Last post on Feb 11, 2013 at 7:48 PM
You are in the Mazda CX-9
What is this discussion about?
Mazda CX-9, Honda Pilot, Toyota Highlander, Car Comparisons, SUV
#207 of 549 Re: [aviboy97]
Aug 27, 2008 (7:27 pm)
I hear that the trip computer for the 2009 CX-9 is not backward compatible with the 2008 (or 2007 for that matter). So I can't go to the dealer and ask for a software flash, which kinda sucks.
It should have been in the car in the first place, especially since this is essentially Mazda's flagship vehicle.
I guess I shouldn't complain too much, though, since the Acadia didn't even have bluetooth until the upcoming 2009 model. Now that's a huge oversight...
#208 of 549 Re: [nxs138]
Aug 27, 2008 (7:41 pm)
When I asked, in pasisng (not remotely expecting the answer could be no) about the Bluetooth functionallity when I was testing the Enclave (Buick's version of the Arcadia) and was told it wasn't even an option, I seriously ended the test immediately after that. I told the dealer that I couldn't see myself getting any car without it (and am not interested in some third party after-market solution), let alone considering a car where the manufacture didn't see it as an essentail feature by 2008. He said it was being added fas an option or '09 but honestly it gave me a bad vibe about GMC. It I had loved the vehicle in every other regard I might have waited for the '09 but I didn't so I didn't...
#209 of 549 Re: [citivas]
Aug 28, 2008 (7:34 am)
I don't have any documentation. I was told that by a Mazda rep who came to educate us on the 09 Mazda6. Most of which was concentrated on tech features. According to Mazda, they really improved on the points where customers complained about the "user friendliness" and sophistication of the tech features. According to her, we should see these up grades in the CX-9.
BTW, it really does seem that Mazda has listened. The Mazda6 tech features are much much better then the CX-9. By a long shot. I do believe that the full iPod integration will now show your play lists on the display screen, from what I understand.
Aug 28, 2008 (8:14 am)
That would be really great if they do more than just add a trip computer and fully integrate iPod and voice controls of audio, etc. into the CX-9 both because it would improve one of its few weaknesss and as you say demonstrate Mazda's commitment to meeting its consumers expectations. Toyota by contrast usually makes a great, reliable vehicle but always leaves important things out (sometimes on purpose I think) and is slow to address them. With memory seats, for example, I have noticed they always leave this out of new models for a few years then add them. I had the same problem with my Sienna. No memory seats on the limited, but they added them two years later. That wans't an oversight, it was a strategy for gradual release of "enhancements" over the previous model year.
Now if Mazda along with the AV enhancements could un-restrict the nav while driving and do like Honda/Acura with a user opt-in release of liability it would truly be the best in class in my opinion...
#211 of 549 Re: [citivas]
Aug 28, 2008 (5:17 pm)
I don't know why manufacturers still play the game of introducing important features a few years down the road (like memory seats, or even full power passenger seats). I know that they want to make the product interesting for many years, but in essence they are screwing the initial customers who buy the car. Unless they honestly believe that people who bought first year models will trade in 2-3 years down the line to get the upgraded features.
Oversights like that are part of the reasons we didn't buy the Highlander (no split 3rd row) or the Acadia (no bluetooth).
#212 of 549 Re: [nxs138]
Sep 01, 2008 (4:02 pm)
I don't know why manufacturers still play the game of introducing important features a few years down the road (like memory seats, or even full power passenger seats).
The dilemma for manufacturers is figuring out how to balance the individual needs/wants of consumers with building an economically-feasible, mass-produced product.
It is a very difficult "game" to play, as you'll inevitably disappoint those whose "must-have" features didn't make the cut.
For me, the Highlander hits most of my gadget wish-list: Bluetooth, power rear door, rear backup camera that's not dependent on Navigation, and Smart Key. I don't need memory seats and the 3rd row will remain stowed most of the time anyway, so I'm not too bothered by it not being split.
The more I see the CX-9 on the road, the more I like the way it looks. However, it's just too long (the extra 10 inches makes a difference), and I'm not as confident about reliability and resale as I am with the Highlander (which may be more perception than reality).
