By on November 18, 2015

IMG_3602

You’ll excuse us if the new 2017 Mazda CX-9 photos we took lack a little substance. Mazda’s newest crossover was on lockdown by the automaker in Los Angeles on Tuesday, allegedly because competing engineers were a little to eager to snap pictures underneath the new girl’s sheet metal.

Whether we’re allowed to take pictures of it now or later, Mazda’s newest crossover (presumably) gets a whole host of the automaker’s latest and greatest including its new 2.5-liter, turbocharged SKYACTIV four cylinder that makes 250 horsepower* and 310 pound-feet of torque.

The new three-row crossover sports a long hood, but short overhangs, which keeps the crossover at a somewhat manageable 199.4 inches long. According to Mazda, the new CX-9 is about an inch shorter than the outgoing model despite having a 2-inch longer wheelbase.

The CX-9 will sport 18- or 20-inch wheels — depending on your flair for drama — but even larger shoes look a little small in the crossover’s wheel arches. (Perhaps that’s due to the cladding around the wheel wells.)

Mazda says that the CX-9 has lost a football player in overall weight — around 200 pounds in front-wheel drive configuration, 300 pounds in all-wheel drive spec — despite having more than 50 pounds of sound-deadening material below the floor alone.

The CX-9 will sport a suite of safety tech, including adaptive cruise, blind spot monitoring, lane-keep assist and autonomous emergency braking, including three different systems to avoid front collisions — city braking, distance recognition control and smart braking over 9 mph.

According to Mazda, the CX-9 will go on next spring. Pricing hasn’t been announced yet.

* The CX-9 makes 250 horsepower on 93 octane. It makes 227 horsepower on 87 octane. Who has access to 93 octane and better still, who buys a CX-9 and pumps it full of ultra premium every time?

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

72 Comments on “LA 2015: New 2017 Mazda CX-9 Is Literally on Lockdown...”


  • avatar
    SCE to AUX

    Reminds me of a Dodge Durango.

    I have easy access to 93 octane, but it wouldn’t be going into my CX-9. I’d be interested to know the fuel economy difference between the two fuels.

    • 0 avatar
      TrailerTrash

      well…as I have posted earlier on TTAC, I have changed from 87 to 93 in both my 3.5 ecoboost MKS as well as 2.0 ecoboost 2013 Escape.
      The MKS has gone from an average of 21/22 ave to 24. The Escape from 24.4 to nearly a steady 26.9/27 mpg.
      This a 60/40 hwy/city drive.I do drive the MKS easy…never really pushing. We averaged 25 MPG loaded heavy with everything we owned ’till the car sat hard on its shocks all the way to southern Fl.
      Not bad…at all.
      In a 355 HP Lincoln! So, for an average of 2 MPG more I only pay approx .20 more per gallon here in and around Farmington MO.

      An easy decision considering the awesome extra power.

      And 93 is available everywhere east of the rockies, I believe.

      • 0 avatar
        TMA1

        At only 20 cents a gallon, no reason to not get premium if that’s what’s recommended. Where I live, 89 costs 65 cents more than 87. Not sure about 93. The tank full of 91 I bought last night cost over 70 cents more a gallon than regular.

        • 0 avatar
          CoreyDL

          Good grief! Where are these huge grade differentials?

          Cincinnati:
          87 / 1.89
          89 / 2.09
          93 / 2.29

          • 0 avatar
            TMA1

            I live in the DC area. Maryland suburbs, to be more precise, close to the Beltway. I’m sure Morbo could corroborate. It’s awful.

            I noticed those differences last night because the CC reader at my usual Exxon station wasn’t working, so I ended up at a Sunoco further on that had 91 octane, which is apparently made from unicorns in these parts.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            You forget though, all humans are vermin in the eyes of Morbo.

          • 0 avatar
            DeeDub

            I can corroborate the DC area price spreads. Costco is pretty much the only place that stays under 20 cents/gallon between grades.

