I wonder how much of the development of the CX-9 and the Edge is shared. The media loves the CX-9 but is relatively cold to the Edge.

I wonder how stiff the ride must be. Sporty dynamics with non adjustable dampers, 20" rims and high weight seems to be a recipe for a brittle ride.
 
"Similarly, if you truly need seven-passenger capacity and lots of cargo space on a regular basis you shouldn't buy a CX-9"
 
Aren't those traits the entire point of owning a larger SUV?

Every time I've sat in one of these, I've hit my head on the A-pillar while entering. Now I'm only 5'9," but still...
 
You can thank the severe rake of the A-pillar for that—or my lack of flexibility thanks to being almost 63. It may look great, and go zoom-zoom, but (most) geezers should probably look elsewhere.

I sat in the CX7 and 9 and found the distance between me and where the windshield and dash met to be r e a l l y far away. I ruled it off the list for my wife's next daily driver. I'm almost 64....6'4 (that is ;)) and she's 5'4......if I thought the base of the windshield was a mile away then I knew what she would think.
 
That said, I do like the CXs overall and I'm impressed to see such a positive write up here - to see it grouped in such esteemed company - stuff keeps getting better all the time - lucky us.

There must be some Mazda magic in there for Karl to be so enthusiastic. I recently drove a fairly top-end Edge (as a rental), and came away with the feeling that it was a decent effort, but nothing special.
 
The interior design and implementation were a disappointment - something that I'm sure the Mazda doesn't suffer from. Other than that, it was little more than competent.
 
The Mazda seems to make more sense, being slighly larger (with a 3rd row), and clearly more engaging to drive. I really have to look twice to distinguish the CX-9 from the CX-7 - from a distance anyway. Up close, the CX-9 looks more stately.

Karl have you driven the CX-7? If so, is your opinion dramatically different than that for the CX-9?

The CX-9 just looks to much like a moon rover (aka every other CUV) on the road. I always confuse this thing with the Murano and vice versa

All good points here:
 
Yup, it looks like a Moon Rover, but there's no getting away from that in this category so I can't mark down for it.
 
The car is vastly superior to the Edge in every way. We were actually discussing how closely related the cars are -- or aren't -- and the engineer on staff was quick to point out that these model really only share a very basic starting point.
 
BTW, the ride quality is fine when not throwing it through corners.
 
If you have a family of four or five, but often carry six or seven people to soccer practice, girl scouts or church events the CX-9 works well, as it can handle five people plug luggage for a long trip easily, as well as seven people for a short run to a local event.
 
The CX-7 also handles quite well (and looks good in my opinion). If you need less cargo/people space it's another fine choice.

I like the CX-9, I guess it would work if you only have two kids and the third row is for very occasional use. But there are other vehicles that have occasional-use third rows and are smaller than this. But if the CX-9 drives as well as Karl indicates, size wouldn't be an issue.

The Cx-9 isnt that good looking to me at all. I wouldnt go so far as to say all crossovers look lame and thus the CX-9 cant be expected to look good. The Edge, GM triplets and even the Highlander with 19s look better to me. I dont like the front end styling at all and this vehicle looks totally different (in a bad way) without the 20s.
 
The Edge has gotten slammed by the media because its not sporty even though common sense dictates people shopping this class are not looking for great skidpad numbers.. The CX-9 is sportier but the sales charts show the Edge is doing great while the CX-9 has been a medicre seller. Yes, I know Mazda is much smaller than Ford but the point is the public has been far more receptive to the Edge than the media. I'm not Ford fan but aside from the wheels the Edge is an eye catching vehicle that will NEVER be confused with some bland Japanese SUV and that is likely one reason why its selling well.
 
The CX-7 is a gas guzzler, has no space and has a cheap interior that would not get a free pass if it wasn't a Mazda. When I first sat in this vehicle I couldnt believe how much hard black plastic had been crammed inside. Its nearly as bad as a Chrysler product in terms of lack of soft touch materials.

"Every time I've sat in one of these, I've hit my head on the A-pillar while entering. Now I'm only 5'9," but still... "
 
I'm also 5' 9'' but didn't hit my head on the A-pillar when I testodrove the CX-7. I don't expect the CX-9 to be much different....
 
I just wish they made a manual transmission an option in these vehicles....... The "autostick" thing is crap: it can be fun but just does not offer the same experience as a real manual - when I test-drove the CX-7 I left it in full auto after 5 minutes.
 
