mmarshall

Agreed....a strip of wood (or fake wood) should probably not be either a deal-maker or a deal-beaker. It can, though, be a nicer touch on what is already a nice product.

tex2670

I agree. But if you are sitting in a "family" SUV with nice wood trim, and upgraded leather, after sitting in a Honda or Toyota, many people will "feel" like it's more upscale. PLUS the price is good. PLUS it's got the best gas mileage in the category. Non-car people are swayed by a multitude of things--including lack of a panoramic sunroof...

Toys4RJill

Interesting. I wonder if us members on this forum overthink this too much. I also wonder if we discount what companies like Honda and Toyota know with their Pilot and Highlander SUVs. The space and function of the Pilot and Highlander are so much more superior and from just sitting next to other guests and hearing their comments, the CX9 did not impress. It is very strange, you would think a nice interior of the CX9 would sway over more people. But like it was said earlier, the CX9 is struggling for sales.

EZZ

How does the CX9 drive compared to the others. That's a HUGE factor when comparing any car even though it's primarily built for utility. I primarily chose the Odyssey over the Sienna because of how it handled and felt. If I'm going to haul this around all weekend with the kids, it better feel okay. I've driven SUVs where taking any turn felt like it would roll. If the CX9 feels more like an X5 than a Highlander, I could see people going for it.

JDR76

I think the new CX-9 is great, but a bit too small for us and I'm just not on board with the 4 cylinder, but the interior is beautiful.

No panoramic sunroof is a deal breaker for us. After having it in the Highlander, I don't think we would go back.

Toys4RJill

I agree with what you are saying. But in my experience, a softer ride usually has a little more roll than a firmer ride. I really do think we all take for granted what the average person really wants.

After seeing all of the brands under the same roof, it is amazing to see what people are flocking to and what they pick up. On paper, the CX9 should be a big winner. But apparently not.

mmarshall

Did Buick have the next-generation 2018 Regal there at the show? With new Veranos disappearing from the American market, that is going to become a more important model in Buick's line-up. There are also strong rumors of a 5-door wagon version coming over from Europe, where the Opel version has been quite popular. Combine that with the AWD option that the Regal currently has, and that could (?) be a good competitor to upper-trim versions of the Subaru Outback and lower-trim versions of the Audi All-road and Volvo XC-70...though the Regal's lower-stance and suspension might actually place it closer to the Legacy wagon, which was discontinued in the U.S. several years ago.

I was hoping to see the Next-Gen Regal here in D.C. last month, but Buick did not bring it.

LexBob2

Looking at Mazda's January sales you can see that the CX5 (old model about to be updated) is their high volume bread and butter CUV. It sold 8,068 units vs. the new CX9 at 1,591. Only one month but still telling.

For 2016 it was 112,235 CX5's vs. 16,051 CX9's.

Hopefully the new CX9 catches on with buyers.

mmarshall

Part of the problem with the CX-9 is not the vehicle itself, but simply the huge popularity of the Highlander, Explorer, and Pilot. Those three are so entrenched in the marketplace that it is difficult for competitors to seriously challenge them.

Toyota itself has experienced that trying to break into the domestic full-size pick-up market.

Toys4RJill

No new Regal. Just the Avenir and Buick inspired cafe on the car floor.

Also, no Tesla, or we did not see one.

Toys4RJill

Interestingly, I did a comparison of the Highlander, CX9, Pilot and Pathfinder. The CX9 measurements are very good, however when you look at the details you can see deficiencies, front leg room and rear shoulder room are significantly down on the CX9, interior cargo capacity is five cubit feet less than the Highlander and a whopping 20 cubic feet less than the Pilot. However the wheelbase is longer than the Pilot and Highlander. I also think the lack of a V6 is significant for the price you are paying. Same MPG as the Highlander but a huge decrease in HP for the same money or similar.

tex2670

The automotive press has long raved about Mazda driving dynamics vs its competitors, and the same is true for the new CX-9. But, again, outside car people, I do not think most people car about this, and I do think, in this class, most customers would prefer a soft, cushy, floaty ride. And most don't even really know what they are buying. My neighbor has a Santa Fe coming off lease. I suggested he look at the new CX-9, and told him it will get better gas mileage with the turbo 4. He said "I thought I have a 4." And this is a guy that won't buy new underwear without extensive research. Car buying is intimidating for a lot of people, and many just make a decision based on some odd thing that we would never think of.

tex2670

Well you could have said the exact same thing about the CX-5 when it first debuted, as compared to the CR-V, RAV-4 and Escape. And, in fact, Mazda changed the engine choices in the 2nd MY, so you could say the initial roll-out wasn't perfect. The compact CUV market is pretty crowded, and the CX-5 seemed to do a good job making a name there.

mmarshall

Yes, that's a good point. I'll agree with that.

The initial CX-5 also replaced the Mazda Tribute, a Ford-Escape-clone that went practically nowhere in the American market. It was discontinued in 2011.

Sulu

But the Odyssey and the Sienna are comparable in interior space and comparable in features, so the comparison then comes down to whether you like smoother ride of the Sienna or the sportier handling of the Odyssey. Some prefer the smoother ride, while others, like you, prefer the handling.

The new CX-9 may not sell well just because it is missing the one key feature that people look for when shopping for 3-row minivan-substitutes, which is interior room.

I agree. I believe that in the CX-9, Mazda has traded form over function. It looks great, inside and out, but the people who are shopping for mass market 3-row people movers are looking for as much space for the buck first and foremost, and then looking at other features; I would venture to guess that sporty handling, and the quality of the wood trim and the leather are (much) further down the list. And if the Honda and Toyota salesperson is good enough, she will be able to talk down the turbocharged engine of the CX-9.

The CX-5, after Mazda put in the larger 2.5-litre engine in place of the original 2.0-litre engine is very comparable and so very competitive with the RAV4, CR-V and Ford Escape (the Big 3 in the compact crossover utility vehicle segment). But, in my opinion, Mazda designed the CX-5 as a good CUV first and foremost, selecting function over form. People looking for compact crossovers are looking for function (interior room, enough power to get out of its own way on the freeway but balanced with fuel economy) first and foremost.