|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
poor review (Reply to this comment)
by rieri
How the hell are you reviewing vehicles based on test drives.
both the CX-9 and 7 handle much better than you give them credit for, they handle the best in the mountain curves, not on 10 minute test drives, the CX-9 and CX-7 return equal acceleration times - something that you seem to not note, and contradict by saying the CX-9 is slower.
Your reviews on both are awful.
|
May 21 '08
6:08 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Strange tasts! Reader aware (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh,  in Cars & Motorsports
It's when the emphasis is on handling that the CX-9 wins comparison tests and awards. De-emphasize handling, and you'll tilt the decision in a different direction.
The whole "if you want handling, buy a sports car" line is common, but reflects a shallow understanding of people's needs when buying a car. To whit:
--if you'll often be carting 3 children around, you'll rarely have an opportunity to drive a sports car; it does no good to own a sports car if you can rarely drive it
--owning and insuring two vehicles is much more expensive than owning and insuring one, especially if one of the two is a sports car
This, at least, is why I don't own a sports car. I want to enjoy the car I will be driving, not the one that will be sitting in the garage. I considered buying a Honda S2000 a few years ago. But it became clear that insurance alone would cost me about a dollar a mile, between the high price of insuring the car and the frequency with which I'd be able to drive it.
|
Jan 17 '08
6:22 am PST
|
|
Re: Strange tasts! Reader aware (Reply to this comment)
by sweeper
Hmmm. I'm a big fan of the CX-9 and wrote a review of the 2008 model in Epinions (http://www0.epinions.com/content_405428276868). The fact is that the CX-9 handles far better than much of its competition and as good as the rest. Another fact is that it's a tall wagon weighing over 4500 pounds with a lot of physics to contend with. I believe reviewer mkaresh states both points without understating either.
Indeed, push the car too much and the stability control kicks in with vigorous imposition. It'll never be confused for a Lotus Esprit in the handling department. Moreover, and more to the reality of comparison, It beats, but only barely, much of its competition.
Finally, I believe there is too much emphasis on handling when it comes to reviews on largish crossovers. It's true the new ones all handle better than SUVs which they replace but they aren't intended to replace sport sedans, most of which easily drive sportier. If one is really an enthusiast, one drives sport cars. For its intended use, the CX-9 handles very nicely at some expense of comfort.
If any CX-9 owner wants to wax indignant about criticism of the car, though, it would be fairly easy just to ask what other vehicle in the class received more accolades. The Mazda has a balance of design features and build quality that deserve praise. Griping that someone made a critical but true comment doesn't take away anything from the car.
|
Jan 16 '08
8:20 pm PST
|
|
Re: suggest an alternative? (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
If you liked the X3 except for the price, and the Mazda CX-7 didn't have a sporty enough feel, maybe an Acura RDX? It's be right around your limit.
I'd personally prefer a wagon to an SUV, but there aren't many available these days. A BMW 3 with no options might be possible for not far above $32,000. Others: Audi A3, 2007 Mazda6, 2007 Legacy (better handling than Outback, but no wagon for 2007), Outback, 9-3, V70.
If you can find a Mazda6 wagon out there, you can probably get a very good deal on it. Leftover 2007 9-3s 2007 V70s should also be heavily discounted, though I'm never a fan of Volvo steering and you might have had enough of Saab.
|
Sep 09 '07
6:33 am PDT
|
|
suggest an alternative? (Reply to this comment)
by brucec32
I felt much the same way driving the CX-7. It doesn't match the hype, unfortunately. So, any suggestions on a sub-$32K SUV/Crossover/wagon that actually IS fun to drive? I liked the '07 BMW X3 but not the price tag. I liked the Mazda3 5 door but prefer more power (a 40 mile commute on a 2 lane road where passing is a daily event), an auto transmission or very easy to drive and smooth manual (this leaves out the mazdaspeed3) and really prefer passive safety via more mass if my wife is the primary driver. She won't appreciate the tossability of a lighter car as much anyway. I don't mind small, but if it's small it has to be built like a tank.
|
Sep 08 '07
4:52 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Luxury apples and AWD apples. (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
If you're most used to driving a Honda Accord coupe, then that's your general reference point, whether you make it explicit or not, and whether you're aware of it or not.
And, now that I read your review of the Outlook--which contains some helpful insights I haven't read elsewhere--you do in fact compare the Outlook to the Accord, when discussing ride quality.
See how that happens?
Now how about your own review of the CX-9? You clearly don't agree with mine, so one from you would provide others with a different perspective.
|
Sep 07 '07
6:41 am PDT
|
|
Luxury apples and AWD apples. (Reply to this comment)
by nastacio
My Accord Coupe V6 with manual transmission also handles better than the CX-9 GT AWD I test-drove. I make my reference point as clear as I could, but it is still useless for someone considering the CX-9.
No need to get defensive by questioning my contributions. The review I wrote 3 years ago for a vehicle I actually owned was similar in size to the other reviews in the site; they were short, with only a few sentences as there were no professional reviewers here at that time.
As long as there is an implied notion of credit for criticism implied in your response, I wrote a review on the Saturn Outlook I test-drove last month (http://www.epinions.com/content_402538073732).
|
Sep 06 '07
8:47 pm PDT
|
|
Re: MDX comparison (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
Just noticed that you've only written one review yourself, and that was three years ago, and it earned a string of SH ratings. For me, it's actually close to a "helpful."
But since you know so much about how a review should be written, how about demonstrating this by writing more of your own?
|
Sep 06 '07
4:56 am PDT
|
|
Re: MDX comparison (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
I make it very clear where I'm talking about the Sport and where I'm talking about the Grand Touring. I talk about the Sport in my test drive evaluation, because that's the one I drove. I talk about the GT when comparing prices with the MDX, because it's the most comparable trim level to the MDX.
When a reference point is specified, it doesn't matter what the reference point is. I could compare the CX-9 to a Maybach or a Miata as long as it's clear what I'm comparing it to. Any reader could then judge for themselves whether this comparison is useful for them.
The problem with the comparisons in most reviews is that they're not explicit. You don't know what a person's reference point is. Are they used to driving a sports car, or a full-size SUV, when they describe a car's handling as "agile?"
Perhaps you're under some delusion that when people don't specify their reference points they're being more objective, and eveluating cars from some mythical universal standard of automotive perfection. Sorry, but such a standard doesn't exist. My reviews are impartial, but they aren't objective, because there's no way to write a totally objective review.
|
Sep 06 '07
4:53 am PDT
|
|
MDX comparison (Reply to this comment)
by nastacio
I am not a fan of the CX-9, it was just my first visit to the site and the review was odd, bringing in nimble compacts, Acuras, and minivans as points of comparison.
As for the pricing, you are right in that certain options will bring the prices of MDX and CX-9 very close, but some others will drive them farther apart. For instance, if you need the rear-entertainment DVD system, the MDX needs the technology package and will sticker at 46610, whereas the CX-9 will cost $38605 with similar options (minus sunroof, which can't be had with the DVD system.)
As long as "apples-to-apples" is being thrown around as a sign of impartial review and as an indictment of ill-conceived comments by would-be CX-9 fans, you proclaim the MDX much more fun to drive than a CX-9 in a completely different trim than the GT you tried to compare to the MDX.
After all, the model you test-drove had considerably smaller wheels (18 vs. 20) and taller tires than the GT. You even implied that AWD would have yielded a better driving experience when you wrote "if you want to put the power down in turns you'll want the all-wheel-drive".
|
Sep 05 '07
8:50 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Odd review (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
An opinionated review at a site called Epinions? Crazy.
The only thing inconsistent about this review is that it does not mindlessly praise everything about the CX-9, which is apparently what some fans want. And if I just wanted to get people to my site, that's exactly the sort of review I'd write.
Instead, I call them like I see them. And how I see them can be affected by other vehicles I've recently driven, which is why I make my reference points clear.
For what it's worth, the difference in price between an Acura MDX and Mazda CX-9 is well under $10,000 when the two are comparably equipped. Invoice to invoice the difference is half that. Adjust for feature differences and we'll talking about a difference under $4,000.
The only way to get a $10,000 price difference is to do what you guys say not to do, and compare a base level apple to a loaded up orange.
|
Sep 04 '07
5:15 am PDT
|
|
Odd review (Reply to this comment)
by nastacio
It is difficult to appreciate a review with so many inconsistencies. On a first drive, it feels like a minivan; then sit on a Veracruz for a while and the CX-9 feels sporty.
The Sport model competes with Veracruz/Pilot/Highlander but the GT competes with the MDX? How does a vehicle becomes a competitor to something 10K more expensive just because Mazda added 20" wheels and xenon headlights to it?
Even towards the end of this opinionated and negative review, the author still managed to fire one last cheap shot, stating that the price was right but he preferred his nimble compact.
I think this review was just a ruse to try and divert readers to the author's own website.
|
Sep 03 '07
7:46 pm PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Strange tasts! Reader aware (Reply to this comment)
by tommyeagle
I absolutely agree with nuetro99 accessment of your review! I have driven all of the vehicles you mentioned in your review and I frankly don't understand the confusing comparisons you offer.
To make it simple if you are looking for a crossover SUV in the $30k-40k price range, a 7 passenger seater, a car like drive with impressive handling, a responsively smooth drivetrain, a dynamicly designed exterior and interior, a vehicle that offers the most amenities for the least amount of cost...then the Mazda Cx-9 Touring or Grand Touring models beats them all hands down. The telling point is clear when you just compare the CX-9 GT with the Accura MDX. For $10k less why buy an MDX...there is not much difference but the price! I found your entire review constantly comparing apples and oranges...what's the point? If you know anything about cars you can't possibly tell me that the CX-9 is not a big winner! It is a BMW value at a Wallmart price!!!
|
Jun 13 '07
12:37 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Strange tasts! Reader aware (Reply to this comment)
by tommyeagle
I absolutely agree with nuetro99 accessment of your review! I have driven all of the vehicles you mentioned in your review and I frankly don't understand the confusing comparisons you offer.
To make it simple if you are looking for a crossover SUV in the $30k-40k price range, a 7 passenger seater, a car like drive with impressive handling, a responsively smooth drivetrain, a dynamicly designed exterior and interior, a vehicle that offers the most amenities for the least amount of cost...then the Mazda Cx-9 Touring or Grand Touring models beats them all hands down. The telling point is clear when you just compare the CX-9 GT with the Accura MDX. For $10k less why buy an MDX...there is not much difference but the price! I found your entire review constantly comparing apples and oranges...what's the point? If you know anything about cars you can't possibly tell me that the CX-9 is not a big winner! It is a BMW value at a Wallmart price!!!
|
Jun 13 '07
12:35 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Strange tasts! Reader aware (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
I assure you I did not creep around turns. I drove a couple times around a loop I used to like, and learned on the first pass where the few icy patches were.
The review makes my reference points clear, and also makes clear that I drove the FWD Sport, even saying that I intend to drive a GT in the future to confirm or revise my impressions. I don't think I could be more fair in this regard.
I do mention the Highlander and Pilot in the conclusion, but do not focus on them because they are the oldest vehicles in the segment and due to be replaced soon, the Toyota in a few months, the Honda a year or so from now. I see little point in dwelling on obviously outdated competitors. I've never cared for the handling of the Pilot, even when it was new.
|
Mar 14 '07
4:39 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Strange tasts! Reader aware (Reply to this comment)
by my1970mopar
My problem with the review is not that it's critical, it's just that he stated that the road condition was poor (and per later response sounds out right bad). Who's going to be taking a corner at 50 mph if there's ice on the road. You more likely to creep around corners if there's ice on the road, especially if the salesman is right next to you. I'm just using the judgement that to drive a car in the snow and ice with the salesman next to you and still have a great experience is not fair. You would have to be driving a corvette or some exotic car or perhaps an old classic to actually have fun cruising around slower than the posted speed limit while creeping around corners to ensure that you don't crash the vehicle. My 2 cents here would be, don't post a review just for the sake of posting a review and making money. Post b/c you indeed have an opinion of the car and you want to get it out there. This review doesn't help me one way or the other.
|
Mar 13 '07
8:16 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Strange tasts! Reader aware (Reply to this comment)
by amcdad
Mkaresh- Nothing personal here, but since you asked, in my opinion, the problem with your review is that it was unbalanced and premature (you should have waited until you drove the GT)
EXTERIOR: I think any reviewer who comments at length on exterior style is wasting space. Exterior style is very subjective- a positive or negative review is one thing, but it looks "like a boy who has outgrown his pants" is a bit much. Regardless, everyone is entitled to their opinion. Most professional reviewers (USA Today, MSNBC, Motortrend, Edmunds) have been positive about the look.
INTERIOR: This is a strong point for the CX-9, especially in the GT models. Every major reviewer of note has commented on it, using words such as upscale and modern (two tone, blue electroluminescent gauges, etc.). Your review gives very mild praise, but does not compare this interesting interior to the drab Outlook, Pilot, and Highlander interiors. In fact, no external comparison is made, which undermines the positives of the interior.
ACCOMMODATIONS: Here, you compare at length against the Outlook, and point taken, the Outlook offers more room. But, the third row of the CX-9, for example, is a huge improvement over almost every other third row offered by competing competition. One professional reviewer pointed out it is better than 95% of what is offered in the marker- highlighting an accurate positive. You focused on the Outlook and Freestyle (part of the 5% roomier), thus giving the impression that the accommodations were a problem. That type of targeted comparison is unbalanced, especially since the big players (Pilot/Highlander) are only mentioned in passing. Further, you questioned the cargo cubic foot claims not by taking your own measurements, but by how it looks to you. That helps give the impression that you are not being fair to the car.
HANDLING: Try the CX-9 GT with 20 inch rims. I drove the Acadia, and agree with every other professional reviewer that the GM does not compare to the CX-9 with respect to handling. Obviously, Mazda went for driving dynamics, GM for room, and they both did a pretty good job of balancing. But to state that the handling is in any way less interactive than the Outlook puts you in a decided minority. Also, again, no mention of the poor handling Pilot and Highlander here in your review. Instead, you mention the MDX, a vehicle that does not compete in any way with a FWD Sport. Just like it is unbalanced to pick the two crossovers with more room to benchmark, and give the impression of a lack of room, it is also unbalanced to benchmark the MDX against a Sport FWD, and give the impression of handling deficiencies.
In sum,if you are going to put out a review, I guess you open yourself up to praise and criticism. You may agree or disagree with the criticism, so be it. But your review is in a decided minority of professional reviewers and regular consumers (see Edmunds, Yahoo, etc. for consumer reviews), and considering the impact Epinions can have, someone with a differing view (like me) is obliged going to point the discrepancies.
I suppose I am opening myself up to criticism also by reviewing the vehicle, and if so, I look forward to reading it.
|
Mar 13 '07
7:22 am PDT
|
|
Re: Strange tasts! Reader aware (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
I make it very clear that I'm reviewing the Sport, and even state that a review of the GT might be more positive. I've been planning to drive a GT, but the weather in Michigan has not been cooperative in recent weeks.
If you read my review of the Pilot, you'll find that I'm very critical of how it handles.
Aside from the handling, in what other areas is my review "all wrong"?
|
Mar 13 '07
5:27 am PDT
|
|
Not a very helpful review (Reply to this comment)
by amcdad
I appreciate the intent, but this was not a very helpful review. How exactly can you compare the road test with an AWD Acura MDX when you drove a FWD Sport with 18 inchers? Drive the GT agressively, then compare it to an MDX (bearing in mind the value ratio- a fully loaded GT is about 10K less than comparable MDX).
Also, considering the competition is the Pilot and Highlander, why not discuss the different in drive experience there?
The Outlook is bigger, hands down. But, having driven an Acadia and GT CX-9, there is a difference- the CX-9 drive with more agility and much "smaller". (Numerous auto experts have noted that very same positive of the CX-9). And I am 6 feet tall and would be just fine in the third row for a trip to dinner, etc.
No, I am not a salesperson, but having shopped these vehicles against each other recently, I think that it is a bit unfair to the vehicle to take its base model and draw conclusions.
In my opinion, the CX-9 does a very nice job of balancing a fun to drive character with the typical needs of a family with 2 kids and a dog who sometimes transports the grandparents. The interior of the GT blows away its Toyota/Honda competition, and frankly, is nicer than an XC90's. The handling of the GT is excellent for a vehicle of this size. The only downside is the 263 HP may be a but less than needed for this heavy a vehicle. It is not slow, but I did wish the pick up was better.
USA Today, MSNBC, and Edmunds also have some good reviews of the CX-9.
|
Mar 11 '07
9:53 am PDT
|
|
Re: Zoom, zoom, zoom, (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
I enjoy a firm suspension when there's a payoff. Not enough of a payoff here.
|
Mar 07 '07
4:24 am PST
|
|
Zoom, zoom, zoom, (Reply to this comment)
by bettega
esta coche no es un.
Sorry for the joke. The "tzum, tzum, tzum" was taken from a Brazilian slave folk song sang for Capoeira, brazilian dance fighting. The crowd would sing as the "actors" would choreograph fight scenes. It's pretty impressive to watch! The original was "tzum tzum tzum Capoeira mata un" (Capoeira kills one more)
My spin on the song is "this car isn't one" meaning this car doesn't zoom.
Looking at our (hopefully) soon to expand number of offsptring I was looking at a Honda Odyssey as our next vehicle in the next few years. Perhaps I can hand down the Forester to my wife, get an STI and then trade in the ol' Toyota Tacoma, but that won't be for a while.
Well written review as usual, but you seem to not enjoy a more firm suspension which is surprising given how much you seem to be a car enthusiast.
Best wishes!
Ciao
Bettega
|
Mar 06 '07
7:41 am PST
|
|
Re: Hoping for an update. (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
I fully disclose the conditions to put my evaluations in the proper context.
And I would never want anyone to decide against taking a test drive based on one of my reviews. I see my reviews as informing a reader's own test drive, giving them tips on what to pay attention to, not as replacing such a test drive.
|
Feb 26 '07
7:03 am PST
|
|
Hoping for an update. (Reply to this comment)
by my1970mopar
I was a little saddened to see one of my favorite reviewers leave a review on the mazda i've been looking forward to for so long while driving on icy roads with a saleman in your car. Of course this would be a boring drive. You would be paying more attention to ice rather than seeing how it really performs. Consumer Reports and Motor Trends have both left positive, yet limited, reviews. I guess i just need to drive it myself to see what I think. If we get one, it will be my 4th mazda.
|
Feb 25 '07
12:55 pm PST
|
|
Hoping for an update. (Reply to this comment)
by my1970mopar
I was a little saddened to see one of my favorite reviewers leave a review on the mazda i've been looking forward to for so long while driving on icy roads with a saleman in your car. Of course this would be a boring drive. You would be paying more attention to ice rather than seeing how it really performs. Consumer Reports and Motor Trends have both left positive, yet limited, reviews. I guess i just need to drive it myself to see what I think. If we get one, it will be my 4th mazda.
|
Feb 25 '07
12:55 pm PST
|
|
Re: Mazdabaru CX-Tribeca (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
The CX-9 drives much like the CX-7, just a bit larger and slower, with a less sporty driving position. For a minivan, the MPV at least felt significantly more agile than most. I wouldn't say the same for the CXs--they feel larger and heavier than the MPV. Probably because they are.
The Mazda5 I have other issues with: I require three seats in the second row (three kids plus luggage) and the driving position is too much that of a minivan. The handling is very good, though.
|
Feb 09 '07
1:41 pm PST
|
|
Mazdabaru CX-Tribeca (Reply to this comment)
by openroad,  in Cars & Motorsports
The first look I had at the CX-7 I was mildly excited at a turbocharged SAV type crossover, after a rather short test drive with a tightly wound sales associate I was unimpressed and disappointed. It sounds as though the overall impression you got from the CX-9 was a bit of disappointment as well. It's too bad since Mazda has really hit a couple home runs in their product line (Mazdaspeed 3, Miata, RX-8), maybe some vehicles just don't respond to ZoomZoom-ification. That said, is the CX-9 worse than the MPV?
I'd probably just say forget the whole crossover thing and get a Mazda 5 if I had multiple small children, lower price and still quite versatile.
Great job on the review Michael as always, I enjoyed the read.
Abraham
|
Feb 06 '07
6:55 pm PST
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.