1487, the CX-7 interior looks and feels great. I didn't see anything "cheap" about it. It didn't feel crammed either. I also think the CX-twins are the best looking CUVs on the market.
You're also missing the point about the whole zoom-zoom campaign and sales. I don't think Mazda aims be a big sales story like Toyota, GM, Honda, Ford and the likes, but rather offer a sporting alternative to people like me who are tired of bland "mainstream" cars. (That is why I'm questioning the lack of a real manual in the CX cars.....) As long as they have a healthy profit, it's all good. If the CX cars are having less-than-expected sales, they should perhaps make them sportier (by offering a real manual and customisation options, for example....)

1487 - Your opinion of Mazda's interiors seems to be shared with most of the European press who complain that Mazda's feel cheap and drab inside. Guess it's just a difference in taste because American automotive press seems to think Mazda interiors are great.
 
On a side note I talked with one of Ford's engineers about the AC vent on the Edge that Edmunds complained about. Apparently though some posters have complained that the AC is weak it's actually designed to cool people faster than the old layout. It's able to pump out more air than the smaller vents at a much quietter volume. However, if you ask someone how the vent is cooling, people tend to respond that it doesn't work well because they're so used to a small rush rather then a more volumous flow of cool air. Also the engineer told me that the designers refuse to the them correct the design to improve movability despite the fact that its the number 1 complaint on the vehicle.

Generally speaking Mazda interiors are dark, functional and "sporty looking" but they are also full of hard plastics. I personally dont care too much, but I do wonder how this goes unmentioned when the press is fawning over the latest Mazda. CX-9 is no exception and the interior is not as rich looking up close as the Outlook and Acadia. I have not been in Enclave yet. The worst thing about the CX-9 interior is that it really doesnt seem any richer than the much cheaper 6 or 3, its just a supersized version of the same plastics in those vehicles.
 
blackadder,
 
I know Mazda is small and that is fine but every carmarker wishes they could sell more cars, even Toyota. My point is that the media's opinion of Mazda vs their success is something that should be noted. The same could be said for Saturn right now. Products are generally liked but sales have been unimpressive so far.
 
If you think the CX-7 has a rich interior I suggest you check out the Vue. It shames the RAv4 and CX-7 in interior quality. The CX-7 is full of hard plastics, just knock on them with your knuckles and listen. The CX-7 (like the Vue) combines marginal utility with mediocre gas mileage and high curb weight (although Vue offers four and hybrids which Mazda lacks) and I dont see the point. When C&D tested the CX-7 it got 14mpg.

The CX-7 shares the material quality of the 3 & 5 which may or may not be a good thing in this price range. Fit and finish seem ok but everything is hard plastic. It doesn't have a telescopic steering wheel and cheapo one stage seat heaters. Over styled belt line is too extreme and wheel design is boring.
  
CX-9 has a much nicer looking interior in my opinion. I'm not sure if I like the jacked up wagon like appearance though. The swoopy lines just don't do it for me in a vehicle this large. It looks like somebody pancaked the roof down onto the body. My neighbor up the street has a base model CX-9 and it looks better without the chrome. Japanese companies need to stay as far away from chrome as possible.

Both the CX7 and CX9 suffer in terms of interior space, when you consider the overall length to interior space ratio (whatever that is...).
 
This is because both cars have such a severe windshield rake. This results in pushing the front seat towards the rear, which in turn pushes the rear seat(s) further back too. As a result the cargo areas suffers in terms of space. I bet the substantially shorter (and boxier!) Honda Pilot is pretty close in terms of interior space. It may not match it, but I bet it's close.
 
I've complained about front entry issues (for me). Rick8365 complained about the windshield being so far away. This is all the downside of the "aero designed" A-pillar.

1487, you're right about the sales issue.
I just feel that the zoom-zoom campaign by nature is not a big sales strategy because most people do not really want sporty cars.
 
The difference between sales and "critical" or "expert" opinion exists in many areas. Take movies: how many Oscar-calibre movies sell well? How many movies or movie series are panned by critics but still do well? I guess that's the same thing Mazda is experiencing. Zoom-zoom appeals to enthusiasts and "non-conformist" people but not everyday people........and that's fine by me!
Similarly, there are many cars that critics have panned but I didn't think they were that bad. Eg, Saturn.......not great, but certainly not as terrible as the press made it to be....and I actually thought the dent-resistant plastic panels were cool.
 
But I have a feeling that the relatively low sales of Mazda might be due to more than zoom-zoom. Although Mazdas are reliable, they don't have the legendary reputation of Toyota and Honda. They also don't offer much in terms of prestige/snob appeal. Neither do they (apart from perhaps the Mazda 3, Mazdaspeed and the RX vehicles) offer high resale value. All these factors make the middle-aged people that typically buy crossovers and most cars in general overlook Mazda........(the younger people who buy the Mazda 3 care more about style and handling, so the Mazda 3 is hit). I bet the sales would be much better if the CX-7/9 had Honda or Toyota badges.
 
