Aren't the V70 and CX-9 derived from the same platform?

Too bad Volvo is no longer offering the effiencient 2.4T or their European diesel. We get up to 30 MPG on the highway in our '02. With that, I can't see how any midsized CUV competes. Instead, Volvo had to go put only the more-thirsty V6 in the new model, eliminating one of the key advantages it had over CUVs.
 
For my money, the 2.0T Passat Wagon has replaced the Volvo on my shopping list.

Does it still have the rear-facing third row? I have fond memories of riding in the back of our Oldsmobile wagon as a kid. It was an eight-passenger because of the front bench, and kids were allowed to ride in the front seat back then. I'm pretty sure seat belts were expected by the mid-80's, but we'd occasionally fold down the 2nd and 3rd rows and lay out with blankets in the back. Ralph Nader would have had a heart attack. No rear A/C, and it was hot as hell in the summer. Window tint seemed to help quite a bit, and also enabled us to make faces at the cars behind us without being seen (or so we thought!...) Not a lot of cargo space with the whole family on board. We had to sit Indian style to make room for the groceries (those rare times mom actually took all of us to the grocery store with her). The Sears luggage carrier on the roof worked well for vacations.
 
So I've always kinda wanted a V70R for my own family. As I recall you had to special order the third row in that, when it was still offered. Probably won't be coming back, I guess they'll spend all their money and time on the XC60 now.

I doubt anyone will seriously cross shop and V70 with a CX-9. Volvo is a luxury/premium brand (like it or not) and we all know that plays a part purchasing expensive vehicles. I also doubt most consumers need their Volvo to handle like a sports car and value a smooth quiet ride over all else. In the auto writing world, no car gets props unless it "has the soul of a sports car" built in but that does not accurately reflect what many consumers want or need.

Having sports car handling is one thing. Having well damped, controlled body motions that still don't sacrifice ride quality is another. So is having a reasonably responsive throttle pedal that gives you confidence in how much acceleration you'll get for a given amount of pedal input. Our V70 test car had none of these things. At that point it's just a floppy-handling, non-responsive wagon with nice seats, some good safety equipment and a Volvo badge (and mediocre fuel mileage). And no, it doesn't even offer a third-row seat anymore -- standard or optional.
 
For a starting price of $33K? I'll pass. And tell others to do the same.

Karl, Volvo is a HALO car brand compare to Mazda. You pointed out the Mazda CX-9 is better in several categories and still the Volvo cost more. I can tell you an old story that happens to my Dad more than 30 years ago in South America. A guy was changing tires on his oilfield trucks and he had a Dodge D-800 and a Volvo N10. Both trucks were empty and have the same tire size and everything but the guy charge him more for the Volvo. My dad ask why? Is a Volvo mister!

Excellent post, chavis10!
 
The reality is that most consumers don't find driving fun. That's why cars like the Camry and F-150 rule the sales charts. When I was selling Mazdas (and back when I valued fun-to-drive characteristics over all else) I quickly found out that most consumers didn't like the way Mazdas drove. Too bumpy. Too noisy. You would be shocked how many people test drive Miatas expecting them to be just like that Sebring convertible they had as a rental the previous week, and they are disappointed that it's nothing like that Sebring.
 
Smooth and quiet. That's what most consumers seem to value, and it's something that I have learned to enjoy. Sure, I loved the thrill of driving my previous two Miatas and RX-7 through the twisties, balancing on the edge of traction, knowing that one false move (or patch of muddy run-off) could send me flying rear-wheels-first off the road and into the canyon. But then reality sets in. The cramped interior, bumpy ride, and quick steering really suck when I'm crawling along on the parking lot they call a freeway. It's amazing how much my stress/anger levels have dropped by switching from a sports car daily driver to my Volvo. 99% of the time I'm in the car, sports car qualities are annoying and a waste. I may as well be comfortable in a serene environment that shields me from the outside world. And I believe that's what most consumers want.
 
