. I am sure a company will come out with it soon, at least I hope.
I would find the car you want at the price you want...then worry about these other small things later. There is always an aftermarket electronic for almost anything.....except the room in the car.
Funny line about the greasy kids. And with 3 of my own, I know what you mean.
I already have a bike rack (but you knew that, as a fellow 2-wheeler). It just would be a lot easier to throw the bike up in the back rather than taking the rack on/off and securing the bike on/off the rack.
I'll get a cargo mat/liner, or lay down an old piece of carpet and put bikey baby in there in a heartbeat.
To set the record straight, I'm not looking to add anything to the vehicle (except maybe satellite radio) - no NAV, no DVD, no hitch, no roof rack/rails, no nuthin' jack.
I already have a bike rack (but you knew that, as a fellow 2-wheeler). It just would be a lot easier to throw the bike up in the back rather than taking the rack on/off and securing the bike on/off the rack.
I'll get a cargo mat/liner, or lay down an old piece of carpet and put bikey baby in there in a heartbeat.
To set the record straight, I'm not looking to add anything to the vehicle (except maybe satellite radio) - no NAV, no DVD, no hitch, no roof rack/rails, no nuthin' jack.
I've had my CX9 for about three months now with no regrets. I went to the Portland Auto Show before I bought mine and spent about 4 hours looking at all of the different 7 or 8 seater CUV's. I had narrowed it down to the Highlander, Traverse, and the CX9 and went and test drove them all and fell in love with the Mazda mainly due to the fact it doesn't feel like you're driving a boat... The Traverse was too expensive for LTZ trim level I was looking for and the Highlander is just plain boring. So I bought the fully loaded GT and can't complain... Good luck with your decision.
CX9 SportOwner
Member
Personally, I found the Highlander not only NOT appealing, but actually repulsive and worthless. They really dropped the ball on that one. Almost as much as Honda did with the new Pilot.
Anyway, the folded cargo space is over 6 feet long, and plenty wide enough to lay a bike in. If you have QRs on the fork, you could mount fork cleats to a board and lay it across and mount the bikes upright inside.
For those who haven't seen my setup yet, here is my 4 bike system:
Anyway, the folded cargo space is over 6 feet long, and plenty wide enough to lay a bike in. If you have QRs on the fork, you could mount fork cleats to a board and lay it across and mount the bikes upright inside.
For those who haven't seen my setup yet, here is my 4 bike system:
Attachments
I did not consider the Traverse, but just wanted to inject a couple of thoughts. The mpg on the vehicles is really about the same. All the real world mileage tests that I have looked at including consumer reports rated them the same mpg. I know the epa ratings are a little higher on the Traverse, but it is my understanding that the manufacturer sets these ratings and that the epa only looks at them on a test basis. Some manufactures are more aggressive in their ratings. I have been getting 18-20mpg with my FWD Sport in suburban driving. Got 23 on a recent highway trip.
Mazda has a better track record for reliability and the CX-9 has been out since 07 with good reliability whereas the Traverse reliability is an unknown.
I have 2 teenagers and we just use the backseat for carpooling. The CX-9 is plenty big for us, but if you feel the Traverse fits your needs better than get it. Most importantly you want to be comfortable.
Mazda has a better track record for reliability and the CX-9 has been out since 07 with good reliability whereas the Traverse reliability is an unknown.
I have 2 teenagers and we just use the backseat for carpooling. The CX-9 is plenty big for us, but if you feel the Traverse fits your needs better than get it. Most importantly you want to be comfortable.
CX9 SportOwner
Member
Here is why I don't like GM vehicles: They simply aren't made as well. GM is still more concerned with marketing than quality.
One way GM increases their MPG is by removing internal body structure. Look inside the panels and you see much larger cutouts. Especially their trucks. Their Tahoe Hybrid gets it's numbers by removing everything possible, even auxiliary lights. If you stripped a regular Tahoe the same, it would get virtually the same MPG as the hybrid. (don't get me started on hybrids in general)
GM has actively helped destroy public transportation since the 40's to sell more cars.
GM vehicles consistently suffer from major problems. I see very new cars already spewing smoke, broken down, etc. massive recalls.
Body panels that still don't line up, even on the Corvette.
They had several years of vehicles where the paint fell off, and they did NOTHING.
Poor management. Making too many cars, and too many versions of the same car. They don't deserve a bailout.
That's all
One way GM increases their MPG is by removing internal body structure. Look inside the panels and you see much larger cutouts. Especially their trucks. Their Tahoe Hybrid gets it's numbers by removing everything possible, even auxiliary lights. If you stripped a regular Tahoe the same, it would get virtually the same MPG as the hybrid. (don't get me started on hybrids in general)
GM has actively helped destroy public transportation since the 40's to sell more cars.
GM vehicles consistently suffer from major problems. I see very new cars already spewing smoke, broken down, etc. massive recalls.
Body panels that still don't line up, even on the Corvette.
They had several years of vehicles where the paint fell off, and they did NOTHING.
Poor management. Making too many cars, and too many versions of the same car. They don't deserve a bailout.
That's all
- :
- 2022 CX-5 Turbo
And, yet, the GM quadruplet are still heavier than most on the market by 400lbs!
Toyota seems to be doing a great job in cutting mass.
CX9 SportOwner
Member
exactly my point. They are just way behind on technology.
Thanks, Vikefan -- how's the ride so far, esp. on long trips, where i've heard the firmness can be a little tiring, and over rough (i.e. normal) city streets, where you might feel the bumps in a harsher way?
>Also -- you get any snow where you are? if so, how do the stock CX-9 rubbers do on snow and slippery surfaces? (eek2)
CX9 Sport, thanks for the bike tips and pix. 6 feet must be with 3rd and 2nd row folded, right? I'm talking about just with 3rd row down.
Hey, seems to be a high correlation of bike riders to CX-9 drivers! (yippy)
I agree with you on the Pilot, but not so much the Highlander, which is still a worthy vehicle, even if the styling is Ms. Suburban America.
But geez, why don't you tell us how you really feel, and stop holding back! lol Oh, oh, looks like I got my wish with your anti-GM diatribe! (hand)
Asia -- That's good to hear about the MPG, and your thoughts about the EPA test (or lack thereof) is food for thought. The tests are done with pre-production models, so no telling what kind of hijinks might be played.
In fairness, though, my buds in the Traverse forum regularly report 21-22 MPG, and sometimes 23-24 from highway driving only.
Glad you mentioned reliability, too. (But the GM Lambdas have also been out since at least 2007, and they're holding up about average. Been some recalls yes, but same for a couple of CX-9 issues, if I'm not mistaken?)
Of course, when gas goes back up to $4-$5 and beyond again, we'll all be in the same leaky boat. lol
CX9 SportOwner
Member
Sorry, I misunderstood your question about room. I think a bike will still go with the 3rd row down. There is a lot of room that way. The floor is 48 deep by 46 wide.
My dislike of the Highlander is more about it's lack of function than it's ugly looks. Too many gimmicks.
My dislike of the Highlander is more about it's lack of function than it's ugly looks. Too many gimmicks.
Last edited:
New Posts and Comments
2017~2025
Rear AC vents retrofit
