Topic: Test Drive: 2010 Mazda CX-9 GT

[Autos_Editor]

"Mazda's designers have managed to inject driving fun and responsiveness into a jumbo-sized family-friendly package," says reviewer Haney Louka.  But while the CX-9's base price of $37,995 is reasonable, "it's a bit of a leap to the $47,450 CX-9 GT."

Read More...

[John MacDonald]

If it was my money I would probably buy the Hyundai Veracruz.  But I'd definitely take the Ford Flex and GMC Acadia over this vehicle.  Sure it has the sporty aspect but the 3rd row seats are a joke.  The reason I would pick the Veracruz over it is because it has a better record for reliability, has a 3rd row seat that I can fit in (I'm 6"1), it is cheaper (about $5,400 cheaper on the base models), has a better warranty, and has more standard equipment.

Agreed - and the Veracruz sits higher like a real SUV

[Dan]

I have to agree with John MacDonald on this one....if I would buy the lower trims of the CX9 I would rather get the Veracruz or a Flex....the Flex has very nice 3rd row seats that a 6'1 person can actually fit better then any other vehicle minus a minivan. And the top of the line CX9 is just over $51K at that price point Id put up a few more thousand and get a base Acura MDX which looks better has  better handling and more horsepower not to mention way better reliability.

[Randy]

I can't see the market for these vehicles being that large anyways. People aren't having 5 kids, heck they aren't even having 3. Whats wrong with a wagon? It seats 5, has just as much cargo capacity and drives better and uses substantially less fuel, and it doesn't cost $50,000.
 
Personally, I'd never buy one of these. I'd go with a VW Passat wagon, Subaru Outback or perhaps a Volvo V70. Mazda used to make a Mazda6 wagon but dropped it due to slow sales in the U.S. I can't understand why they don't buy wagons south of the border. The absence of wagons in North America can largely be attributed to the U.S.

They don't know what they are missing IMO.

[bridgecity]

Whats wrong with a wagon? It seats 5, has just as much cargo capacity and drives better and uses substantially less fuel, and it doesn't cost $50,000.
 

Show me a wagon that will carry as much cargo and in the same price range as these SUVs (ie CX-9, Veracruz, Pilot, Highlander, Acadia/Traverse) and it will be my next vehicle.  Went on a 1400km round trip two weekends ago and my Pilot was stuffed to the roof with luggage/dog crate/etc.  Sure, I could have used a wagon and a roof top carrier, but that is a lot less convenient and the carrier would negate any gas mileage benefit that the wagon has over one of these crossovers. 

[Dan]

The 2010 Passat Wagon V6 4MOTION Highline is $52,100 although yes you can go for the cheaper models but the top of the line such as the CX9 would be around the same price...personally if I would go for a wagon it would definitely be the new Subaru Outback and yes I know its not something everyone would agree on but thats the wagon Id be buying if I wanted a wagon.

[toolatecrew]

Whats wrong with a wagon? It seats 5, has just as much cargo capacity and drives better and uses substantially less fuel, and it doesn't cost $50,000.
 

Show me a wagon that will carry as much cargo and in the same price range as these SUVs (ie CX-9, Veracruz, Pilot, Highlander, Acadia/Traverse) and it will be my next vehicle.  Went on a 1400km round trip two weekends ago and my Pilot was stuffed to the roof with luggage/dog crate/etc.  Sure, I could have used a wagon and a roof top carrier, but that is a lot less convenient and the carrier would negate any gas mileage benefit that the wagon has over one of these crossovers. 

Cx9 Luggage capcity seats up. 17 cu feet
V70  37 cu feet

Its DOUBLE

Max capacity
Cx9 101
V70 72

Not saying you have never done it but its an oft heard argument why someone "nneds" and SUV but how often to most peoaple really need 101 of CAPACITY vs 72.

How often do people fold down all the seats and haul as much stuff as possible withonly 2 people in the front?

[Carl_NDelta]

I'm shopping these as I write this.  Sat in a CX-9 GT yesterday.

Mazda CX-9
Chevrolet Traverse
Ford Flex - my wife says "don't buy the hearse"
Honda Pilot - brakes, noise
2011 Toyota Seinna AWD
Toyota Highlander - too small
Nissan Pathfinder - too small
Subaru Outback - too small but would be my choice for life after kids
Hyundai Veracruz - have not considered after reading that the instrument panel is too bright at night


I use my vehicle several times a year for business trips with demo equipment in back and driving 10 to 14 hours in a day, some in the dark.  There are also a couple of family trips with my wife, our two kids and sometimes one of their friends.  In town I do carry a third of a soccer team from time to time.  I need the room and I'd want good or great headlights for the night driving but I also want a better quality audio system for those long long drives when by myself.

