2008 Mazda CX-9: The 3.7-Liter Cyclone Finds A Home

It also likely has a different intake.

I really like the CX-9 but I wish it got a couple miles a gallon better than it does, just to put it on par with the Lambda quads and the...Flex...

It doesn't need the MPG to compete with those cars, and the difference per year is very small.

why would "muscular yet refined" be bad in the Lincoln? Most reviewers feel that LExus engines are TOO quiet and have no personality. I dont want an engine that makes no noise when floored.

"It doesn't need the MPG to compete with those cars"

It doesnt? News to me.

Yes of course it's news to you. You're not that bright.

Cost to drive 25 Miles

$5.33

$5.65

Fuel to Drive 25 Miles

1.39 gal

1.47 gal
Annual Fuel Cost*

$3203

$3387

Enclave AWD is the first, CX-9 AWD is the second - It doesn't matter, you're NOT! saving any substantial amount of money.

we all know the actual cost difference isnt big. I was questioning why you would say the CX-9 doesnt need to be competitive in fuel economy. The Lambdas, flex and highlander surpass it in fuel eocnomy, even if the margin is small.

"Yes of course it's news to you. You're not that bright."

if you say it I know it's true.

The CX-9 achieves 16 | 22 while the Lambdas achieve 17 | 24 in FWD form. Like 1487 said, it's a small difference but it is meaningful.

Meaningful in what way? The Lambda's/Ford's still need need to be poked and prodded to downshift. It's not meaningful, it's a 150+ dollar a year difference to have a MUCH better transmission. Unless you like saying, my big boat can get 24mpg which is a whole set of other personal problems.
Trying to make something out of a nothing 150+ a year difference means the car is so great that you must talk about this "meaningful" 150+ difference to try and demerit it.

It doesn't mean anything because there is a reason behind it, it isn't nearly as easy to downshift. And yeah I'm talking about the 2009+ with the "new" calibrations.

"Our low-mileage Traverse tester logged a 14.6-mpg tank against a 16 city/23 highway EPA rating. At least our Enclave is averaging a more encouraging 17.5 mpg after 20,000-plus miles."

Oops?

The highlander is a lightweight, and it's smaller.

Re: Duratec 37 in the MKS, it doesn't sound muscular and refined; rather, it sounds surprisingly grainy at higher rpm.

That is, the MZI 3.7 -- at least in the 6 and CX-9 -- sounds muscular and refined, whereas the Duratec 37 -- at least in the MKS -- sounds relatively coarse.

But don't just take my word for it.

Here's what our man Hellwig said about the MKS in his test for Inside Line: "Those disappointing acceleration numbers are matched by the sound of an engine that's running harder than it wants to. For a modern DOHC V6, this engine sounds strained at high rpm, which of course it is."

And here's our take on the 6's MZI 3.7, from the recent three-car comparo: "The Mazda V6's power delivery is smooth and broad..."

-Sadlier

"That is, the MZI 3.7 -- at least in the 6 and CX-9 -- sounds muscular and refined, whereas the Duratec 37 -- at least in the MKS -- sounds relatively coarse."

I'm not surprised Ford has taken yet another fine engine and de-contented it. Do they honestly think consumers don't care? I watched as the wonderful 3.0L 24v Duratec introduced with all-new 1996 Taurus/Sable was de-contented year after year until it became a raspy abomination in the 2000+ MY Taurus. When will they wake up?