And I found out another thing... my other half still has a Miata. Riding in the passenger seat of a sports car has to rank right up there with getting a root canal (at least I'm numbed up during the root canal). And that is another big reason why vehicles like the Camry and V70 do very well... the only person in a car that enjoys sports car-like qualities is the driver. Everyone else in the car just gets all of the disadvantages. And I know I would much rather drive something boring with a happy in-car community than something sporty with a grumpy and complaining in-car community.
 
However, I do agree that Volvo's decision to drop the turbo engines from the V70 and XC70 is disappointing. But hopefully they will add the T6 engine later just like they did with the S80, and maybe they will surprise us and add the V8 option.

Kark, regarding the flaccid response, have you found this to become more the norm as vehicles get loaded with Vehicle Dynamic Control systems, etc?
 
Example: '08 Subaru Outback (turbo or otherwise) and Toyota Rav4 V6's I drove had delays of 1 - 2 seconds from throttle input .vs. 0.5 - 1 second from the drive-by-wire '04 Maxx (which lacks VDC).
 
Perhaps a vehicles maintaining that ___right now___ response despite the VDC, etc., would be helpful ?

"Having well damped, controlled body motions that still don't sacrifice ride quality is another."
  
Keep in mind your tolerence for what's considered good ride quality is higher than the average consumer. I also assume CA roads are a little smoother. The press says a Mazda3's ride is firm but entirely liveable. In fact it's noisey and relatively harsh here in the city (Philly's roads are rough)- and the same goes for the 6 and CX-7 (haven't driven the CX-9 with the 20"s). My Mazda dealer confirmed much of what jstandefer has stated- buyers were sucked in by the Mazda marketing machine but ended up with a car that was a little to rough and brittle for their taste. PS- smooth driving is also a chore as the electronic throttle is super sensitive and brake pedal has an inch of dead travel- both of my 3s had this problem.
  
Some people such as myself don't see the point of a base model 3 series or C300 for $32k either. Using my criteria, I couldn't justify those cars for that price. It all depends on what the buyer values. Granted, you've driven the car I haven't but I would assume the experience was no worse than you average car of just a couple years ago. If I'm trading in a '00 Camry for a V70, I can't imagine the driving experience being that much worse.
  
On a side note, I had a base model 2.7L Dodge Charger rental last summer that rode like a boat. I took it from Philly to Charleston, SC and while the steering was really loose and the ride really floaty, it was much more comfortable than my car. After I got used to it, I became a little spoiled. BTW- RWD means NOTHING in a car tuned as such. RWD is only important in performance applications.

"The cramped interior, bumpy ride, and quick steering really suck when I'm crawling along on the parking lot they call a freeway."
 
Agree those are bad things, but the Mazda CX-9 displays none of those traits. The idea that either a vehicle has a comfortable-but-boring ride OR it has a sporty-but-abusive ride is not realistic. That may have been true 20 or 30 years ago, but modern vehicle/suspension design allows a vehicle to offer both (i.e. Honda Accord).
 
That is why the V70's handling dynamics are unacceptable in 2008. If having that ride quality required bobbing body motions and unresponsive steering then there'd be nothing to complain about. But it isn't necessary. The most cantankerous old coot isn't going to get into a Honda Accord or CX-9 and scream, "Jeeze! This thing rides like some highly-strung race car!" They likely won't say a thing. And if they drive it they'll probably say, "Wow! This thing HANDLES like a highly-strung race car!"
 
Of course it doesn't, but these supposed "normal car buyers" I keep hearing about can still appreciate controlled handling COMBINED WITH comfortable ride quality.
 
As for the unresponsive throttle, there's no excuse for that. It's just poor throttle circuit programming (it's not like this thing is going off road, where you might actually want slow throttle response).

Unresponsive throttles are terrible. I had a first-year Mazda6, and one of my biggest complaints about it was the delay between hitting the go pedal and the engine reacting, and that was a wide-spread complaint in forums. It was my first experience with electronic throttles, and one of the requirements for the car that replaced that one was an old-school cable-actuated throttle, which the Mazdaspeed Miata that replaced the 6 had.
 