            A new trend I’ve noticed, that seems to pair with this, is that newly-constructed gas stations only have the price of regular and diesel on the big board. You have to pull up to the pump (or use gasbuddy) to find out how egregiously they’re jacking up the 89 & 93.

        • 0 avatar
          Fordson

          You must live in Canada…there is no place in the US with that kind of price difference between the grades.

          • 0 avatar
            S2k Chris

            False, in Chicagoland I’m seeing differences of about $.80 from 87 to 93.

          • 0 avatar
            TrailerTrash

            today in farmington it is 1.93.9 for reg.
            2.33 for 93.
            diff of 39 cents.

            not sure how this plays out cost per gal/mile for premium in MGP…

            my escape went from 24.4 to 27 hwy.

            get another 45 or so miles out of a 15 gal tank? extra 5.80/6.00 more per tank fill???
            guessing about 7.5 cent more per mile cost.
            never was good at math…but like the extra power.

          • 0 avatar
            TrailerTrash

            today in farmington it is 1.93.9 for reg.
            2.33 for 93.
            diff of 39 cents.

            not sure how this plays out cost per gal/mile for premium in MGP…

            my escape went from 24.4 to 27 hwy.
            ave.

            get another 45 or so miles out of a 15 gal tank? extra 5.80/6.00 more per tank fill???
            guessing about 7.5 cent more per mile cost.
            never was good at math…but like the extra power.

          • 0 avatar
            tonycd

            Yep, just like s2kchris said. I’m in Chicago and saw regular $2.30, premium $3.10 last week. Disgusting price gouging.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            In my area yesterday, $1.859 Reg86, $1.959 Mid88, $2.059 Prem91. And expected to go lower before Thanksgiving. Too much supply – not enough demand.

            Problem is, the retailers in MY area can’t make money selling at anything below $2/gal for Reg86. At least that’s what two of the competing convenience store owners have told me (to my face.) They sell gas just to get people into the store.

            As such, Chevron, Shell, Fina, Shamrock and other “name brand” dedicated gas stations are selling the same gas, from the same suppliers, at $2.059 Reg86, $2.259 Mid88 and $2.459 Prem91 in my area.

            Disgusting, but it beats going out of business.

          • 0 avatar
            Hamilton Guy

            By way of comparison, here are the best prices in my city, Hamilton, ON Canada converted into US$ per US gallon:

            Regular(87)is C$.919 per litre = C$3.47 per USgal

            C$3.47 = US$2.61

            Premium(91-94) is C$1.06 per litre = C$4.01 per USgal

            C$4.01 = US$3.02

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            Hamilton Guy, the overabundance and resulting low price of crude in the US is causing a dreadful shortfall in tax revenue for both the US Treasury and the Treasury of individual States.

            It used to be that even in the US, and currently still in California, the price of gasoline and diesel fuel was artificially kept very high for revenue purposes.

            But most OTR truckers now tank up outside of California and enter California from one of the adjoining states where fuel cost less, thus reducing the quantity of fuel sold in California.

            Even a 1% reduction in fuel sales will result in less revenue.

            It could be that many Canadians living near the border with the US just fill up their fuel tanks in the US.

            People in the US living near the southern border do this routinely since gasoline is even cheaper in Mexico (~$1.50 or 26 pesos) and contains NO Ethanol.

          • 0 avatar
            Opus

            False. The differences here in North Jersey are running around 45 to 70 cents per gallon, depending on the station.

  • avatar
    bludragon

    A turbo 4. The sky has fallen…

    Actually this is great. I’m now looking forward to testing this engine in a mazdaspeed3 a year from now :)

  • avatar
    tjh8402

    shame. I thought n/a engines was a part of the (gasoline) skyactive driving focused philosophy. I was looking forward to a skyactive six cylinder if Mazda ever needed more power than the 2.5 I-4. Not sure this is really a good MS3 engine though. I was reading another article on the car and the engine and they said engineers tuned it more for low and midrange power because they determined in their testing that the typical crossover driver rarely needs more than 3000 rpm. An engine that makes the meat of its power below 5k is not going to be much of a performance motor.

