So I compared a fully-loaded $65k QX60 to the $53k CX-9 Signature..

[sm1ke]

My brother-in-law is a Nissan dealer sales rep, and one of his perks as a rep is a company car of his choosing (basically anything except the GTR). Long story short, even in a straight-up trade, I wouldn't trade the CX-9 (MSRP $53k) for it.

FYI, MSRP prices I've listed here include taxes, freight, and all other applicable fees (as of 03/2019). Pricing is in CAD and reflects Canadian versions of all vehicles.


The first car he got was a 2019 Nissan Murano Platinum (MSRP $48k). I never actually drove this car, but rode in it a few times. Comfort was average, but it felt like there was a disconnect between the car and the road during turns. It felt "floaty", but not in a good, confidence-inspiring way.

I can't really speak on the acceleration or the transmission, but the interior was pretty forgettable. I did like the wood trim on the doors and the stitch design on the seats. Aside from that, the car he got was what I would call a bad apple. There were some issues with the ignition or starter or something. He only had it for a couple of months, but during that time the car would just die and wouldn't start back up. It happened 3-4 times, and he had to get it towed back to the dealership once.

The next car he got was a 2019 Infiniti QX60 Pure AWD (MSRP $65k). It's only available in one trim with a MSRP of $56k, but it has 2 additional packages that bring the MSRP up to $65k. It's an attractive car, and anyone who appreciates the looks of the CX-9 or CX-5 can appreciate the look of the QX60.

I was immediately impressed by the heft of the door and the way it sounds when it opens and closes. It's an odd thing to like, I know (sssh), but it made it feel like I was closing the heavy, expensive door of a "true" luxury vehicle. The base trim includes some nice features - reverse tilt-down mirrors, remote start, and entry/exit assist for steering wheel and seat. Besides that, included in the additional packages are more features that add to the premium feel, like a 2nd and 3rd row moonroof, motion-activated lift gate, air purifier, Active Trace Control (lane centering), Blind Spot Intervention, Backup Collision Intervention, and a Theater package (HDMI-ready 8" headrest monitors with wireless headphones and remote control). It also has some bonus touches I like, such as proximity lighting on the front driver and passenger handles, pre-crash seatbelts that auto-adjust the tension when you belt in, and the hefty expensive-feeling doors. The 3rd row access is also better, as the seat bottom flips up when you slide the 2nd row seat forward, allowing you to move the 2nd row seat further up than the CX-9's 2nd row seat. Cabin noise seemed to be about the same as the CX-9. Something to note, the heated seats on the QX60 work much faster than they do on the CX-9. Also, there's no HUD option on the QX60, as far as I can tell.

The driving experience was another story. I've only driven it a couple of times, but it was enough to know that this wasn't the car for me. The car actually felt heavier than it looked, even with the 295-hp 3.5L V6 engine. I think it has a lot to do with the CVT transmission, it made acceleration feel so bland and boring. The CX-9 is only 1/10th faster in the 0-60, but getting to 60 is a totally different experience. Steering is ok, it's a little heavier than the CX-9 but it doesn't feel as responsive or as nimble. The connection to the road felt better than the Murano, but the CX-9 still handles better than both (no surprise there). The suspension and NVH were a bit of a surprise to me. Both the CX-9 and the QX60 handle bumps, dips and road imperfections in the same composed manner. I thought for sure the QX60 would win out here, especially considering the 55-series tires it comes with.


Overall, there's a lot to like about the QX60, but not enough to make me feel comfortable about spending $12k more for it. The QX60 definitely highlights some of the ground Mazda needs to make up to really play with premium automakers, but the overall experience just made me appreciate the CX-9 a little more.

 

[sm1ke]

I just realized that I forgot to compare the rear-view camera resolution. D'oh! I'll compare them next time.

 

[dougal]

Nice write up. We are still in the Pathfinder and even my wife hates it. There are 28 buttons on the front dash that you have to look at. The car is heavy and feels like an anchor. My wife commented that it felt like driving an old pick up truck.

