Comments by "Stephen Hendricks" (@stephenhendricks103) on "" video.

  1. Yeah, I'm back with my usual negative comments. In a category with the "utility" in the title, the CX-9 is seriously deficient. At 199" in length it's among the largest SUV's in the "midsize" category. Only the Durango and the GM twins (Traverse and Enclave) are bigger. That's combined with the smallest overall cargo space in the entire category. At 75.8 cubic feet the Honda CR-V has more cargo space than the CX-9! And passenger space is no better. At 134 cubic feet of passenger space in all three rows, it's seriously cramped compared to literally every other competitor. The KIA Sorento, the smallest of the midsize category, provides 20 more cubic feet of space for passengers in all three rows. The CX-9's third row is a cruel joke. At less than 30" of legroom, it's less than that provided in the back seat of a Mustang. Have you ever been in the back seat of a Mustang? And if you're interested in putting a hitch mounted bike rack on the CX-9, check the dimensions of your garage. The CX-9's 2.5L turbo engine is impressive in some ways, especially in its application in the Mazda6 and CX-5. But in a class where every competitor other than the Ascent has a standard or optional V6 its performance is neither as smooth nor as linear in its delivery. And in a vehicle that weighs over two tons it's reasonable to question its long-term durability compared to a naturally aspirated V6. The interior appointments of the top Signature trim are impressive on first impression despite some deficiencies (e.g. panoramic sunroof, inferior infotainment). But all in all, the CX-9 is a prime example of the triumph of form over function. Perhaps it should be classified as a CSV, a Crossover Stylish Vehicle.
    6
  2.  @normt5463  Actually, I think the CX-9 handles well for its size. But the key phrase is "for its size." It's only an inch shorter than a Toyota Sienna minivan. And while it handles comparatively well on secondary roads, canyon carving isn't the primary mission of a midsize crossover for most consumers. And at almost 17 feet in length its handling in urban/suburban traffic and mall parking lots simply cannot be that good. It's a beast in terms of size even if it doesn't "look that way."
    4
  3.  @ztekz  It's not a question of wanting or needing maximum space. It's a question of how remarkably inefficient the allocation of space is in vehicle supposedly designed for utility.
    1
  4.  @ConnecticutDashcam  Care to cite any misinformation? I'm listening.
    1