Purchasing a CX-9

[vikefan7]

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)

I've taken two four hundred mile round trips, one exclusively freeway miles and the other a trip to the coast along windy roads. I think the ride quality is fine. You can definitely feel the bumps, but I don't think the ride quality on the 20" rims is that bad. My other car is a Spec V which is brutal to ride in when the roads aren't perfect, so it's kind of hard to compare. I've never driven in a luxury SUV so I don't know how much worse the ride is comparably speaking.

I live in Portland, OR and we have been getting a lot more snow the past two years. I haven't driven in any deep snow with the Duellers, but the few times when the roads were icy or had a dusting of snow on them I didn't have any problems. Granted, I was droving like an old lady with the kids in the car. You'll see lots of posts on here that completely lambaste the stock Duellers, but I haven't had any problems so far.

 

[CX9 SportOwner]

I'm one of those that feels the Duellers are dangerous on slick surfaces. After some wear they're not even good on dry anymore.
I'm close to replacing them with the Yokohama Parada Spec X, which gets great ratings by owners, even in snow and ice. I will have a report once I change.

We have traveled extensively in our 9. 400 miles for us is a day trip. Aside from the lousy tires, I am very pleased with the ride on all surfaces. We've been all over Arizona and took a trip to California, including LA (Disneyland), up the coast to Monterey, then over to Yosemite. Then over Tehachapi and home. You feel the road, but in a good way. It's not harsh, but not detached like an American boat. FYI, the HVAC works very well, too, whether it's 5 or 120 outside.

The seats are firm, which is good. It's a myth that cushy is more comfortable. Like with bicycle seats, it's actually the overly soft ones that cause pain over long periods by creating uneven pressure points. These seats are firm, but comfortable, and after 6 to 8 hours non stop, I am not in any additional discomfort from them.

 

[Asia]

The CX-9 did have some issues with peeling interior paint, etc. which should all be corrected with the 09 model year. It seems to take a year or two to work out the kinks with a new model that is why it is safer to wait until the model is out a couple of years. I think the Traverse is having some issues with downshifting. We tend to keep our cars a long time and the reliability of the Mazda's over the long haul is vastly better than the Chevy's on average.

Mpg can vary a lot based on the driver and the route driven. I would trust an independent test over the same terrain more than what the folks on the Traverse forum are reporting. Mileage as low as 11mpg was reported on the True Delta site for the Traverse. All the independent tests I've seen rate both the CX-9 and the Traverse as 16 mpg overall for the AWD.

Quote: Asia --[/B] 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 [/QUOTE]

 

[CX9 SportOwner]

Not the same recalls. Yes, the CX9 has a list, like every car. The difference is they are mainly little non mechanical items, like the peeling paint, broken belt clip, and a few slightly less minor ones like the squeaky brakes, and the loss of power (which was not mechanical but software)

The GM have been recalled for things like that, but also for not starting on an incline, and seat belts that weren't properly installed, among other mechanical and safety issues. They have a list of problems with their OnStar, requiring replacement of the entire module.

Every car has bugs, especially on a brand new platform, but the 'American' makes have a lot more major defects. Maybe if they made their cars in America or Japan they would be better, rather than Canada and Mexico.

 

[DaddyD]

More great info, guys, I thank you all.

Vikesfan, I appreciate the details about your ride experience. Sounds like your ride isn't bad. But no one I know has great things to say about the 20inchers. But after all they are mostly for show, and as we've all learned in life by now, the prettier something is, often the less practical/useful it is.

That's too bad about the Bridgestone Duelers. Man, the reviews on that tire at TireRack.com are downright scary!
Wonder if Mazda responded to the complaints and are putting a better tire on the 2009's? I'll have to check on my next dealer visit.
I guess Ford/Mazda had to cut costs somewhere to keep the price so reasonable, and tires will be easy to replace.
(Although is anyone else shocked by the prices of SUV/CUV tires these days? $200 a tire when you add in the balancing, etc.! And I'm not even talking about 20"!)

CX-9 SportOwner -- Thanks for your ride details, too. I'll be interested to hear how the Yokohamas work out instead for ya.

Asia, I respectfully disagree on thoughts about reported gas mileage. I'd trust the real world information of other folks like me over any tests. The forum folks (here and elsewhere) are hauling kids and in-laws and driving to places I might drive under similar conditions.

 

[CX9 SportOwner]

I ordered the Paradas today. $882 out the door including full replacement warranty. They should be in Monday. Weeeeee!

MPG ratings are done on a test track, with the most efficient version of each model. That means the base model with no accessories, and a light foot. No kids, luggage, bike, trailers, DVD, Nav, etc.
The smaller the engine, the faster you reduce MPG with additions.