To my frustration I'm finding all the manufacturers seem to have the same practice of keeping their best sound systems for their highest optioned vehicles top models.  With the integration of the car's systems into into the sound system (bluetooth, steering wheel controls) I'd really rather not look to aftermarket systems.  I do most of my "loud" music listening in my vehicle.

I also prefer cloth seats and no moon/sun roof as my experience has been that they leak sooner or later and I prefer the extra headroom.  This would seem to point me to the CX-9 GS but there is that aftermarket audio issue.


Here's what I don't like about the Mazda.  For the price you pay before adding the NAV system, you don't get a backup camera and you don't get a USB port for the audio system in any configuration.  You can pay about $250 CAD extra (not including labour) to get an adapter installed that allows you to hook in your iPod, but only your iPod, no memory sticks.

It's also significantly smaller inside than the Acadia/Enclave/Traverse and the Traverse 2LT model comes with both a back-up camera and a USB port and there is a $4200 cash back on the 2010's even when financed.

The Traverse has a higher tow rating and gets better gas mileage (from what I'm reading in various forums). 

The Mazda (vs the Traverse) has the better AWD system, headlights, faster 0-100, better handling, slightly better brakes and in all likely hood, better reliability though I don't trust Ford designed/influenced transmissions.

Compared to the Honda Pilot (which I briefly considered) the Mazda has great brakes and is much quieter inside but not as much room.  I hope Honda addresses the brake issue with their 2011 Pilot - stops of 150 feet (46m) from 100km/hr and fading are not a good thing for a family hauler here in BC with the mountain highways and if towing a camper trailer.  Most road tests of the Mazda I've seen have it stopping in about 135 feet (41m) and without fade.

Those 20" wheels of the CX-9 GT are pretty pricey for snow tires - figure another $1600 to $2000 on their own rims for those in September.

For the price Mazda is asking for their CX-9 GT, I'd rather look to the 2011 Toyota Sienna Limited AWD which is much more flexible in terms of room, gets (much?) better gas mileage, likely to be more reliable, and is about $3000 less but lacks the "zoom zoom" factor.

.

[bridgecity]

Whats wrong with a wagon? It seats 5, has just as much cargo capacity and drives better and uses substantially less fuel, and it doesn't cost $50,000.
 

Show me a wagon that will carry as much cargo and in the same price range as these SUVs (ie CX-9, Veracruz, Pilot, Highlander, Acadia/Traverse) and it will be my next vehicle.  Went on a 1400km round trip two weekends ago and my Pilot was stuffed to the roof with luggage/dog crate/etc.  Sure, I could have used a wagon and a roof top carrier, but that is a lot less convenient and the carrier would negate any gas mileage benefit that the wagon has over one of these crossovers. 

Cx9 Luggage capcity seats up. 17 cu feet
V70  37 cu feet

Its DOUBLE

Max capacity
Cx9 101
V70 72

Not saying you have never done it but its an oft heard argument why someone "nneds" and SUV but how often to most peoaple really need 101 of CAPACITY vs 72.

How often do people fold down all the seats and haul as much stuff as possible withonly 2 people in the front?

Have another look at capacity behind the second row, which is the way most people would use it.  Don't compare capacity behind second row in one and third in another. Don't come up with an argument that the V70 has double the cargo capacity.  Thats just silly. Additionally, I just visited the Volvo site, and capacity is 944L, or 33 cu.ft.  My Pilot is 44 cu.ft. I believe, correct me if I'm wrong.  There are several times per year that I use 90%+ of that volume, and I doubt I'm a rare case.

[ktm525]

Are the third row seats in the CX-9 useable? I would go for the Buick.

[bridgecity]

I should qualify my arguments against wagons.  I would love to have one (and probably will when my cargo capacity requirements are smaller), and the V70 would be on the top of my list, along with the last edition of the Legacy wagon. 

[initial_D]

The 9 is a rather cute looking 'truck'. 3rd row seating is useless, next to impossible to get in-n-out

Do like what CUVs have to offer. Good combination of comfort, cargo, sport (the Mazda's), ... plus a bit of luxury and in-trend fashion.

