I disagree on the power being mediocre. It's 0 to 60 is around 7.3 seconds. 320 pounds of torque really move this car in the low end were you need it, getting onto freeways or passing other automobile's. Also the 6 speed transmission is ideal for this car, very smooth! I drive the CX-9 and find it perfect for my personal driving. Also as far as packing this car up with gear or suitcases. It's very adequate. Who really loads their cars up like a U-Haul trucks. The CX-9 losses points in this regard, but again packing it to its fullest is a rare thing for me. If I need the extra space I can use roof storage containers. So far I'm very happy with this automobile.
Love how you involve your children. Great video man. My wife has her van for our 4 kids. But I want a good sized SUV packed with power and whatnot. So far this is the suv for me.
I am having cx-9 2020. Very good family car. My wife loves to drive it a lot. Safety is awesome. If panaroma sunroof then it's very best option to go for it.
I have the cx9 signature and love it. Of course I agree w the gripes of angles and how it limits the storage. Even the front angles provide sort of a blind spot esp I’ve noticed when turning. (I drive w the seat up close to steering wheel, lol). The Bose system is a selling point feature, but honestly it doesn’t sound all that great especially during listening to Sirius Xm. Wish they can do a bit of an update on that, esp w city driving
i understand there are a lot of consumers who would like to have panoramic sunroof, but at the same time, i think it would be good for reviewers to point out (i.e. through moose tests), adding weights on top of roof, would make a disaster in a critical situation.
We already had the 360 camera on our 2019 “Takami” (top trim in NZ) and it’s very useful. What I was hoping to hear was that they’ve improved the resolution and low-light performance of the cameras. At night, or even in dull, wet weather, the reversing camera in particular is so unclear it is essentially useless. A big disappointment for such a basic function. :(
@@FamilyWheels in australia lowest is 91, then 95, then 98 is the highest available. Price difference from 91 is typically + 10cents to 95, then another + 10cents to 98. Sorry im not sure in terms of hp difference.... but 98 is beautiful! you dont need to have a luxury car to appreciate the benefit using 98........much smoother drive, much faster access to power, cleaner engine. My wife drives a little hyundai 1.3L hatchback and even she can appreciate the benefit - especially going up on an incline and entering a highway ramp trying to quickly reach 100km/h.
I would definitely consider the CX9 if I was in the market for a 3 row SUV. Nice style, interior, and power. Unfortunately the Mazda sells very poorly. I think the market has spoken.
Don’t care about the market...what I care about is a product that I like that is great to drive, fits my practical needs, good on gas, looks nice design wise, quality materials, well-built (Japan) and reliable. Have had my 2017 Signature trim for over 3yrs and have met all my needs and expectations! Best of all, it’s not common on the road like the usual suspects (Highlander, Pilot, Pallisade, Telluride, etc)! Do I prefer to stand out within the crowd or do I prefer to blend in? Chose the former...
Mig Y, ah no! Resale value doesn’t matter coz I keep my cars long term...besides, you can have a car with best resale value and may get the best price from a private sale but in most instances, if traded in to a dealer they just always lowball you even if it’s in the same dealer you bought car originally from. I buy a car I like to keep - not to resell so resale value is of no value to me! These are depreciating assets no matter what - to me the true value is what I get out of the car which are : fun & drivability experience, reliability, fuel economy, luxurious appointments, design, build quality and the pleasure from driving it. I don’t like to drive appliances...
Hi Eugene, while I haven't personally driven the Passport, I'd choose the CX-9 for driving enjoyment, excellent handling and more power than the others. The Tiguan is a little underpowered but very functional on the interior.
Toyota Highlander doesn't (excluding hybrid), Pilot doesn't, Telluride doesn't, Palisade doesn't, Traverse doesn't just to name a few. The ballpark number for a new power train (engine + trans) is $1b of R&D, Mazda doesn't have the money to do that so they have 4-5 motors they use through their entire lineup. This is their "powerful" one. Ford can afford to offer many motor options because their lineup provides them quite a few motors to select from.
I’ve always wondered what would happen to passengers in the third row in the event of a rear-end collision. Doesn’t seem like there’s much space between the third row seats and the rear hatch.
When we looked at the CX-9 we found the space in and behind the 3rd row to be too small. The packaging after the 2nd row is also not practical. It would fare better without the 3rd row to compete with the Passports, Atlas CrossSport, Grand Cherokee, etc.
I am always concerned about safety with captain chairs on the second row (for 3 rows cars). I can clearly see that you have a 'hole' in the console area so all small items from the trunk can fly into passenger zone in case of the accident.
I would strongly recommend not buying a Mazda. We purchased a brand new 2016 Mazda CX9 and within 2 years had problems with a rough idle. Was told after second year it just needed new spark plugs. Dealer could never recreate rough idle. 4 years later we took it in for an oil change and was told the cylinder head was leaking coolant.....Cylinder heads on back order for two months due to known problem of leaking. the only solution was either a refurbished engine or New engine from dealer. Warranty just expired but dealer and Mazda just say “sorry either return your loaner car or replace the engine at your cost” Horrible experience......$4600.00 lesson learned. Please do yourself a favor and do not purchase a $40,000 car from Mazda only to have to purchase a $4600.00 engine in less than 4 years and trade in value now only $14,000 after new engine. NEVER again!
