Spied: 2017 Mazda CX-9

[crikey]

As someone said later in the discussion, there's no perfect vehicle. Still, I find it laughable that Honda doesn't even have true blind spot monitoring except on its top Pilot Elite trim. Also, do you want standard-setting LED headlights across the board? Mazda delivers; Pilot-nope!

I never really understood why basic safety features like BSM and rear traffic cross alert are not part of Honda Sensing safety suite of features. It's the same in Acura. For 2017, Acura made the AcuraWatch safety suite a standard feature on all MDX trims. However, BSM becomes available when adding the Technology package? BSM should be part of AcuraWatch and Honda Sensing.

 

[Amati]

Yes, that article touches on just the mazda 3 and mx-5. But here is the article I recently read:

http://www.autonews.com/article/201...ts-sales-damage-with-redesigned-cx-9-flagship

"Mazda's U.S. sales slumped 17 percent through March from a year earlier to 64,643 vehicles, in an overall market that was up 3.3 percent. Mazda's market share dropped to 1.6 percent from 2.0 percent the year before.

Sales were undermined by the sell-down of the outgoing CX-9. But the company's sedan sales also tumbled amid tougher competition.

The shrinking sales are pressuring Mazda to increase incentives, which runs counter to the brand's strategy to lift its image and pricing power.

Indeed, Mazda will boost incentives and marketing for the Mazda3 and Mazda6 sedans to stoke sales, Robert Davis, senior vice president of U.S. operations at Mazda North American Operations, told..."

Ahhh... okay. Looks like they had a nice rebound in April.

 

[tex2670]

I know someone at Mazda corporate that had a CX-9 for the weekend prior to a media event. Apparently the car will be on sale Memorial Day weekend.

I'm skeptical--If Mazda has a release date within weeks, they'd be awfully stupid not to make a public announcement. People out shopping competitor cars may want to wait a few weeks, if the release is really that close. The fact that this is still marketed as a '16 model, and it's May, and there's no public release date makes me think there is a colossal problem that Mazda is trying to work out.

Not that Mazda is Tesla--but just they took 300,000+ deposits on a car that won't be out for 18 months. If Mazda's release date was 30 days out, they'd be stupid not to disclose it.

 

[tex2670]

Yeh, we've seen it. That's my point. These people know what they r doing and turbocharging has been around for decades. Knock preventative and active cooling of comb. Chamber is also very innovative and unique. With any new design come issues with underingeneered parts ...parts that didn't meet manufacturers expectations but made it to the assembly line anyways...failing gasket here and there. That's is given, 1st year will have these issues but I am very excited about this new engine and new innovative designs should be praised and not cried about. At the end of the day....specs don't lie...300+ lbs.tq. Engine is much stronger than outgoing v6 and at much lower rpm...so why we even have this conversation lol

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Because if the answer was that simple, every car in the class would have a high output turbo 4. Why don't they?

 

[Drogos]

I never said it was simple. Push back from people like you is one of the reasons

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[Amati]

I'm skeptical--If Mazda has a release date within weeks, they'd be awfully stupid not to make a public announcement. People out shopping competitor cars may want to wait a few weeks, if the release is really that close. The fact that this is still marketed as a '16 model, and it's May, and there's no public release date makes me think there is a colossal problem that Mazda is trying to work out.

Not that Mazda is Tesla--but just they took 300,000+ deposits on a car that won't be out for 18 months. If Mazda's release date was 30 days out, they'd be stupid not to disclose it.

Can't speak on that, all I know is what I've been told.

Typically the "come and get it" message comes from dealers not the manufacturer -- unless sufficient inventory exists. Tesla benefits from not having to appease a dealer network-- that's why the "Tesla can..." arguments are typically not applicable to other OEMs. There are inherent limitations on what can be done when you don't control the entire supply chain.

Skepticism is fine, but unwarranted speculation is a bit dramatic.

 

[otapnam]

I'm skeptical--If Mazda has a release date within weeks, they'd be awfully stupid not to make a public announcement. People out shopping competitor cars may want to wait a few weeks, if the release is really that close. The fact that this is still marketed as a '16 model, and it's May, and there's no public release date makes me think there is a colossal problem that Mazda is trying to work out.

Not that Mazda is Tesla--but just they took 300,000+ deposits on a car that won't be out for 18 months. If Mazda's release date was 30 days out, they'd be stupid not to disclose it.

Tesla is burning thru cash and needed that $.

There's no way they're going to fulfill those orders in a timely matter. Elon wants to ramp production up to 500k a year by 2018 but tesla didn't even produce 100k last year.

 

[tex2670]

At the end of the day....specs don't lie...300+ lbs.tq. Engine is much stronger than outgoing v6 and at much lower rpm...so why we even have this conversation lol

I never said it was simple. Push back from people like you is one of the reasons

I find that hard to believe. If Ford can bless the all-mighty F-150 with a TTV6 (which they have used in many other vehicles before this), and get decades of loyal customers to accept that, then so can any other manufacturer, and for any other type of car--if the product works as advertised. Even Ferrari is using turbo engines--something they said they would never do. So there can't be a lag in the mid-sized cross over market for 4 cylinder turbos because some customers will take a wait-and-see approach to make sure the engine is as advertised. Look at all the posts in this thread--I'm in the minority, more posters are ones that can't wait to be at the head of the line, than take a pass for now.

