i drove one for bout 2 hrs. Was real impressed with all it's features, it was cheaper, I liked the slap stick for the gears, the look was good but the interior wasn't large enough for me. The center console came up very hig and gave me the feeling of setting down in a pit. It was also not comforable the way my knee rested up against the side of it.
This was the major reason for not going Mazda.

Acadia- after looking at the Outlooks I went to GMC and drove the Acadia and found that it was very roomy and compy. Had the 6 cyl . with some hp and torque and it LOOKED alot beefier than most of the cuv's. Got a good price on the vehicle I wanted ......BAM I'm an owner.

 

Thanks for the feedback....I'll keep them in mind when I test drive the CX-9, although, we've pretty much are going for the Acadia.

 

There's a member on here (doglover931500) that has ordered one of each! I think the acadia is in, but not the cx-9 yet, but I could be wrong. doglover - you here?

 

I am...my Mazda isn't in yet, but the last I heard, it was on the boat travelling overseas...should be here in 2ish weeks. I'll give an in-depth review then

 

The CX-9 is really a nice vehicle. I loved the way that it looked. However, I chose an Acadia for three reasons:

1. More storage space behind the third row seat. We are counting on this vehicle for our summer vacations and room for luggage is a must.
2. The ride is quite stiff. This results in great handling in corners etc, but as a family wagon, it is quite rigid and you feel most every crack in the highway.
3. No option for captains seats in the middle row. This means that the kids can't simply walk between the captains chairs to get to the third row. Instead they would always have to slide the middle bench forward.

Good on Mazda though. A great car that I'm sure will sell a ton.

 

The CX-9 is really a nice vehicle. I loved the way that it looked. However, I chose an Acadia for three reasons:

1. More storage space behind the third row seat. We are counting on this vehicle for our summer vacations and room for luggage is a must.
2. The ride is quite stiff. This results in great handling in corners etc, but as a family wagon, it is quite rigid and you feel most every crack in the highway.
3. No option for captains seats in the middle row. This means that the kids can't simply walk between the captains chairs to get to the third row. Instead they would always have to slide the middle bench forward.

Good on Mazda though. A great car that I'm sure will sell a ton.

I'm considering both them currently and your reasons are exactly why I'm leaning towards the Acadia. I like the sleek look of the CX-9, but the additional room of the Acadia makes a difference with 2 kids.

 

I was between CX-9, MDX and Acadia.
CX-9 can only tow 3,500 pounds, MDX quite a bit more money and High Test Only.
Acadia - I have not found anything I do not like yet (of course, I have only had it a half a day so far).

 

I drove a CX-9 Grand Touring last night. It was nice, but with the 20" wheels I found the ride somewhat harsh. Because I want memory seats, I would have to go with the GT that has the 20s. I also want bucket seats and need more space than the CX-9 offers. I could not adjust all three rows to be comfortable for me (6'0" tall) at the same time. One thing I liked though was that the visibility seemed to be better out the rear of the CX-9 than it is from the Acadia. That surprised me somewhat given the styling of the CX-9's rear end. Overall Acadia is still my clear top choice.

 

What great feedback, thank you all. One of the main reasons we are going with the Acadia as opposed to the CX-9 or MDX is because of the captain chairs in the second row. I have two daughters both still in a car seat. Those car seats are attached to the second row. If bench seats are used, then access to the third row is very hard since the second row cannot slide. With the captain chairs you can slide between the chairs to access the third row.

 

Agreed. Same with us. Like I've mentioned in many other threads, the Capts chairs are THE big differentiator from practically ALL competitors. We didn't even bother to drive the CX9 because of that missing feature.

 

I really really LOVED the captain's chairs in my husband's Acadia, but I couldn't bring myself to buy the Enclave or wait until summer for it. That said, I am really excited for my CX-9! I will post a lengthy review when it arrives!

 

Looking forward to reading your review.

 

I am reposting this from the Veracruz vs CX-9 topic which I went off topic to compare the Acadia vs CX-9:


Well, I also drove a CX-9 yesterday (Friday), an hour or two before I found out that my Acadia was at the dealer and being prepped. I was becoming frustrated with how long the Acadia was taking as well as I was intrigued by the back-up camera in the Nav. I went during lunch, with two of my large coworkers who sat in the 2nd row. Here are some of my findings:

Ride and Comfort - Acadia wins hands down. Our new Acadia with the 18" rides smoother by far than the Grand Touring CX-9 with 20" rims. Quieter, smoother. --

Handling-- the CX-9 wins IMO. That is not to say I am not completely satisfied with the Acadia. Today I took it on a windy 2-lane, and the Acadia handled better at speed through turns than my Mustang does. In the CX-9, we had taken a cloverleaf which was fairly well torn up from trucks, and never stopped accelerating through it--wheels were leaving the ground, but the CX-9 was just solid. The CX-9 is a few hundred pounds lighter, but the size is very close, the Acadia is about 2 inches longer and 2 inches wider-- but the Acadia seems like a large SUV, and the CX-9 seems more like a midsize or smaller -- in some ways it seems like you are driving a much smaller vehicle - like a Jeep SUV.

