Well now for the 64 thousand dollar question. I am sure somebody has already bought a new cx9 with all wheel drive. Does the transfer case on the new 9 have a drain plug? I am wondering because that is the weak link of the all wheel drive 9 In the previous models. Also how about the water pump. Is it internal as the previous models were? On the explorer forum I hear that these water pumps go taking the engine with it and becoming a big expense.
Spied: 2017 Mazda CX-9
- Thread starter crikey
- Start date
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Although I have a CX-5 AWD, but due to similarity of the two on powertrain design, I'd say there is a drain plug on new CX-9's transfer case just like CX-5's. New SkyActiv-G 2.5L Turbo in CX-9 is a transverse-mounted I4 where the water pump is located at one side of the engine which would make it easier to access than the water pump located "internal" in the previous Ford 2.7L V6 which is longitudinal-mounted.
Now where is my $64,000?
Thanks for the answer. The previous engine was a 3.5 for 2007 and 3.7 for the other years. It was also a transverse mounted engine. I wish that it was longitudinal mounted. That would make the water pump and the spark plugs more accessible and easier to do.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
Ha for some reason I thought 1st-gen CX-9 V6 is longitudinal-mounted. Yeah I did mean 3.7L V6 and 2.7L was a typo. But longitudinal-mounted V6 doesn't mean the water pump is easier to access. My 2001.5 VW Passat has longitudinal-mounted 2.8L V6 and you have to literally remove the whole front end to access the water pump which is driving by the timing belt (worst design ever by Audi!).
I guess I don't get $64,000 because I mistakenly said "longitudinal-mounted" "2.7L" V6?
I had my wife's Mazda 6 in for its NYS inspection and was checking out the new CX-9's on the lot. The Sales Manager there had just come in so we talked and he gave me the keys to his CX-9 Signature Edition he is driving and said take it for a drive, come back when you are done. It was nice to take it by myself, not have a salesperson along and take me on a certain "route". So I was able to get a decent ride of city, highway driving. I found the it to be everything I wanted it to be and more. Very quiet cabin, great interior, I didn't bother with the 2nd or 3rd row seats since I won't be sitting there. The HUD is great, especially since I drive so much for work I liked having the speed limit of the road you are on shown on the HUD along with your current speed. I quickly found myself doing 80MPH without much thought and it was a smooth ride that handled like a much smaller vehicle. Having had a CX-5 GT I found the CX-9 Signature a great ride, but still bothered by the seat.
I was very confused and annoyed by the lack of seat adjustment which has been discussed a lot. I simply found it odd, confusing and frankly stupid that Mazda would omit a critical seat adjustment that is available in the CX-5 and 6 series. I need to adjust the front of the seat up to have a comfortable position. I will have to do some additional test drives, but at this point I am pushing my desire to get one by EOY to maybe mid next year when my wife's lease is up. Maybe they will intro a CX-9 2016.5 edition and correct the seat issue due to complaints.
Also WTF with the lack of heated steering wheel when are NA counterparts in Canada get it. Not a deal breaker but certainly annoying to say the least.
I was very confused and annoyed by the lack of seat adjustment which has been discussed a lot. I simply found it odd, confusing and frankly stupid that Mazda would omit a critical seat adjustment that is available in the CX-5 and 6 series. I need to adjust the front of the seat up to have a comfortable position. I will have to do some additional test drives, but at this point I am pushing my desire to get one by EOY to maybe mid next year when my wife's lease is up. Maybe they will intro a CX-9 2016.5 edition and correct the seat issue due to complaints.
Also WTF with the lack of heated steering wheel when are NA counterparts in Canada get it. Not a deal breaker but certainly annoying to say the least.
Well, since the seats are a hot topic for many, myself included I opted to email Mazda, while I doubt they will provide anything of any value, it has given me reason for pause. Loved what I saw, drove and felt, but driver comfort and seating position are crucial to the overall driving experience.
- :
- Plano, Texas, USA
The 8-way power driver's seat including seat front adjustment is not only available in the CX-5 and Madza6, but also available in previous-gen CX-9!
