2008 Mazda CX-9: Long Distance Driving

350 miles isnt much when you're talking hwy driving. Sounds like a larger tank is needed.

come on now, its way better then the best 17mpg the x5 gets. and the 16mpg lifetime.

A brittle ride and low fuel economy has been my Zoom Zoom experience as well.

In foreign country, man, wife, child drive long trip in family size Toyota Corolla, world best selling family car.
 
CX-9 fit grandmother, grandfather, uncle Jim, aunt Mary, all their children. Plus Speedy the dachshund.

Chavis10.
Go get a Honda Fit, you're just too bitter about Mazda's in general.

Can't handle the truth CX7lover?
 
Actually I'm going to get a CTS in a year or two, how's that?

CX-9 would eat Fit in one gulp like Mothra snacking on gawking bystanders, but no like taste of dashboard rattle and dodgy gearbox.

The truth, please.
 
The ride in the 3 is perfectly fine for the handling, and this crossover gets great MPG for what it does, the ride is acceptable as well.
The only reason why I didn't continue with your ignorant banter in the other blog post is because that's what it was, ignorance.
 
Get your CTS, I could careless, I hope it avg's 35mpg so you don't have to complain about it on here.

Sounds like this was a big suv carrying alot of extra weight. 21 mpg seems fine given those circumstances.

Congratulations, Chavis, you're getting a CTS. No one gives a rat's a**.
 
Mazda's do have a harsher ride than their competitors, but the trade off is better handling and a more fun to drive experience. I wouldn't call the ride "harsh" either.
 
Don't blog such senseless, annoying stuff and then get all upset and defensive every time someone says something negative about GM.
 
I can't wait for the first post I read by you that says "MY CTS does this better, and this, and oh ya, did I mention its made by GM? And it's not a Mazda?" Heaven help us.

21 mpg sucks for highway and only 2 adults and a kid...and I agree, a Corolla could've handled it ok.

How fast were you driving? Big, tall vehicles really suffer when you ignore the speed limit.

Um- ZoomZoom, who said anything negative about GM? Am I missing something? I've re-read the 13 posts here and there was no mention of any GM product except me saying I'll be getting a CTS. Also, if you look above, I used the work "brittle," not harsh. Heaven help you my friend, I'm fine.
 
CX7- perhaps you can help me find a buyer for my current 3 when the time comes. It's an White Pearl '07 GT hatch with an automatic. I do feel sorry for the poor soul who purchased my '05 lemon and I certainly hope he or she purchased an extended warranty. There's definitely a future in advocacy for you with Mazda USA.
 
The 3 has nice looks, excellent features and an entertaining ride. However unlike you guys, I can keep it real. The ride is crusty, the fuel economy has been terrible on two separate cars with different automatic transmissions, the reliability based on my experience was not good and the arrogance of Mazda USA was frustrating. If you guys chose to worship Mazda, by all means go right ahead. As for me, I'll explore other options. I guess my taste is maturing into something more sophisticated with less trade-offs. Handling and ride quality do not have to be mutually exclusive and Mazda isn't willing to make those compromises. No beef from me, just no longer me cup of tea as some like that connected feel. Perhaps the roads you traverse are much smoother than the ones I frequent but I must be wrong because you write as if you've been riding shotgun with me over those cobblestone streets with trolley tracks. The 3, 6, CX7 and CX9 have all been characterized as riding stiff from different reviewers from all types of publications but I'm being accused of fabricating gibberish because I have some sort of vendetta against Mazda? Must be that banter I paid them to write for my agenda, right buddy?
 
You Mazda fanboys are in a class of your own. I guess marketing in this country truly works.

Chavis,
 
How can you assume that we can't 'keep it real' when all you know about us is that we like our Mazda's? Perhaps we like other cars better? If you have a 3 and you don't like the ride, then by all means, say it. There is no need, however, to extend this notion to others. If you truly kept it real, then you would've said in your original post that your 3 does have an excellent features and nice looks. Instead, you blatantly maligned your "experience" for its faults, and your posts sound as if they are trying to get a rise out of us. Ya, that's keeping it real, alright.
 
I stated that the ride in Mazda's is more "brittle" (in your words, which to me is synonymous with harsh in terms of ride quality) than the competition. If you are all about a more mature car, then why did you stop by a Mazda dealer in the first place? I'm sure the Buick, Toyota or Cadillac dealer nearby was screaming your name.
 
