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
#401 of 549 Re: sales, Sep, 2009 [legacygt]
Oct 12, 2009 (11:54 am)
The CX-9 is a nice car. We liked the ride and the look better than the Pilot or anything in the class. It was our second choice in the end when we bought the Pilot 14 months ago. The main things that stopped us were the truly terrible cabin tech (it really was terrible compared to the competition) at the time (perhaps they have improved this since) and the fact that the NJ dealers weren’t very competitive – the Pilot and it had comparable list prices but despite some people getting amazing deals elsewhere in the country in NY you could get the Pilot cheaper. In the end, though, I am glad we settled for the Pilot because we use that extra seating capacity so often, even though we didn’t expect to. I also liked that the Pilot options were so much more straight forward – Mazda made getting way too many of the bells-and-whistles options on the top model and it not only seemed like nickel-and-diming (plus you couldn’t get the best entertainment package for example and a sunroof at the same time), but then it made it that much harder to find a vehicle equipped exactly as you wanted it.
I’ve read the brake reviews. All I can say is in normal world use (not crashes), the Pilot brakes great. They feel much smoother than our previous Toyota or Lexus vehicles and we don’t have issues with it not stopping quickly enough. As for the fuel economy, in the 4WD model it was comparable to anything else in the class except the Highlander. So to ding it for that is really to ding the entire CUV segment except the Highlander. In practice, it gets better mileage than our Toyota Sienna mini-van ever has, and more than our previous and much smaller Lexus RX300.
The Highlander was a major disappointment. First, the Hybrid is a joke. To get it comparably equipped as a Limited with all the options (including air conditioning which they brake out into three different add-ons and don’t include standard!) made the price 25% higher than the non-Hybrid Limited, meaning even with $4 fuel (at the time) it would take about 15 years of serious driving to make up your cost. After that the car was just a collection of major compromises, including the useless non-split third row seating, the useless (and tiny) removable middle-row seating, the fact that adult males couldn’t sit in the third row without permanently crocking your head sideways, the lack of a memory seat option for the driver (seriously, that’s just pathetic in a $40K+ list price Limited model car), the fact that the rear screen entertainment blocks the rear view mirror view when down (this was true on the CX-9 too, but not the Pilot), the fact that the navigation system is useless while driving (true of the CX-9 too; whereas the Pilot continues to allow programming, preferably from the front row passenger, while on the road) or the lack of true iPod integration (an AUX port just doesn’t cut it these days). The only thing I really liked about the Highlander, other than my good track record with Toyota, was the gas mileage. It looked nicer than the Pilot too.
Believe it or not, some drivers pick their car based on features over look or drive. I suspect this is the reason for the success of the Pilot overall. Though looks are so subjective. We bought our Pilot despite the looks but I am constantly surprised when some people go out of their way to rave about its looks. Granted, they are in the minority overall, but it is a large minority. I ask them what they like about it and they go on about how it looks like a “true” SUV and is “rugged” “truck-like” (as a complement) and how they HATE how so many other SUV’s are all “curvy” (meant as an insult), etc. To each their own. In any event, I know we bought it because our prioritizes were safety first (and they all were in the same class for that), features second, drive third and looks fourth, brand reputation or loyalty fifth. It destroyed the competition on features, especially for a family with three kids, a dog, a lot of grandparent shuttling and lots of kids carpooling, and the drive was fine. Obviously we’re not alone in our assessment. The fact that Car and Driver, among others, named it SUV of the year, over the Highlander and CX-9 among others and after we already pulled the trigger, was nice but had no impact on the decision. I suspect most car buyers don't buy based on reviews in the end -- its too big a financial commitment to leave to someone else's subjective judgment.
#402 of 549 Re: sales, Sep, 2009 [citivas]
Oct 12, 2009 (1:00 pm)
Somehow the sales figures I posted re-ignited the discussion. Great.
That title should really be changed to
Highlander, Pilot and CX9, now that even 2010 CX9 is available at dealerships.
Believe it or not, most people buy vehicles based on brand reliability reputation. Honda/Toyota obviously have the upper hands. Most people I know questioned my decision to go with Mazda. Their questions are all alike. "Is Mazda reliable?"
I guess no one would ask such questions if I had purchased a Honda/Toyota.
Well, IMHO, competition is good for everyone looking to buy a 7/8-seat CUV.
Lots of CX9's electronics integration flukes have been addressed in 2009 and also 2010 already. My CX9 continues to impress me everyday. I love driving it.
The brake is strong, on par with my ex-1998 BMW 540iA.
Most of vehicles I owned before have been Hondas. Poor brakes? Definitely! They were scary under hard braking, if you ask me. Reliable? Definitely. None of the 5 Hondas I owned had any single problem after 7 years of ownership. That speaks volume. After 21K miles, my CX9 showed one window problem. Though a very minor assembly issue, it still counts as one in my book.