[ktm525]

Changed my mind. I would take a Suburban.

[Carl_NDelta]

Are the third row seats in the CX-9 useable? I would go for the Buick.

Not too bad - the 2nd row slides forward fairly easily and opens up a space you can slip through.  Search for CX-9 video's on YouTube and there is one in particular showing a guy who is 6'3" doing so.  Mind you he was not thick in the middle like so many middle aged Canadians.

I can sit in the CX-9's 3rd row and not have my knees touching my chin like in some CUV/SUV's - the Acura MDX comes to mind as does the Toyota Highlander.  Also, the CX-9's 2nd row can be adjusted fore and aft to open up some legroom for the 3rd row.  I'm 5' 10" and only a wee bit thick in the middle but I do have arthritis in the knees so my bendability is not what it was but I'd survive a 30 minute drive in the back of a CX-9.  I'd say three kids or two wide bottom teenagers in the CX-9 third row is reasonable.

The Buick Enclave/GMC Acadia/Chev Traverse 2nd row slides forward and opens up a larger gap to slip into and the 3rd row seat is wider - I figure it will fit 3 normal sized young adults side by side for short trips to the restaurant or beach.  As much legroom as the back row in a mini van.  Definitely survivable for an hour or maybe a half day.  Only limitation you have then is fitting the day luggage into the back.  Might need a car topper.

The Honda Pilot is a bit larger in the back row and if I recall correctly, the 2nd row moves forward for access.

.

[Randy]

Whats wrong with a wagon? It seats 5, has just as much cargo capacity and drives better and uses substantially less fuel, and it doesn't cost $50,000.
 

Show me a wagon that will carry as much cargo and in the same price range as these SUVs (ie CX-9, Veracruz, Pilot, Highlander, Acadia/Traverse) and it will be my next vehicle.  Went on a 1400km round trip two weekends ago and my Pilot was stuffed to the roof with luggage/dog crate/etc.  Sure, I could have used a wagon and a roof top carrier, but that is a lot less convenient and the carrier would negate any gas mileage benefit that the wagon has over one of these crossovers. 

My argument is that many that buy SUV's don't really need them.  I own 2 wagons, and a 4x6 utility trailer. I hook it up when I need it. It stores a heck of a lot of stuff easily. My wife is a scout leader, when they go away on camping trips they throw everything in the trailer and off they go. A utility trailer can be had for $1000-$1500 and you save on everything else. Less fuel, lower purchase price, etc. etc.
Worth considering

[bridgecity]

Whats wrong with a wagon? It seats 5, has just as much cargo capacity and drives better and uses substantially less fuel, and it doesn't cost $50,000.
 

Show me a wagon that will carry as much cargo and in the same price range as these SUVs (ie CX-9, Veracruz, Pilot, Highlander, Acadia/Traverse) and it will be my next vehicle.  Went on a 1400km round trip two weekends ago and my Pilot was stuffed to the roof with luggage/dog crate/etc.  Sure, I could have used a wagon and a roof top carrier, but that is a lot less convenient and the carrier would negate any gas mileage benefit that the wagon has over one of these crossovers. 

My argument is that many that buy SUV's don't really need them.  I own 2 wagons, and a 4x6 utility trailer. I hook it up when I need it. It stores a heck of a lot of stuff easily. My wife is a scout leader, when they go away on camping trips they throw everything in the trailer and off they go. A utility trailer can be had for $1000-$1500 and you save on everything else. Less fuel, lower purchase price, etc. etc.
Worth considering

A trailer would work for some, my issue is that living in the city, I've got no place to store a trailer when not in use.

And ya, I definatley agree, most people that buy SUV's don't need them.

[John Doe]

Changed my mind. I would take a Suburban.

 

[John MacDonald]

I can't see the market for these vehicles being that large anyways. People aren't having 5 kids, heck they aren't even having 3. Whats wrong with a wagon? It seats 5, has just as much cargo capacity and drives better and uses substantially less fuel, and it doesn't cost $50,000.
 
Personally, I'd never buy one of these. I'd go with a VW Passat wagon, Subaru Outback or perhaps a Volvo V70. Mazda used to make a Mazda6 wagon but dropped it due to slow sales in the U.S. I can't understand why they don't buy wagons south of the border. The absence of wagons in North America can largely be attributed to the U.S.

They don't know what they are missing IMO.