I am not a Mazda fanboy. My Speed6 was given to me, actually. I like it, but I admit (and have many many times before) that I wouldn't buy another one. I would much rather have the new CTS (and I envy you for your future purchase). Calling me a fanboy based on the fact that my name is ZoomZoom22 and I'm trying to defend the CX9 is both ridiculous and superficial. In re-reading other posts (not just these 13), you attack anyone and everyone who says something negative about a GM product. And yet, you are so willing to do the same to Mazda products.
 
So, you don't really 'keep it real', but you accuse us of not doing so, and you argue against those who don't like other cars, but say something negative (and repetitive...we know you hate the ride, already) to any Mazda post. Enough said.

i think chavis needs to get an old gm boat. maybe a crown vic, that soft supesnion will do him good.

Perhaps you shouldn't have bought TWO of the same cars if you are so unhappy with the first one, why would you buy another? Don't even worry about my relationship with MazdaUSA, it's been a good one.
 
Of course they're going to say the ride is firm(rarely have I heard stiff for the CX-9) that's because it is firm, The ride in the CX-9 is a trade off for the handling, and in the Enclave, it rides well but it feels like a big softie, there goes another one of those things you think shouldn't exist with suspension tuning, a trade off!
 
In most cases with the 3's low profile tires on upper trim levels, not by any means is it, HORRIBLE OMG! Especially for the handling/money, The Civic coupe without a rear independent suspension like the 3 has a worse ride, and doesn't handle nearly as good, so again your ride quality issues are not substantial.
 
Less trade off's? How much was your 3, 30K, 35K? Spare me your ride quality woes on an affordable compact, you need a nice boat.
 
Every car has trade off's, if you can't grasp that, stop buying cars.

"Perhaps you shouldn't have bought TWO of the same cars if you are so unhappy with the first one, why would you buy another?"
 
Haha I thought the same thing. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice?

My 3 has good mileage and a solid yet comfortable ride. But I have the 3i (2.0 engine) and 16" wheels. I definitely wouldn't call the 3s on 17"s brittle though, in fact I liked it a lot. To each his own. I was mostly just being frugal, trading a few hp for a few mpg. It has plenty of power for my needs, and a manual transmission is fun for me even if it's not the fastest thing on the road.

"The ride in the 3 is perfectly fine for the handling, and this crossover gets great MPG for what it does, the ride is acceptable as well.
The only reason why I didn't continue with your ignorant banter in the other blog post is because that's what it was, ignorance. "
 
The 3's ride is stiff. The CX-9's ride is stiff. You say its worth it because of the handling but people shopping for crossovers arent expecting sports car like handling. They are expecting a comfortable ride however. Its pointless to have a ride so firm in a family vehicle that some reviewers advise that you forego the larger wheels for the sake of ride quality. The Enclave comes with 19s and I've seen no complaints about ride quality.
 
You need to get a grip and stop getting offended whenever anyone offers ANY criticism of a Mazda product. The CX-9 is nice but so are most of its competitors. It offers ONE advantage and I'm not so sure thats a real advantage to most buyers. remember, the preferences of BMW loving journalists like those who are praising the CX-9 on IL are not always indicative of how actual buyers feel.
 
"My 3 has good mileage and a solid yet comfortable ride. But I have the 3i (2.0 engine) and 16" wheels. "
 
The recent issue of MT has a small car comparo and the 3 averaged 22mpg. That isnt good mileage for a compact. The car came in first because of its handling and car mags usually place handling above all else.

"Don't blog such senseless, annoying stuff and then get all upset and defensive every time someone says something negative about GM.
  
I can't wait for the first post I read by you that says "MY CTS does this better, and this, and oh ya, did I mention its made by GM? And it's not a Mazda?" Heaven help us."
 
I have to say that entire response made no sense whatsoever. All that because some folks don't worship the CX-9? Seems a little immature.

" If you have a 3 and you don't like the ride, then by all means, say it. There is no need, however, to extend this notion to others."
  
"Less trade off's? How much was your 3, 30K, 35K? Spare me your ride quality woes on an affordable compact, you need a nice boat."
  
CX7, CX9 and 6 all have similar ride characteristics. Both service managers at both dealerships I use say they receive numerous complaints from customers over noisy and busy rides and poor mileage. If you remember, customers are the actual regular people making payments for their cars. I'll go along with their experiences over a single person's opinion here in the forums. You don't have to agree with what I say either but I have a basis from which I speak.
  