As for the CX-9's ride quality... I don't have an opinion on it because I haven't driven or ridden in one. It is probably softer than my S60 (which I'm not satisifed with the ride over imperfections), so I would probably like it. However, its more-firm-than-average ride quality did garner the attention of your fellow staff in the long-term blogs...
 
What I want is a car that's probably like the V70 in traffic and long, straight highway trips, but like a Miata when the roads get twisty (or when I'm anywhere near L.A. where I feel like I'm battling for my life on the road... well, maybe the Volvo would be better there). That car doesn't exist. I guess the best way to go (for me) is to have a soft, isolated car for commutes, and a fun car to play. On a completely related note, I am waiting on a call back from a guy selling a '91 RX-7 convertible. I need a play toy, and this price is cheap, cheap, cheap!

Karl,
comparing one of the best handling crossovers to one of the worst handling wagons? that's stacking the deck! ;)
 
All I can think of is, wow, if the CX9 was a foot lower- imagine how much better it would be with a lower cog & less mass- not to mention bumping up the mpgs...
 
Also, consider the fact that manufacturers are pushing crossovers in the USA and killing off wagons. (for example, the Mazda6 wagon is gone. Imagine a MazdaSpeed6 wagon compared to your CX9!)
 
So a more fair comparision would be to take the best wagons (cull competitors from Europe, where wagon sense seems to be in more abundance) and compare them to the best crossovers.

My x-girlfriend's dad had one of those (his was a '88 Red RX-7 convertible) and it was awesome. I drove it several times and kept thinking "I need to find a wrecked turbo model and do an engine swap" (Mazda never offered the turbo in the droptop). Classic body lines and proportions. The coupe looked good but it really translated well in convertible form. Good luck on it!

jstandefer, I hear your pain. Odd that Chevrolet did reasonably well with their first wire-throttle Malibu and so many other vendors have stumbled.
And it's interesting how the term "responsiveness" confuses auto salesmen. They seem to equate lots of HP as being responsive. .vs. the point that the car engine (and rest of the drive train) should __react__ when you press either the throttle or brakes.
 
Sheesh, even my old '96 Prism, anemic as it was with 3 speed auto and 103 hp engine, would _respond_ to a throttle motion rather than act like a ships' engine room ("You want full ahead? Give me some time, I'm workin' on it...." :-) )

"My x-girlfriend's dad had one of those (his was a '88 Red RX-7 convertible) and it was awesome. I drove it several times and kept thinking "I need to find a wrecked turbo model and do an engine swap" (Mazda never offered the turbo in the droptop)."
 
Exactly my thoughts! Of course, if I did get my hands on a turbo rotary, I would be completely lost on a huge decision... drop it into the RX-7 convertible, or sell the RX-7, buy a cheap first-gen Miata, and drop the turbo rotary into that. Hmmm... well, it actually wouldn't be a hard decision. Miata with the turbo rotary would be the hands-down winner, despite the technical hurdles. Miata... rotary engine... two things that Mazda should really put together! RX-5 Miata... now I like the sound of that!
 
Meanwhile... still staring at phone that hasn't rung.

Back to the V70...I'm actually really disappointed with the new model. I hadn't heard much about it, I didn't know that it was no longer available with a turbo or the 3rd row. That gas mileage is horrible, I can't imagine what the Cross Country or the Turbo get for mpg. Most crossovers can do better. Volvo gas mileage in general lately, has been lousy. My S60 AWD gets only a little better mileage than the new wagon, which is pretty bad for a small sedan. I miss the old thrifty 850's.