    • 0 avatar
      bludragon

      I should clarify, I’m looking forward to driving a tuned version of this motor in an MS3… Although if they keep the weight and lag down then 250hp is actually plenty.

      • 0 avatar
        tjh8402

        @Bludragon – found the article I was thinking about. quoted below. My concern is not that 250 hp is inadequate, but that it will not be a particularly thrilling 250 hp, with all the fun happening below 4500 or so rpms, and the engine not being the sort to inspire fun rips to the redline.:

        “the company conducted research into how its customers actually use three-row SUVs, including taking a CX-9 mule and tucking in behind such vehicles in order to study their drivers’ throttle usage and driving patterns. What Mazda discovered was that these folks typically don’t spin their tachometers past 3000 rpm or so, and so an onus was put on immediate torque production rather than high horsepower for the CX-9’s new engine.

        That engine, a 2.5-liter four-cylinder…produces 310 lb-ft of torque at 2000 rpm ”

        http://www.caranddriver.com/news/2016-mazda-cx-9-official-photos-and-info-news

        • 0 avatar
          highdesertcat

          “My concern is not that 250 hp is inadequate”

          The 250 hp IS inadequate for a vehicle of that size and heft.

          We had a 2012 Jeep Grand Cherokee with the 295 hp Pentastar V6 (before the 3.6 was bumped up to 305 hp) and it was inadequate for that vehicle in all but flat terrain.

          All Mazda products are a blast to drive, an inspiration for driving enthusiasts, albeit noisy in the passenger cabin and not the most dependable vehicle in that class. Lower reliability is OK as long as you still have the factory warranty.

          Mazda really needed to put at least a 300 hp V6 in the new CX-9, in addition to trimming the weight, adding a tire-tread with less road noise, and 20″ wheels.

          I’m surprised they didn’t. This was their chance.

          • 0 avatar
            wolfinator

            20″ wheels ARE on the CX-9. And I fail to see how that’s a good thing.

            Methinks you have a pretty bizarre definition of “adequate” for power. Especially for a large SUV. What, are you going to drag race it??

            300 ft-lbs of torque was enough for HD trucks not very long ago. 250 horses sounds fine to me. I can’t imagine a scenario where that’s ‘inadequate’, unless you’re doing heavy towing. And if you’re doing heavy towing, why are you buying this?

            I really don’t get where you’re coming from, except for the road noise complaint. Which may have been addressed, given the comment about sound insulation.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            wolfinator, “a tire-tread with less road noise, and 20″ wheels” My bad. It was awkwardly written.

            I meant to convey “a tire tread that would create less road noise (like a Michelin Passenger car tread) mounted on the 20″ wheels that already come with the CX-9.

            The 20″ wheels that came with our 2012 Grand Cherokee were a good thing. Liked them a lot!

            With both the 17″ and 18″ wheels on the JGC there was just too much sidewall IMO, which added to sway and squishiness at highway speeds.

            I’m a proponent of 20″ wheels. Anyone who ever had them, with low-profile sidewall tires, would appreciate the tight, crisp turning and braking without oversteer or understeer, regardless of vehicle manufacturer.

            Some people go out of their way to purchase after-market 20″ wheels and tires for their new ride.

            Cruising at 85+ mph on I-10 reveals the benefit of 20″ wheels and tighter road response. Rock steady. No squishiness. No sway.

            The 18″ wheels on our current 2015 Sequoia are more sloppy than the 20″ wheels on our 2012 JGC. And we have load range E tires on them. More sidewall.

            IMO 20” wheels really are the way to go and many OEMs have seen the light as well.

            And as far as power is concerned, if 250hp is enough for you, great!

            I can tell you that in all environments (except a flat road) the Pentastar V6 295hp was inadequate for our 2012 JGC.

            I’m not buying a CX-9. My experience was with the V6 of our 2012 JGC, a vehicle of that same class and size.

