Spied: 2017 Mazda CX-9
- Thread starter crikey
- Start date
Yeah. That's what Honda says. Realistically, only 2 can fit comfortably back there. My uncle has one and I would not put 3 back there unless I don't like them or just really have to. It doesn't change the fact that only 2 can sit in the 2nd row which compromises cargo space if there are more than 3 passengers.
RedHotFuzz
Member
- :
- '16 Durango R/T, '10 VW Sportwagen
So the 2017 Santa Fe is on dealer lots while the 2016 CX-9 is still months away. Bad move, Mazda.
It will be here in June....slow your roll. Everyone killed Mazda for the CX-5 being out nearly a year early every model year. Now they actually release a model year in the calendar year and you kill them for it too. Good grief.
The 2017 Santa Fe is a refresh, with some new body panels, and new trim levels, but otherwise, the exact same car with the exact same engine. Hyundai could have premiered the 2017 version 18 months ago if they wanted.... Mazda has a completely new car with a completely new engine, with no Ford parts? Do you want it now, or to you want it right?
Per the EPA, 2016 Mazda CX-9 Three-Row Is Most Efficient Non-Hybrid in Its Class
Mazdas transformation of its U.S. lineup is complete, and the CX-9 three-row crossover is the latest model to be completely redesigned under the new Skyactiv ethos. This bit of marketing hyperbole represents Mazdas aggressive weight-savings design techniques and fuel-efficient engine technologies, and every vehicle introduced under the Skyactiv banner has offered very competitive fuel economy. The 2016 CX-9 and its just-released EPA fuel-economy estimates are no different, as they put the CX-9 at the top of the gas-powered, three-row crossover heap.
The CX-9 is EPA-rated at 22 mpg in the city and 28 mpg on the highway with front-wheel drive; all-wheel drive drops 1 mpg from each of those figures. That places the Mazda above the Honda Pilot, Toyota Highlander, Hyundai Santa Fe, and Nissan Pathfinder. The front-wheel-drive Ford Explorer matches the front-drive CX-9s 28 mpg on the highway, but thats only with its optional turbocharged four-cylinder enginethe V-6 models and all-wheel-drive versions all fall short of the Mazda. The 2016 Kia Sorento, with its base 2.4-liter four-cylinder engine and front-wheel drive, manages to top the CX-9s highway fuel economy by 1 mpghowever, a third-row seat is optional in that model with that engine, meaning that the EPA fuel-economy figures likely only account for the lighter two-row iteration; in any case, the Kias 24 mpg combined figure is lower than the CX-9s, as is its 21-mpg city estimate. Mazda, for its part, claims that the CX-9 is more efficient than every other non-hybrid, midsize, three-row crossover SUV, which would seem to exclude the base-model Kia Sorento. Either way, the point is that the Mazda is one of the most efficient three-row family haulers out there.
Besides taking it to the rest of the three-row crossover field, the new CX-9 also handily beats the old CX-9s fuel economy. This is partly due to its smaller, turbocharged 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine and new six-speed automatic transmission (the old model used a Ford V-6), while the rest can be chalked up to the roughly 300 pounds Mazda stripped from the CX-9s curb weight. The new engines turbocharger also uses a clever, cooled exhaust-gas recirculation (EGR) system to keep engine temperatures low, thus reducing the need to add extra fuel to the combustion chamber to cool things off; without wasting fuel on cooling, fuel economy improves. Go figure. Mazda adds that the EGR setup may not affect the CX-9s EPA fuel-economy estimates, but the automaker thinks it will pay off in real-world use. Well find out soon enoughthe CX-9 goes on sale this spring.
I applaud Mazda for making fuel economy a priority, while getting 310 lb/ft of torque on the new SKYACTIV-G 2.5T engine.
Dr. Awkward
Member
- :
- 2017 Honda Ridgeline RTL-E
crikey's post points to the CX 9 being a top rated SUV as you can bet that the frame has the same great results in crash tests as the CX 5.
I am optimistic but skeptical. Other manufacturers have put turbo 4s in big cars with great EPA results but real world fuel economy doesn't usually match up. The Ford Explorer with the 2.0 ecoboost promised similar numbers but didn't deliver. This engine is .5L bigger and may be better suited to a large CUV but we will have to see.