But--if manufacturers cannot produce a 4 cylinder turbo engine that will provide adequate power and torque, plus a NHV comparable to the V6s currently in the market, then they aren't going to put that product to market in this ultra competitive class. Kia and Hyundai have turbo 4s that they offer on the Santa Fe and Sorento--but not on the 3 row versions. And it's not just this class of cars either--Audi has used four cylinder turbos in their cars for years, and BMW is using turbos up and down their lineup. And even though both of them use those engines as the base engine in their midsized luxury cars, neither uses it as a base engine in their 3-row SUVs. Cadillac is using it's 2.0T as the base engine in its new large CT6 sedan--but it is not using that engine in the new XT5 SUV (and that's only offered in 2 rows). And here is Mazda, putting a new engine, not in use elsewhere in its lineup, into service for this purpose. AFAIK, only Volvo is selling an SUV this size with a turbo 4.

Why only Mazda and Volvo? THAT is why we are having the conversation.

I have never said Mazda shouldn't do this. I have said it multiple times in this thread--I hope it turns out great, and Mazda becomes a leader that other manufacturers follow in this regard. I'm just not going to be one of the first to buy--which, by the way, I would shy away from buying just about any car in its first model year.

You want to be more of an early adapter--and I applaud you for it. Early adapters are crucial to this process. That's just not me.

 

[jcpharm]

i think tex makes legit arguments - but Volvo and Mazda are niche automakers and just by virtue of their market position have to take more risks in some areas to differentiate than the others. i typically don't want to be an early adopter, but in this case, i am already sold on Skyactiv and Mazda after having my CX-5, and our current CX-9 is getting long in the tooth (by our standards) and i am not a big fan of the Pilot or Highlander and am scared by the reliability track record of the current gen Pathfinder. My wife will not buy Hyundai/Kia even though i think they've cleaned up their act recently and i'm not quite ready to upgrade to luxury brands. so i'm kinda left with trying out the new CX-9 as an early adopter. i will only do a 3-year lease in case it is not so great and/or the next refresh integrates Android Auto which i would love to have. So that's my plan and i'm sticking with it!

 

[sjg]

Great points. It's not that the concept is new. There happens to be a track record here and it's not that great. The CX-7 with the turbo 4 did not really deliver. Nor did the Explorer with the 2.0L Ecoboost (I haven't read much about the 2.3L). And it's not just about the torque numbers. It's about meeting the stated mission which is bigger engine performance with smaller engine efficiency. The problem is that there is no silver bullet here. That torque from the turbo doesn't come from the sky. It comes from burning fuel and when you ring the performance out of a turbo you end up consuming fuel at the same rate as a larger naturally aspirated engine. And heavier cars need to draw on that performance more often. It's not like this can't work out. Maybe it will. Mazda's current lineup does a better job than most at meeting it's EPA efficiency numbers. But none of those engines are turbos. We'll see.

As for the release date, there is no doubt that Mazda blew it on this one. The new CX-9 was supposed to be here now. I was shopping new cars a few months ago and already CX-9s were in short supply.

Finally, someone was beating up Honda for option packages and feature availability. It would be nice to get exactly the options you want but nobody gets this right. The CX-9 was actually pretty bad on this one as well. You needed to go for a GT if you wanted fog lights and some other options. Many manufacturers offered things like fog lights as options on even their lowest trims. Did they think that people who drive in the fog necessarily want 20" wheels? Trim levels can be annoying but it's not only a Honda thing.

 

[crikey]

but Volvo and Mazda are niche automakers and just by virtue of their market position have to take more risks in some areas to differentiate than the others.

Volvo and Mazda are niche manufacturers, which means they are much smaller than other manufacturers. This makes it quite a challenge for both to put research and development funds towards a new V6 engine. Hence, the path of least resistance for them is to develop an engine that can be used by the entire vehicle lineup in order to spread the development costs, OR take an existing engine and enhance it for a different vehicle application which is what Mazda did.

IMO, the least challenging method for Mazda to offer another engine for the CX-9 is to purchase the engine from another manufacturer that it currently has a business relationship with, like Toyota. That is, if Mazda wanted to offer another engine. But with Mazda's SkyActiv model, the engine has to conform to that standard and would make it unlikely to happen.

 

[crikey]

Finally, someone was beating up Honda for option packages and feature availability. It would be nice to get exactly the options you want but nobody gets this right. The CX-9 was actually pretty bad on this one as well. You needed to go for a GT if you wanted fog lights and some other options. Many manufacturers offered things like fog lights as options on even their lowest trims. Did they think that people who drive in the fog necessarily want 20" wheels? Trim levels can be annoying but it's not only a Honda thing.