Do not buy a CX-9! I purchased a CX-9 brand new in 2009. The engine needed to be replaced while I had two car payments left. A few years later, I had the engine replaced because I loved the vehicle so much. The second engine didn't last a year. I will never buy another CX-9. I am so disappointed in Mazda. I currently drive an Acura MDX that was purchased more than a year ago with 190k miles. I currently have 250k miles and I haven't had one issue. Learn from my mistake. If you need a third row suv, buy an MDX.
"Oodles" of overall cargo space??? I don't think so. At 199" in length the CX-9 is among the largest midsize 3 row crossovers. (Two inches or so longer than the Telluride, almost an inch longer than the VW Atlas, and exceeded in length only by the the Dodge Durango and the Chevy Traverse.) Overall cargo space is 71.2 cubic ft. Less than a Honda CR-V! The Telluride offers 87 cubic ft and the Atlas provides nearly 97 cubic ft. With all three rows dedicated to passengers the CX-9 offers only 14.4 cubic ft of cargo space compared to 21 cubic ft in the Telluride and 20.6 cf in the Atlas. At least that's more than the KIA Sorento (11 cf) but the Sorento is 10" shorter than the CX-9. As far as passenger space is concerned, the CX-9 is similarly challenged. It offers 135.1 cubic ft of overall passenger space. A KIA Sorento provides 151 cubic ft. Most midsize 3 row crossovers are challenged in terms of 3rd row space but the CX-9 ranks near the bottom of the list with 29.7" of legroom. The KIA Sorento has 31.7". Only the Toyota Highlander provides less at 27.7". The Mustang's back seat has 30" of rear seat legroom. Ever tried to put an adult in the back seat of a Mustang? Mazda claims they offer only a turbo 4 banger and a six speed transmission in the CX-9 because it doesn't need more power or better economy. The fact is that as the smallest independent mainstream manufacturer Mazda has to make do with the same engine/transmission combination in the CX-9, CX-5 and Mazda6, the latter two of which are far more appropriate homes for that engine/transmission combination. Mazda builds some excellent vehicles. The CX-9 isn't one of them. And that's why the CX-9 ranked at the very bottom of sales of all mainstream 3 row SUV's in North America in 2019.
Looks like you’ve done your homework Stephen! Definitely on the lower end of space for this category (as I mentioned throughout) but third row down provides good space depending on your needs. Bit more punch would be great 👍🏻
@@FamilyWheels My objections to the CX-9 are not so much in terms of its absolute cargo and passenger space as much as it is to the incredibly inefficient allocation of space in the vehicle. Remember, the CX-9 isn't a relatively small 3 row midsize SUV. It's among the largest. If it were the size of the KIA Sorento (189" in length) its space for passengers and cargo might be understandable.(Though it would still trail the Sorento.) But considering it's longer than the Highlander, the Pilot, the Ascent, the Palisade, the Terlluride, the Atlas, and the Explorer its interior space is ridiculously cramped. Furthermore, all midsize 3 row SUV's are challenged compared to most full size SUV's (and certainly minivans) in terms of third row seating. But the CX-9 borders on unusable for anyone other than a young child or a small bound and gagged adult. (Granted that the CX-9 may appeal to the S&M crowd.) And while third row room may not be a high priority for many consumers, it's what distinguishes a 3 row SUV from its two row counterparts. Otherwise, why consider a 3 row vehicle, at all. There's a flock of shorter, more maneuverable and lighter 2 row alternatives to choose from. As far as cargo space behind the second row is concerned, the Sorento provides the same 38 cubic ft as the CX-9 with a 10" shorter footprint while the Telluride offers 46 cubic ft and the VW Atlas provides over 55 cubic ft. The Telluride is over 2" shorter and the Atlas an inch less than the CX-9 So what's the deal with the CX-9? The space inefficiency stems from a design decision to add nearly a foot to the distance from the front bumper to the firewall compared to its rivals. It's a design that sports car designers have used for about a hundred years to suggest potency and performance, features that appeal especially to males. (Ask Freud why.) But the CX-9's admittedly stylish exterior does nothing for its functionality. But what about its handling? Doesn't that make up for the Mazda's inefficient allocation of interior space? According to sales the answer is no. Professional reviewers love Mazda's excellent handling but few buyers are looking for a canyon carver in in 3 row SUV. And if they are, there's the far better selling CX-5 (six times the sales of the CX-9 in 2019) that has significant advantages over a 16.5 ft long crossover in terms of size and weight with the same engine and drive train.
@@FamilyWheels The Telluride and Palisade are hard to beat for those who need a 3 row crossover on a regular basis, I think. Between them it comes down to a matter of taste. If you're interested in towing capacity one of the heavier duty Durangos can out-tow the Explorer by far. And if scalding performance is a top priority and you're willing to break the $60K (USD) MSRP barrier, a mid-trim Aviator looks good. If you're looking for long-term durability along with an emergency 3rd row the 4Runner looks like a strong choice. Personally, we're a small family (2 adults, a teenager, and a big dog) that needs a third row occasionally but prefer a smaller footprint. The KIA Sorento is our choice. We've had very good luck with a 2012 model and a more recent 2019 version.
