CX9 ads bug anyone else?

[Bill Balmer]

Every time I see a Mazda CX9 ad, it bugs me when they talk about how it's a 7-passenger SUV with more cargo space than a Pilot. The Pilot is an 8-passenger vehicle, and with the split-folding rear seat partially down, I have no doubt that it would outdo the CX9 in cargo space while still seating 7. Seems like a false claim to me, and it irks me.

Climbing down now...

[jl_ss]

Originally posted by Bill Balmer
Every time I see a Mazda CX9 ad, it bugs me when they talk about how it's a 7-passenger SUV with more cargo space than a Pilot. The Pilot is an 8-passenger vehicle, and with the split-folding rear seat partially down, I have no doubt that it would outdo the CX9 in cargo space while still seating 7. Seems like a false claim to me, and it irks me.

Climbing down now...

Cargo space is cargo space. The Pilot has 87.6 cu-ft behind the 1st row and the CX-9 has 100.7 cu-ft. The Pilot is an 8 passenger SUV only if those 3 in the third row are small children. I've sat in the third row, I'm a fairly thin guy and there is no way that 3 of me would fit back there. Are manufacturers supposed to list every variation? The pilot would have to asterisk it's 8 passenger capability. Our MDX was about the same width as the Pilot in the third row and Acura/Honda called that 2 seats. Generally you drive each vehicle and see how it fits your needs. I've only had the third row up twice in 2+ years for 1 additional person. So for the majority of my usage, the Mazda would have more usable cargo space.

[N_Jay]

Originally posted by Bill Balmer
Every time I see a Mazda CX9 ad, it bugs me when they talk about how it's a 7-passenger SUV with more cargo space than a Pilot. The Pilot is an 8-passenger vehicle, and with the split-folding rear seat partially down, I have no doubt that it would outdo the CX9 in cargo space while still seating 7. Seems like a false claim to me, and it irks me.

Climbing down now...

I feel better now.

[robrecht]

Originally posted by jl_ss
Cargo space is cargo space. The Pilot has 87.6 cu-ft behind the 1st row and the CX-9 has 100.7 cu-ft.

I think that's the crucial measurement unless the CX-9 add was only talking about cargo space in addition to a full load of passengers.

Personally, I really like the looks of the CX-9, slightly better than the CX-7. Haven't driven one yet.

[Sportymonk]

The seven seat configuration was how I hauled a load to the airport a while back. On my son's trip to the airport a while back, I had myself and my son's friend's father in front with me; my son and his friend (both going to the airport for a trip) and the friend's mother in the middle row and my wife in the third row (she is the shortest) section with two seats so she would have room for the 100 mile one way trip. That makes six people with with the seats configured for seven. The extra room where the single seat folded down made the difference. So the concept of comparing seven seat to seven seat for cargo is valid. Perhaps a more valid comparison would be to compare with third row seats folded down.

BTW I test drove a CX9 a while back and wasn't impressed. Felt like I was sitting down deep inside a tank. It felt very large and bulky. I felt swallowed up inside. Didn't care for the console between the seats. Think I will wait to get my Mazda Miata/MX-5 or RX-8 convertible!

[robrecht]

Originally posted by Sportymonk
... so she would have room for the 100 mile one way trip.

... Think I will wait to get my Mazda Miata/MX-5 or RX-8 convertible!

NC needs more airports! I don't expect an RX-8 convertible, but Miatas are nice!

[jl_ss]

Originally posted by Sportymonk
Perhaps a more valid comparison would be to compare with third row seats folded down.

Pilot: 87.6/47.6/15.9 cu-ft
CX-9: 100.7/48.4/17.2 cu-ft

[Sportymonk]

Originally posted by jl_ss



Pilot: 87.6/47.6/15.9 cu-ft
CX-9: 100.7/48.4/17.2 cu-ft

Interesting that the data for the third row up (last set of data) and the data for the third row down and second row up (middle set of data) are fairly close yet the first set of data for the middle and third row down are so different.

[Bill Balmer]

I'll concede some of the points made above. However, the ads that got me going on this subject were VERY misleading, associating the CX-9's 7-passenger capability with the usable cargo space while in that configuration . They say, "The CX-9 can carry 7 people, PLUS (a list of cargo items that people might want to have along). Try THAT in a Pilot!" Well, in a Pilot, I could carry 7 passengers and everything they mention plus a stack of short surfboards if I had the back seat down on one side!