"Calling me a fanboy based on the fact that my name is ZoomZoom22 and I'm trying to defend the CX9 is both ridiculous and superficial."
  
It's not ridiculous as you are trying to substantiate something that is a known fact. Mazdas have busy rides, period. See unlike you people, I look at these cars from a wide angle and different perspectives. Everyone who buys these cars ARE NOT enthusiasts. I know a girl who has a '05 3s sedan and complains about her terrible fuel economy and harsh ride. She brought the car because, "she liked the styling." However, not being an enthusiast she wasn't ready for the driving experience.
  
"Of course they're going to say the ride is firm(rarely have I heard stiff for the CX-9) that's because it is firm, The ride in the CX-9 is a trade off for the handling,"
  
Okay, we agree so what's the point of your continued rebuttal? Again, ride and handling are not mutually exclusive. Mazda has not received this memo and if they expect to increase sales, they need to build their cars to a wider group of buyers. The fact remains that the majority of buyers like Camry and Corolla style isolation. Making fun of me doesn't change that fact and I'm not here to win popularity contest. Like it or not, Toyota is selling a lot of cars despite their soft rides and unfavorable magazine reviews.
  
"If you are all about a more mature car, then why did you stop by a Mazda dealer in the first place? I'm sure the Buick, Toyota or Cadillac dealer nearby was screaming your name. "
  
At the time (Jan '05), I wanted a cheap stylish car that was good on gas and reliable. Otherwise I would've gotten a certain used car with a V8 that I had been eyeing for around the same price. Mazda3 had a lot of nice features and promised good fuel economy so I pulled the trigger. Instead, it averaged 18mpg over 32k miles. Apparently 3s with automatics have hit or miss mileage.
  
"Perhaps you shouldn't have bought TWO of the same cars if you are so unhappy with the first one, why would you buy another?"
  
Got another one because of the deal I made with Mazda to get rid of the first one. Besides, I'm not planning on keeping this one that long. The 3 has good resale value and I barely drive it (take public trans to work) and will over pay the principal and sell it with lots of money left towards a another car's down payment. This current one is mearly an "investment." Honestly, I was also curious to see if my first car was an anomoly in terms of fuel economy and reliability so I settled on the deal Mazda presented since I knew this one wouldn't be around for long anyway.
  
I have access to 3 other cars so I drive those when I can. For you guys information, other cars know how to ride quietly and handle well without the harshness. The Saturn Aura that I drive from time to time comes to mind. Solid ride, excellent compliance and roll stiffness, connected feel, no jarring or suspension noise. Sure, the 3 is an economy car but the larger more expensive Mazdas don't add any sophistication to the mix. The 6 is just as noisey much like the CX-9 and CX-7. It's just Mazda's philosophy. If you like it fine, that's your choice. Don't expect everybody to defend it though.
  
"So, you don't really 'keep it real', but you accuse us of not doing so, and you argue against those who don't like other cars, but say something negative (and repetitive...we know you hate the ride, already) to any Mazda post. Enough said"
  
Actually, my first post mirrored what Brent Romans had wrote about the CX-9. All I did was parallel my two Mazda experiences with his observations of the CX-9. Did I say all Mazdas are junk? No, despite the fact that my first car was. Did I say I didn't like my car? No. You guys then proceed to attack me and blow everything of out proportion so point the finger at yourselves. Also note the LT CX-9 doesn't even have the 20"s so you can imagine what that feels like over borken pavement.
  
Also since you are an avid reader of my posts, you'll notice that I don't really think any car is BAD. Never once have a said that any car, let alone any Mazda is bad. It's usually the other way around and I'm defending the accused car which typically is a GM product. Every car has strengths and weaknesses. Some more than others but it's hard to find a bad car that was newly introduced in the past five years. I've outgrown Mazda's rides and I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way even if they aren't posting in this forum. Unlike you guys, I don't chastise anyone who appreciates a good ride in an automobile. I'm still trying to figure out when the paradigm shift occured that banished nice riding cars into the depths of hell.
  
CX7 lover- the Civic has an independant suspension so what are you talking about?
  