          • 0 avatar
            tjh8402

            @high desert cat – I have to disagree on the adequacy of the power of the engine. This engines specs are not that far off from the 4.0-4.6L V8s that powered 2 ton luxury sedans and SUVs in the early aughts. Those typically had 275-300 hp and similar torque, with this engines 310 lb-ft being among the tops. Those cars were also using at most, a 5 speed instead of 6. I don’t recall complaints about BMW 740s or Mercedes ML430s being underpowered.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            tjh8402, I know “power” is a personal preference and a Turbo-4cyl may be perfectly adequate for others, (especially if it is the only engine offered.)

            My frame of reference is my driving environment and my vehicles.

            The 2.5L V6 in my 1989 Camry is more than adequate for my driving in mountain country, as are the 381hp 5.7L V8s in my 2011 Tundra and 2015 Sequoia. Anything less is lacking, as others in my area can attest to, through first hand experience driving their cars/engines.

            In the past, low hp in vehicles was compensated for by higher final drive gearing ratios, at the expense of lower top end speeds and higher revs for cruising speeds. (Example, my 1-ton Dually Chevy 350 cu in V8, spun at 3500rpm at 60mph while my half-ton 350 cu in Silverado V8 spun at 1800rpm at 60mph — different differential ratios)

            Now everything is about mpg, fuel economy and emissions.

            The experience we had with our 2012 Grand Cherokee V6 was mostly good, but underpowered for most driving in our environment, and adequate for driving at sea level in flat terrain.

            IMO the best option and power balance for the JGC, or any vehicle in that segment’s weight and class (like the CX-9, Tahoe, Escalade, JGC) is the 5.7L V8. A friend of ours has a 2012 JGC like that. Perfect power-to-weight ratio.

            OTOH, my son’s 2012 JGC SRT8 6.4L is just insane, but surprisingly, not any more thirsty than my two 5.7L 32-valve DOHC all-aluminum V8s.

            I should add, I’m not a fan of heavy-breathing 4-bangers. I’ll take a V6 as a minimum in sedans and CUVs, and generally the biggest V8 available for trucks and SUVs.

            The price of gas has never been a consideration for me because we are floating in oil for the next 200 years. Well beyond my lifetime.

            And all those alarmists who so shrilly screamed about running out of oil have been proven to be liars with an agenda once again.

          • 0 avatar
            tjh8402

            @highdesertcat – if you felt your GC was underpowered, I’m not going to try to convince you otherwise. However, I will point out a few key differences between the CX-9 and the GC. They are not in the same weight category. The CX-9 should be a good bit lighter than your GC. Curb weights can obviously vary greatly in vehicles like this based on equipment, but C/D said a 2011 3.6 4×4 was 5k lbs. The lowest weight I’ve seen listed was 4500. The weights I’ve found for a 2015 CX-9 are 4300-4500, meaning this version could be as much as 500-700 lbs lighter than your Jeep. The Pentastar is also not the torqueiest engine out there – maxing out at only 260 lb-ft at 4800 rpm, whereas this Mazda will be 310 lb-ft at only 2000 rpm. I’ve been trying to research it, and from what I can tell, your Jeep also used a 5 speed automatic, whereas this Mazda will have a six speed, so the gearing may be more favorable in the Mazda. I don’t know how good the lockup was in the Jeep’s transmission, but Mazda’s skyactive automatics have generally been praised for their torque converter lock ups which can help the vehicle feel responsive (one of the reasons I actually liked the Ford DCT – helped the powertain respond like a manual). Finally, a turbo engine tends to suffer less power loss at altitude than a normally aspirated engine, another issue you may have run into with your Jeep in the mountains.

          • 0 avatar
            highdesertcat

            tjh8402, what you say is all true, and I understand the motivation of Mazda to put small turbo charged engines throughout their future lines.

            With CAFE and epa emissions mandates starting with MY2016, that is the way of the future.

            And even though the new CX-9 is lighter than the GC, when you fill it (the CX-9) up with people, that will affect its performance. It might be fine on flat terrain.