 

[ceric]

SportOwner, how much is the warranty per tire?
I tried it on tirerack.com and only shows $720 incl. S&H (no tax).
($160x4 + $80 S&H = $720)
The warranty costs $160? ($40/tire).

 

[CX9 SportOwner]

Tires $652
Free Replacement $ 92
State EV Fee $ 8
Disposal Fee $ 8
Balance & Install $ 60 (Includes lifetime rotations and repairs)
Tax $ 62.79

 

[Asia]

More great info, guys, I thank you all.

Vikesfan, I appreciate the details about your ride experience. Sounds like your ride isn't bad. But no one I know has great things to say about the 20inchers. But after all they are mostly for show, and as we've all learned in life by now, the prettier something is, often the less practical/useful it is.

That's too bad about the Bridgestone Duelers. Man, the reviews on that tire at TireRack.com are downright scary!
Wonder if Mazda responded to the complaints and are putting a better tire on the 2009's? I'll have to check on my next dealer visit.
I guess Ford/Mazda had to cut costs somewhere to keep the price so reasonable, and tires will be easy to replace.
(Although is anyone else shocked by the prices of SUV/CUV tires these days? $200 a tire when you add in the balancing, etc.! And I'm not even talking about 20"!)

CX-9 SportOwner -- Thanks for your ride details, too. I'll be interested to hear how the Yokohamas work out instead for ya.

Asia, I respectfully disagree on thoughts about reported gas mileage. I'd trust the real world information of other folks like me over any tests. The forum folks (here and elsewhere) are hauling kids and in-laws and driving to places I might drive under similar conditions.

Daddy D,

I appreciate your respectfulness .

I actually got on a Traverse forum traverseforum.com and looked at reported mileage. There was the disgruntled group of AWD owners who supposedly couldn't get better than 13 mpg driving 85% highway. There was the hypermiler want-to-be who set his cruise control to 60 on a long interstate trip and pulled out 25 mpg. And there was the middle group reporting stuff in between, usually around 15 city and 20-24 hwy mpg. This is all similiar to what I have seen reported on this forum, but I'm sure you have read up on it more than I have.

Edmunds does long term real world mileage tests on cars for 20,000 miles with different drivers and varying terrains. The overall mileage for the CX-9 in their test was 18.2 and the long-term test mileage on the Odyssey was 18.6. I really wanted to get a vehicle with good mileage and I spent a LOT of time researching to find something significantly better and could not find anything with significantly better mpg unless I got something significantly smaller or a hybrid. True Delta is just a site where owners of different cars enter their real world mileage and where and how they drive to give people a comparison. Mileage reported there for the Traverse is 20.7 mpg overall for the FWD and 17.6 for the AWD. Mileage for the CX-9 on their site is 20.3 for the FWD and 18 for the AWD, but their are not many entries for the Traverse yet. The Acadia is averaging 18.4 for FWD and 16.7 for AWD. I'm guessing the mileage diff between the Mazda and Chevy is 1 mpg at best.

Good luck with your purchase!

Respectfully,

Asia

 

[ceric]

Asia,
If MPG is your primary concern (unlike me), then, Highlander probably is the best in this class for several reasons.
- lighter by 200lb (magic ward of Toyota)
- skinny tires (225 instead of 245)
- new-gen VVTi engine that actually does very well in MPG
- 3.5L instead of 3.7L in CX9 or 3.6L in GM quadruplet

As far as I know, Pilot (w/o VCM) is in the same ballpark in MPG. GM is slightly worse for one simple reason - too heavy!!! Weight does not impact highway driving as much as city. If I take my CX9 on long highway trip at 60mph (which is dangerous if you ask me), I am sure I can get easily get 25mpg also. I did one trip of 200 miles from San Jose to Sacramento at 75-80mph, and I got 21mpg. On highway driving, wind drag is the primary factor, weight/tire-width is second(friction).

 

[Asia]

Ceric,

I almost did get a Highlander. I think it got about 2 mpg more, but after I drove it I didn't like it as well. The steering was too light and it felt more suv like versus the mazda which was very car like. I liked the Rav 4, but it was too small. Also, got the Mazda for about 5k less than I could have gotten the Highlander for and since I only drive about 10k miles per year the payback period on that would have been long. I traded in a first generation Oddy that got 23/24 city and 29/30 hwy, had swinging doors (I hate the sliding ones!) and seated 7. But I am very happy with the CX-9. I suspect in the next 5 years we will see a big change in the autos offered.

 

[CX9 SportOwner]

There is a reason that the one SUV no one directly compares their's to is the CX9. Not in ads, and no one lists it as a default competitor in their online comparisons that I've found.

 

[hamproof]

There is a reason that the one SUV no one directly compares their's to is the CX9. Not in ads, and no one lists it as a default competitor in their online comparisons that I've found.