What did surprise me was how bad the rear camera was in the Pathfinder - I thought that was a Mazda only thing!

The CVT is not bad as long as you don't push it. Once you do, it drones and hunts and just feels unhinged. However, if you drive it slowly and gingerly, it was fine and I was getting great gas mileage (26 MPG!).

Also, sm1ke, I thought you had a grey CX-9?

 

[sm1ke]

Nice write up. We are still in the Pathfinder and even my wife hates it. There are 28 buttons on the front dash that you have to look at. The car is heavy and feels like an anchor. My wife commented that it felt like driving an old pick up truck.

What did surprise me was how bad the rear camera was in the Pathfinder - I thought that was a Mazda only thing!

The CVT is not bad as long as you don't push it. Once you do, it drones and hunts and just feels unhinged. However, if you drive it slowly and gingerly, it was fine and I was getting great gas mileage (26 MPG!).

Also, sm1ke, I thought you had a grey CX-9?

I was trying to drive the QX60 the same way I'd drive my CX-9. On a scale of 1 to 10 (1 being my grandmother and 10 being a lead-footed boyracer), I'd describe my driving as 6, maybe 7. You bring up a good point though, the acceleration was smooth and consistent as long as I eased into it. However, if I wanted to speed up to pass a slow-moving car, I got that "rubberband/slingshot" feeling. It felt really foreign to me. I'm sure that with enough time behind the wheel I could get used to it and come to anticipate the rubberband feeling, thus making it more comfortable to drive, but to be honest, I just didn't like the feeling.

I also didn't get a chance to fairly compare the mileage as I'm not the one who usually drives the QX60, but I did note that it was getting 14.0 L/100km (17 mpg) while my CX-9 is currently getting 13.0L/100km (18 mpg). That's with my brother-in-law and my sister driving the QX60, and they're not as hard on the accelerator as me. Again, lots of other factors to consider, so these numbers don't mean much.

dougal I do have a grey CX-9, I just used a stock image of a white one to compare to the white QX60.

 

[Silly Wabbit]

I automatically crossed it out from my shopping list because of the CVT + the profile isn't too appealing.

 

[JPL]

It's weird, while many people may see similarities in the design language of Mazda and Infiniti, I love Mazda's design but Infiniti's does nothing for me. I don't care for the QX60 at all but love the CX-9's design. I wouldn't even pay $45K for a QX60.

 

[tex2670]

My brother-in-law is a Nissan dealer sales rep, and one of his perks as a rep is a company car of his choosing (basically anything except the GTR). Long story short, even in a straight-up trade, I wouldn't trade the CX-9 (MSRP $53k) for it.

FYI, MSRP prices I've listed here include taxes, freight, and all other applicable fees (as of 03/2019). Pricing is in CAD and reflects Canadian versions of all vehicles.


The first car he got was a 2019 Nissan Murano Platinum (MSRP $48k). I never actually drove this car, but rode in it a few times. Comfort was average, but it felt like there was a disconnect between the car and the road during turns. It felt "floaty", but not in a good, confidence-inspiring way.

I can't really speak on the acceleration or the transmission, but the interior was pretty forgettable. I did like the wood trim on the doors and the stitch design on the seats. Aside from that, the car he got was what I would call a bad apple. There were some issues with the ignition or starter or something. He only had it for a couple of months, but during that time the car would just die and wouldn't start back up. It happened 3-4 times, and he had to get it towed back to the dealership once.

The next car he got was a 2019 Infiniti QX60 Pure AWD (MSRP $65k). It's only available in one trim with a MSRP of $56k, but it has 2 additional packages that bring the MSRP up to $65k. It's an attractive car, and anyone who appreciates the looks of the CX-9 or CX-5 can appreciate the look of the QX60.