            As such, if anyone were to ask me for a recommendation, like at my church, or whatever, my advise would be to buy a 5.7L JGC, for the reasons I stated earlier. I would not recommend anything GM, nor Ford.

            As an aside, there are a few old CX-9s running around my area, with the V6 in them, and the people that own them are in no hurry to trade them off.

            Like I said, everything Mazda is a blast to drive. Zoom-zoom.

  • avatar
    Demetri

    Obviously this was tuned for max torque, which is just fine for a utility vehicle. I would expect a high horsepower tune of this engine if it ever makes it into the Mazda3 or 6. After witnessing the lazy job they did with the new 2.0L in the MX-5 though, I’m not so certain.

    • 0 avatar
      carlisimo

      I don’t think the Miata’s 2.0L is bad at all – the only reason it’s down on power compared to the old one is the lower redline. All of the high-compression Skyactiv engines suffer from a power dropoff after 6,000 rpm and a relatively prompt fuel cutoff. But at any rpm below 6,000, you’re getting more power than in the old Miata’s engine. (Granted, gearing can help the old one more due to the higher redline.)

      • 0 avatar
        Demetri

        Except the 1.5L engine in the MX-5 in other markets has a 20% power boost over the version in the Mazda2. The 2.0L is a straight drop from the Mazda3 with a few minor changes for better throttle response. They could have done more and they didn’t.

        • 0 avatar
          MBella

          Exactly. My NC has 167hp, and the same engine in the 3 had 144. I was expecting the new engine to get a similar bump, but no such luck.

          • 0 avatar
            Fordson

            Oh, no. No, no, no…you are not allowed to ask why a modern, naturally-aspirated, direct-injection, multi-valve four cylinder engine cannot make more than 77 hp/liter – the TTAC orthodoxy has decreed that 155 hp is “enough.”

            An engine of this type that won’t make power over 6,000 rpm is like a turbo two-liter that won’t make power UNDER 3,000 rpm – it’s useless. I have a 2003 SVT Focus two-liter that has VVT on the intake cam only, port injection rather than direct, and makes 170 hp…twelve years ago.

  • avatar
    wolfinator

    I think it looks very good. Pity about the turbo, though. I would be much more interested if a NA 6 of some kind was offered. I guess we’ll have some reliability numbers over the next few years. Maybe Mazda has finally kicked it’s turbo issues.

    This is a very minor nit – but it bothers me on otherwise good-looking Mazdas. The grill logo!

    On previous generation Mazdas, the grill logo always had cut-outs around the ‘M’. Now, the part behind the M is a solid black piece.

    At the same time, the M keeps getting bigger. In person, it looks like someone put a gigantic sticker on the front of the car. I just think it looks cheap and tacky in person…

    http://www.autoblog.com/2015/11/18/2017-mazda-cx9-official/#slide-3708289
    http://www.autoblog.com/2015/11/18/2017-mazda-cx9-official/#slide-3708302

  • avatar
    wmba

    Well, Ford took the old 2261cc Mazdasport3 engine, fiddled with it here and there, slapped on a new head and Voila! the new Mustang Ecoboost engine, designed to not actually blow up and with 310 hp.

    So presumably this new SkyActiv turbo can be tuned for a bit more than 250 hp considering it has over 200cc more displacement.

  • avatar
    22_RE_Speedwagon

    Sir, I have access to 93 octane and I would pump that CX-9 full of it.

  • avatar
    carlisimo

    I thought 93 octane was normal for premium outside of California. In our state we have too many cars that require premium, so they dilute it to 91.

    The weight savings probably come from not having to design for a V6.

  • avatar
    RazorTM

    “Who has access to 93 octane and better still, who buys a CX-9 and pumps it full of ultra premium every time?”

    My local gasoline stations have 87, 89, and 93. It’s weird. As for your second question, I agree completely with the rhetorical sentiment.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      Not weird to me, that’s pretty much all they have in Maryland. Though I was shocked last night to pull into a Sunoco and find they had the 91 my Miata wants, in addition to 93.