#213 of 549 Re: [qs933]
Sep 01, 2008 (4:24 pm)
I don't buy that excuse with Toyota. We're talking about a "Limited" with an MSRP over $40K. The whole point of the Limited's is to have a trim where people can get all the luxury options. The CUV class is crowded and yet every single other LImited (or Touring or equivilent) in the class has the memory seat option except the Highlander. And its not about economics either. Toyota uses the same seats in other models and they have memory seats and I know from my Sienna experience they will release a memory seat in a future year of the Highlander. They are 100% doing this to have a feature differentiator from year-to-year. That's cynical and not very loyal to the customer.
#214 of 549 Re: [citivas]
Sep 01, 2008 (11:41 pm)
I don't buy that excuse with Toyota. We're talking about a "Limited" with an MSRP over $40K.
It's not an excuse. It's a simple rule of developing a mass-produced product.
I'm not arguing that it's not a deal-breaker for you. Memory seats are a requirement for you. The Highlander doesn't offer it. I'm guessing Toyota is betting there are more people like me who don't see it as a deal-breaker than there are folks like you who'll cross the Highlander off their shopping list.
If they guess wrong, then sales will suffer. If sales suffer, then it's likely those features contributing to the shortfall will be added in the future (if feasible). I hardly see that as "cynicism."
All manufacturers do this. They have to. You can't build a vehicle that has 100% of all the features that every person would want to have. It's impossible. We're all different.
GM is adding Bluetooth to its vehicles for 2009 after years of exclusively offering OnStar as a substitute. Why? Because I'm sure they found that they lost enough sales due to the lack of Bluetooth to make it worthwhile to rethink their strategy.
Similarly, Mazda is adding a trip computer to the CX-9. Why? It's probably come up as an omission that's impacted sales.
Toyota guessed that they could eliminate the 4-cylinder model for the '08 redesign. Obviously that hurt sales. So what comes out in 2009? An entry-level 4-cylinder model.
I just don't see this huge "Toyota conspiracy." Like any other manufacturer, they have to find the right mix of features at the right price that meets as many needs as possible. No matter what mix of features a manufacture chooses, they can't and won't please everyone.
Sep 02, 2008 (6:44 am)
I disagree. You keep arguing that they had to make economic trade-offs and my point is I don't think that had anything to do with it. If you're logic were true, then a few other things would also be true: 1) That they made the exact same decision with virtually every other vehicle in its first 2-3 model years and in case-after-case the "market demanded they add it." If that were true, then they look pretty dumb for not eventually getting a clue that there is a pattern. This is their SOP with first year Limited's. They did the same with the Camry, the Sienna, the Sequoia, etc. And in case-after-case, gee surprise, memory seats show up as a new model year differentiator in the 3rd or 4th year. Consistently. I’ve had this conversation with several Toyota dealers and they all take it as a given too that this is simply Toyota’s way of holding back something to add to the model later, as part of their plan from the start. 2) That despite over a dozen models in the CUV class, Toyota alone believes the memory seat is not an important feature for their Limited customers. To your example, GMC was alone in leaving out Bluetooth and now is having to correct it. Generally if everyone is providing the feature except one, it’s pretty rare the one is right where everyone else is wrong. At least GMC had a reason for leaving out the Bluetooth – loyalty to their internal product offering. It’s not likely that Toyota simply misjudged the marketplace on this – they know they have gotten dinged on lack of memory seats again and again in comparative reviews, etc. This was simply about release timing. 3) If it were about saving money there would have to be real savings for them. But they use basically the same seat with very minor tweaking on multiple vehicles, like the Sienna, and they have memory seats for it already. And since they can market it as an option, it actually can be profitable since options carry a better margin than the car itself in most cases.
I wager any amount of money that memory seats show up on the Highlander Limited within 2 years – it would have been sooner but the scale back in the ’09 production may have slowed it. This won’t be Toyota “responding to the customer.” This will be Toyota executing the next step in a plan that has been on the drawing board for years.
That is what is cynical about it.
#216 of 549 Direct Injection
Sep 02, 2008 (2:55 pm)
GM throws in the direct injection to their quadruplet (Acadia, Outlook, Enclave, and Traverse). All get a bump in horsepower, torque and MPG by 1 (both city/highway).
Let us hope that Toyota, Honda, and Mazda (Ford) follow suit. Direct Injection is the technology that improve torque (therefore horsepower) of gas ICE by 5-10%. We will see DI as common as overhead cam today within 5 years.