I agree with you 100%.  I have a neighbor on my street that just had a kid and traded in both of his previous vehicles for two minivans!  Why would you need even one minivan if you are a family of only 3, and for that matter for families of 4.  I just don't get it.  I like some of the wagons on the market today and wish more families would consider them before buying their big SUV's (I don't mind compact SUV's as I actually own one, LOL) and minivans.

[John MacDonald]

Whats wrong with a wagon? It seats 5, has just as much cargo capacity and drives better and uses substantially less fuel, and it doesn't cost $50,000.
 

Show me a wagon that will carry as much cargo and in the same price range as these SUVs (ie CX-9, Veracruz, Pilot, Highlander, Acadia/Traverse) and it will be my next vehicle.  Went on a 1400km round trip two weekends ago and my Pilot was stuffed to the roof with luggage/dog crate/etc.  Sure, I could have used a wagon and a roof top carrier, but that is a lot less convenient and the carrier would negate any gas mileage benefit that the wagon has over one of these crossovers. 

I disagree.  A lot of wagons even with a roof top carrier would be more fuel efficient than most of the vehicles you've listed.  Now if you said that you loaded up your family of 6 into it then you'd have a reason to buy a vehicle with more than two rows of seats.  There is always the option of having a small trailer to tow befind your vehicle for the couple of times a year you need the extra cargo capacity.

[John MacDonald]

I'm shopping these as I write this.  Sat in a CX-9 GT yesterday.

Mazda CX-9
Chevrolet Traverse
Ford Flex - my wife says "don't buy the hearse"
Honda Pilot - brakes, noise
2011 Toyota Seinna AWD
Toyota Highlander - too small
Nissan Pathfinder - too small
Subaru Outback - too small but would be my choice for life after kids
Hyundai Veracruz - have not considered after reading that the instrument panel is too bright at night


I use my vehicle several times a year for business trips with demo equipment in back and driving 10 to 14 hours in a day, some in the dark.  There are also a couple of family trips with my wife, our two kids and sometimes one of their friends.  In town I do carry a third of a soccer team from time to time.  I need the room and I'd want good or great headlights for the night driving but I also want a better quality audio system for those long long drives when by myself.

To my frustration I'm finding all the manufacturers seem to have the same practice of keeping their best sound systems for their highest optioned vehicles top models.  With the integration of the car's systems into into the sound system (bluetooth, steering wheel controls) I'd really rather not look to aftermarket systems.  I do most of my "loud" music listening in my vehicle.

I also prefer cloth seats and no moon/sun roof as my experience has been that they leak sooner or later and I prefer the extra headroom.  This would seem to point me to the CX-9 GS but there is that aftermarket audio issue.


Here's what I don't like about the Mazda.  For the price you pay before adding the NAV system, you don't get a backup camera and you don't get a USB port for the audio system in any configuration.  You can pay about $250 CAD extra (not including labour) to get an adapter installed that allows you to hook in your iPod, but only your iPod, no memory sticks.

It's also significantly smaller inside than the Acadia/Enclave/Traverse and the Traverse 2LT model comes with both a back-up camera and a USB port and there is a $4200 cash back on the 2010's even when financed.

The Traverse has a higher tow rating and gets better gas mileage (from what I'm reading in various forums). 

The Mazda (vs the Traverse) has the better AWD system, headlights, faster 0-100, better handling, slightly better brakes and in all likely hood, better reliability though I don't trust Ford designed/influenced transmissions.

Compared to the Honda Pilot (which I briefly considered) the Mazda has great brakes and is much quieter inside but not as much room.  I hope Honda addresses the brake issue with their 2011 Pilot - stops of 150 feet (46m) from 100km/hr and fading are not a good thing for a family hauler here in BC with the mountain highways and if towing a camper trailer.  Most road tests of the Mazda I've seen have it stopping in about 135 feet (41m) and without fade.

Those 20" wheels of the CX-9 GT are pretty pricey for snow tires - figure another $1600 to $2000 on their own rims for those in September.

For the price Mazda is asking for their CX-9 GT, I'd rather look to the 2011 Toyota Sienna Limited AWD which is much more flexible in terms of room, gets (much?) better gas mileage, likely to be more reliable, and is about $3000 less but lacks the "zoom zoom" factor.

.

You scratched the Veracruz because the instrument panel is too bright?  You're kidding right!  I mean it is adjustable like any vehicle and of all things that you could scratch a vehicle off your list for this seems a bit picky.