A major downside with CX9 to me is the city-driving MPG. Expect 15mpg for AWD and 16-17mpg for FWD. I guess it comes with 3.7L engine, and wider tires (245mm) than competitors' offerings. With a 4500lb vehicle, 15mpg isn't too bad, but no where near good.
#403 of 549 Re: sales, Sep, 2009 [ceric]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Oct 12, 2009 (2:16 pm)
title should really be changed to Highlander, Pilot and CX9
#404 of 549 Re: sales, Sep, 2009 [steve_]
by vg33e power
Oct 12, 2009 (2:37 pm)
You may want to add Acadia and Traverse in the mix as well because most people compare these 5 CUV's Just an idea!
#405 of 549 Re: sales, Sep, 2009 [vg33e power]
Oct 12, 2009 (3:16 pm)
In case you didnt know (not being a smart aleck, just trying to help ) there is a Crossover SUV forum as well, for a less specific discussion, besides these three.
#406 of 549 Re: sales, Sep, 2009 [vg33e power]
Oct 12, 2009 (4:15 pm)
Great idea. After all, GM quadruplets sell as many units as the other three combined. How about
"GM Lambda vs Honda Pilot vs Toyota Highlander vs CX-9"
CUV includes many 5-seaters. This thread should focus on 7/8 seaters only.
Oct 21, 2009 (6:12 am)
First off, let me say I took better part of an hour yesterday reading throught his 41 page thread and I learned a lot. Citivas, I have to say a million thanks for all your input over time. It seems my vetting purchase for buying $30+ worth of sheet metal is the same as yours! Ive got a 3yr old and 6 month old and may have a 3rd in a few years.
I initally wanted to lease, in the hopes of buying a more fuel efficient hybrid like CUV in a few years but I can't bank on that risk and I'd like to take advantage of the tax bennie this year.
That said, my wife needs car and the Pilot was the top contender (after looking at all the others noted in this thread EXCEPT the CX9. We never even thought about the CX9 based on the 4/09 consumers reports, with reliability being a concern. My second concern with the CX9 is resale. But with the incentives available right now, 1.9%, its a huge consideration.
What is now being said about their long term reliability of the CX9?
Also, this is my only gripe, having read it on edmunds....
"All I can say is in normal world use (not crashes), the Pilot brakes great. ... we don’t have issues with it not stopping quickly enough"
How about stopping short? That is what is setting a fear of Honda in me. If she stops short, is that a problem? Has anyone with a Pilot noted ANY braking problems? I mean, in all consideration, that may be my dealbreaker on the Pilot.
About cx9 vs pilot interior space, braking distances, How did you find the interior space of the CX9 compared to the Pilot? I've read Pilot has better use/more places to stash stuff but have also heard the cx9 is roomy.
fitting 3 car seats across in the second row. the Pilot boasts this, but can the CX9 swing it?
new consumers reports on resales- is there any new info on this that is different from the 4/09 issue?
"In any event, I know we bought it because our prioritizes were safety first"
That is my main and again, I am concerned with these braking distance reports.
As I pulled into my office this morning, I saw a 10 Pilot across the street. I dont love the look either but I have to say, being a HUGE fan of the really retro Toyota FJ Cruiser (totally impractical for us), perhaps that is why I do like its look?
So my biggest concerns are brakes and resale value Thoughts please? going to look at CX9 car tonight and the Pilot AGAIN.
#408 of 549 Re: WOW! [mirrodie1]
Oct 21, 2009 (6:42 am)
i can't speak to the braking on the Pilot (leave that to others).
with regards to:
"fitting 3 car seats across in the second row. the Pilot boasts this, but can the CX9 swing it?"
- no, you cannot put 3 LATCH-system carseats in the 2nd-row of the CX-9 (nor ANY LATCH carseats in the 3rd-row). you possibly could do two carseats and a booster (nonLATCH) in the middle, but not sure they would all fit.
as far as roominess, you can look the specs up on each car to see the cubic feet, but ultimately you need to look at both cars and determine for yourself what feels roomiest to you. i hardly think that will be the deal breaker though...
i do remember a long-distance road test review of the CX-9 from edmunds or car&driver noting that after ~40k miles they had no extra costs than regular maintenance....not sure you will get a report on much longer reliability testing than that considering the model has only been out since 2007.
Oct 21, 2009 (6:56 am)
If you have a bunch of little kids, I think a minivan is the only way to go. We had 4 kids in 4 years and that's the only way I'd go. Much more storage room for the playpens, strollers, diaper bag, and many other accoutrements of babydom.
It never ceases to amaze me when I see people shortchange themselves because of vanity. So many women (and men) won't dare to be seen in a minivan because of some ridiculous image problem they will have with themselves if they buy one.
#410 of 549 Re: Why not a minivan? [4kids3dogs2cat]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Oct 21, 2009 (7:09 am)
Or even if you don't have kids. Maybe if they renamed them to something else. But we digress:
SUV vs Minivans