It also has foundations of a an engine that in NA form has revolutionary 13 compression ratio and uses intercooled ex. gas recirculation. 2.5L in my subaru legacy spec b with the most basic turbo design you can think of was designed in the times when dinosours were still roaming the earth...yet it could return 30mpg driving 75mph on the highway easy....with mazda's engine designed literally 20 years later...I can see how those numbers can be close to real life...my bet is that actual city numbers will be lower and hwy numbers will be higher. .as it usually is for turbo charged cars..rendering similar average consumption. Yeh I know it's a heavy car, still...once that mass is moving on the hwy...it becomes much less relevant
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
I drove a Legacy GT wagon myself. That engine was perfectly sized for that car. It was big enough that you could drive it leisurely without really spooling up the turbo, returning really good economy. When driven hard, the turbo provided fantastic power and torque but fuel economy dropped like a rock. In more recent years, several manufacturers have tried to get away with smaller turbos in larger vehicles. It doesn't end up working out the way it did in the Legacy GT. The larger/heavier vehicles require that the turbos do more work and do it more often. They end up drinking fuel comparable to a larger engine. I'm hopeful that Mazda pulls this off. It's worth noting that the non-turbo skyactiv engines provide real world efficiency that is pretty close to the EPA numbers. I hope they manage to do the same here because those EPA numbers for the CX-9 could be game-changing.
New here and new to Mazdas. I was considering an MDX before I came across some of the early info on the 2016 CX-9 and now I'm intrigued.
I know the information isn't out yet, but based on precedent and your own opinion, what do you think about the two questions below?
- When will we likely see safety ratings for the new CX-9? How close to when they are for sale will that data likely be available?
- For the Signature trim, I've only seen references to the auburn nappa leather. Do you think there will be nappa leather offered in other colors? I have seen some of the pictures where it looks nice and others where it looks too "orange".
Any thoughts/speculation is welcome!
I know the information isn't out yet, but based on precedent and your own opinion, what do you think about the two questions below?
- When will we likely see safety ratings for the new CX-9? How close to when they are for sale will that data likely be available?
- For the Signature trim, I've only seen references to the auburn nappa leather. Do you think there will be nappa leather offered in other colors? I have seen some of the pictures where it looks nice and others where it looks too "orange".
Any thoughts/speculation is welcome!
My guess is that the IIHS ratings won't be available until well after the new CX-9 has been on sale. The NHTSA ratings might be out sooner. One thing I notice is that car manufacturers are pretty accurate about predicting their ratings. If they say they expect it to be a top safety pick+, it usually is.
Last edited:
If you are looking at an MDX, are you really comparing to a CX-9? Why not then consider a Pilot Elite, or a Highlander Limited?
Personally, while I love the MDX, I have a hard time moving up to that class because I feel that the top level Pilot/Highlander/CX-9 has a lot to offer, and the MDX doesn't have $10,000 more in value that those vehicles (because that's how much it would cost to equip an MDX the same as a Pilot Elite).
The $1,000,000 question is the new 2.5T Skyactive engine--will it be durable? Will it be smooth (as smooth as an MDX? I highly doubt it). There's just no way to tell.
As for the leather, I'm going to guess there will be at least 2 color selections--but maybe only certain exterior colors have one choice. Again--everything at this point is speculation.
I'm more conservative, and I would not get the CX-9 in its first MY.
While the 3.5L engine in the MDX is smooth, the 9-speed ZF transmission has been a bit of a troublemaker. I am also considering an MDX (and the Pilot) and the transmission is giving me reason to walk away. The design of this transmission includes dog clutches (mostly used in manual transmissions) that seem to the source of grief with most owners. Acura has continually provided updates to it and the latest update may have done the trick. However, it is also known that Honda has a 10-speed AT waiting on the wings so this 9-speed AT seems to be a stopgap.
Last edited:
This is where a lot of my concerns are as well with the MDX. I've been reading about the transmission concerns and the idea that they are already looking to swap it out for the 10AT as soon as 2018 (2017 w/the Odyssey will likely be the first). Also, the Alabama plant for the MDX seems to be having a lot of general QC issues that weren't there in the RDX (Ohio plant, I believe).