Personally I don't have an issue against hard plastic as long as it doesn't have safety implications. If the interior is well-executed, stylish and well-built, at non-luxury car prices I couldn't be bothered whether the interior is made of leather, plastic or metal. Maybe it's because neither my parents nor me have owned luxury vehicles so far and so I see plastic as part of non-luxury automotive life. Obviously, if I were buying a Mercedes or BMW I wouldn't have this attitude....perhaps the Europeans complain because they're used to Benzes and the like......
 
I feel it's unfair to compare the Enclave's interior because Buick is a luxury brand.
 
The lack of telescopic steering is a gross oversight by Mazda. I don't know what they were thinking.

I rode as a passenger in a CX9 around the track at LimeRock raceway with a professional driver at the wheel. The amount of speed that he could dial in with this crossover simply amazed me. It handled well, it braked well... and the grab handles worked well. And no, I would never think of trying the same thing in a Honda Odyssey. A 3-series yes. The CX9 was invisible to me until I had a chance to ride in it. It really is very good.

Mazda is Ford's sports car division - that is their niche. Therefore by definition Edge must be more boring than CX-9. Mazda is the brand for younger crowd – it is the message they conveyed with zoom-zoom campaign. So I can hardly see myself driving Mazda. I do not say I do not like Mazda or Mazda interior (the best among Fords IMHO). It is just that car screams “Young”/“Young family”. And besides it still looks like Asian car. There is nothing wrong about Asian designs, but I happened to like more straightforward, bold and/or elegant European or American designs. Of course Mazda’s interior feels cheap compared with European luxury cars – but that where Europeans show arrogance – they complain about American and Japanese cars as being “cheap” then go and buy Opel, Ford, Fiat, Renault and Peugout. Mercedes C-class interior also feels cheap btw.

I should add too-raked windshields to my list of gripes about styling cliches of today. The others are:
High beltlines
Overuse of mostly plastichrome
Big emblems
Big grilles
Fake front fender vents
 
All of these take away from practicality or impart too much busyness into the styling.

Ah Ha! The CX-9 you drove is the latest longtermer. The secret new LT is revealed.

The CX-9 shares the aggressive windsheild rake with the SRX and I dont like the way it makes both vehicles look like wagons. The lamdas look like softer SUVs and I like that look much better.
 
the LT CX-9 looks very plebian without the nav screen. I believe that is the first time I have seen one without nav and the interior is worse off without it. That is too plain of an interior for a $36k truck in my opinion. In spite of all the flak the Edge has taken I honestly dont think its interior is any worse than the CX-9- at least the Ford has real metal trim inside.
 
Mazdas definitely would sell better if they were hondas or Toyotas but you could say the same thing about a lot of vehicles. The safe, middle aged, suburban family that makes up so much of America is typically unwilling to step outside of the Toyota/Honda box and thats why these other brands have such trouble gaining traction regardless of how nice their vehicles are. The 6 got heavy praise from the press when it came out and has not been all that successful since it cant get consideration from midsize buyers who wont look beyond Camry, Altima and Accord for their next car. The fact that Mazdas dont appeal to Toyota/Honda owners is a plus in my book since I am not into cars that everyone else buys.

"Mazdas definitely would sell better if they were hondas or Toyotas but you could say the same thing about a lot of vehicles. The safe, middle aged, suburban family that makes up so much of America is typically unwilling to step outside of the Toyota/Honda box and thats why these other brands have such trouble gaining traction regardless of how nice their vehicles are."
 
B.S. Nothing but anti-Toyota/Honda whining and couldn't be farther from the truth.
 
"The 6 got heavy praise from the press when it came out and has not been all that successful since it cant get consideration from midsize buyers who wont look beyond Camry, Altima and Accord for their next car.
 
Take off your anti Toyota/Honda glasses and you'd find that the 6 wasn't as successful as the Camry and Accord or Altima because it had a tight interior, a stiff ride and poor fuel economy. It also fell behind in hp (220) when the 2003 Accord (240hp) and Altima (240hp) arrived. And Mazdas dealer network is a heck of a lot smaller than the T/H/N of the world so buyers were had a limited choice of where to go for a Mazda6 especially if you lived in rural parts of the Country.
 
"The fact that Mazdas dont appeal to Toyota/Honda owners is a plus in my book since I am not into cars that everyone else buys."
 