Mazda 3, 6, and CX-7 all have rides that are too firm in urban conditions for the majority of consumers- again, I have an N.East old city prespective. You may think otherwise and that is fine but a lot of buyers will agree with me. I've had my two Mazdas serviced at two different dealerships and they both have confirmed that a lot people have complained about the busy rides. Heck, the sales woman even told me during the test drive she doesn't drive a Mazda because they are noisy. These are people who AREN'T enthusiasts and wouldn't spend time posting on an auto blog. Again, if you don't drive on broken pavement on a daily basis, you may not be able to come to this conclusion.

Chavis, whichever way you look at it, the Volvo C70 is disappointing. A person puts a high priority on brand prestige would opt for the Volvo, but any normal person would choose the CX-7, 6 Wagon and most other CUVs/Wagons over this Volvo.
 
And, Chavis, I strongly disagree with you and Jstandefer about the ride quality/noise of recent Mazdas. I own a 2002 Protege and I have test-driven the '70 3, 6 and the '08 CX-7. I have also test-driven the '07 Accord, Civic, GTI and the '80 Accord. My sister also has an '06 Corolla that I drive every now and then.
 
I drove the '07 3 and Civic on the same day. I can tell you that they were equal as far as noise and comfort were concerned. In fact, the Mazda 3 was more comfortable because it was the GT model with the nice leather seats and all that good stuff.
On that very same day, I drove the '07 Accord and '07 6 and they were both on the same level as far as refinement was concerned; the Accord had a better stereo. The 6 felt sportier because it was a manual and seems to have a more driver-oriented cockpit.
Basically, the notion that modern Mazdas are noiser or less refined than other cars is not true. All 5 cars I've mentioned in this paragraph are far too quiet and refined for my liking, BTW.............
 
Between my Protege and my sister's Corolla, I can tell you that the Protege has a slightly busier ride (which I love, actually) but far better steering feel/response.
But I'd be telling lies if I told you the Corolla is quieter. Well, it is quieter under 2500 rpm, but beyond that the engine is loud and sounds terrible! Trust me, the Corolla is not more refined than the Protege......drive the Protege at above 5000 rpm and it sounds like a modern sports car: smooth and unstrained. I don't think I've exceeded 3500 rpm in the Corolla.
Luckily, the Corolla can do close to 80 mph at under 3000 rpm....
 
I recently test-drove the '08 Accord and '08 CX-7 and they were on the same level as far as noise and refinement were concerned. If you think the Accord is refined, then the CX-7 and all current Mazdas are equally refined.
My friends' '07 Civic Si and GTI are about as refined as the Mazda 3; in fact, I'd say the GTI is a little noiser.
 
Personally, I'd choose the Protege over any of these too-boring-too-quiet cars...... I feel Mazda have blunted their recent cars a bit. I don't know what to expect of the US-only '09 6!
 
PS: Lubbock doesn't have smooth roads either.......
 
PPS: When I first got my Protege two years ago, I took my room-mate for a ride. Guess what he said: "Comfy"!

david123... My S60 (2.5T FWD) gets lousy mileage around town (18-19 mpg), but great mileage on the highway (30-31 mpg). The S60 R that we had got horrible mileage just sitting parked in the driveway, but we weren't concerned with fuel economy when we bought the R. (I actually found my 2.5T to be more satisfying to drive than the R.)
 
But to answer your question about AWD and the turbo engine in the V70, just take a look at the mechanically similar S80. With the same 3.2 n/a I-6, it gets the same mileage as the V70 (16/24). Add the turbo and AWD (+46 hp, +59 lb/ft over base engine), and mileage drops just slightly to 15/23. Add the V8 and AWD (+76 hp, +89 lb/ft over base engine), and the mileage is equivalent to the T6 at 15/23. For comparison, the XC70 with the same base engine and AWD gets 15/22.
 
Personally, I like the new V70, mainly because it corrects what was wrong with the old one: rear legroom. I think Volvo will find quite a bit more sales if they increased their rear passenger room across the board. The S60 should have as much rear room as the new V70/XC70/S80, and those three platform siblings should have even more room than they have now. Volvo already has mastered front seat comfort. I wish all cars had Volvo front seats.
 