Comfort-- the front seats in the Acadia are way more comfortable. The CX-9 seats were roomy, but it seemed there was too much pressure into my thighs. The Acadia on the other hand just is great. The seats are not as soft as our Grand Cherokee Limited were, but the additional support and firmness will actually be better on a trip I think. My two large buddies reported they were very comfortable in the second row of the CX-9, but it looks like the Acadia has much more legroom from the Smartslide. The entry/exit on the CX-9 sucks compared to the Acadia, I think it made about 8" of floor available for stepthrough-- Mazda screwed up on that, for that much space, if you don't have the smartslide, then you need to go to fold up method like the Envoy XL or Armada (a lot of others fold in the way I am thinking, but these two are the only examples I can state).

Another thing on comfort, it seemed like the controls for the external mirrors are just a long way away in the CX-9.

And another note on entry/exit. The backdoors of the CX-9 are "BIG". The Acadia doors are just 'big'. Where the Acadia doors are rectangular, like a rear door on a truck, the CX-9 doors are shaped to accomodate the rear wheel (like the rear doors on a car), but at the widest point, I think are much wider than the Acadia. First thing I did on the Acadia was put on edge strips on the doors, so my Mustang won't pick up dings in the garage, but as long as we are parked right, the Acadia doors can open fully, and not hit the Mustang-- the CX-9 would probably contact the canvas roof or the passenger windows of the Mustang, but it would be hitting the Mustang a lot.

Visibility - One reason I wanted to drive the CX-9 was for the rear view camera, and that is the ONLY place where visibility was better in the CX-9. You cannot tell where the front of the Acadia or the CX-9 is, but you see almost NO hood in the CX-9- this is always disconcerting to me. Mazda might as well have put sheet metal over the 3rd row windows, I could not see anything from the drivers seat. The side mirrors were lacking in the CX-9-- I would prefer they be even larger in the Acadia, but they are sufficient, with the CX-9 they were just too tiny. I was having trouble merging on the interstate with the CX-9.

Room and storage-- I already stated that I think you get more 2nd row room in the Acadia.. Drop the 3rd rows, and the Acadia has more room for storage behind row 2. The Acadia has a little more behind row 3. The Acadia is loaded with bins and compartments - the CX-9 is not.

This is all seems to say I prefer the Acadia-- and I do for what I bought it for. I drive it for trips and for family outings. It is my wifes car for getting groceries and taking the kid to school and such. We wanted smooth and quiet, and even considered waiting for an Enclave, except we wanted HUD (BTW, not avail on CX-9) -- and also we prefer to think (fooling ourselves) we are too young for Buick. // But if I was buying my daily driver, one to drive to work, one to drive to the golf course, and then to use for trips as a secondary purpose-- I would probably prefer the CX-9. To borrow their phrase, there is more zoom-zoom to it. Mazda is missing an opportunity by not having a smoother ride available for the CX-9 top trim. You can make a sport top trim with the 20" rims, but they should also make one smooth and comfortable just as GMC has made available with the 18"s still available on the SLT2.

And GMC needs to get that back-up camera in the Acadia and other Lambdas PDQ.

 

In the CX-9, we had taken a cloverleaf which was fairly well torn up from trucks, and never stopped accelerating through it--wheels were leaving the ground, but the CX-9 was just solid.


Could you clarify this please.



Thanks, Dan

 

In the CX-9, we had taken a cloverleaf which was fairly well torn up from trucks, and never stopped accelerating through it--wheels were leaving the ground, but the CX-9 was just solid.

Until A Carbon / Brick w/ 19's Acadia Snuck inside me on the low line LOL.

 

In the CX-9, we had taken a cloverleaf which was fairly well torn up from trucks, and never stopped accelerating through it--wheels were leaving the ground, but the CX-9 was just solid.


Could you clarify this please.

We took an exit which entered another highway, and then exited back onto the expressway we were just on. I had slowed to about 35 at the start of the turn and then accelerated to about 65 or so by the end of the turn. Since the exit is used for a few thousand trucks a day (it is one of the two exits from the interstates going to FedEx) it was pretty much rubble, with a little bit of pavement -- I would say pretty much through the whole turn, there was a wheel that either was on loose rubble or possibly off the ground. It didn't say much for the ride of the CX-9, but it did say alot about the handling and the ESC. I have no doubt that the Acadia would do the same thing, but because of the stiffer CX-9 ride, I felt more in control with the CX-9. In my opinion a comfortable ride is inversely proportional to the feel of good handling. I also think that the acceleration was a bit faster with the CX-9, but with less HP, I would attribute that to the lighter weight of the CX-9.