Not so much Toyotas, but Mazdas do stack up very well against Hondas and even Acuras. It is not uncommon to see comparisons between the CX-7 vs. the RDX, the CX-9 vs. the MDX and the 6 vs. the TSX. The Mazda 3 is also preferred by many as thee Standard in the compact segment and the Miata and RX-8 have won over their fair share of S2000 shoppers.
 
Sorry to burst your bubble, but while you're trying to fabricate some kind of notion that Honda/Toyota owners are some kind of pretentious idiots who are as close minded as an arrogant GM fanboi, you are way off on reality. Your "Us vs. Them" arguments are foolish and certainly not the norm.

"B.S. Nothing but anti-Toyota/Honda whining and couldn't be farther from the truth. "
 
and your proof is what exactly?
 
"Take off your anti Toyota/Honda glasses and you'd find that the 6 wasn't as successful as the Camry and Accord or Altima because it had a tight interior, a stiff ride and poor fuel economy. It also fell behind in hp (220) when the 2003 Accord (240hp) and Altima (240hp) arrived. "
 
get your facts straight (I know thats a tall order) if you can. The Altima already had 240hp when the 6 came out. That fact doesnt take away from the fact that the 6 was very well received by the press and is one of the better looking cars in this segment. It was a little smaller but it had handling, styling and pricing on it's side. It's 4 cylinder engine (where most of the sales are) was competitive with the offerings from Honda and Toyota. The Camry only offered 200hp or 225hp (SE only) in the camry when the 6 came out which is hardly blowing the 6 out of the water in power. In any event, it doesnt matter since only 20% of Asian midsize cars have V6s anyway. The 6 didnt sell because its a Mazda and it lacked credibility vs the established players. Naturally, you wouldnt consider it because its not a Toyota or Honda, but it was a good car.
 
"Sorry to burst your bubble, but while you're trying to fabricate some kind of notion that Honda/Toyota owners are some kind of pretentious idiots who are as close minded as an arrogant GM fanboi, you are way off on reality. Your "Us vs. Them" arguments are foolish and certainly not the norm."
 
Only half as foolish as your not so clever retort. Toyota's average buyer is getting older and older. Even youth oriented models from Toyota are largely failing to attract people under 40. Toyota is as mainstream as you can get when it comes to cars in this country. Thats not an opinion, its a fact and its why their sales are so high right now. Buick and Olds used to sell a lot of cars as well. Honda's demograhpics are likely closer to Mazdas but overall I would think Mazda has the youngest buyers. It is very clear that Mazdas are aimed at a different set of comsumers than Toyota and anyone with a shred of common sense can see that easily. Toyota never claims that its models are sporty or hip (scion aside on the latter) and is happy serving middle aged middle america. The styling, handling and advertising of Mazda models shows where they are aiming.
 
Mazdas would sell better if they were Hondas or Toyotas, period.

http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2007/12/people-still-co.html
 
this is what I am talking about. Highest consumer loyalty is a good thing, but how much of that comes from owners who trade in without checking out other cars? I would say a lot of it based on my experiences with people I know.

and your proof is what exactly?
 
Don't need proof, It's pretty obvious you are the spokesperson for the Anti-Honda/Toyota/Anything that is not GM... movement, I really hope your not trying to convince otherwise.
 
As far as proof of my statement, well I'm not sitting at every dealership surveying every single individual about why they are buying a H/T but take a look around at any competitors dealership and I'll bet you bump into a Honda or Toyota somewhere. Guess that would mean some people stepped outside that box huh?
 
Let me step back and assume you are reffering to the Customer retention survey that was just published by JDP? Because look who just happens to show up at number 5. That's right, Chevy.
 
http://www.jdpower.com/corporate/news/releases/pdf/2007292.pdf
 
So, aside from the reliance on fleets sales, what do you say about those people? Wouldn't THEY be considered closed minded "safe, middle aged, suburban family that makes up so much of America is typically unwilling to step outside of the CHEVROLET box and thats why other brands have such trouble gaining traction regardless of how nice their vehicles are."
 
Nah, couldn't be. Those folks are just satisfied, repeat buyers. It's the Toyota and Honda crowd who are the sheep.
 
"The 6 didnt sell because its a Mazda and it lacked credibility vs the established players."
 
Bingo, I'm glad you finally realized that. You've hit a milestone today, admitting that those established players are just that...
 
 "established".
 
