lexus_ls

I am considering the Mazda CX9 due to the price point of the signature model which has everything from heads up display, napa leather, Bose radio etc. I've always owned a Lexus and wanted to see what else I can get for my money. Your thoughts are appreciated. Thanks.

VinceCL

The CX-9 seems to be well received by the automotive press so far. Mazda's emphasis on driving dynamics and ability to deliver that in such a large vehicle at a more affordable price point makes the CX-9 stand out in a crowded field. A test drive would definitely be in order to compare the refinement, handling, ride quality, acceleration and comfort. Mazda reliability has been pretty good and one of my favorite cars (and best) I have ever owned was a 1993 Protege. It would be on our shopping list to replace our Explorer (CX-9 is too big for me, it would be the wife's car, I'm the one looking at the RX) if it were not for the darth of dealerships in our area. We have become spoiled by having dealerships close to the house and work and that convenience plays a big factor for us.

Curryolla

There is no doubt the CX-9 has a lot of positives, but it is a much bigger car than the RX. If space and a third row are important, then the CX-9 is your best bet. Personally, I'd still have a Toyota Highlander over the CX-9. There is a new 2017 Highlander coming out that is much nicer, in my opinion.

Postives of the Mazda CX-9 Signature:
+Design
+Price ($44K definitely the cheapest one here)
+Size (Third Row)
+Dynamics (F-Sport RX might be better?)
+Real Wood Trim (RX has this, but Highlander is fake)
+Nappa Leather
+HUD (NA on Highlander, Great on the RX)
+Bose Audio (RX has ML, and Highlander has JBL)
+LED Headlights (Standard on RX, NA on 2016 Highlander, Available on 2017 Highlander)
+Turbo Power Range (accessible torque at low RPM)
+Three zone climate control (same as Highlander, but RX is only dual zone)

Where the Mazda falls short:
-Size (too big for me)
-Colors! (only interior color on Mazda is Brown, only four boring exterior colors)
-No Panoramic Moonroof (Adv. RX and Highlander)
-No Ventilated Seats (unacceptable in this class of car)
-No Thigh Cushion Extender (Only on top of the line RX, but also on Limited Highlander)
-8 inch navigation screen (RX has optional 12.3 inch, Standard 8)
-V6 reliability (I'm still not so sure about turbo reliability, even from Mazda)
-No hybrid (I'm assuming this does not matter to you)
-No Panoramic View 360 Camera (Optional on RX, NA on 2016 Highlander, Optional on 2017 Highlander)
-No Rear Seat Entertainment Package (but iPads work well too)

I'm sure there is more, but that's all I got for now. Personally, I say 2016 RX > 2017 Highlander > Mazda CX-9 = 2016 Highlander. It all comes down to your preference. I say test drive all three.

Bearcat

The CX-9 compares much better to a Highlander. Just not in the RX league.

Macs4RX

Tom Voelk from the NY Times gave the new CX-9 Signature edition a nice review.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/17/au...tomobiles&_r=0

JDR76

The new CX-9 is very nice. We're going to go ahead and get a Highlander, though, as I just really don't want a 4 cylinder/turbo.

gorcorps

I'm leasing a Highlander now, and I'm struggling with the decision to jump to the RX when the 3rd row comes out. With all of the upgrades the Highlander is getting, it makes it a very close race. IMO the Highlander has a leg up in a couple different features which muddies the water (large cup holders, fantastic roll top center console, rear glass can open manually without having to wait for the powered liftgate for small items, etc...)

bootman

Spend some time in one.
If the fit and finish is up to your standards then I guess you have a winner.

s4iscool

I considered it due to the rave initial reviews, but quickly moved on due to missing pano roof and cameras. Small things but differentiators at this level of car. RX sport looks great too

lexus_ls

I test drove the CX9 and it was quiet and smooth, but not as refined as a Lexus of course. Once the engine is at speed it is quiet, but reving it up it sounds like a 4 cyc, which I don't like. Overall interior quality is surpising, very good materials for this price, and feels solid. I was considering the Signature trim, but not a fan of the brownish leather seats.