  • avatar
    Boxofrain

    Wouldn’t a standard V6 around 3.5 litres make more sense? You lose a little torque but horsepower will be higher than 250 without even trying, on 87 octane fuel. Factor in the reliability and the ability to use it in other vehicles like the Mazda6, and it just seems like a better idea. Turbos aren’t anymore efficient in real world driving than a V6. I haven’t seen 93 octane offered anywhere in my area, so at 91 octane this engine won’t deliver 250/310, despite taking the most expensive fuel available. A V6 making 270-290 HP on 87 sounds more appealing, and most likely will deliver smoother power.

    • 0 avatar
      sportyaccordy

      No, a high revving V6 makes zero sense for this kind of vehichle. Soccer mom doesn’t want to rev to 7000 RPM to get on the highway, the noise will scare her. And winding the engine up that high = a lot of friction, which means bad gas mileage.

      I think a turbo 3.0L V6, either single twin scroll with the turbo in the V or twin turbos would have been a better look. Nice even 300 HP and even more torque, more average power and more down low grunt. That’s the kind of engine this thing needs.

      • 0 avatar
        Chocolatedeath

        I said in the beginning that they should have just leased BMW’s TTV6..and used their transmission, or if they wanted cheaper used Toyotas NA six with 8 speed.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        “No, a high revving V6 makes zero sense for this kind of vehichle. Soccer mom doesn’t want to rev to 7000 RPM to get on the highway.”

        You know, they’re not using 3-speed autos anymore man. A 3.5 V6 makes perfect sense for this sort of vehicle, and you don’t get anywhere near 7000 rpm, ever. Consider the RX350. Consider the ML350. Consider the pre 2005 Pathfinder. Pilot/MDX. Enclave/Traverse/Outlook/Acadia.

        • 0 avatar
          bball40dtw

          Consider that everything except for Volvo has a V6 option in their midsized or larger CUV. Even Ford and Hyundai, who love to turbocharge the bejeesus out of everything, have V6 options in their big CUVs.

          • 0 avatar
            CoreyDL

            Mazda are making a mistake here, not offering six cylinders. Why would I have a turbo four for the same price (presumably) as a six from someone else?

          • 0 avatar
            bball40dtw

            I’ve driven the 2.0T Edge in FWD and it was fine. However, the V6 options are so much better.

          • 0 avatar
            mike978

            It may be best to have used a V6 in this model. However it is understandable (and followed many other, much larger manufacturers), since this engine will go into a MS3 and a top model 6. A V6 wouldn`t go in a top model Mazda 3 and is increasingly unlikely in a top level 6. Since the CX9 is only sold in a few markets there was no financial gain to having an engine that only gets used in a low volume model.

        • 0 avatar
          Fordson

          My wife had a 2007 Sienna, and while that engine was great, yeah, you DID have to wind it out (power peak at 6200 rpm) to get it to move its fastest.

          Mazda doesn’t want to continue buying the 3.7L V6 from Ford, and they for some reason want to waste their meager powertrain R&D coin on resurrecting the rotary and making it into a modern, powerful and reliable engine.

          Which of course is money down a rathole.

    • 0 avatar
      redav

      It does seem incongruous that they want to push the premium aspect without a V6, but even Lexus is moving to turbo-4s, so whatever.

      A V6 wouldn’t drop into any of their other vehicles, including the 6. The engine bays are desired around using only 4 cylinder engines, one reason they intended a diesel to be the upgrade engine in the 6. Conversely, the turbo-4 should have no problem going in a Speed3 and possibly even the 6 (honestly, the diesel isn’t coming any time soon). Designing the CX-9 for a 4 cylinder also means that the diesel could eventually be an option for it, too, although there are no current plans for that. (For fun, it could go in the CX-5, too.)

