2005 Mazda 6 S on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2016 Mazda CX-9 First Drive

Automotive enthusiasts tend to obsess over spec sheets. How else could we know which cars and trucks are the quickest in a straight line, hold the road with the greatest tenacity, or tow the biggest trailers? More succinctly, what ammunition would we have in the seemingly endless back-and-forth of Internet forums if it weren't for specifications? Mazda's engineers think they've found a better way. The 2016 CX-9 has less horsepower than its primary competitors. The only engine available is a turbocharged four-cylinder, hooked to a six-speed automatic. Drivers won't miss the 23 horsepower (or more, as we'll soon explain) lost in the changeover from 2015 to 2016, because Mazda applied its holistic Skyactiv approach to the largest vehicle it offers. That means less weight and, ultimately, more fun. Or so they say. Are they right? Yes. And no. Most of the time, in normal on-road driving conditions, the 2016 CX-9 is the most fun you can have with three rows. But the real-world tradeoff didn't go off completely without a hitch. Reasoning that real-world performance is more important than ultimate horsepower, Mazda specified a four-cylinder for its big, three-row SUV instead of a more traditional V6. Let's get those all-important specifications out of the way: All 2016 Mazda CX-9s are fitted with a 2.5-liter turbocharged four-cylinder with 250 horsepower and, impressively, 310 pound-feet of torque at just 2,000 rpm. Unless you decide to use 87 octane, in which case you'll be limited to 227 horsepower. Mazda doesn't think owners will actually notice the difference in power levels, so there's no Premium Fuel Recommended sticker on the back of the fuel door. Mazda utilized some clever turbo trickery to deliver a diesel-like torque curve from its gasoline-fueled engine, which makes the small-displacement powerplant feel lively at low engine speeds. The flipside is that the CX-9 runs out of breath as the needle swings across the upper reaches of the tach. While that simply wouldn't do for a sportscar like the MX-5, in the CX-9 it's not necessarily a deal breaker. One benefit to the downsized engine is that it doesn't guzzle fuel. The EPA rates the CX-9 at 22 miles per gallon in the city and 28 on the highway. Drop one mpg all around for the all-wheel-drive model. Those figures beat out all the CX-9's most natural competitors, including the Honda Pilot and Toyota Highlander. The turbo-four Ford Explorer matches the 28-mpg highway figure, but loses by three in the city.

Mazda3 sedan revealed by Top Gear Russia [w/poll]

Thanks to our comrades at Top Gear Russia, the trickling reveal of the Mazda3 sedan has begun. We saw the hatch in person in New York (and loved it), and we wanted to see if the trunked version could hold onto the same mojo. If you like the Mazda6, then you should like the Mazda3 because it takes just about everything from its toothsome big brother and shrinks it into a compact package.
Top Gear Russia was allowed to share photographs of the Mazda sedan they call "Treshka" (or they leaked them, depending on whom you talk to), but not their drive impressions. The site page says it will come in four trims for the Russian market - Drive, Active, Active+ and Supreme - and offer three engines. Our specifications will certainly differ. Other than that, all we have to go on are the looks, which some may argue are even better than the hatch thanks to a trunk line that provides more balance to that long hood up front.
The Mazda3 will go on sale later this year and US prices should be announced in September. For the time being, content yourself with the gallery of high-res images above.

A tough choice: 2017 Honda CR-V vs. 2017 Mazda CX-5

One has to feel for the typical new-car buyer. The one not reading Autoblog and the one who recognizes a V8 as vegetable juice. For them, picking between compact crossovers must seem like choosing between various identically sized cardboard boxes. Which one do you want? "Ah, I'll take the one with the best deal." Except, with the 2017 Honda CR-V and now the 2017 Mazda CX-5, Joe P. Everyman has a chance to choose between two vehicles that are quite clearly different, yet also clearly leaders in what they do. Everything else seems like alternatives based on price or perhaps off-road readiness (Jeeps Compass and Cherokee, perhaps a Subaru Forester). As scheduling would have it, a 2017 CR-V Touring just happened to be sitting in my garage the week I was set to drive the new CX-5 Grand Touring in San Diego. This isn't a complete, scientifically enacted comparison test, but there was enough drive time in close succession on the same roads and with similar price tags to draw conclusions. At its simplest, the CX-5 is the best choice for the driver while the CR-V is the best choice for everyone else aboard. That's not to say they are myopic in those classifications – the CX-5 could still ably handle family duty, while the CR-V is impressively well-rounded to drive in a way that shouldn't turn off those seeking some driving involvement. However, each has a clear focus that sets it down a different path toward different target buyers. Let's start with the newer kid on the block from Mazda. It is best suited for the person whose life changes have dictated the switch from an agile car to some sort of family hauler. Its spot-on steering and throttle response evoke Porsche, while the six-speed automatic transmission favors performance over fuel economy (while still getting really good fuel economy). Those dynamic elements, plus a carefully crafted, ideal driving position should make the CX-5 feel "just right" for those used to more sporting, non-family-oriented transport. Inside, the latest CX-5 boasts a handsome, upscale design with materials to match. Aesthetically, to these eyes at least, it's the best of a crowded bunch. Quality-wise, only the also-impressive CR-V would seem to come close. Along with the slick new exterior, the cabin conveys the more premium vibe that Mazda was shooting for with the new CX-5 – it also makes a more emotional connection than the typical cardboard box on wheels.