Oh, one more thing that I was impressed with on the V70 is the rear power liftgate. The whole mechanism is in the roof at the hinges; there's no lift rod to get in your way on one side.

Jstandefer, I guess the question then is which would you rather buy: the V70 or the CX-9 (or any CUV that costs less, has the same fuel economy and more interior room)?

blackadder... Wow, your opinions are so different than my own. Before the Mazda6, I was the prowd owner of a '99 Protege ES. It was the first year of the third generation... Classic Red with a 5-spd manual and Mazda's rev-happy FP-series 1.8L. Man, that car was a blast to drive. But, it was very noisy and really stiff... and I came out of an RX-7! Anyway, in 2001, Mazda gave the Protege a mid-cycle refresh. They rounded out the front end, spruced up the interior a bit, made the structure more rigid by thickening the steel around the strut mounts and adding reinforcing plates, softened the suspension, and added lots of sound deadening. All of that extra weight and the demand for automatic transmissions forced Mazda to replace the rev-happy FP with the work-horse FS 2.0L from the base 626s.
 
When it came time to replace my Protege, I wanted another one. I test drove the refreshed car and hated it. I found the engine coarse and unrefined at higher rpm, the body rolled and heaved while still transmitting the presence of every imperfection like a loud speaker, and generally less capable and less fun to drive than the '99-'00. That's how I ended up with the Mazda6, although I ended up hating that car too... too soft to be a sport sedan, to stiff and noisy to be luxurious.
 
Anyway, Mazdas are supposed to be firm and slightly noisy. They're the zoom-zoom brand, and you can't have that connected to the road feel with a soft and pillowy ride, and you're going to lose that feel as you isolate the cabin. It's just that a lot of consumers prefer the soft and pillowy ride. I'm willing to bet that most BMW owners (the ones that buy them because of that blue and white roundel, not because of their performance) would prefer softer and less road connection. And it shows every time they redesign a model... softer and less connection. Now that the 1-series is out, I think BMW is really going to soften and bloat the 3-series, because that's what they're hearing from the majority of their customers.

Oops... we were posting at the same time. V70 or CX-9? Hmm... I haven't driven either, but based on my show room time with them, I would say neither. The CX-9 is way more vehicle than I need, plus I hit my head on the A-pillar every time I get in or out. The V70's engine is disappointing and its price gets way up there when you add the options. If I was going to spend that much on a Volvo, I would just bite the bullet and get an S80 V8 (or a C30 plus a truck). However, I'm not sure if I'm going to follow this Volvo with another Volvo.
 
I really liked the Mazda5 that we had, and I'm sorry that it's gone. If Mazda would put a V6 or their DISI 2.3 under the Mazda5's hood, I'll take one of those with all of the options instead of the V70 or CX-9. And with the money leftover, an older Miata with a supercharger or turbo rotary!

Not having the turbo in the 70 series wagons is a huge mistake on the part of Volvo, but even the normally aspirated engine is really enough power for most people. I don't think that the volvo is really the right car to compare to a "mere" Mazda, most people would not cross-shop the two brands. The Subaru Outback with the H-6 is a more likely competitor, and would give better performance relative to price than the XC-70. The Volvo is more of a M-class and company competitor, and in that group is is a "value" leader. It would be interesting if that price "advantage" actually holds up after three years. I'd be willing to bet that the Mazda suffers a much higher rate of depreciation, and where I live (at least) Volvo's are actually some of the cheaper cars to run/service. Of course, where I live trying to get a Japanese or domestic car serviced is a pain in the ass, but there are 4 places that only do Volvo.

Oh, jstandefer, I should have contacted you before getting my Protege! (Actually, I have the Protege5.......I had the Protege in mind but I fell in love with the hatchback the moment I saw one and didn't look back.) I never had the chance to drive the '99-'00 model! But I read a number of articles from Edmunds.com, msn.com and the likes and they all seemed to prefer the refreshed model. If I had read your comments I'd probably have paid more attention to the '99-'00! :(
 
Your reply also explains why the '99-'00 is faster than the latter models! I noticed that from msn.com and thought it had to have been a mistake, given the increased power.
 
