Road Test: 2016 Mazda CX-9 - Playing Catch Up or Setting the Pace?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2016
- The Mazda CX-9 had quite a run: 10 years from its early Ford origins up to the 2015 model year. And, there was a time when we weren’t sure if it would have a successor or not, as three-row utilities are not really Mazda’s thing. But, that’s what it takes to be competitive these days, so for 2016 an all-new CX-9 has arrived. Let see if the Mazda touch makes it standout in a segment full of able rivals.
Yes, many impressive 3-row crossover utilities have emerged over the decade since the Mazda CX-9 first came on line; and many of them have even zoom-zoomed as much as, if not more than, it has over the years. So, the redesigned 2016 Mazda CX-9 has a lot of catching up to do.
And, Mazda engineers started with the basics, working their magic with an all-new platform; making the CX-9 smaller outside, yet creating a roomier feel inside.
Even more sleight of hand was performed under the hood, where a 3.7-liter V6 was swapped for a 2.5-liter SKYACTIV-G turbo-4; the first turbo engine to gain the SKYACTIV moniker. Horsepower is down 23 to 250, but torque is up 40 lb-ft. to 310.
So, thanks to that extra torque, it doesn’t feel any less powerful than before. In fact, torque comes on with an almost diesel-like rush. Dropping over 250-lbs. of weight helps too...
Complete Road Test: goo.gl/Xo7emr - Авто та транспорт
This car is so underappreciated
I bought an 18. Was cheap and better equipped than a Lexus and these interior is far better than any Toyota, Lexus and even Audi. And the thing goes!
Hate to say it but this is a a beautifully done crossover
One of the best looking CUVs on the market!
Yup! This Mazda, the Volvo XC90 and the New Jag F-Pace are the best looking, in my opinion.
I love the Porsche Macan
Elusive25 I love it too, but it's freakin expensive.
Styling is granted in this beauty
man that's good looking
A wonderful design with beautiful lines throughout . The touring package w/ leather looks like a great alternative to a luxury SUV without the cost of luxury upkeep and maintenance .
l m bb
Looks great!
not a bad looking suv. And i am not a suv guy or a mazda guy.
Such a gorgeous vehicle
Fun, Stylish, Quiet, Quality interior, this is how an SUV supposed to look
GORGEOUS Too bad they wont sell mazda here in Brazil..
imagine a mazda 3 with his engine, and AWD. :O!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
sharp exterior
Beautiful SUV.
Mazda please put the engine in literally any other car in your lineup... (paired with a 6 speed of course)
true!!
I wish they did it with my '15 CX-5 grand touring, and it's fun to drive just wish it woulda had more POWER. this engine shoulda been in the CX-5
Next speed 6!!!
The CX-5 will most likely feature a new 2.0 with turbo for the 2017 remodel. The new CX5 will now look more like the CX9 based on the photos.
Fevian Cortes they are carrying over the 2 gas engines, but they will bring the diesel engine to the US
Guaranteed challenger to both the Pilot and the Highlander
Pilot - maybe. Highlander - no. Highlander drives like a cruise ship, while CX-9 still stands by its zoom-zoom motto.
Your basing that on the assumption that driving dynamics are important to everyone, which it isn't. My wife for exampled enjoyed driving the Highlander much more than the CX-9 (high drive height, more interior cabin space, smooth and pillow-like suspension).
It's impressive how they managed to make a four-cylinder engine with more torque than a 6 cylinder engine. That car is pretty fast off the line.
I have a 2018 GT model. Overall it’s a great car around town but on the highways, it struggles to get to 80 mph.
The previous generation did not have a “clunky” appearance! It was always among the best looking SUV’s...
that is a beautifull car, its a cx5 in steroids
Mazda is awesome and fun to drive, but seems like people like boring SUVS and go for the Toyota Highlander :(
People who buy in this segment don't place driving dynamics (the only real standout feature here) very high on the list of must haves, and Mazda and Ford don't seem to understand this. So once you eliminate that and place this and the Highlander and Pilot next to it... people are going to choose what they "know" will be safe and reliable with great resale value. I'm not defending this logic, just providing the reasoning behind the sales numbers.
uh huh... your explanation is Y I left Toyota. I bought the CX 5 vs the RAV4 & CRV and i'm glad I did.
Much sportier and awesome handling
93remix Sounds great. You represent the minority.
Also gotta keep in mind that there are more Toyota/Honda dealers than Mazda dealers. That also plays a role in sales numbers. Accessibility helps or hurts as the case might be.
it's begging for 350 hp
needs a 8+ spd auto.
Like all mazdas now, that HP level is a joke. I can appreciate the driving dynamics and all, but I think I'd rather have 310 HP and 250ft lb of torque... But it is a great looking SUV.
I'd rather have 310 ft-lb of torque and 250 hp than other way around. Do you often drive at 5,000 rpm when those 300hp are measured? It is torque at low rpm that makes car fast and peppy and not the horsepower power at 6,000 rpm...
Totally turned me off as soon as the 4-cylinder was mentioned. At least a V6 for a big SUV for crying out loud!
If you'd drive this turbo engine, you'd never know that it is v4. For your education Audi Q7 and Volvo XC90 are also turbo/super charged v4s. Time of heavy engine gas gazzlers is gone. New technology does take its way.
The problem with turbo engines in general is that real world fuel economy is never close to what the EPA figures states. Most turbo engines give you horrible fuel economy when you 'push' a vehicle. If you use 'fill up' this vehicle its 5+ passengers and cargo, you'll notice that fuel economy drops significantly. In heavy vehicles like this, its actually better to have a V6 engine. You get way more power and slightly worst fuel economy. Another thing, many people don't look at maintenance schedules for their vehicles before they buy it either. You'll notice that turbo engines require more oil changes and other maintenance over it's lifetime VS a V6.
The turbo era is mostly a sham. These turbos are engineered for specific fuel economy tests and don't do nearly as well in real-world driving. I think it's tragic that they made what everyone seems to find is the best handling 3 row SUV with an asthmatic engine that runs out of wind at 4000 rpm. Another 40 hp at the top is all it needs - and a heated wheel and front parking sensors.
Rene G. Solis what is it with you guys whining about V6 all the time with large SUVs? Mazda obviously went with torque vs HP and fuel economy so definitely not for everyone. Volvo XC90 took same route with 4cyl turbo and supercharged engine...only downside with 4cyl engines would be towing capacity so again not for everyone...bottomline this what Mazda decided on so get over it and look elsewhere if not for you!
@@True_BabaYaga just wanted to tell you all Mazda skyactiv engines or most 4 cylinders are inline 4 engines not v4. The reason most v6 are V is because the cylinders are positioned on a v shape to save space in the engine bay. A 6 cylinder can also be inline (straight line format) if the engine bay is long enough and inline engines are less complicated and more balanced. It's rare to see a v4 since an inline 4 is small and making that into a v shape just to further save space is costly.
22 MPG is reasonable ?...... for a 4 cyl :-(
For car weighing over 4000 pounds that has an internal combustion engine.
@@engma2006 well it sucks if that's the fuel economy goal my forester gets 36
Alot of new Mazdas have a strong Alfa Romeo or Fiat type design language. Mazdas dont look like Mazdas anymore....
mahzda?
Killah Kalico what??
I don't know never had my eye on Mazda!!! 2018 it should at least 8 speed and more hp .......the new Subaru should be better
YAWN!!
wats wrong with his face
Mazda, just... Just make more exciting cars. I’m getting sick of the moronic, luxury-focused, underpowered, excuses from a brand, I used to respect. That, and that dumbass mantra; “DRIVING MATTERS~...” Utter nonsense!