I am a current Acura owner and have always loved my car. That led me to start with an RDX/MDX decision but expand to include the CX-9 Signature trim if it checks a lot of the boxes. And if you compare a CX-9 Signature to an MDX w/Tech, the price difference will be way less than $10k as far as what you'll actually pay.
Even the Pilot Elites vs the MDX Base are very close to each other in my area with the Pilots not selling for much of discount against MSRP and the MDX's selling for a good discount.
Thanks for the input. I'm very anxious to see the CX-9 pricing and trim details for the Signature and also interested to see what the new 2017 MDX looks like in a couple weeks.
I guess we both check out the same MDX forum.
Yeah, the fact that they are getting the 10AT ready for a possible 2018 swap concerns me. A 2-year run for the 9-speed ZF might not bode well for resale of the 2016-2017 MDX model years. It might be flagged as the years to avoid. My guess is that the price premium on the Pilot will die down and the price difference between the Pilot and MDX will widen. It's only due to lack of supply that the Pilot is maintaining the high price point. It's always like this when a new model comes out.
Yup, once we get CX-9 pricing, we'll have a better idea as to which is the better value. I do feel that the CX-9 will be priced competitively, with the 1st year having price premiums similar to what is currently going on with the 2016 Pilot.
Seeing as the Pilot is new this year, and the CX-9 will be brand new, yeah, I can see how prices will be close to MSRP for a while.
To those considering other vehicles...
I bought a 2017 Hyundai Santa Fe limited ultimate 10 days ago.
While I like all the bells and whistles, the more I drive it, the more I wish
I had my bare-bones CX-9 sport back. Or at least I wish I had waited for the new CX-9 to come out.
I drove all the usual suspects (pilot, highlander, durango, traverse, sorento) and I thought
that the Santa Fe was the closest thing to the CX-9. Maybe it is, but not close enough after driving
the Santa Fe for a couple hundred miles now. I miss my 9, busted transfer case and all.
I bought a 2017 Hyundai Santa Fe limited ultimate 10 days ago.
While I like all the bells and whistles, the more I drive it, the more I wish
I had my bare-bones CX-9 sport back. Or at least I wish I had waited for the new CX-9 to come out.
I drove all the usual suspects (pilot, highlander, durango, traverse, sorento) and I thought
that the Santa Fe was the closest thing to the CX-9. Maybe it is, but not close enough after driving
the Santa Fe for a couple hundred miles now. I miss my 9, busted transfer case and all.
3.5L DI Toyota V6 (2GR-FKS) headed into CX-9?
I'm gonna play devil's advocate here...
With the introduction of the 2017 Toyota Highlander, the press release seems to indicate that the 3.5-liter direct-injected V6 gasoline engine (2GR-FKS) of the 2016 Lexus RX350 is making its way (in some form) to the 2017 Toyota Highlander along with the 8-speed transmission. Since Mazda and Toyota collaborated on the Scion (now, Toyota) iA which is a rebadged Mazda2 Sedan, would this Toyota motor (and transmission) make its way into the CX-9 later in the upcoming generation's life? Mazda, being a smaller manufacturer, may not have the economies of scale to develop a V6 and Toyota can provide the V6 motor in exchange for Mazda not selling the Mazda2 in North America. The Scion iA seems to be selling quite well and is probably helped by Mazda not offering the Mazda2 here in North America.
I'm gonna play devil's advocate here...
With the introduction of the 2017 Toyota Highlander, the press release seems to indicate that the 3.5-liter direct-injected V6 gasoline engine (2GR-FKS) of the 2016 Lexus RX350 is making its way (in some form) to the 2017 Toyota Highlander along with the 8-speed transmission. Since Mazda and Toyota collaborated on the Scion (now, Toyota) iA which is a rebadged Mazda2 Sedan, would this Toyota motor (and transmission) make its way into the CX-9 later in the upcoming generation's life? Mazda, being a smaller manufacturer, may not have the economies of scale to develop a V6 and Toyota can provide the V6 motor in exchange for Mazda not selling the Mazda2 in North America. The Scion iA seems to be selling quite well and is probably helped by Mazda not offering the Mazda2 here in North America.
Last edited:
