I currently use a Mazda Protege5 to transport three kids on a daily basis. My wife would prefer I substitute something larger, preferably with three rows of seats. I can see her point, but I insist on something fun to drive.

Perhaps Mazda's new CX-9 is the answer? After all, Mazdas do tend to handle better and to be more fun to drive than their competitors. The CX-9 is the brand's first large crossover.

I took my local dealer's first CX-9, a front-wheel-drive Sport (base), for a test drive to find out. I'll also say a few words about the uplevel interior, as I was able to sit in a Grand Touring a few weeks ago at the Detroit show.

Note: the first time I drove a CX-9 a salesperson came along, and there was some ice on the roads, so I didn't push the CX-9 as long or as hard as I would have preferred.

I've now taken a second test drive immediately after driving the new Hyundai Veracruz, with no salesperon and no ice on the roads. I wanted to drive the Grand Touring, with a nicer interior and low profile tires, but once again only a Sport was available. My updated impressions follow.

Styling

The seven-seat CX-9 looks much like the half-size smaller, five-seat CX-7, but with crisper, less cartoonish fenders. I don't care for the looks of either CX. On both, but especially on the CX-9, the front end is too blobby, amorphous, and anonymous. It's a generic economy car--just on stilts. Viewed from the bumpers up, both CX's look like cars. So why the SUV-like ride height? The visual effect is much like a boy who has outgrown his pants.

Also, as with the similarly styled Subaru Tribeca and upcoming Hyundai Veracruz, there's not enough wheelbase and too much overhang for a vehicle just under 200 inches in length. Buick's 2008 Enclave, which arrives this summer, does the curvy large crossover thing much better, with a bolder front end, a stronger stance, a longer wheelbase, and tidier overhangs.

The lower trim levels have 18-inch wheels that do not begin to fill the large wheel openings, which appear even larger than they are courtesy of a dark band of trim. The Grand Touring's 20s better fill the openings. Both wheels are of the multi-spoke variety. A smaller number of spokes would likely improve the CX-9's overall appearance.

Inside, it's a matter of trim levels. The dark cloth-trimmed Sport interior impressed me far less than the equally dark but leather-trimmed Grand Touring interior I sampled at the show. The cloth is too plain and lacks a premium look or feel. In contrast, the leather looks and feels at least mildly upscale.

As in the CX-7, Mazda has employed wide bands of faux metal trim, strips of piano black trim, and ungrained hard plastic to lend the interior a distinctively mod atmosphere. The CX-9 Sport interior does feel a bit more upscale than that of the CX-7, largely courtesy of nicely upholstered door panels.

The Grand Touring cranks the trim up another notch, substituting chrome-outlined faux wood for the piano black bits. I'm not often a fan of synthetic wood, but it works well in this case, lending some needed warmth to the cabin. In either trim, the armrests have well-padded, stitched covers, always a big plus in my book.

Accommodations

In an attempt at a sporty feel, the driving position in the Mazda CX-9 is different than that you'll find in other three-row crossovers. The center console is relatively high, wide, and prominent, and the windshield is raked far back. I like the console, but not the windshield.

I didn't mind the similarly raked windshield in the CX-7, but in Mazda's smaller crossover you sit significantly lower relative to the instrument panel, and farther from the upper A-pillars. In the CX-9, the tops of the pillars are closer to my face than I like. I drove a Saturn Outlook immediately afterwards, and preferred its more distant and more upright windshield.

Worst of all, despite the console and windshield angle I couldn't shake the feeling that I was sitting in the driver's seat of a minivan. The high sightline over the instrument panel, which I usually prefer for the superior forward visibility it provides, doesn't work here. I think the problem can be summed up in the form of two mathematical equations:

raked windshield low seating position = sports car

raked windshield high seating position = minivan

Update: I had less of a problem with the driving position the second time around, likely because I drove the Veracruz immediately beforehand. You sit considerably higher in the Hyundai. In comparison the driving position in the CX-9 actually feels sporty.

The CX-9's front seats feel less plush in cloth than I remember them feeling in leather, but still better than those in, say, the Suzuki XL7 I also drove today. The seats in the Saturn were less firmly foamed, almost to the point of feeling mushy. None of the three provides much in the way of lateral support, though the CX-9's were the best in a weak bunch.

Like that of the Outlook, the second row is too low to the floor to provide adults with any thigh support. This is a common minivan failing, but one that is shared by neither the Suzuki or the Ford Freestyle. A shame, since the seat itself is cushier than most second-row seats in such vehicles. Visibility forward is also not as good as that in most competitors, and is much worse than in the Suzuki and Ford. Essentially, second row passengers are treated to an excellent view of the first-row headrests.

The second row seats slide fore-aft. When all the way forward, there's not much legroom even with the front seats only three-quarters of the way back (where I naturally position them for my shortish, 30-inch inseam). With the front seats all the way back, the second row will also have to be all the way back to provide someone my size with an inch or so of knee clearance.

The fore-aft adjustment could be better, as its detents are few in number and about two inches apart. The Outlook's second row has about twice as many. Unlike in the Ford and Saturn, second-row captain's chairs are not available. Families with three or more children often insist on captain's chairs for access to the third row when the second row is filled with child seats.

Getting into the third row is much more difficult than in the Outlook or the Freestyle. The second row seatback tips forward and then the seat only slides forward a couple inches. The Hyundai uses a similar system. But unlike in the Mazda the second row returns to its previously selected position rather than re-latching in its fully forward position.

One advantage of the Mazda/Hyundai system is that you can still get to the third row when child seats are installed in the second row, since the seat does not tip to provide access.

Once there, I find space minimal for both my head and my knees with the second row all the way back. Moving the second row one detent forward helps. So, in terms of room, the CX-9 has just enough to provide just enough space for three people my size (5-9) to sit one behind the other. This is much better than in the Subaru Tribeca, but both the Saturn Outlook and Ford Freestyle have roomier second and third rows. The third row in the Hyundai is also a bit roomier.

In all three rows the Mazda falls between the commodious GM crossovers and the relatively compact Freestyle in cabin width, at shoulder level and even more at eye level (thank the curvy upper body). Like most competitors, but unlike the Saturn, the Mazda seats two and not three in the third row.

As in the Saturn, the cargo floor is fairly high off the ground (a deep storage well lies beneath). Credit the decision to fold the third row forward rather than stow it in an underfloor well, as in the Freestyle. The spec of 100 cubic feet, fourteen more than the Ford and 16 less than the Saturn, is enough to qualify as the second largest of any currently available crossover. My eyes just don't see this many cubes.I parked the Saturn and Mazda side by side. The GM vehicle is a bit wider, taller, and squarer in cross-section. In comparison, the Mazda's cargo volume appears tight.

Unlike the Ford's, but like the Saturn's, the Mazda's front passenger seat does not fold flat to enable extremely long items to be carried. The back two rows do fold flat fairly easily, and without having to remove any headrests.

On the Road

The first thing I notice about how the Mazda CX-9 drives, even before getting out of the parking lot, is its ride quality. While still far from harsh, the CX-9's ride is busier and includes sharper reactions when compared to that of the Outlook. This even though the CX-9 in question was fitted with the Sport's 18s rather than the Grand Touring's 20s, while the Saturn had the optional 19s. On the other hand, noise levels from all sources are low, so the CX-9 should serve well as a highway car.

The Hyundai does not ride as well. Most notably, tire impacts are much louder in the Veracruz.

Since ride quality is iffy, the handling must be spectacular, right? Well, no. I feel like I'm driving an exceptionally well-behaved minivan, with a moderate amount of lean in turns and good composure when said turns included a frost heave or two.

Problem is, good behavior is not the same as fun to drive. "This is fun" never enters my mind, as much as I want it to. I had much more fun driving the new Acura MDX, with which the Grand Touring competes. The Mazda's steering may be quick and communicative compared to that of other largish crossovers, but doesn't compare to that in a decent sport sedan. In casual driving, the CX-9 feels large rather than agile, only shrinking in perceived size when I pushed through its initial recalcitrance to hustle.

The Outlook feels even larger (it is about 400 pounds heavier), and isn't quite as composed over those mid-turn frost heaves, but somehow its reactions feel more fluid and natural to me. Where the Mazda obeys, the Saturn interacts.

The CX-9 fares better when compared to the Veracruz. The Hyundai's chassis is also composed, and lean in turns is moderate, but its steering is numb and it generally does not feel as responsive as the Mazda. When both were pushed, the Mazda felt distinctly sportier. That said, I still had to force myself to push the Mazda; it did not ask to be driven hard. Understeer is heavier than I'd prefer.

Temps are in the mid-teens, and I encounter a couple of icy patches during the test drive. The standard stability control works well.

Motivation is provided by a 3.5-liter DOHC V6, good for 263 horsepower at a reasonably accessible 6,250 rpm, couple to a six-speed automatic. You'll find the same engine but a different six-speed automatic in the related five-seat Ford Edge. As in the Edge, the engine is smooth, relatively quiet, and reasonably strong up top, but doesn't pack much midrange punch and generally lacks character. It moves the CX-9's 4,300 pounds well enough, especially once over 30 miles-per-hour, but doesn't excite. You'll find a similar power-to-weight ratio in Toyota's Sienna minivan. I more enjoyed the louder but also gutsier 3.6 in the Outlook.

The Hyundai's engine is quieter still, and doesn't feel as energetic as the Mazda's despite its larger displacement.

Even with front-wheel-drive there is little evidence of torque steer. Still, if you want to put the power down in turns you'll want the all-wheel-drive.

Mazda CX-9 Price Comparisons and Pricing

The Mazda CX-9 and Saturn Outlook in their base trims are very similar in feature levels and prices. The Mazda starts at $29,630. After a $250 adjustment for the Mazda's extra features, the Saturn comes in about $1,200 lower at MSRP and $600 lower at invoice.

On the other hand, compared to the Acura MDX, a $34,470 AWD CX-9 Grand Touring lists for about $6,200 less before adjusting for feature differences, and about $4,800 less afterwards. (The gaps narrow by about $1,200 when comparing invoices.)

So the prices seem competitive, if higher than people are used to spending for a Mazda.

Prices change frequently, and differences will vary based on feature level. To quickly generate these and other comparisons with the specific features you want, visit my Web site, www.truedelta.com. (It's the only site that provides true "apples-to-apples" price comparisons.)

TrueDelta's page for the Mazda CX-9:

http://www.truedelta.com/models/CX-9.php

Last Words

I wasn't as impressed by my test drives of front-wheel-drive Sports as I was by sitting in a Grand Touring at the auto show. I already knew I didn't care for the exterior styling. But the Sport interior also does not do much for me, and the driving experience is merely very competent rather than the promised "exhilarating." The van-like view forward doesn't help.

I liked the driving position and handling better the second time around. The CX-9 probably ranks second only to the Acura MDX among front-drive-based large crossovers. But this isn't the strongest praise.

On a functional level, there's more third-row room than you'll find in most crossovers, most notably the Honda Pilot and Toyota Highlander (Mazda's primary targets). But you'll find still more room, with easier access, in Ford's Freestyle and GM's large crossovers.

Negatives notwithstanding, there is also a lot to like about the CX-9. In Grand Touring trim, the interior has an upscale ambiance appropriate for the price. Adults will fit in all three rows. And the performance and handling are perhaps as good as you'll find in a 200-inch-long, 68-inch-tall, under-$40,000 vehicle, just not nearly good enough to make me willing to give up my nimble compact.

Note to Ford: bring over the S-Max.

About the star rating: I initially disliked the exterior styling and view from the driver's seat too much to give the CX-9 a fourth star, and I'm still not a fan. If I'd loved the driving experience, then this would have compensated, but I did not. I'd be much more comfortable giving the Grand Touring a fourth star.

But after driving the CX-9 back-to-back with the Hyundai Veracruz, I must admit that there are some things the Mazda does exceptionally well compared to the competition, specifically ride and handling. So although my gut still says three stars, my head says a fourth is required.

If you like the looks and view from the driver's seat, and have more reasonable expectations concerning the handling, feel free to give ift four stars or even five. The CX-9 is not for me, but that doesn't mean it's not perfect for you.

A Note on Mazda CX-9 Reliability

I cannot practically cover reliability within the context of this review. However, many people are interested in such information, so I've started collecting my own data. Results, once they are available, will be posted to my site, www.truedelta.com, with updates every three months.

Unlike other sources, TrueDelta will clearly identify what difference it will make if you buy a CX-9 rather than another vehicle by providing "times in the shop" and "days in the shop" stats (among others). You will be able to specify the number of years, annual miles, and types of repairs to include in Mazda CX-9 reliability comparisons.

Before I can report results, I need reliability data on all cars--not just the CX-9--from people like you. To encourage participation, those who help provide the data will receive free access to the site's reliability information. Non-participants will have to pay an access fee.

For the details, and to sign up, visit www.truedelta.com.

A link to this website and alphabetized links to my other vehicle reviews can be found on my profile page.

Some of my reviews of related vehicles:
Acura MDX review
Audi Q7 review
Ford Freestyle review
Honda Odyssey review
Honda Pilot review
Mazda CX-7 review
Saturn Outlook review