I think Mazda tuned that FS 2.0L engine before using it for the Protege. In the 626, it's rated as 125 hp but in the Protege it's 130 hp. I can tell you from my experience that, while slightly noisy, it also revs very freely. I've revved it up to 5500 rpm and it didn't feel strained at all. (I didn't have to courage to go on to the 6500 rpm redline.)
When I first got it, I drove it "normally", meaning not exceeding 3000 rpm or so (unless when doing more than 60 mph). At these speeds, it did sound course and unwilling to rev. But one friend of mine took it for a spin, with me in the front seat, and kept it above 5000 rpm. It sounded nice and smooth like a sports car....I couldn't believe it was my car he was driving! Since then, I rev it to about 4500 rpm every once in a while.
I can also tell you that the body doesn't "roll and heave"...it's probably softer that the '99 to '00 but I don't find it floaty at all.
 
But I don't think the engine is that noisy. At above 70 mph or so, road and some wind noise take over and I can't really hear the engine again. Below 70 mph it sounds a bit course but pretty normal......I like the deep, throaty sound a lot.
 
I'm beginning to think my definition of "quiet" is a bit different from most people here. While I was growing up, my parents owned a '79 Golf (diesel) and an '82 Datsun pickup 1600. So I got used to hearing the engine while driving and I consider it part of the driving experience. Now, the cars in my family are an '02 Saturn L-series and the '06 Corolla. And, of course, my Protege. The Protege is slightly louder than the other too cars at low engine speeds, but about ideal as far as what I expect in visceral feedback from a car....loud enough to hear and enjoy but not too loud to be uncomfortable.
When I test-drove the '07 Mazda 3 last year, I was initially blown away by its nice interior and apparent solidity. But 10 minutes later, I was so bored with it......I had no feedback, I couldn't hear the engine and felt like I was driving a car with an electric motor! It also felt a bit too planted for my liking.....it felt like being in a Mercedes S-Class!

vbhoo, are you implying that Subaru is a premium brand? If so, I disagree. Actually, Volvo is not considered a premium brand either, at least not outside of the US. Back home, Volvo is regarded on the same level as a VW: you know, a bit higher in prestige than your typical Toyota/Honda/Mazda/Opel/Peugoet, etc, but not on the same lavel as BMW, Mercedes, Audi and the likes!
 
I personally do not value the Volvo brand at all......except for maybe its safety, and in the old days, it's longevity.

No I was saying that Mazda and Subaru are more in-line with each other when it comes to brand values. Volvo in the US is "premium" but not luxury brand, as it is in Europe (think Middle England and the Volvo wagon). Mazda and Subaru are non-mass market Japanese brands, and they are the "sporty" on NOT "soulless" Asian brands. Subaru though may, depending on region, be perceived as one peg above Mazda due to their respective owners. Obviously both sit above Mitsubishi et all, but below Volvo. Where are you from that Volvo is a mid-level brand?

Africa: specifically Ghana....and I also lived in South Africa for a while. Hmm, in Ghana the Volvo 100 series was fairly common but I don't remember any sort of prestige being attached to it.......I knew several "normal" people who owned Volvos.
 
In South Africa, I guess Volvo is considered a premium brand much like you describe.....but VW is more or less in the same league as Volvo, maybe just a step below Volvo. South Africans like the German Big 3 and VW so much......very few buy Volvos. Next to Toyota and VW, BMW is the next big seller. Every successful guy wants a 3-series or a Golf GTI!....many local rap songs talk about GTIs and 3-series, with occasional references to Mercedes and Audi. Volvo? No one really cares......the average South African "respects" VW's higher-end models much more.
 
Personally, I see Volvo and VW both as mid-level "premium" brands.

Jstfander, I just checked the specs of the '99 Protege and the '02 Protege. The '99 1.8L weighs 2537 lbs while the '02 2.0L weighs 2639 lbs. That's a difference of 97 lbs.
My question is, does a mere 97 lbs make much of a difference?
 
Karl, will a 97 lbs wieght gain make a difference in performance?

Blackadder, you're confusing me. First you say,
 
"Basically, the notion that modern Mazdas are noiser or less refined than other cars is not true."
 
Then you say,
 
 "Between my Protege and my sister's Corolla, I can tell you that the Protege has a slightly busier ride (which I love, actually) but far better steering feel/response."
 
So you love busy noisey rides but your supposed to be objective enough to say Mazdas don't ride too hard for non enthusiasts? You're proving my point. If you like noisey cars with brittle suspensions, Mazdas are perfect. If you don't, then you really should look elsewear. It's amazing that I reported on two seperate service centers' findings, who happen interact with a large diverse body of owners yet you people still tell me I'm wrong.
 
BTW- i have an '07 GT and the leather seats don't make it ride any softer. Perhaps my style of driving doesn't match my age but when I get rid of it, the next car will definitely be more refined. The roads are just too bad here to deal with all of the suspension's racket every day. Even switching to better quieter tires didn't help.

Karl,
It's like Mazda read my mind! the new 6 wagon- looks like a slammed CX9.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=122566#25
 
real question is- will it come to the USA?

Not quite, Chavis.
 
My point is that the NEW Mazdas (3, 5, 6, CX-7, CX-9) are as refined as new cars from any other manufacturers, eg, Honda and Toyota. I've driven the 3, 6, Civic (both the normal and Si versions) and Accord and didn't find any difference in refinement.
(Admittedly, I drove these cars in nice parts of town that have great roads.......but at least, as far as road and engine noise are concerned, I didn't feel a difference between Honda and Mazda: both are a little too refined.)
 
When we consider OLDER Mazdas like my Protege, then the "unrefined" criticism is true.......but in that case, I prefer the "unrefined" Protege because it has the ideal amount of feedback. I went on to say that the Corolla at the time was actually hardly more refined than the Protege as its engine gets terribly raucous after 2800 rpm.
 
Catch my drift now? :)
 
PS: The way you say "when I get rid of my....'07 Mazda 3 GT" makes me wanna cry....LOL. I can't believe you'd hate one of my favourite cars so much! :(
[Yeah, I have a slight preference for the Protege but I still think the Mazda 3 is great.]

"Jstfander, I just checked the specs of the '99 Protege and the '02 Protege. The '99 1.8L weighs 2537 lbs while the '02 2.0L weighs 2639 lbs. That's a difference of 97 lbs.
My question is, does a mere 97 lbs make much of a difference?"
 
balckadder- If it was just the 97-pound weight difference, then there wouldn't be a whole lot of difference. However, that extra 97 pounds are coupled with a softer suspension, more unsprung weight (bigger wheels and brakes; Mazdas are notoriously sensitive to unsprung weight), and slightly taller gear ratios. (The '99-'00 had the F25M-R tranny; '01+ had the G15M-R). Combined, they certainly make a difference. The '01+ was smoother and quieter, but lost that scrappy nature of the '99-'00. The Mazda3 took things a step further... smoother and quieter than the '01-'03 Protege, but became less fun (but all of them are still a blast to drive).
 
It's too bad you weren't here in California back in 2002. I put together a "California Protege Meet" at Ventura State Beach. It was kind of last minute, but we still had about 20 Proteges show up, ranging from San Diego to San Francisco. Mazda even joined the fun, and sent a whole bunch of Mazda merchandise (stickers, water bottles, insulated lunch boxes, clocks, calculators, etc.) plus the just-released Protege MP3. We had all three generations of Proteges there, plus about five Protege5s. It was fun, even though I got a terrible sun burn!

Cruiserhead, the answer seems to be no. Mazda is developing a new 6 for the US market. The cars in your link are for the rest of the world.
 