Look--if you find a comfortable set up without the extra adjustment, it really doesn't matter at all if it's there. But if you can't find that comfort spot, it can be a deal killer.
I'm 5'10 and the seat fits me well; I have it in the lowest position. I expected a tilt seat, but I can live with what I got. Not many things I have to criticize on the Sig Edition...
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Very good point, I just don't see why they did it. TBH, I noticed as I drove my '16 Accord Touring that my seat is in a mostly flat position but again its a car and not an SUV. This seat issue hasn't ruled the CX9 out, it has given me great some concerns and when I have time to take it for a longer test drive I will focus on the seat comfort side. I had back surgery in 2009 to repair several herniated discs so seat comfort and position have always been crucial for me. Back in 2000 I had purchased a new 4Runner and a month into owning it I couldn't drive it due to the herniated discs, the result was taking a loss on the vehicle and then a few years later getting a Toyota Sequoia because it was the only seat I could drive prior to surgery. Now I'm pretty good but I still need just a tweak here and there on seat position and I just won't get myself into a car that I can't control seating position, even if that means I have to go up market to another brand to get what I need.
I took a quick look at the only one that my local dealer had, a silver Touring. Not sure why a Touring was factory stickered at $40,xxx. Wasn't the Grand Touring. Had the 18" wheels. The 18's looked bigger and better in person than in pics. Pictures show them awkwardly small. It was still clear that the CX-9 was designed around 20's or even bigger. I was surprised at the stock 18" tires used. Very beefy and rugged looking in contrast to the CX-9's classy sportiness. Looked off road ready.
I was expecting it to look a little bigger in person as it looks small in pictures. Still looks smaller than its 200" suggest. A Highlander is over 7 inches shorter but a Highlander still looks bigger just as the Highlander looks bigger that the old CX-9. Weird design illusions.
I was expecting it to look a little bigger in person as it looks small in pictures. Still looks smaller than its 200" suggest. A Highlander is over 7 inches shorter but a Highlander still looks bigger just as the Highlander looks bigger that the old CX-9. Weird design illusions.
CrazyBiker
Member
- :
- 14' Mazda6 GT Tech, 17' Kia Sorento SXL V6 AWD V6, BMW S1000R/RR
You are wrong sir. See the comparisons: http://www.thecarconnection.com/car...17-vs-mazda_cx-9_2016?trims=40056318,40056026
Sorento has almost 20 cuft more interior volume and more combined leg and head rooms inside as well as larger proportions in each row.
Last edited:
CrazyBiker
Member
- :
- 14' Mazda6 GT Tech, 17' Kia Sorento SXL V6 AWD V6, BMW S1000R/RR
Test driven Sorento as well as CX9 3 times each now over extended distances. Sorento is a no brainer, really with more space, features. Sorento is also quieter and feels more luxurious but CX9 is not too far. CX9 engine and drive is great but unfortunatelty thats where it ends as far as practicality and value are concerned.
Okay. So, clearly you're committed to your belief that the Sorento is superior. Then buy one. Mazda will still sell plenty of CX-9s to those able to appreciate its balance of qualities.
CrazyBiker
Member
- :
- 14' Mazda6 GT Tech, 17' Kia Sorento SXL V6 AWD V6, BMW S1000R/RR
Test drive one and keep an open mind! I am a Mazda owner and fan BTW but they dropped the ball on a value-based family oriented SUV IMHO
The figure for the Mazda is wrong on that site. It is 149.5 cu ft. according to Edmunds. That's close to the Sorento. As far as legroom, I may have assumed the CX-9 had more because Mazda specifically states that the CX-9 has more 2nd and 3rd row legroom than the Highlander on their site. I couldn't see how the Sorento is more roomy than the Highlander. The Sorento is a tweener bridging compact and midzize. The competition is squarely mid-size.
There's no doubt the Sorento's packaging is more efficient. That wasn't Mazda's top priority. The Kodo proportions was an important design element that cost them some space but to them and some buyers that is worth it. If cars were designed only for space efficiency we'd have a sea of squares on wheels.
