Yes, the sticker says that the CX-9 is powered by a turbocharged inline-four good for 227 horsepower and 310 lb.-ft. of torque, but, looking through the spec sheet, Mazda says that you can get up to 250 horsepower and 320 lb.-ft. of torque if go for the 93 octane instead of the 87.
What does that mean for overall performance? There is …
When it came out the CX-9 was the best looking Mazda SUV. Now it just seems like a bloated CX5 that's not differentiated enough in its proportions to look like either a 3-row or a higher rung product. Visually the exterior doesn't work for me. Interior looks good.
In reply to Vigo (Forum Supporter) :
I think if it were going off some jumps in the press photos that would help
I agree, cx3, cx5, and end it there. If doing a cx9 it needs to be a bigger engine.
I'm still enjoying our 2019 CX-9. For me, it was another minivan or something with nearly as much carrying capacity. Miniature vehicles like the RAV4 or CX-5 were never under consideration. The CX-9 drives like nothing in its class. Very nicely controlled ride with not a lot of body roll in corners. The turbo 4 makes crazy torque, to the point where wheelspin from a standing start with the FWD version is silly easy. A bigger engine? Why? Easily the quickest vehicle I've ever daily'ed. I'm getting almost 27 mpg in mostly highway driving. Yes, it looks like virtually every other large SUV on the road today, but for me, it's how it drives, not how it looks, and the CX-9 drives very well. Highly recommended.
You've not driven or ridden in a cx-9 if you think the cx-5 is a good replacement. I've owned a 2017 cx-5 AWD and traded it for the 2018 CX-9 AWD. It's a fantastic car, and a great tow machine ;) I also dusted a Challenger with a blacked out hood and blacked out fenders that tried to tailgate me through some twisties in it just the other day, very fun to drive for a seven seater.
There's a reason they're selling well in the US.
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/why-is-mazdas-cx-9-suv-suddenly-selling-like-purell-11594397716
1988RedT2 said:I'm still enjoying our 2019 CX-9. For me, it was another minivan or something with nearly as much carrying capacity. Miniature vehicles like the RAV4 or CX-5 were never under consideration. The CX-9 drives like nothing in its class. Very nicely controlled ride with not a lot of body roll in corners. The turbo 4 makes crazy torque, to the point where wheelspin from a standing start with the FWD version is silly easy. A bigger engine? Why? Easily the quickest vehicle I've ever daily'ed. I'm getting almost 27 mpg in mostly highway driving. Yes, it looks like virtually every other large SUV on the road today, but for me, it's how it drives, not how it looks, and the CX-9 drives very well. Highly recommended.
3500 lb rated tow capacity won't tow even a modest travel trailer with much margin. That's why we won't be looking at one next year to replace the Mazda 3.
z31maniac said:1988RedT2 said:I'm still enjoying our 2019 CX-9. For me, it was another minivan or something with nearly as much carrying capacity. Miniature vehicles like the RAV4 or CX-5 were never under consideration. The CX-9 drives like nothing in its class. Very nicely controlled ride with not a lot of body roll in corners. The turbo 4 makes crazy torque, to the point where wheelspin from a standing start with the FWD version is silly easy. A bigger engine? Why? Easily the quickest vehicle I've ever daily'ed. I'm getting almost 27 mpg in mostly highway driving. Yes, it looks like virtually every other large SUV on the road today, but for me, it's how it drives, not how it looks, and the CX-9 drives very well. Highly recommended.
3500 lb rated tow capacity won't tow even a modest travel trailer with much margin. That's why we won't be looking at one next year to replace the Mazda 3.
Understood, but I still maintain that Mazda got the CX-9 right. I have a tow pig. I don't tow frequently. I don't want my primary vehicle to be compromised in the areas of comfort and fuel economy in order to accommodate the rare need to tow.
Good to hear it's a great drive. I've been impressed with a lot of things Mazda has done in the last 5 years or so, but their current design language works a lot better on some things than others. It looks ok here but it also looks like they're trying to hide a 3-row inside a 2-row. I mean, when manufacturers started disguising their minivans as 3-row crossovers i was semi ok with it as long as the new look was bringing something and the 3rd row was... dignified. There are lots of really good looking well proportioned 3-rows with acceptable 3rd row room. This design looks like it's trying to disguise its utility, like it needs to be hidden or downplayed to be attractive and until we break physics there are going to be side-effects of that.
I just bought a 73 full size wagon that has rear quarter windows at least 4 feet long. I'm not suggesting modern design should emulate it in very many ways, but you know what you see when you're sitting in the 3rd row? EVERYTHING. I dont think i could fit my head through the CX-9 quarter glass. I'm just bothered by 3-row designs that seem like 'compliance' efforts.
In reply to Vigo (Forum Supporter) :
I don't disagree with your points. For us, the room was sufficient, and the CX-9 had enough good things going for it for us to overlook the limitations of the third row. We don't use it often, but it's there if we need it.
Edit: I mean, people justify cramming their family into 2-door coupes. This is surely no worse than that. Instead of shoving 4 people into a 2-door car, you're shoving 6 (or 7) people into a 4-door car. 
1988RedT2 said:z31maniac said:1988RedT2 said:I'm still enjoying our 2019 CX-9. For me, it was another minivan or something with nearly as much carrying capacity. Miniature vehicles like the RAV4 or CX-5 were never under consideration. The CX-9 drives like nothing in its class. Very nicely controlled ride with not a lot of body roll in corners. The turbo 4 makes crazy torque, to the point where wheelspin from a standing start with the FWD version is silly easy. A bigger engine? Why? Easily the quickest vehicle I've ever daily'ed. I'm getting almost 27 mpg in mostly highway driving. Yes, it looks like virtually every other large SUV on the road today, but for me, it's how it drives, not how it looks, and the CX-9 drives very well. Highly recommended.
3500 lb rated tow capacity won't tow even a modest travel trailer with much margin. That's why we won't be looking at one next year to replace the Mazda 3.
Understood, but I still maintain that Mazda got the CX-9 right. I have a tow pig. I don't tow frequently. I don't want my primary vehicle to be compromised in the areas of comfort and fuel economy in order to accommodate the rare need to tow.
Yeah, I realize it's a very specific set of things we are going to try to accomplish with one vehicle.
Not a full-size, able to tow a small travel trailer (we are looking at ones in the 2500lb range empty) with a nice margin, be able to tow a car trailer/Miata here in the Plains occasionally without it being a white-knuckle affair, and still a relatively nice place to spend time since my girlfriend will be using it as her DD.
Without dropping $50k large on a loaded Explorer/4Runner or something.
You'll need to log in to post.