I think that pointing out Honda option packages was just a means to compare or make a point that Mazda isn't the only one that gets options and features incorrectly. Mazda does have a worse position than Honda when it comes to offering options packages since it is a much smaller company, so it has to really streamline its manufacturing process by assembling certain trims to an exact configuration. The GT is a good example with the 20" wheels and fog lights. I agree that the combination doesn't make a lot of sense, but Mazda might be viewing it as a vehicle trim that has all the "nice-to-have" features, not the necessary features. The CX-9 doesn't really need 20" wheels or fog lights, but they're nice to have. So, it would be cheaper for Mazda to manufacture the GT trim for those that want all the nice to have features, and have a Touring trim for those that want just the necessary features. Honda does have more flexibility in offering options since it is much larger than Mazda. However, Honda has historically followed the same 'want an option, get it on a trim/package' selling model, instead of an 'a la carte' model. It works for Honda and likely streamlines the assembly process also which lowers costs, but it doesn't necessarily benefits the buyers.

 

[otapnam]

I think that pointing out Honda option packages was just a means to compare or make a point that Mazda isn't the only one that gets options and features incorrectly. Mazda does have a worse position than Honda when it comes to offering options packages since it is a much smaller company, so it has to really streamline its manufacturing process by assembling certain trims to an exact configuration. The GT is a good example with the 20" wheels and fog lights. I agree that the combination doesn't make a lot of sense, but Mazda might be viewing it as a vehicle trim that has all the "nice-to-have" features, not the necessary features. The CX-9 doesn't really need 20" wheels or fog lights, but they're nice to have. So, it would be cheaper for Mazda to manufacture the GT trim for those that want all the nice to have features, and have a Touring trim for those that want just the necessary features. Honda does have more flexibility in offering options since it is much larger than Mazda. However, Honda has historically followed the same 'want an option, get it on a trim/package' selling model, instead of an 'a la carte' model. It works for Honda and likely streamlines the assembly process also which lowers costs, but it doesn't necessarily benefits the buyers.

haha my friend got the Pilot Elite because after adding on options there was no point NOT getting the top of the line at that point, which said and done came in at 50k$. At least the CX9 will be a bit lower price in the end, and if reviews match the hype, it'll be alot more fun to drive if thats what youre looking for

 

[tex2670]

haha my friend got the Pilot Elite because after adding on options there was no point NOT getting the top of the line at that point, which said and done came in at 50k$. At least the CX9 will be a bit lower price in the end, and if reviews match the hype, it'll be alot more fun to drive if thats what youre looking for

But there are no options on a Honda Pilot. You choose your trim level (LX, EX, EX-L, EX-L/Nav, Touring, Elite); FWD or AWD; Color; and dealer installed accessories. This is how they have sold their cars for years--I had a 2000 Acura that was sold the same way; back then, it was Base or Nav only.

 

[otapnam]

But there are no options on a Honda Pilot. You choose your trim level (LX, EX, EX-L, EX-L/Nav, Touring, Elite); FWD or AWD; Color; and dealer installed accessories. This is how they have sold their cars for years--I had a 2000 Acura that was sold the same way; back then, it was Base or Nav only.

That's what I meant, options/trims - I was getting more at the fact that he had to go elite at that point - he wouldn't have been able to get what he wanted optionwise for less and he already paid the price of admission so he went all in

 

[colnago1331]

That's what I meant, options/trims - I was getting more at the fact that he had to go elite at that point - he wouldn't have been able to get what he wanted optionwise for less and he already paid the price of admission so he went all in

And I think this proves the manufacturers' point - most people will pay extra to get what they want, even if they have to pay more and get stuff they don't want. It's a great sales plan from the manufacturer's standpoint. If I know that Buyer X will pay $1,200 to get just a sunroof, why not force him to pay $2,000 for the sunroof but also include fog lights and a cargo net? It costs me maybe $200 more as the manufacturer to get the extra $800 from Buyer X.

 

[RedHotFuzz]

Trim levels can be annoying but it's not only a Honda thing.

The Japanese are terrible at this, which is why I ended up with a Durango. If you want certain safety features, you have to buy the top trim level. Which comes with a sunroof standard. Which necessitates captains chairs in the middle row (one fewer passenger for you!) because Honda/et al can't seem to figure out how to put seatbelt anchors in the seat backs rather than the ceiling even though others have been doing it for years/decades.

So stupid.

 

[Dr Kev]

Mazda is one of those manufacturers that integrates belts nicely into the seat.

 

[RaptorOO7]

I am considering the Pilot and Highlander, but the styling is a bit more mundane and to get the features I want I have to get top trim levels and for the Pilot that's a total waste since I don't need BluRay media. At last Mazda isn't putting captains chairs in their 2nd row, which Toyota and Honda did but with added center consoles you can't remove that look cheap.

 

[tex2670]

I'm glad it's not just me that doesn't like the mid-row captain's chairs. The worst offender is the Hyundai Santa Fe Limited--it becomes a 6 passenger SUV, which kinda defeats the purpose for me. It really makes carpool difficult.