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

Took a serious look at the CX-9 along with several competitors earlier this year. Ultimately, we chose the Kia Sorento SX-L rather than the top trim (Signature) of the CX-9. Each is a good vehicle. At the top trim levels they're comparable in terms of fit, finish, and gadgetry. And some of the minor differences between the two in 2018 have been eliminated in the 2019 versions. A panoramic moon roof and a better infotainment system are the remaining Sorento advantages. Slightly better handling remains a Mazda trademark but considering the mission of these vehicles that handling advantage, to the extent it exists, is minimal. You're not going to be carving canyon roads in one of these crossovers. Let's be honest, vehicles like this are meant for several primary purposes; most importantly hauling people and cargo around in the suburban jungle and long slogs on the freeway for trips with five or fewer passengers. (Though each has a nominal 7 person capacity, neither can accommodate 7 people plus luggage. That's minivan or large SUV territory.) And for us, at least, the Sorento was a clearly superior choice. Most important was efficient use of space. The CX-9 is nearly a FOOT longer than the Sorento. It's nearly the size of the (relatively) gigantic VW Atlas. That's a real disadvantage in traffic and parking lots that good handling doesn't make up for. What does that extra length provide? The space behind the third row is slightly larger (14 cuft vs 11 cuft.) But passenger room in the third row of the CX-9 is actually smaller than the Sorento (and lacks the third row climate controls that the Sorento provides.) Likewise there's less head and legroom in the second row. And amazingly, the cargo capacity behind the first row is actually less than that of the Sorento. (73 cuft vs 71 cuft). I was honestly puzzled by the comparative specs. I finally came to the conclusion that the extra length of the CX-9 came mainly from its longer hood. That contributes to its attractive exterior looks but it does nothing for the vehicles utility. For trips we found the KIA also outpointed the Mazda. The turbo 4 banger of the CX-9 is impressive. But the V6 in the Sorento has more HP with regular fuel than the CX-9 with premium. The gap is even greater using regular fuel in the Mazda. The Mazda's torque is very impressive but the Sorento's tow rating (where torque is important) is 5000 lbs versus the CX-9's 3500 lbs. Even more important for freeway slogs, the Sorento's V6 is quieter, smoother, and arguably more durable. And while the Mazda's fuel efficiency rating is slightly better, it's a very small difference. Add to all of this the much, much better bumper-to-bumper and drivetrain warranties the KIA provides and it was no contest for my family. I really wanted to like the CX-9; I've owned four Mazda vehicles over the years so I didn't have a bias against the brand. But on a point by point basis the Kia was just a better choice.
22
k domster: Different strokes for different folks. I'm a Mazda fan but I don't agree that the CX-9 has a better build, design, or quality comparing top trims of each vehicle. And more importantly in this class, I just couldn't get over the fact that the CX-9 is as large as a VW Atlas with an overall interior capacity less than the Sorento, has a lower tow rating, a four banger vs a V6, a pixilated camera, smaller infotainment screen, and a bumper-to-bumper and powertrain warranty that doesn't come close to the KIA. There was no contest when we compared the vehicles in detail.
4
Want some straight facts? Here are some. The Sorento is 11 inches shorter, three inches more narrow, and 2.5 inches shorter than the CX-9. And yet, the Sorento has significantly more overall passenger room (154 cf vs 135 cf). That includes significantly greater legroom in the first and, surprisingly, in the third row. It also has more overall cargo room (73 cf vs 71 cf) despite having slightly less cargo space behind the third row (11 cf vs 14 cf) (Source: US News and World Report.) I'm not sure how you conclude the "second row feels more spacious on (the) CX-9..." It isn't. The differences in space are minuscule or non-existent. I'm perfectly willing to grant that if canyon carving is your preferred driving environment the Mazda may have an advantage. But for the vast majority of owners of these vehicles the environment is the jungle of suburban traffic and parking lots where the smaller exterior and larger interior dimensions make a much bigger difference than a marginal advantage on mountain roads. And for trips, the quieter Sorento interior adds to the its advantages. You might prefer a louder engine; most consumers in this space do not. Yes, the 4 cylinder CX-9 has more peak torque than the KIA. Oddly, then that the acceleration of the two is virtually identical and the tow rating for the Sorento is 5000 lbs versus the CX-9's 3500. Neither is appropriate for serious towing but the KIA can tow camping trailers and boats the CX-9 cannot. Bottom line, if you're into canyon carving, I'd suggest another vehicle, altogether. And for long slogs on a freeway, the Sorento is a better, more relaxing choice with (remember) more interior room. As for the common claim that low resale value offsets the greater discounts typically available for the Sorento versus its competitors, that's another fallacy. I negotiated an $8000 discount off MSRP on a 2018 top trim (SX-L) Sorento. That was considerably more than I was offered on a Signature trim of a CX-9 ($2000 off MSRP) or a Toyota Highlander with no discount. At the same time, the KBB trade-in estimate for a six year old Sorento is virtually identical to a comparable CX-9. Even comparing resale of a six year old Highlander to the KIA, the KBB estimate of average resale (about $3000) doesn't come close to eliminating the savings in initial purchase prices. (And for the record, my local KIA difference gave more than $1000 more than the KBB estimate for my six year old Sorento combined with the discount on a new Sorento, making the overall savings even greater. Finally the question of reliability. Rather than relying on anonymous "independent mechanics" and anecdotal stories of friends or friends, the most reliable data about reliability comes from the hundreds of thousands of consumers who respond to Consumer Reports annual survey of vehicle owners. On that metric Toyota, not surprisingly, holds first place. As of 2018, KIA ranks fifth, having risen steadily over the last decade. Mazda ranks 14th. Ever wonder why KIA (and Hyundai which also outranks Mazda) offer much better bumper-to-bumper and power train warranties than others? It's not because they lose money on those warranties. It's only my experience but over 75,000 miles my 2012 Sorento never had a check engine light, never had a single component fail, and never required anything more than fuel, oil changes, tires, and regular maintenance. It's not an apples to apples comparison but my Mazda RX-8 made several trips to the dealer to (believe it or not) replace the spark plug in the rotary engine (not a DIY job) when the engine flooded, couldn't be restarted and eventually required an upgraded battery to be crammed in the engine bay to resolve the problem. I say "crammed" because the larger battery prevented the engine cover from being replaced. I loved the car anyway but it hardly gave me a feeling of security about Mazda's reliability, at least for that model.