According to rumours (from CAR AND DRIVER), the US 6 will be larger but will look similar to the rest-of-the-world 6, and there will be no wagon. C&D also suspect that Mazda would soften the 6, thus killing of some of the sportiness!

Thanks a lot for the great info, Jstandefer!

USA version looks the same
http://66.160.188.111/Straightline
 
I was thinking on the CX9 and as a V8 4Runner or FJ Cruiser get comparable mpgs but do it with a tough body-on-frame design, low gear transfer case, true 4wd, solid axle and 5000-8000lb tow rating. The CX7 & CX9 makes even less sense to me.
 
Albiet, the CX9 has a lot more room but if that's the pre-requisite, the Odyseey wins in this department by a huge margin with better or comparable mpgs.
 
Sporty? Well the mentioned euro wagons fit that bill better imo...

Take a look at AutoBlog. This morning, they posted spy pics of the U.S. spec 2009 Mazda6. It doesn't look like it's any bigger than the Euro-spec model, but it definitely has different styling elements. Pretty hot! But I'm sure they will not offer the wagon version here; they tried, and they couldn't move them without $4k rebates.

Blackadder- I liked the 3 when I first got car #1 in Jan '05. It was a complete lemon so I had to scrap it for car #2 last August. Just tired of bumpy ride- everything else on the car is nice except the initial dead brake pedal zone. If I lived in one of these sprawling suburban towns with fresh new roads, it'd be different. And it probably wouldn't be so bad but since I frequently sample other cars, the difference is quite significant. Granted most of these cars are more expensive and heavier which has lead me to the decision of purchasing a slightly used upmarket vehicle in the future ('08 CTS baby!). Heck, I even like driving the Chevy Express 1500 cargo van in the city over the 3. Those inner tube sized tires soak up everything.
  
PS- the Accords are historically noisey from what I'm told. Haven't drove the new one but a friend has an '06 that's pretty noisey. Another friend has a Fusion which seems to ride better than her Accord and he lives in Baltimore where the streets are completely terrible. The '07 Aura that I drive from time to time has the best combination of road isolation/feel that I've experienced in the mid sized segment. Parents just got an '08 Impala LTZ and that baby is whisper silent, even with 18" rims and "performance" suspension calibration (same as the SS V8).
  
jst- saw the new spy pic of the new 6. Looks pretty good but I liked the Euro version's face a little better.

"Albiet, the CX9 has a lot more room but if that's the pre-requisite, the Odyseey wins in this department by a huge margin with better or comparable mpgs."
 
If you start looking at the question of "What car offers the best combination of room, comfort, mpg and price?" the minivan wins everytime. No fair throwing the Odyssey card! That vehicle is simply the best way to economically and comfortably move lots of people and stuff around (once you take the average American's ego out of the equation -- which is why the minivan market is shrinking...).

hehe good one Karl,
 
You know what, this would make a great comparison test! Maybe a crossover/wagon/suv/minivan comparo with a wildcard segmet splitter like the Element, Journey, Mazda5 or something

"But I'm sure they will not offer the wagon version here; they tried, and they couldn't move them without $4k rebates."
 
Yeah, I think I was one of the 1% of buyers who actually got one. I've seen maybe 6 of them on the road in the past 3 years here in Sacramento.
 
I think a more interesting comparison than V70 vs. CX-9 is to look at the now-departed 6 wagon vs. the CX-7 that effectively replaced it. For about the same price, the 6 wagon was faster, held more, got better fuel economy, and had better visibility, all while drinking regular fuel.

Chavis, I guess I understand your point of view now. I guess customers want a no noise car with an ultra smooth ride.......something that goes against my very definition of how a car should be.....electric vehicles should sell very well!
And, hey, if it's a CTS you're getting, I "forgive" you for wanting to "get rid of" the Mazda 3 GT....LOL!
 
flanken, since the 6 wagon is off the market, maybe another wagon should be tested vs. the CX-9 instead.