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

  1. If I were forced to choose between the two I'd take the CX-5. Same engine and drive train as the CX-9. But the curb weight of the CX-5 is almost 600 lbs less than the CX-9. That's the equivalent of hauling around a couple of NFL linemen in the CX-9. Add fuel, maximum passenger capacity, and luggage/gear and the difference is more like 800 lbs. There's a reason that EVERY other 3 row midsize SUV except the Subaru Ascent offers a standard or optional V6. Physics is physics and almost every other manufacturer recognizes that a small displacement turbo moving a loaded vehicle edging toward 5000 lbs when fully loaded is inherently less durable than a larger displacement naturally aspirated V6. (To be fair, the 2020 Explorer only offers a NA V6 in their hybrid and that vehicle or the turbo V6's in the ST and Platinum trims have MSRP's in the mid-$50K range or more.) Performance when new isn't the issue. Turbo 4's can be tuned and geared to match the performance of V6's. The issue is long term durability in a large, heavy vehicle. Joe says the CX-9 is "obviously a little bit larger" than the CX-5. What an understatement! It's 20" longer. In fact, the only larger midsize SUV's are the Dodge Durango and the Chevy Traverse. What does that size buy you? The least overall cargo capacity and passenger space in the entire three row midsize category. At 71 cubic ft of cargo space, the CX-9 has less than a Honda CR-V or a Subaru Forester. It has less than a KIA Sorento, a 3 row SUV that's 10 inches less in length. At 134 cubic feet of space the CX-9 offers the least combined passenger room in the entire category. The smaller Sorento offers 19 cubic feet more. Cargo space behind the third row is 14 cubic ft, three more than the Sorento but less than every other midsize crossover. Third row legroom is 29.7". Two inches less than the Sorento and even less than the back seat of a Mustang! Ever tried to sit in a Mustang's back seat? Almost every other three row SUV has more room in the third row. (Only the Highlander has less. At least Mazda doesn't put three seat belts in the third row as Toyota does...a cruel joke to be sure.) How about the CX-5? The turbo 4 in the Mazda is better suited to the smaller, lighter vehicle. And it stands up better vs its rivals in terms of packaging efficiency, but not much. With 59.6 cubic ft of overall cargo space, it's at the bottom of the compact crossover category. The CR-V and Forester are more than 25% larger in a vehicle only an inch and a half longer! Likewise the RAV4 has 10 more cubic ft of cargo space. In fact, the CX-5 has only about six cubic feet more overall cargo space than a VW Golf. All in all, the CX-5 is a great SUV choice for those who don't need the utility of a sport UTILITY vehicle. The Signature trim of the CX-5 is obviously superior to the Touring trim of the CX-9. Of course, one can get the Signature trim in the CX-9, as well and it comes with standard AWD. But that puts the MSRP at $46,000 plus. And it means cross shopping with vehicles like the Telluride and Palisade comes into play. And as attractive as the Signature trim in each model is, there remain some deficiencies. The infotainment system of each is seriously dated. Neither offers the updated infotainment system of the Mazda3. The small sunroof in each model doesn't compare to the panoramic versions in most rivals. And that's only the beginning when the Signature trim of the CX-9 is compared to the top trims several rivals, especially those from Hyundai and KIA. The Mazdas' trump card is handling. And it's true that each model handles well compared to their rivals, especially on secondary highways and back roads. But few shoppers place canyon carving as a high priority in their choice of an SUV. The intended mission for the overwhelming majority is negotiating suburban traffic and long slogs on freeways where Mazda's signature handling advantage is only marginally better or non-existent and the humungous size of the CX-9 is a handicap in traffic and parking. Want an excellent handling Mazda with the turbo4 engine? Get a Mazda6 and enjoy its superior styling as well. Willing to give up some performance for even better handling? Get a Mazda3. Want even better handling than any Mazda in a vehicle almost a foot shorter than a CX-5 with nearly the same cargo space? Get a GTI.
    17
  2. Don't worry you won't get "huge cargo space" with either choice. The CX-9 has less cargo space than a Honda CR-V or a Subaru Forester and the CX-5 has only six more cubic feet of cargo space than a VW Golf.
    3
  3. Mazda would undoubtedly put a six cylinder engine in the CX-9 if they had one. As the smallest independent automotive manufacturer they're forced to use the same engines and transmissions in multiple configurations. Rumors continue to circulate that Mazda will offer an inline 6 but the schedule is still unclear.
    1
  4.  @patlabuca3484  In that case, why not avoid a crossover altogether and get a vehicle superior handling? If you want a Mazda, take a look at the Mazda6.
    1
  5. If you'd like to donate millions of dollars to Mazda I'm sure they'd be happy to follow your suggestions. They're the smallest independent mainstream automotive manufacturer in the world. That means stretching their engines and drive trains to cover multiple vehicles and targeting investment in new products very carefully.
    1
  6.  @HiPlains1  Almost right. At mid $40K MSRP the SIgnature trim CX-9 is competing against top trim mainstream crossovers, not even Acura, much less BMW and Mercedes. The CX-9's problem is the competition from Hyundai and KIA with the Palisade and Telluride.
    1