4
@k domster. Pretty desperate there, aren't you buddy. Try this. https://www.consumerreports.org/car-reliability-owner-satisfaction/car-brands-reliability-how-they-stack-up/ For 2018 models, Kia ranked just below Toyota and Lexus in reliability. Mazda ranked twelfth with the most unreliable of their models being the CX-9.
4
@k domster: I was expecting that. Standard whining from those whose favorite cars come out at the bottom of CR's reliability ratings. As it happens I take CR's reviews with a grain of salt simply because I don't usually drive the way the reviewers do or have the same priorities. But their reliability ratings are another thing, altogether. Reviewers NEVER test reliability; they don't have an opportunity to do so. CR's reliability ratings aren't their reviewers' opinions, they're are based on responses of literally hundreds of thousands of vehicle owners and they're the gold standard for that information. As for posting under different names. Nope. I have the guts to post under my own full name and only by that name. Obviously, you can't say the same. Not surprising you're crying "fake news." Have a feeling you're parroting someone.
3
xrcrx ftfghjg may not be "super large" on inside. In fact, it's among the smallest 3 row crossovers in terms of interior space. But it's HUGE on the outside. The only 3 row "midsize" crossovers that are longer are the GM twins (Traverse and Enclave). Massive amount of wasted space devoted to the long, long hood and protruding grill.
2
Thanks, Bill. Appreciate the comments.
2
@k domster. Believe me, I have no interest "convincing (you) " of anything. That's obviously not possible. Just demonstrating how bankrupt your comments are is sufficient. And that's done.
2
Actually, I traded in a six year old Kia Sorento when I purchased the 2018 model. According to Kelly Blue Book the Sorento's average trade-in price came within $800 of the KBB estimate of an equivalent Toyota Highlander. Compared to the the CX-9, the difference was a whopping $51. And in my case my Sorento received a trade-in value over $1000 more than the KBB estimate. All in all taking into account discounts on both the 2012 and the 2018 Sorento, I came out significantly ahead of the Highlander and way, way ahead of the Mazda. So once again, you're long on opinions and woefully short on facts.
2
raul suazo: Another opinion with no data to back it up. As already noted, the thousands of respondents to Consumer Reports most recent reliability survey ranks Kia below ONLY Toyota and Lexus. Mazda ranks 12th. Likewise, according to Kelly Blue Book, the bible of resale values, the trade-in value of a six year old Kia Sorento SX-L is virtually identical to that of a top trim CX-9. Your opinion sounds like it was set in stone about a dozen years ago. Time to catch up.
2
You're going to call the CX-9 a "beast?" That's truly hilarious. Bloated, yes. A "beast?" No.
2
@FromQnz2King Ah...the delights of the internet where even the most ignorant and unsupported opinion can be posted.
2
Once burned, twice shy.
1
@Gulupumo We average about 22-23 mpg in mixed driving (about 75% city/suburban traffic) with our V6 Sorento. Maintenance costs are nothing out of the ordinary. Scheduled maintenance (including oil changes) at 7500 mile intervals. I change oil more frequently, about every 5000 miles, out of longstanding habit. I'm not sure it's necessary but it's a "peace of mind" expense.
1
@gosman949 The Ascent wasn't available when we were shopping. From what I've seen it's a good choice. In our case, though, I think I'd still go with the Sorento. The Ascent is larger than we need for our family of 3+ (two adults, teenager, and big dog). At the same time, the Sorento provides slightly more 3rd row room than the Ascent. Neither vehicle (nor most other midsize crossovers) has sufficient space in the third row for more than local trips but the Sorento is surprisingly roomy compared to the competition. (It manages that by sacrificing some cargo space behind the third row and allocating that space to the passenger space.) Finally, I think a vehicle weighing more than two tons is better off with a naturally aspirated V6 than a turbo 4.
1