I was immediately impressed by the heft of the door and the way it sounds when it opens and closes. It's an odd thing to like, I know (sssh), but it made it feel like I was closing the heavy, expensive door of a "true" luxury vehicle. The base trim includes some nice features - reverse tilt-down mirrors, remote start, and entry/exit assist for steering wheel and seat. Besides that, included in the additional packages are more features that add to the premium feel, like a 2nd and 3rd row moonroof, motion-activated lift gate, air purifier, Active Trace Control (lane centering), Blind Spot Intervention, Backup Collision Intervention, and a Theater package (HDMI-ready 8" headrest monitors with wireless headphones and remote control). It also has some bonus touches I like, such as proximity lighting on the front driver and passenger handles, pre-crash seatbelts that auto-adjust the tension when you belt in, and the hefty expensive-feeling doors. The 3rd row access is also better, as the seat bottom flips up when you slide the 2nd row seat forward, allowing you to move the 2nd row seat further up than the CX-9's 2nd row seat. Cabin noise seemed to be about the same as the CX-9. Something to note, the heated seats on the QX60 work much faster than they do on the CX-9. Also, there's no HUD option on the QX60, as far as I can tell.

The driving experience was another story. I've only driven it a couple of times, but it was enough to know that this wasn't the car for me. The car actually felt heavier than it looked, even with the 295-hp 3.5L V6 engine. I think it has a lot to do with the CVT transmission, it made acceleration feel so bland and boring. The CX-9 is only 1/10th faster in the 0-60, but getting to 60 is a totally different experience. Steering is ok, it's a little heavier than the CX-9 but it doesn't feel as responsive or as nimble. The connection to the road felt better than the Murano, but the CX-9 still handles better than both (no surprise there). The suspension and NVH were a bit of a surprise to me. Both the CX-9 and the QX60 handle bumps, dips and road imperfections in the same composed manner. I thought for sure the QX60 would win out here, especially considering the 55-series tires it comes with.


Overall, there's a lot to like about the QX60, but not enough to make me feel comfortable about spending $12k more for it. The QX60 definitely highlights some of the ground Mazda needs to make up to really play with premium automakers, but the overall experience just made me appreciate the CX-9 a little more.

Honestly, I would question whether the QX60 provides the added value you pay for over a loaded Pathfinder. And I'd much rather have the CX-9 over a Pathfinder. So your analysis is spot on.

 

[dougal]

It's weird, while many people may see similarities in the design language of Mazda and Infiniti, I love Mazda's design but Infiniti's does nothing for me. I don't care for the QX60 at all but love the CX-9's design. I wouldn't even pay $45K for a QX60.

The FX35 was a nice looking car. Not a big fan of the rest.

 

[sm1ke]

It's weird, while many people may see similarities in the design language of Mazda and Infiniti, I love Mazda's design but Infiniti's does nothing for me. I don't care for the QX60 at all but love the CX-9's design. I wouldn't even pay $45K for a QX60.

There are some definite similarities, but I think Mazda executes their designs much better. Another weird thing I'd have to get used to is how bulbous the hood looks from the driver's seat. But I'm nitpicking now.

Honestly, I would question whether the QX60 provides the added value you pay for over a loaded Pathfinder. And I'd much rather have the CX-9 over a Pathfinder. So your analysis is spot on.

Yeah, I mean I'm sure there are some advantages, but they aren't worth the extra cash. I'd love to drive a new Pathfinder to compare, but the looks don't do anything for me. At least it looks better than the Murano.

The FX35 was a nice looking car. Not a big fan of the rest.

I agree. Quick car too. I had it for a week as a rental during a business trip. No idea what trim I had, but the interior wasn't anything to write home about. Nice to drive though.

 

[sm1ke]

One thing I forgot to mention for the QX60 - it has a front parking camera. Does anyone know if the 2019 CX-9/5 (with 360-degree cam) has a front camera too?

 

[sm1ke]

Ok, here's a comparison of the back up cam quality on both the QX60 and the CX-9. Photos were taken at sunset using my phone, about 2 minutes apart.

CX-9:

QX60:

I'm not sure what's going on with the yellow tinge on the CX-9 camera, it was probably because of the sun/glare and the camera trying to adjust. Despite that, the QX60 camera's quality and resolution is actually worse than the camera on the CX-9. They look kind of similar in the pics, but in person it was more obvious.