[jl_ss]

Originally posted by Bill Balmer
I'll concede some of the points made above. However, the ads that got me going on this subject were VERY misleading, associating the CX-9's 7-passenger capability with the usable cargo space while in that configuration . They say, "The CX-9 can carry 7 people, PLUS (a list of cargo items that people might want to have along). Try THAT in a Pilot!" Well, in a Pilot, I could carry 7 passengers and everything they mention plus a stack of short surfboards if I had the back seat down on one side!

You would have two very uncomfortable passengers in the 3rd row of the Pilot unless they were children. For arguments sake, I would say that the full 8 passenger capacity claim of the Pilot is misleading also.

[Bill Balmer]

First, I need to correct my previous post. I was mistakenly picturing the Pilot with the single seat down in both the 3rd and 2nd rows when I made the comment about the surfboards. So change that to an air compressor, which would fit fore to aft in the space vacated by the single rear seat split.

Anyway, I disagree with the 7 vs. 8 passenger argument. It's a simple fact - the Pilot meets the standard to be categorized as an 8-passenger vehicle; the CX-9 does not. You can argue with the usefulness of that, but I have driven my Pilot with 8 people on board, and that's something that, comfort issues aside, I would not have had the option to even try in a CX-9. Would I want to drive that way for a long period or on a regular basis - no, but it's nice to have the option of that utility when I need it.

The fact remains - when Mazda says that the CX-9 can carry 7 people and at the same time have more cargo space than the Pilot, they are plain wrong. The Pilot, configured for 7, has more cargo room.

[sjlee]

Originally posted by Bill Balmer
The fact remains - when Mazda says that the CX-9 can carry 7 people and at the same time have more cargo space than the Pilot, they are plain wrong. The Pilot, configured for 7, has more cargo room.

Here's your earlier quote from the commercial...

"The CX-9 can carry 7 people, PLUS (a list of cargo items that people might want to have along). Try THAT in a Pilot!"

It actually does not say "at the same time".



Besides, if you want to complain about car commercials, has anyone seen the latest Scion one? I've seen it before the last two movies that I saw recently... Transformers and Harry Potter.

Very disturbing.

[jl_ss]

Originally posted by Bill Balmer

Anyway, I disagree with the 7 vs. 8 passenger argument. It's a simple fact - the Pilot meets the standard to be categorized as an 8-passenger vehicle; the CX-9 does not. You can argue with the usefulness of that, but I have driven my Pilot with 8 people on board, and that's something that, comfort issues aside, I would not have had the option to even try in a CX-9. Would I want to drive that way for a long period or on a regular basis - no, but it's nice to have the option of that utility when I need it.

I can put 10 seat belts in a Pilot and call it a 10 seater regardless of the actual size of the people that could use them. Claiming to be an 8 seater, when only a certain segment of people could actually fit 3 in the third row is not entirely correct. We use the 3rd row in the Pilot when we take the parents and in-laws out. That's me, my wife and daughter, and four 250-300 lb adults for a total of 7. That completely fills the Pilot - there is no way you are squeezing a third person in that 3rd row or putting one side down for cargo. That would make it equivalent to the CX-9 for me.

[Bill Balmer]

Originally posted by sjlee


Here's your earlier quote from the commercial...

"The CX-9 can carry 7 people, PLUS (a list of cargo items that people might want to have along). Try THAT in a Pilot!"

It actually does not say "at the same time".

It doesn't say it, but in that ad they show the family packing up the CX-9, and the list of cargo is ticked off as they stack those things behind the upright rear seat while 7 people climb into the vehicle. It's pretty clear.

Originally posted by sjlee
Besides, if you want to complain about car commercials, has anyone seen the latest Scion one? I've seen it before the last two movies that I saw recently... Transformers and Harry Potter.

Very disturbing.

LOL - you mean the one with the Sheep people? My kids actually thought it was a movie preview.

Anyway, the CX-9 issue isn't that big of a deal that we should argue over it. Just an observation I made, that's all. I guess the fact that we can disagree about it at all is the reason they haven't been busted for making false claims.

[Bill Balmer]

Guess who drove to scout camp today, and having an 8-passenger vehicle saved another parent from needing to make the trip?

Couldn't have done THAT in a CX-9!