New large CUV

[gofast182]

Originally Posted By: wallyuwl
Thought about a Tribeca, but it is too small and the gas mileage is really bad for a vehicle that size. A 18' aluminum boat with trailer is about 2500 lbs. The CX-9 should be able to do that without a problem (rated 3500). But I see what you're saying about margin between rating and weight, the bigger the margin the better. That is my one concern, the towing. But that also isn't immediate. I could see what the 2015 CX-9 is like and if they have a higher tow rating get one in a year and a half. Why can't Mazda or even Honda make something like the Traverse? There really is no direct competitor to it.

Won't argue that but you can tow 4,500lbs in the Pilot. I know a guy with the current gen. who tows 5,000 pretty regularly and he's over 80k miles with no issues.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: wallyuwl
Why can't Mazda or even Honda make something like the Traverse? There really is no direct competitor to it.


A Traverse is rather large. That's neither Mazda's nor Honda's core competency (especially Mazda's; Honda does have the Odyssey van). The Durango has got to be close to the size of a Traverse, or even maybe a little larger. And a Durango would be more appropriate as a tow vehicle than the Traverse. Additionally, I believe you can get a real transfer case with the Durango (for better deep snow traction).

 

[wallyuwl]

Would be nice if someone just made a direct competitor to the Traverse. LOL!

Tribeca has 74.4 cu ft of cargo space, CX-9 100.7. Explorer is 80, Highlander, Pilot, and Durango around 85, etc. Traverse is 116. I might go look at a Durango or Highlander, those might be big enough

I didn't know this, but just researched and the Skyactiv Mazda engines are DI. Surely the redesigned 2015 will have one of those in it.

 

[gofast182]

Just do yourself a favor when looking at them, don't only go by what's on paper, get in there and look around and manipulate things. Just because a car has X cu. ft. of cargo space doesn't mean it's all usable in the way you want it to be (how flat do the seats fold, ceiling height/slope, rear hatch opening, etc). What may work for you may not be the biggest on paper.

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: wallyuwl
Would be nice if someone just made a direct competitor to the Traverse. LOL!

Tribeca has 74.4 cu ft of cargo space, CX-9 100.7. Explorer is 80, Highlander, Pilot, and Durango around 85, etc. Traverse is 116. I might go look at a Durango or Highlander, those might be big enough

I didn't know this, but just researched and the Skyactiv Mazda engines are DI. Surely the redesigned 2015 will have one of those in it.


The Traverse is really more of a minivan without the sliding doors. I guess you could call it a " 'tweener " because it is not quite a minivan, not quite a SUV. It is the Shia LeBeouf (not quite a nerd, not quite a hunk, Shia LeBeouf) of utility vehicles

 

[FutureDoc]

Originally Posted By: gofast182
Just do yourself a favor when looking at them, don't just go by what's on paper, get in there and look around and manipulate things. Just because a car has X cu. ft. of cargo space doesn't mean it's all usable in the way you want it to be (how flat do the seats fold, ceiling height/slope, rear hatch opening, etc. What may work for you may not be the biggest on paper.


Great point. My wife's Fit has nearly 57.3cuft of space with the seat down and my Outback has 69. Does not sound like a a big difference but there is a world of difference. I don't know how Honda counted the cargo-space, but I can "brim" the Fit with X amount of stuff and then that same load would fill the Outback 1/2 halfway. Some makers get more creative to give themselves an edge.

Also, when going by cargo space, for me "footprint" of the space is more important than height. Mostly because I do not like to completely fill the cargo area and block viability. If I need that much interior space, I rent a trailer or use my cargo rack. So for me, the space between the floor and the shoulder-height of the seat is more critical than the listed max cargo space.


FYI, my MR2 has 1.5cuft of cargo space and that is good enough for 99.9% of my trips.

 

[gofast182]

A couple years ago my wife and I remodeled our house and had to move out during it. We stored some of our stuff at my parent's house in PA. I loaded our CR-V with so much that there wasn't a single cubic foot of space anywhere in the car. When my parent's tried to bring the stuff back in their VUE which is "bigger" it wouldn't fit no matter how they packed it. In this case the smaller CR-V had "more space".

 

[Bladecutter]

Originally Posted By: wallyuwl
I didn't know this, but just researched and the Skyactiv Mazda engines are DI. Surely the redesigned 2015 will have one of those in it.


Currently Mazda doesn't have an engine that would replace the Ford Built V-6 in the CX-9.
The expected engine to replace it would be the Turbo Diesel engine, but that engine has yet to make an appearance in the US market in any Mazda vehicle.

Do you still have concerns with direct injection if it's in a diesel engine?

BC.

 

[Bladecutter]

Originally Posted By: wallyuwl
We looked at a 2014 Mazda CX-9. They are coming out with a new design for 2015 model year, so they will be looking to clear these out this summer I think. Anyone have any experience with this?


I test drove the CX-9 a while back.
It definitely out-handles all of its competition, from a drivers perspective.

If you like the looks of it, go for it.