"Every car has trade off's, if you can't grasp that, stop buying cars"
  
Yup but a few don't have any when it comes to ride and handling so I'll just buy those instead. Mazda can't say that for the 3,6, CX7 or CX9. If you like the ride, than Mazdas are good cars if thirsty. If the 3 achieve mileage closer to it's EPA ratings and made less suspension racket, this wouldn't even be an issue for me. I'll even let my first car's reliability slide as any car has the potential to be problematic. But hey, keep it coming if you must, I certainly don't mind.

And back to the topic of the post, the CX-9 FWD is rated 16/22, so averaging 21 isn't too far off the mark. And the CX-7 with that turbo four doesn't do much better, just one mpg. Might as well have a little extra space if you want it.
 
I do agree that 350 miles is not a great range. Depending on where you go, there can be some long stretches with no gas stations (or at least not any nice-looking ones that MY wife would want me to stop at...) I regularly go well over 500 miles between fill-ups in our Yukon on road trips, and could go longer (19-20 mpg x 31 gallons).

What is the story behind the poster who puts "The Moon" in every freakin' post?

edit: double post...stupid slow internet.

littlebill: he is suggesting he lives on the moon.
 
lmao @ chavis10. Thats gotta be the longest comment I've ever seen? 1487 makes some long ones, but I think he breaks them into 2 sepatate posts. Thats a lot of anger.....

Chavis
I know that you don't hate all Mazdas, but the way that you asked CX7lover if he can't handle the truth after he said that you are bitter about Mazda's in general implied that you do.
 
1487
I do not worship the CX9, and I've commented on its faults many times. It's not perfect, and there are trade offs to buying one, just like every other car out there. I'm just tired of how every single CX9 post, regardless of the topic, always comes back to ride quality. I simply want the car to be known for its virtues as well as its faults, much like you do with the Aura. If you think about it, we're kinda on the same page here.

"And back to the topic of the post, the CX-9 FWD is rated 16/22, so averaging 21 isn't too far off the mark. And the CX-7 with that turbo four doesn't do much better, just one mpg. Might as well have a little extra space if you want it. "
 
good point, the CX-7s mileage is very poor when you consider its size and engine. You might as well get the CX-9 and have the extra space and superior styling.
 
 "I simply want the car to be known for its virtues as well as its faults, much like you do with the Aura. If you think about it, we're kinda on the same page here."
 
I dont think anyone thinks the CX-9 is a bad vehicle. The problem is we have people here who dont want to acknowledge the weaknesses of the CX-9 and want to push their view that it is CLEARLY superior to the Lambdas when it's not. I believe the IL editors have made it very clear they are fans of the CX-9, the same cannot be said for the Aura. I dont think the two vehicles have gotten the same treatment from the IL staffers or the posters. The CX-9 is definitely more popular in both circles.

doug- where did you see any anger? I thought that was a very calm response. If someone has an issue, I'll try to address it and leave no stones unturned with.
  
zoomzoom- CX7lover thinks anyone that can point out a single flaw in any Mazda product is a rabid lunatic. I reserve the right to criticize any car especially the one I make payments on. CX7 has lectured me on numerous occasions so I was ready for his first salvo.

Well I am most definitely not him...and dont tell anyone, but i don't like the CX7.

Since this post has dangerously veered off-topic and is now about Mazdas in general - I'll share, too.
 
In the last 7 days I have piloted our 2007 Mazda3 GT hatch over 2,000 miles, from MN to CO and back. I observed disappointing mileage when relying on the trip computer and have concluded that it is so conservative that it should not be trusted. According to the trip computer, I averaged 24 MPG, and 65 MPH. The results were zeroed before departing on each leg of the journey so as not to be effected by around town driving. After returning home and getting some sleep, I reviewed my own trip log data to see how it compared. I know this is kind of dorky but I always do it to see if things change or not, and to spot possible signs of mechanical/wear issues.
 
Here's the data:
 
We drove 968.5 miles (one way, two way total of 1967.0 miles) in 14 hr 22min. I only "timed" the way home but the data is still valid. For the total 1967 miles, we consumed 69.727 gals of fuel.
 
When the trip computer tallied this info, it shows that we averaged 65 MPH and achieved 24 MPG.
 
If you run the calculations yourself, you can see that actual mileage was 28.2 MPG and I averaged a constant 68.456 MPH. Things are further complicated when you realize that the computer only calculates the speed when the vehicle is moving whereas my calculations are for total time from driveway to driveway so we were traveling even faster. One other annoying "conservative" trait, whenever the needle on the gas gauge was beyond "E", I would still have more than 3 gallons of gas in the tank. In the interest of full disclosure, there were very strong winds blowing against us at all times but never giving a good tailwind.
 