      They make a big deal about efficiency, specifically mentioning real-world as well as on-paper, but until real numbers come out, we don’t know. It’s entirely possible that the turbo-4 really will outperform a V6 in that area, and better mpg is exactly what the CX-9 needs. But given their prior strategy of just using properly sized NA engines instead of turbos, I tend to agree that a V6 would yield as good–and certainly more consistent–mpg results.

      For the CX-9, I have to agree that it will hardly ever see above 3000 rpm, which means it won’t ever get to 200 hp, much less 250. Power numbers just aren’t important despite the interwebs. If it has the low-end torque like they claim, it will drive just fine. However, I do think it would need to be retuned if put into other cars. (However, for the 6, it’s numbers are similar to the diesel & better than the NA 2.5L, so maybe not.)

    • 0 avatar
      Demetri

      “so at 91 octane this engine won’t deliver 250/310”

      The torque figure doesn’t drop on lower octane; it still makes 310 even on 87.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    Hmmm. 200-300lbs off is still well over 4000lbs. I am not sure about this one. I’m way more interested in the CX-7. This engine lugging around 3600-3800 lbs seems more reasonable. And actually, this has a better power to weight ratio than the Golf TSI I recently drove, which I thought was plenty quick for the street. I didn’t need to rev beyond 4K to make haste.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    Speaking of collision avoidance systems.

    I enjoyed the TG segment in the CX-5 where Clarkson crashed it into a Tiguan because the active braking didn’t work correctly. Made the car look pretty fragile too since the little bump destroyed the radiator.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PF0AcyMFtMA

    • 0 avatar
      Ryoku75

      That was a good segment, Im sure Mazda watched it when they decided “we need less overhang!”..

      This is the company that did the following:
      Made the 2 bigger, yet more cramped (car of the year in Japan)
      Built Proteges/ 323s that rusted in 3 years, and never fixed the issue.
      Made Mazda 3s flammable
      Made a slower, uglier Miata
      Offered automatics in rotary powerd RX-8s
      Let Ford ruin their 626 with terrible transmissions
      Still couldn’t fix rust in early 3-6 models

  • avatar
    Der_Kommissar

    Those of you clamoring for a V-6 are missing a few points…

    1. Mazda is a small company- the fewer engines to support the better. Turboing an existing 2.5 4 cyl design has got to be less expensive overall then designing a new 6 cyl to skyactive standards, especially if the 4 cyl was not modular (like BMW) to begin with. Plus, now you have an engine that can be reused in other cars (mazdaspeed…), while the 6 would likely be limited to the CX-9.

    2. The turbo is going to have the torque come on lower in RPM, which is likely better for average drivers of this thing.

    Also, I really like the idea of a factory tune that can take advantage of 97 OR 93. I’d really like to see that spread across the rest of their line.

  • avatar
    Ryoku75

    Im sure car mags will love this, while everyone else sticks to CRVs.

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    Lots o pics here, by the way.

    http://www.thecarconnection.com/overview/mazda_cx-9_2017

    The interior is just vastly better over the old one, especially with that plum leather! But it sure looks like a lot of heavy car to be pushed around by a 2.5. Leg room looks limited for those not up front, as well.

  • avatar
    50merc

    In 1956, as I recall, I read a piece in Motor Trend or some such mag a report on driving the new Oldsmobile. The writer noted how nicely the car accelerated on part throttle, and an Olds engineer said “People buy horsepower but use torque”. How true. It’s so nice when a car feels effortlessly powerful.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Hummer: Jeez, I can’t imagine paying that much for 1 vehicle, $1,900 is what one could expect to pay for about 3-4...
  • geozinger: Fnck. I’ve lost lots of cars to the tinworm. I had a 97 Cavalier that I ran up to 265000 miles. The...
  • jh26036: Who is paying $55k for a CTR? Plenty are going before the $35k sticker.
  • JimZ: Since that’s not going to happen, why should I waste any time on your nonsensical what-if?
  • JimZ: Funny, Jim Hackett said basically the same thing yesterday and people were flinging crap left and right.

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Timothy Cain, Canada
  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Mark Baruth, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States