I really like the Sorento myself. It was on my shortlist for a while but after sitting in all the models my wife didn't care for it. We both like the Highlander best. The new CX-9 has become a contender but admittedly a less likely buy than the well rounded Highlander. I love many models for all different reasons but it has to come down to one. Toyota has a way of designing cars that do everything well but nothing necessarily outstanding, except being superior in reliabilty/longevity. Mazda chooses to be great in several areas while sacrificing that well rounded optimal practicality of Toyota/Honda/Hyundai/Kia. That leaves Mazda the more exciting and fun vehicle and naturally you're going to be missing a few things.
CrazyBiker
Member
- :
- 14' Mazda6 GT Tech, 17' Kia Sorento SXL V6 AWD V6, BMW S1000R/RR
Mazda website clearly mentions 135.1 cuft and it really feels smaller than the Sorento. A bummer really. How did they manage to come up with the smallest interior with the largest exterior?
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=modelsSpecs&vehicleCode=CX9
And Sorento has more legroom than Highlander too. 4 inches less in the 3rd row believe it or not and if you see youtube Alex on Autos review's, he clearly mentions that. All 3 compared: http://www.thecarconnection.com/car...hlander_2016?trims=40056026,40052031,40053980
All 3 compared. It has the lowest cargo and that is where it suffers a bit. It's not a big concern for me as i would need a roof/hitch cargo box anyway on a long trip.
Oh, and the glove box and center console storage are smaller than even my Mazda6. WTH!
http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=modelsSpecs&vehicleCode=CX9
And Sorento has more legroom than Highlander too. 4 inches less in the 3rd row believe it or not and if you see youtube Alex on Autos review's, he clearly mentions that. All 3 compared: http://www.thecarconnection.com/car...hlander_2016?trims=40056026,40052031,40053980
All 3 compared. It has the lowest cargo and that is where it suffers a bit. It's not a big concern for me as i would need a roof/hitch cargo box anyway on a long trip.
Oh, and the glove box and center console storage are smaller than even my Mazda6. WTH!
Last edited:
First post guys... I have been following this thread for a while as I am considering the CX-9 and other 3-row crossovers/SUVs. I decided to post as I just recently rented a new V6 Sorento this past week on vacation.
I get what you are saying about the Sorento. It sounds like the Kia ticks your most important boxes. It is a good vehicle. It is quiet, comfortable, roomy, and has an engine with adequate power for every-day driving. The infotainment system is simple and efficient. That's about all I liked. The exterior styling is inoffensive but boring. My biggest gripe is that it drove like an absolute boat, especially on the highway. The space and interior utilization is impressive, but that isn't the most important factor (for me). If you need every millimeter of space, buy that Kia.
The reason that I prefer the CX-9 (on first drive) over the Sorento/highlander/pilot is that it drives better than all 3 and gives me enough space. The CX-9 is also the most attractive from a styling perspective to me. The Kia is dead last in that race in my opinion.
Ultimately, I think the Mazda was designed to compromise a bit of interior space to maximize the exterior style's impact. I also think that they intentionally made some design decisions to make the interior feel more car-like which reduced that space. Some, like yourself, would probably call this bad design. I would disagree.
It all comes down to what the most important factors are for the car-buyer. There is no car on this planet that ticks all of my boxes. At this point in my life, the CX-9 checks off a lot of them.
-Dynamic styling
-Good balance of torque and gas mileage.
-Adequate space. (this is the only place that the Kia easily wins)
-Top of class ride and handling
-Interior material quality
-Comfortable and quiet cabin
-Safety
-Bang-for-the-buck
-Adequate reliability and resale (this is where I lean to the pilot and highlander)
I really wish the CX-9 had ventilated seats though!
- :
- 2001 Mazda MP3
Anyone in this thread that is looking at 3 row CUV's considering the Explorer? And specifically the Explorer sport? Anyone driven one in comparison to the CX-9? I keep seeing the "imported" 3 row CUV comparisons, but the the Ford.