Also, keep an eye on Mazda's website and on Edmunds, to see when they are doing offers for people who own competitive vehicles. If you were buying a CX-5 right now, you would be able to get an additional $500 for owning the Equinox.

BC.

 

[wallyuwl]

Might also look into the Durango, they can tow and have a fair amount of room. Not sure how I feel about Dodge, my family has never had good luck with them and (for what it is worth) Consumer Reports ranks them low. And it would be $37,000 or so vs. 32 for the others (CX-9, Santa Fe).

I did find out that the Santa Fe, when properly equipped with the towing package, can tow 5000 lbs.

 

[wallyuwl]

Well, looked at some vehicles today.

Durango: They didn't have one close to what I'd want in stock, but I drove what they had. I liked the engine, it had power and was smooth. I really like the styling. Interior materials seemed nice, except the cloth on the seats seemed a bit cheap. Also little things seemed off, like being able to clearly see the metal bottoms of the back seats. OK cargo room, but not huge. I liked it for the most part, but at the price point I wouldn't buy it. And these drop like a rock in depreciation.

Pathfinder: Didn't drive it. Went inside with salesman, he left to get keys. Was gone for ten minutes. I saw him walk outside with another customer. I left. I peeked inside the window and it looked like it was short on cargo room, especially behind third row seats.

Santa Fe: I've seen these before, but didn't take a really close look, and especially didn't have a frame of reference to other vehicles. Went to one dealer and they didn't have a AWD so I didn't even drive the FWD. But on second look it is small for cargo room. It also, when compared to the Durango, seemed like the quality isn't quite there. Not sure this would be a 10 year vehicle, and that is what we're looking for this time around.

Explorer: I was hesitant to even go look at it since on the spec sheet it only has 80 cubic feet of cargo room. Glad I looked at it though. It is really big inside, I don't know how the cargo room is rated so low. The build quality seemed good. The salesman was also great - extremely low pressure, didn't even ask for my phone number. He really lets the vehicle do the selling. I asked him about the "smoke in cabin" smell on some Explorers, and he said they haven't had any problems on the 2014 and most 2013s were good (not all, though). It was pretty quick for a big vehicle. Drove a bit like a truck. The incentives are OK but they'll get better the closer we get to the next model year. It can tow 5000 with the towing package.

So I think it is between the CX-9 and Explorer. They have been the best salesmen so far too (low pressure, and actually personable). I still might drive a Traverse, we'll see. I think we're going to wait until at least Memorial Day.

 

[wallyuwl]

Any owners of the CX-9 or 5th gen Explorer have any comments about the? Mostly, would you buy again, and why or why not?

Looks like really good deals are going to be had on both probably in summer because of the redesign for the CX-9 and a "refresh" for the Explorer. Already some good deals, actually.

 

[Bob_E]

My wife drives a 2013 Explorer XLT 3.5 everyday. She absolutely loves this truck. We also looked at the CX-9 and decided on the Explorer for the slightly larger cargo area behind the third row. With three kids the third row is used often and that was a consideration for us.
That was what made us decide on it then but since there have been other things this truck does surprisingly well. We have been on the beach with it more then once and it handles fine in the sand and pulls with no issue. We aren't serious beach buggy types but it has done a good job of it.
Biggest eye opener for me was this past winter when I used it to tow a stuck mail truck up the hill in front of my house. We had some snow the night before, 4-6in, and living on a dead end we hadn't been plowed yet. Mail carrier couldn't get turned around or up the hill in reverse. Tied him off put it in "Snow Grass Gravel" mode and pulled him to the apex of the hill.
I really can't say anything bad about it, and I know my wife is extremely happy with it. It rides great, is bigger inside then you would think, My Ford Touch works ok for us, she's avg approx 15mpg with almost all around town, and overall it has been a perfect fit for us. We would def buy it again.
Just my .02
If you have any fit/finish, options etc questions just let me know.

 

[gofast182]

A coworker has a current gen. Explorer and is kind of ambivalent about it and isn't sure she'd buy another (but didn't say she wouldn't, either). She said the handling isn't as nimble as she hoped and the build quality is just OK. It has been very reliable for her so far which is half the game by itself. I like the way the Explorer looks better but might go for the Mazda if these were my only two choices.

 

[wallyuwl]

Looked at an Explorer with the wife tonight since we were near a Ford dealer running errands. She didn't drive it since it was windy so that would take the attention off the vehicle. But she liked the Explorer. They have a CX-9 there too and we measured it and it was a little bigger cargo room, but the Ex is fine we think. We're going to drive both in a few months when we're looking to buy and make our decision then. We're thinking the Explorer at this point. Also found out the Explorer is not a DI engine (at least not the one in the trim we'd get), which is good.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: wallyuwl

So I think it is between the CX-9 and Explorer. They have been the best salesmen so far too (low pressure, and actually personable). I still might drive a Traverse, we'll see. I think we're going to wait until at least Memorial Day.


I did some research on the CX-9. Apparently it uses an Aisin (Toyota) transmission. Which are generally extremely reliable.

Unless you need the towing capacity of the Explorer - I'd go the CX-9. Similar engine - same family , but .2L larger - and more reliable transmission.