 

[azuzu]

Yes, 2019s have a front camera.

 

[prulex]

Nice write up. We are still in the Pathfinder and even my wife hates it. There are 28 buttons on the front dash that you have to look at. The car is heavy and feels like an anchor. My wife commented that it felt like driving an old pick up truck.

What did surprise me was how bad the rear camera was in the Pathfinder - I thought that was a Mazda only thing!

The CVT is not bad as long as you don't push it. Once you do, it drones and hunts and just feels unhinged. However, if you drive it slowly and gingerly, it was fine and I was getting great gas mileage (26 MPG!).

Also, sm1ke, I thought you had a grey CX-9?

We came from a 2017 Pathfinder Platinum loaded to the hilt. I believe it stickered for $45K. Although the PF had some nice features not found in the CX-9 (panoramic moonroof, side mirrors tied to seat memory, electronic tilt/telescoping wheel, motion-activated liftgate), I was glad to see it in my rearview mirror as I left the Mazda dealer with the 2019 CX-9. Engine/tranny combo in the PF were no good. It drove and handled like a boat. Also had pretty poor wind/noise insulation. PF is definitely a larger vehicle inside and out, but that's about all it has going for it compared to the CX-9. Resale value due to early CVT issues in 2013-2015 was very poor as well. The QX60 is just a fancy Pathfinder imo.

 

[dougal]

We came from a 2017 Pathfinder Platinum loaded to the hilt. I believe it stickered for $45K. Although the PF had some nice features not found in the CX-9 (panoramic moonroof, side mirrors tied to seat memory, electronic tilt/telescoping wheel, motion-activated liftgate), I was glad to see it in my rearview mirror as I left the Mazda dealer with the 2019 CX-9. Engine/tranny combo in the PF were no good. It drove and handled like a boat. Also had pretty poor wind/noise insulation. PF is definitely a larger vehicle inside and out, but that's about all it has going for it compared to the CX-9. Resale value due to early CVT issues in 2013-2015 was very poor as well. The QX60 is just a fancy Pathfinder imo.

That is interesting to hear. I think we have the low level model as there is no sun roof. It does appear to have leather seats. Agree 100% with the handling. It is just a boat. My wife has been driving it this week and I am back in the CX-5. I almost forgot how nice of a ride that old car is. Mazda's have a definite feel to them.

 

[sm1ke]

Another plus for the CX-9 that a lot of people seem to overlook is the auto-locking/walk-away locking feature. I find it very useful as a dad to a 1-year old, it's nice to not have to fumble with my keys after taking my daughter out of the car and closing the door. As far as I can tell, the QX60 doesn't have that feature. I find this odd because some Mazdas and Hondas have had it since 2016, the MDX has had it since 2017, and now even some Kias have walk-away locking features.

 

[b11lee]

Another plus for the CX-9 that a lot of people seem to overlook is the auto-locking/walk-away locking feature. I find it very useful as a dad to a 1-year old, it's nice to not have to fumble with my keys after taking my daughter out of the car and closing the door. As far as I can tell, the QX60 doesn't have that feature. I find this odd because some Mazdas and Hondas have had it since 2016, the MDX has had it since 2017, and now even some Kias have walk-away locking features.

That's actually the one feature I hate on the CX-9. I found that it was too quick to lock and was quite inconvenient. But other than that, it was interesting to read your comparison (and all of your other DIY guides!). My parents had the first gen Pathfinder way back in 1998 and even then I remember the thing felt like a really heavy boat, and I was nowhere old enough to drive lol. Looks like things haven't changed too much over the years.

 

[sm1ke]

That's actually the one feature I hate on the CX-9. I found that it was too quick to lock and was quite inconvenient. But other than that, it was interesting to read your comparison (and all of your other DIY guides!). My parents had the first gen Pathfinder way back in 1998 and even then I remember the thing felt like a really heavy boat, and I was nowhere old enough to drive lol. Looks like things haven't changed too much over the years.

