2008 Mazda CX-9: Sacramento Run Fuel Summary

Imagine how good it would have been if you set the cruise for 60 mph.

"If this is the case, then why would anyone buy the Veracruz?"
 
Because they want a RX but can't afford one...

"Because they want a RX but can't afford one..."
Buy a used or certified used RX, and then you get a Lexus which is serviced by Lexus. The Veracruz requires you to throw all your money down the drain (horrible residuals) and visit a lovely Hyundai dealership for service. You could get a crossover with some character, nice build-quality, decent fuel economy, and a nice enough interior for a decent price; it is called the Mazda CX-9.

A used Lexus has way too high of a resale value, at least for the late model ones.
 
People probably don't want the firm ride of the CX-9 and prefer a soft riding RX or Veracruz.
 
With that said the gas cap light is probably due to the big issue with the CX-7's gas cap, people thinking the engine was going to blow because of a faulty gas cap, which sets off the check engine light.

Both my '07 328i and '08 OutbackSport have the check-gas-cap warning light. Not THAT uncommon, I guess.

It's a very good idea to have a separate loose gas cap warning light. An even better idea is Ford's new capless system.

That's pretty cool, I wish all cars had that. It will save people a lot of trouble.
 
23 mpg is good for a car of this size and weight that makes over 270 HP. The Veracruz and Edge both get worse mileage, according to Edmunds.
 
Mazda needs to stick one of these V6s into the CX7. The turbo four just doesn't make sense to me: slower and about the same (if not worse) gas mileage.

I didn't know that forgetfulness of not screwing in your gas cap or leaving it loose was such a common occurrence! How hard is it to turn until it clicks?
 
Also, people might still go to the dealer because they couldn't decipher what the cap ajar light means. It looks like my car is eating a bolt! And no, I bet they don't RTM when they buy the car either.

Bear in mind that the Edge and Veracruz are both the AWD versions; this Mazda is FWD.

Slightly OT, but I'm curious as to how that TPMS symbol became the industry standard. I know what it is because I've seen it enough, but it's not a good design. Not sure I could come up with anything better myself (that's why I'm not a graphic designer, but I do retain my right to criticize). The little tire in the pictogram doesn't even look particularly low to me.
 
I believe the little message center/trip computer thing in our GMC actually spelled out "low tire pressure" or something like that along with the little symbol lighting up, otherwise I wouldn't have had a clue what it meant at first glance.

The turbo 4 is faster than the V6... most of the tests that do the CX-7 don't shift correctly. C/D got 7.5 with an AWD CX-7 manually shifting @ 5600rpm.

Edmunds got 7.4 for the '08 CX-9, and Car and Driver recently tested the '08 version and got 0-60 in 7.3.
 
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/hot_lists/car_shopping/2008_new_car_reviews/2008_mazda_cx_9_grand_touring_short_take_road_test+t-more_good_news+page-2.html
 
I don't make stuff up I promise.

The real question should be why doesn't this supposedly "premium" vehicle even have a trip computer? The CX9 is off my shopping list because it does not have one and my wife refuses to own a car without one. This over site is appalling, even most entry level vehicles have one these days.

Is it really an apple-to-apple mileage comparison between CX-9 and Veracruz? I see whole less postings on Veracruz than any other vehicles in long-term test pool, meaning, Veracruz might be used mostly errands in city rather than long-range driving. Then, horrible gas mileage is somewhat expected. AWD vs. FWD, city vs. hwy, etc. At least, the posting staff has to give a fair reasoning on their judgment on certain discoveries, I think.

You're comparing front wheel drive to AWD?
 
Nearly each any every CX-7 tested is AWD.

That's not that great of fuel economy. I can about get that in my Trailblazer. My parents (& two others & a weeks worth of luggage) just took a trip to Key West from NC in their Pilot ('06 FWD), and reported 26mpg avg. at 75-80mph. They don't drive easy, either. Granted, the Pilot has VCM and a little less power, but it also has more space!
 
Technitium- Agree, I Hate how Japanese manufacturers almost Never equip their vehicles with anything other than "Major Options"; i.e. leather, nav, DVD, etc. My TB and my Mom's Pilot both cost about the same new (& are fully loaded), but I have a trip computer, dual zone climate controls, power passenger seat, memory seats, cassete player (in addition to CD), good rear air & rear audio controls, and a whole bunch of other stuff that generally goes unnoticed on a spec sheat. But Honda's are such good values, don't ya know? Please. *End Rant* And, after having one, I too don't think I could own another vehicle without a trip computer.

The trailblazer has to be the most unrefined SUV on the market right now, I'll gladly take 3 less mpg than be in one of those deathtraps.
 
Trip computers are almost always off, if you can't use the trip/gallons to compute MPG you're way too lazy.
 
Oh and the pilot, blandcity, the drive, the interior, the look, all bland.
Terrible, the roofline starts to kink up, faster speeds than that and it'll look like a chinese car.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=f940AXYljSc

>>> Trip computers are almost always off, if you can't use the trip/gallons to compute MPG you're way too lazy.
  
Who said anything about the mpg calculations? My wife likes the multiple trip odometers, the trip timers, and most especially the miles to empty. Myself, I like instant economy, and I understand the math equations behind it. I know the mpg numbers will be off. Trip computers are so much more than mpg calculators.