None of this is really a problem, it just means that I won't be putting full faith and confidence in the trip computer and I hope that various media outlets are actually doing the calculations instead of relying on the faulty computer. I didn't experience any issues with ride or handling. The only complaint I have is I am not able to find a very comfortable driving position because the bottom cushion of the seat is too short and the steering wheel, even when fully extended, too far away. This is my wife's daily driver and I have no issue when piloting it around town, only when doing so for 12+ hours at a time.

Just because the engine is small doesn't mean it HAS to have good MPG, nor did Mazda market the CX-7 that way, they did it for handling, not MPG. Plus, the CX-7 is a fatty, weighing in at 3900lbs with AWD.
 
And chavis, don't tell others about what I post, because you're a liar, and you're very ignorant "oh well the CX-9 has the same interior plastic as my 3" You're wrong and you're ignorant for thinking that, even after I tried to tell you otherwise, you didn't want to hear it, the CX-9 doesn't have ONE pebble grained interior plastic piece inside of it, the 3's interior consists of it.
 
I scrolled right past your post, I'm not reading ALL of that.
 
You reserve the right to criticize any car you want, but seriously if you've said it once on another blog post, you don't need to carry it over from each other post about how you hate the poor MPG and ride.
 
And as far as the ride goes, people must be loving them some stiff CX-9's with sports sedan like handling (Something 1487 said people looking at crossovers don't really want) because the dealers around here can't keep any on the lot.
 
Oh and it is superior to the GM crossovers in every performance aspect you can think of, not numbers, the behind the wheel experiance.

"Oh and it is superior to the GM crossovers in every performance aspect you can think of, not numbers, the behind the wheel experiance."
  
Listen, it may be to YOU but not everyone. I have customers coming in asking about mazdas because they want a "performance" car with "sporty" looks but most end up buying something else because they aren't enthusiasts. I actually enjoy driving mazdas because when the road turns twisty they are in their element but that isn't a priority for the average joe.
  
Please have a little perspective. It takes all kinds.
  
"I scrolled right past your post, I'm not reading ALL of that."
  
This seriously reduces your credibility. How can you rebut chavis's points? If you are unwilling to read(and be open to) others thoughts and opinions then why are you here?
  
Some people have really bad experiences with a particular car and they post about it. Some people have really good experiences with a car and they post about it. Some people HAVE to convince others that their way is right. Which are you?

It's too long and I reserve the right no not read it, I don't care about credibility that I hold with you, that's way too long anyway, KISS.
 
Like I said, it's FINE that you don't like a particular car, but seriously mentioning it over and over again gets tiring to read.
 
What exactly are you even talking about? The CX-9, shifts, steers, accelerates, and feels better than any of the triplets. What else is there to say about that? It's true, The styling is racy and not bloated out like the triplets.
 
And, Mazda can only make so many of them per year, and the biggest reason I hear about people not getting one is that they couldn't find one optioned up like they wanted, or they got a better deal on something else, the dealer network is pretty small too.
 
This is my last reply on this blog post.

"None of this is really a problem, it just means that I won't be putting full faith and confidence in the trip computer and I hope that various media outlets are actually doing the calculations instead of relying on the faulty computer."
 
Most magazines use their own calculations. MT averaged 21mpg in their recent test which is pretty poor for a compact car in my book.
 
"Oh and it is superior to the GM crossovers in every performance aspect you can think of, not numbers, the behind the wheel experiance."
 
Have you driven a Lamdda SUV? Most reviews have stated they handle well for their size. The CX-9 is stiffer and smaller and lighter and drives as such. That doesnt make it a superior vehicle across the board. The Lambdas have more cargo capacity, larger third rows and more space behind the third row. On top of that I find all of them more attractive than the CX-9. And they get better mileage. Come 2009 they will have more power than the CX-9 as well.
 
"And, Mazda can only make so many of them per year, and the biggest reason I hear about people not getting one is that they couldn't find one optioned up like they wanted, or they got a better deal on something else, the dealer network is pretty small too. "
 
Good car companies find ways to get products to customers if demand is there. Even if its true (not that I buy it) that CX-9 sales are low due to lack of production that really isnt a good excuse. BTW, Mazda was offering lease deals on the CX-9 almost from the moment it went on sale last year so that makes me think your assertions are incorrect.