The Accord and Camry have 7 generations behind them, the Mazda 6 was numero uno. It also replaced the venerable, and equally as popular 626 which had its legacy killed by being notorious for choking up bum Ford transmissions. Still it's no different than trying to sell a Nissan Titan or Toyota Tundra to diehard Chevy or Ford truck guy or selling a Cadillac CTS to a repeat BMW 3-series buyer. Once you are used to a certain brand with its attributes you come to expect, it is difficult to be won over by anything new, especially when it has no credibility.
 
"Naturally, you wouldnt consider it because its not a Toyota or Honda, but it was a good car."
 
Wrong. You're putting words into my mouth, never said that. For the record, I am a FORD guy who has never owned a Toyota in my life, driving a SUBARU and consider the Mazda to be every bit as good as anything else on the market.
 
"Mazdas would sell better if they were Hondas or Toyotas, period."
 
And added a few more dealerships, expanded their portfolio to bring a broader band of buyers in and earning that "credibility vs the established players".
 
http://www.autoobserver.com/2007/12/2007-biggest-lo.html
 
"Mazda, which represents a classic turnaround tale based on new models, already is at 101% of 2006 sales. Thanks to rising gas prices, the Mazda3 has been hot, hot, hot this year. In fact, by the end of October, Mazda3 sales had surpassed full-year Mazda3 sales in 2006. Mazda’s new crossovers, the CX-7 and CX-9, which recently won Motor Trend's SUV of the Year award, have also given the brand a major boost."
 

"Once you are used to a certain brand with its attributes you come to expect, it is difficult to be won over by anything new, especially when it has no credibility. "
 
I can't imagine being that way although I supose some people are. I have had a dozen cars/trucks over the years and I have never bought the same brand twice in a row.
 
No matter how much I like the car I have, I always want to try something different next time.
 
I kinda feel sorry for people how are fixated on one brand. It seems to me they are missing out on so much.

i agree with you first.
 
my next car search is on.
 
it could be:
a gm product.
toyota: possibly the rav 4. v6 with auto, hmm, maybe,
honda:cr-v, more likely, a civic si. if I was going hybrid i'd buy the hybrid before jan 1. maybe the accord coupe
vw: gti, gli, jette (tdi)
ford & chrslyer: right now offer nothing i'm looking at.
mazda: speed 3
caddalic: cts
inifty: g35
nissian, altima coupe
subaru: imperza, legacy, wrx all on the list, a stretch to the sti.
 
and I probably missed some on the list.

"Don't need proof, It's pretty obvious you are the spokesperson for the Anti-Honda/Toyota/Anything that is not GM... movement, I really hope your not trying to convince otherwise. "
 
what are you talking about? Since you hate GM (per your screen name) you decide to attack anyone who you believe doesnt hate GM even when we arent talking about them. For the record, I dont really have a problem with Honda. I merely report the facts and see them as one of many capable automakers. They are not head and shoulders above anyone else in today's market.
 
before you proceed to type a few more paragraphs of pointless text let me state that there are some domestic buyers who wont buy foreign cars and are loyal. Every stat in existence shows those types of buyers are falling every year and I personally dont know anyone like that. Do you? Of course not. Do you know people (including yourself) who would never set foot on a GM dealership or even consider a GM car? Of course. I do as well and I can probably name half a dozen people like that without thinking too hard. You are a special case in that you hate GM and love Ford but most anti domestic people I enounter wouldnt drive anything from Detroit.
 
here is the truth of the matter which is apparently rocket science to some folks. When a brand has a strong image like Toyota/Honda they can put out a less than stellar product and rack up huge sales. When a brand like Mazda or an American brand puts out a stellar product it may not do well based on the perception of that brand. if you read the commentary on the 2007 camry on this site you will find that MANY buyers bought the camry strictly because it was a Toyota and once they lived with the car they discovered it was actually pretty average. That is what strong brand strength is all about. When people buy Toyota they speak of reliability, not styling, handling, material quality, value, features, warranty, good dealer service, etc. Its all about quality and the vehicle itself if secondary to the Toyota brand.

From reports I've read this does seem to be the most BMW like of the crossovers (other than the X3 and X5 and perhaps the Infiniti offerings) An SUV that combines safety, visability, practicality, and fun handling definitely has a place in the market.
 
I, however, didn't care for the styling. Better wheels might help. The interior is fine, but it's just not my cup o' tea on the exterior.

I hate being "that guy," but...
 
"It handles about as good as one, too."
 
It handles about as WELL as one, too. "Good" is an adjective, not an adverb.
 
And I unless the laws of physics have suddenly been overcome, I doubt a 4400-pound crossover handles as well as a 3300-pound sedan. Might handle better than any other crossover, but come on, Karl, I didn't expect that kind of "my SUV handles like a sports sedan/car" garbage from you.