Spied: 2017 Mazda CX-9

[redturboeclipse]

Thanks for sharing.

First review where I see the 0-60 times for the new CX9 Turbo.

zero to 60mph in 7.2 is not bad.

But I don't know if this info is trust-able because they say the Pilot do 0-60 in 6 seconds and the 0-60 video in Youtube for Pilot is 7.99 secs...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPeCjfHsidQ

the pilot is indeed fast.. the new/current pilot that is. there are several video reviews that will support the claim of 0-60 in the pilot in the 6s. and this is amazing considering it only gets 1 less MPG than the cx9 and its a lot faster. the video above looks like high elevation as stated.

there is some international review they got 7.4sec 100kmh which is slightly above 60mph
this one really shows about 6 seconds 0-60
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neO2OlSm6V4

 

[crikey]

Thanks for sharing.

First review where I see the 0-60 times for the new CX9 Turbo.

zero to 60mph in 7.2 is not bad.

But I don't know if this info is trust-able because they say the Pilot do 0-60 in 6 seconds and the 0-60 video in Youtube for Pilot is 7.99 secs...

[video=youtube;RPeCjfHsidQ]2016 Honda Pilot vs Toyota Highlander 0-60 MPH Test: By The Numbers[/video]

The folks at TFL (The Fast Lane Car) are located in Colorado which has higher elevation. I think that 0-60 times in higher elevations tend to be slower, just not sure by how much. Also, Car & Driver does a 1 foot rollout before they start the stopwatch and that makes the 0-60 time seem faster, again, not sure by how much -- probably by 0.3 seconds. Not saying C&D is right or that TFL is right, but each have their own ways of measuring 0-60 times and conditions affect the outcome.

 

[ls973800]

Nope, car uses r-134a. Manual and underhood sticker say r-134a.

I guess I was mistaken then. I swear I read that the R-1234yf was being used in the Mazda. I think in another year or two most cars are supposed to be switched over to the new stuff.

 

[cubanomx]

the pilot is indeed fast.. the new/current pilot that is. there are several video reviews that will support the claim of 0-60 in the pilot in the 6s. and this is amazing considering it only gets 1 less MPG than the cx9 and its a lot faster. the video above looks like high elevation as stated.

there is some international review they got 7.4sec 100kmh which is slightly above 60mph
this one really shows about 6 seconds 0-60
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neO2OlSm6V4

It's Amazing the Pilot makes 0-60 in 6 seconds with a SUV that size and weight. This numbers are in range with some Sport cars like Audi A5 (http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/audi-0-60-mph-times/) and Mercedes GLC300 (http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/mercedes-0-60-mph-times/)

It's just one second more than Porsche Cayenne GTS (http://www.zeroto60times.com/vehicle-make/porsche-0-60-mph-times/)

 

[JPL]

The Pilot of course has 2 separate 0-60 times. The two models with the 9 speed and the lower models with the 6 speed. That should also be considered. 6 seconds is the very generous figure with the 9 speed. I've seen the times all over the map among publications.

It's amazing the the Pilot, being so hefty and voluptuous, actually weighs less than the CX-9. Even with its V-6 vs 4. As well as having more equipment /features. Honda doesn't seem to go to the extremes Mazda does for weight savings. Just weird.

7.2 sec is great for the CX-9. That beats some V-6 competitors. But we'll still hear people calling it underpowered.

 

[cubanomx]

7.2 sec is great for the CX-9. That beats some V-6 competitors. But we'll still hear people calling it underpowered.

I still need to see some official numbers but the old cx9 make 0-60 mph in 7.7 - 7.9.

No doubt the new one is fastest.

 

[jcpharm]

can someone explain to me how the (Car&Driver test results) 0-60mph time is 7.2 sec but the 5-60mph (rolling start) time is 7.7 secs?

 

[cubanomx]

can someone explain to me how the (Car&Driver test results) 0-60mph time is 7.2 sec but the 5-60mph (rolling start) time is 7.7 secs?

I agree. It's weird no?

And they states the Pilot do 0-60mph in 6 seconds when in this video you can see is about 7.2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVRFthsg1Hw

 

[Robotazky]

can someone explain to me how the (Car&Driver test results) 0-60mph time is 7.2 sec but the 5-60mph (rolling start) time is 7.7 secs?

Hard to imagine, but maybe it's related to the new turbo.

 

[jal142]

can someone explain to me how the (Car&Driver test results) 0-60mph time is 7.2 sec but the 5-60mph (rolling start) time is 7.7 secs?

Every car is like this.

The 0-60 times are achieved by revving the engine to 3 or 4 thousand rpm with the other foot on the brake. Then you release the brake and floor it. You'll get a little wheelspin but you keep the engine in the meat of the power band (and the turbo spooled if you have one).

The rolling start times are always higher because the engine starts down near idle speed. With a turbo, the difference in the times is more pronounced because the turbo won't be producing any boost near idle.