I think that has more to do with the obscurity of the CX-9 and no one (competitors) really see their mainstream buyers cross-shopping them than CX-9 being a better value, more stylish etc. MSRP to MSRP CX-9 isn't cheap. I won't have bought one if not for the almost $10k off MSRP I got for picking up an 08 last year.

No competition is what Honda and Toyota are thinking. You see GM pitting their cars against Honda and Toyota but never Mazda. I don't recall any ad pitting anything against a Mazda.

2008 Sales Figure
-----------------
CX-9 = 26,100
Pilot = 96,746
Highlander = 104,661

 

[ceric]

GM quadruplet sell many more than Highlander.
Granted, 4 beating up 1, that is not really fair.
Recently (past few months), Pilot has been doing better than Highlander.
Other than MPG, I like nothing about the Highlander.
To me, Pilot is ugly (to each one's own), and lacks options that I desired.
I was attracted to the Outlook, but once I sat in one in autoshow, I gave up.
MPG wise, 16 vs 18 are just dumb vs. stupid, which is smarter?
Compared to my Prius (wife's car), it gets 45mpg w/o even trying hard.
Mount 225 tires of LRR (low-rolling resistance) on CX9, and you will get 1mpg better
if not less. However, watch out for stopping distance...

 

[hamproof]

GM quadruplet sell many more than Highlander.
Granted, 4 beating up 1, that is not really fair.

2008 Sales figure
-----------------

Enclave = 44,706
Acadia = 66,440
Outlook = 25,340
Traverse = 9,456
-----------------
Total = 145,942

You can clearly see why no one takes the CX-9 seriously.

 

[vikefan7]

2008 Sales figure
-----------------

Enclave = 44,706
Acadia = 66,440
Outlook = 25,340
Traverse = 9,456
-----------------
Total = 145,942

You can clearly see why no one takes the CX-9 seriously.

How much difference is there between all of these anyway? I have never understood how GMC breaks out there brands when they all pretty much look the same from the outside...

 

[hamproof]

Enclave = Upper middle class
Acadia = Truck loving folks
Outlook = Women who loves the no haggle (is it still no haggle??)
Traverse = average working joe's crossover

I don't think they look the same at all. Acadia and Outlook may look very similar, but you can clearly tell the difference bet the Enclave and Traverse vs Acadia/Outlook.

More so than looking at the CX-7 vs CX-9 from afar.

 

[Mx5+Cx9]

...Every car has bugs, especially on a brand new platform, but the 'American' makes have a lot more major defects. Maybe if they made their cars in America or Japan they would be better, rather than Canada and Mexico.

Hey... Do you mean we Canadians are lazy?! ok, maybe we are... lol.

But, what you probably meant was "maybe if they made their cars in Japan they would be better, rather than America, Canada and Mexico."

 

[DaddyD]

Daddy D,

I appreciate your respectfulness .

I actually got on a Traverse forum traverseforum.com and looked at reported mileage. There was the disgruntled group of AWD owners who supposedly couldn't get better than 13 mpg driving 85% highway. There was the hypermiler want-to-be who set his cruise control to 60 on a long interstate trip and pulled out 25 mpg. And there was the middle group reporting stuff in between, usually around 15 city and 20-24 hwy mpg. This is all similiar to what I have seen reported on this forum, but I'm sure you have read up on it more than I have.

Edmunds does long term real world mileage tests on cars for 20,000 miles with different drivers and varying terrains. The overall mileage for the CX-9 in their test was 18.2 and the long-term test mileage on the Odyssey was 18.6. .... Mileage reported there for the Traverse is 20.7 mpg overall for the FWD and 17.6 for the AWD. Mileage for the CX-9 on their site is 20.3 for the FWD and 18 for the AWD, but their are not many entries for the Traverse yet. ... I'm guessing the mileage diff between the Mazda and Chevy is 1 mpg at best.

Good luck with your purchase!

Respectfully,

Asia

My Dear Sir Asia:

Great homework! OK, you've convinced me that -- bottom line -- there's not enough of a mileage drop off with the CX-9 for me to fret over, esp. long-term.

I think the only thing holding me back from getting one right now is the ride. It's not that I think it's that bad, really. It's just one of those nagging things where you think to yourself, "Am I going to regret this in 6 months to a year, when I'm crossing over those railroad tracks I have to cross twice a day on my way to work and feeling so jarred that my teeth will chatter 'Ya shudda got the Traverse!' " lol

Most Respectfully,
DD

 

[CX9 SportOwner]

In 6 months you will still have the same firm but comfortable ride in the CX9, but the Traverse will probably be hopping all over the place on each bump.

Seriously, there isn't anything remotely bad about the ride of the CX9, and the extra firmness certainly improves control and safety.