Interesting. I think you can change the auto-lock timeout, but I don't think you can change the proximity distance.

I've noticed two odd things about the system. I can't walk around the front of the car to get to the passenger side or the proximity auto-lock will trigger. I have to walk around the rear. This is probably because there are no proximity locks in the front clip, only in the doors and the liftgate. The other thing is that if the last door I close is the liftgate, I have to stand by the car until the liftgate closes completely in order for the auto-lock to prime (beep). Then I can walk away. Would be nice if I could just hit the button and walk away.

 

[sm1ke]

One last update and I think I'll be done with the comparison.

This weekend, we did a little road trip with my sister, brother-in-law, wife and daughter. We took the QX60 on a 900 mile round trip to Minnesota. Since it's a company car, the brother-in-law was the only one "allowed" to drive it, but I was still able to get a good feel of how it handles the highways and how the 2nd row feels during a long drive.

Passing power with the 3.5 is great. Power is there when you need it, but the weird rubberband feeling of the CVT was strange. My wife even commented on it and she's usually not they type to notice such things. I forgot to ask him what the mileage was like, but I assume it was decent with the CVT and the way he was driving it. Night time visibility was also slightly better in the QX60 (I think it has LED headlights like the CX-9).

The QX60 cabin is louder than the CX-9. While the engine was pretty quiet, the wind noise was noticeable, but it may just be because I was paying more attention to it. The wind noise seemed to be quieter in the CX-9 on the last road trip we did. Suspension is worse in the QX60. You can hear the car going over the road seams, while it's more muffled and less pervasive in the CX-9. The CX-9 also soaks the bumps up a bit better, which helps to minimize suspension noise. Cargo space is nice in the QX60. Aside from the extra vertical space, it seems like there is also more floor width between the rear wheels. It was also nice to have a 120v socket for charging my phone, as well as the extra USB ports in the 3rd row. We didn't actually use the 3rd row, but as far as I could tell, it didn't have HVAC control or any vents that I could see.

Comfort in the 2nd row was.. eh. Seats are fine and recline back just like the CX-9, but the floor is just a bit high, and I found that with my feet flat, the back of my knees weren't touching anything. I had to jam my feet under the driver's seat to nap comfortably. Also, there is a seat rail that sits higher than the floor, and extends almost halfway from the rear seat to the front seats (see pic). This rail allows the 2nd row to slide forward and provide great 3rd row entry, but its a weird high spot on an already high floor. I found myself switching foot position quite often just to get comfortable. It was nice to not have the "hump" in the floor of the middle seat.

I didn't notice this earlier, but the QX60 doesn't come with sun shades for the windows.

Fit and finish on the QX60 headliner, specifically around the 2nd/3rd row moonroof, was disappointing. Check out the pics. Some visible gaps and weird jagged edges (see pics). The CX-9's fit and finish is much better in this regard.

Finally, this is more of a preference, but I noticed that there is no BSM indicator on the side view mirror, instead an LED light comes on in the interior. I'd rather see the indicator in the mirror.

 

[Montanaman]

Interesting observations. I'm surprised Infinity put a CVT in their top end vehicles. That along is a total deal killer for me.

 

[sm1ke]

Interesting observations. I'm surprised Infinity put a CVT in their top end vehicles. That along is a total deal killer for me.

Same here. I'm sure a lot of people don't mind the CVT, and I think they put it in there to help with mileage and make it feel "smoother" to accelerate, but it's just not for me.

Another thing I noticed was wind noise from the sunroof. It wasn't bad in the QX60 at all. We would be traveling 120 km/hr and we'd have to crack the sunroof whenever we passed certain spots notorious for skunk crossings, and it was fairly quiet. It had me wondering about the CX-9's wind noise, so on my way home yesterday, I opened the sunroof while traveling at 90 km/hr. It was noticeably quieter than the QX60.. I suppose you could argue that I wasn't going as fast and crosswinds could have played a role, but the wind noise from the sunroof was the quietest I've heard out of all the vehicles I've ridden in. My car doesn't have a hood or sunroof deflector.