 

[cubanomx]

Every car is like this.

The 0-60 times are achieved by revving the engine to 3 or 4 thousand rpm with the other foot on the brake. Then you release the brake and floor it. You'll get a little wheelspin but you keep the engine in the meat of the power band (and the turbo spooled if you have one).

The rolling start times are always higher because the engine starts down near idle speed. With a turbo, the difference in the times is more pronounced because the turbo won't be producing any boost near idle.

Have sense. And now I have a question: If I rev the engine to 3000/4000 rpm with the other foot on the brake, then I release the brake and hit the gas pedal to the max.... Is this safe for the engine?

 

[Turborascal]

It's much more of a strain on the torque converter/transmission than the engine.

This vehicle isn't a race car or a sports car; more for utility than acceleration contests.
For transmission longevity alone, I wouldn't do it if I were you.

 

[Dr Kev]

In my experience the Pilot handles poorly. Also, the point about the Pilot having more equipment/features isn't quite accurate. Honda makes you pay for the top trim to get things (e.g. Blind Spot monitoring, LED headlights, etc.) that are either standard across the board or far more widely available on the CX-9. The last thing I'll note is transmission manual shifting. You can get it on the Pilot if you 1) accept the terrible 9 speed transmission, 2) pay for one of the 2 top trim levels, and 3) are OK with the strange and distracting shift button arrangement. When I was about to drive the Pilot I thought that the notion of pushing buttons for drive, pulling back a control for reverse, etc., would be great. In practice, it's distracting to the point of being dangerous. Mazda goes with a more logical arrangement: an actual shift lever with a logical arrangement for upshifting (pull back) and downshifting (push forward).

"It's amazing the the Pilot, being so hefty and voluptuous, actually weighs less than the CX-9. Even with its V-6 vs 4. As well as having more equipment /features. Honda doesn't seem to go to the extremes Mazda does for weight savings. Just weird."

 

[cubanomx]

It's much more of a strain on the torque converter/transmission than the engine.

This vehicle isn't a race car or a sports car; more for utility than acceleration contests.
For transmission longevity alone, I wouldn't do it if I were you.

I will never do this to any of my cars in my life. When I sell my cars after 5 - 6 years, they are always like new.

I just sell my cx9 2011 and had an almost perfect mechanical and exterior/interior condition.

 

[cubanomx]

In my experience the Pilot handles poorly. Also, the point about the Pilot having more equipment/features isn't quite accurate. Honda makes you pay for the top trim to get things (e.g. Blind Spot monitoring, LED headlights, etc.) that are either standard across the board or far more widely available on the CX-9. The last thing I'll note is transmission manual shifting. You can get it on the Pilot if you 1) accept the terrible 9 speed transmission, 2) pay for one of the 2 top trim levels, and 3) are OK with the strange and distracting shift button arrangement. When I was about to drive the Pilot I thought that the notion of pushing buttons for drive, pulling back a control for reverse, etc., would be great. In practice, it's distracting to the point of being dangerous. Mazda goes with a more logical arrangement: an actual shift lever with a logical arrangement for upshifting (pull back) and downshifting (push forward).

"It's amazing the the Pilot, being so hefty and voluptuous, actually weighs less than the CX-9. Even with its V-6 vs 4. As well as having more equipment /features. Honda doesn't seem to go to the extremes Mazda does for weight savings. Just weird."

How is the shift arrangement buttons in the Pilot?

 

[JPL]

How is the shift arrangement buttons in the Pilot?

https://cnet1.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/...7378997ac5c800676865e5/2016hondapilot-154.jpg

 

[JPL]

Potentially dangerous gear selector. There have been numerous roll aways because of electronic gear selectors (like the knobs in Chrysler products). It killed the Star Trek actor because his Jeep rolled into him.

 

[crikey]

Potentially dangerous gear selector. There have been numerous roll aways because of electronic gear selectors (like the knobs in Chrysler products). It killed the Star Trek actor because his Jeep rolled into him.

I read somewhere that the ZF 9-speed used on the Pilot and MDX automatically shifts to Park once the door opens, so there should not be any risk of a rollaway. I could be wrong though.

 

[Dr Kev]

The Pilot's button arrangement looks cool, but is difficult to use on the fly. Of course, the Pilot 6 speed has a regular straight gate shifter, but no real manual control. This is a BAD safety misstep to force buyers into the silly button arrangement in order to get an often overlooked safety feature: manual shifting capabilities!

 

[JPL]

I read somewhere that the ZF 9-speed used on the Pilot and MDX automatically shifts to Park once the door opens, so there should not be any risk of a rollaway. I could be wrong though.

Hopefully this is the case. A lot of people simply forget to put these in park when the traditional tactile feel of a shifter is gone. The early Chrysler models with these electronic units didn't provide adequate feedback or auto park mechanisms.