And the Acadia with 19's might handle similarly, but from my one test drive with the 19's I don't think so, but I can't be sure without putting one in the same place. And I can tell you I won't put my Acadia on that exit!! My wife and I were more concerned about comfort than the feel of good handling. As far as true handling performance, the Acadia with 18's is the best either of us think we have ever driven. The ESC is amazing. To go on a windy road and take turns faster in the Acadia than I do in my Mustang says alot.

 

To go on a windy road and take turns faster in the Acadia than I do in my Mustang says alot.

I find this true over and over again. And, with no or very little body sway. As I've said on other threads here, Acadia hugs the road better than SUVs, most wagons, etc. A sports car is a different issue.

We, too, seriously considered the CX-9. Agree with much of what was said in other postings on this thread. In addition, I found the front cabin and driver's seat very confining, the center console was too high, and the center dash controls were not as intuitive as in the Acadia. Finally, the Acadia is a much better "fit" for both of us. I'm sure the CX-9 will sell very well and will be a very good auto. Am very interested in "doglover's" side-by-side comparison of Acadia and CX-9 when it arrives.

 

The CX-9 is really a nice vehicle. I loved the way that it looked. However, I chose an Acadia for three reasons:

1. More storage space behind the third row seat. We are counting on this vehicle for our summer vacations and room for luggage is a must.
2. The ride is quite stiff. This results in great handling in corners etc, but as a family wagon, it is quite rigid and you feel most every crack in the highway.
3. No option for captains seats in the middle row. This means that the kids can't simply walk between the captains chairs to get to the third row. Instead they would always have to slide the middle bench forward.

What amazes me is that the most obvious, practical reasons (more space, better MPG's on REGULAR gas) never really comes up in this thread! I'm a former Mazda owner who also considered both the CX-7 and CX-9 but thought they had way less useable space and require premium fuel to run! No brainer for me! hno:

 

The CX-9 is really a nice vehicle. I loved the way that it looked. However, I chose an Acadia for three reasons:

1. More storage space behind the third row seat. We are counting on this vehicle for our summer vacations and room for luggage is a must.
2. The ride is quite stiff. This results in great handling in corners etc, but as a family wagon, it is quite rigid and you feel most every crack in the highway.
3. No option for captains seats in the middle row. This means that the kids can't simply walk between the captains chairs to get to the third row. Instead they would always have to slide the middle bench forward.

What amazes me is that the most obvious, practical reasons (more space, better MPG's on REGULAR gas) never really comes up in this thread! I'm a former Mazda owner who also considered both the CX-7 and CX-9 but thought they had way less useable space and require premium fuel to run! No brainer for me! hno:

The CX-9 does not require premium fuel. The CX-7 does.

 

Am very interested in "doglover's" side-by-side comparison of Acadia and CX-9 when it arrives.

...I just got bad news...now my CX-9 won't be coming until the second week of May :banghead: because there is a rail strike, not sure if it is the Canadian one? So it may be a while before the comparison, but I will post many pictures and a lenghty review to make up for it. ;D

 

See there? Acadia's aren't the only vehicles that are having long wait times. Sorry to hear that doglover. I'm looking forward to your unique perspective comparison. I wonder if you'll be the first family in America to own both of these new vehicles?

 

I have seen a ton of CX-9s...and only four Acadia's on the road so far (and one being an Acadia that slammed into the back of my car).

 

...I just got bad news...now my CX-9 won't be coming until the second week of May :banghead: because there is a rail strike, not sure if it is the Canadian one? So it may be a while before the comparison, but I will post many pictures and a lenghty review to make up for it. ;D

With you being in MN, it might be-- but I thought the CN strike was over.

I was told that all the CX-9s were prepped for America in San Antonio, I think? I want to say the dealer said that they entered via LA or some west coast port, and then went train to San Antonio.

The part that was strange about that to me is if you already have a boat coming from Japan, is it less expensive to ship via train, than boat it all the way to Texas and then go a short land trip to San Antonio? Maybe the ship is too big for the Panama Canal.

 

I saw my first CX-9 in the wild this morning while dropping my son off at school. I still have not seen an Acadia or Outlook on the road in Omaha. Also, the Mazda dealer I went to for a test drive had a lot more inventory of CX-9s than the GMC dealers have of Acadias. They had about 20 CX-9s listed in inventory on their web site. Local GMC dealers have not had more than 3-5 Acadias in stock at any time I've checked.

 

...I just got bad news...now my CX-9 won't be coming until the second week of May :banghead: because there is a rail strike, not sure if it is the Canadian one? So it may be a while before the comparison, but I will post many pictures and a lenghty review to make up for it. ;D

I was told that all the CX-9s were prepped for America in San Antonio, I think? I want to say the dealer said that they entered via LA or some west coast port, and then went train to San Antonio.

The part that was strange about that to me is if you already have a boat coming from Japan, is it less expensive to ship via train, than boat it all the way to Texas and then go a short land trip to San Antonio? Maybe the ship is too big for the Panama Canal.

You heard wrong!

They come in at the Tacoma, WA port and another port in CA.

Anywhere else??????????