Jump to content
  • William Maley
    William Maley

    Review: 2018 Mazda CX-9 vs. Volkswagen Atlas

      Taking the temperature of the large three-row crossover

    The three-row full-size crossover has taken the place of large SUVs as the vehicle of choice for growing families. Crossovers offer the tall ride height and large space, but not at the cost of fuel economy and ride quality. Recently, I spent a week in the 2018 Mazda CX-9 and Volkswagen Atlas. These two models could not be any different; one is focused on providing driving enjoyment, while the other is concerned about providing enough space for cargo and passengers. Trying to determine which one was the best would prove to be a difficult task.

    Exterior

    There is no contest between these two when it comes to design as the CX-9 blows the Atlas out of the water. The overall look balances aggressive and elegance traits. For the front, Mazda has angled the clip to give off a sporting profile while a large grille and a set of slim headlights accentuate this. Move around to the side and you’ll notice the CX-9 has quite a long front end and the rear roof pillars are angled slightly forward. These design cues help make the CX-9 look slightly smaller than it actually is.

    Someone once described a Volkswagen vehicle as “looking like a bit of a square, but a posh square.” That’s how I would sum up the Atlas’ design; it is basically a box on wheels. There are some nice touches such as the LED headlights that come standard on all models and chunky fenders. The 18-inch alloy wheels that come with the SE w/Technology look somewhat small on the Atlas, but that is likely due to the large size of the vehicle.

    Interior

    The Atlas’ interior very much follows the ideals of the exterior, which are uncomplicated and utilitarian. While it does fall flat when compared to the CX-9’s luxury design, Volkswagen nails the ergonomics. Most of the controls are within easy reach of driver and passenger. One touch that I really like is the climate control slightly angled upward. Not only does this make it easier to reach, but you can quickly glance down to see the current settings. There is only a small amount of soft-touch material used throughout the Atlas’ interior, the rest being made up of hard plastics. While that is slightly disappointing as other crossovers are adding more soft-touch materials, Volkswagen knows that kids are quite rough to vehicles.

    If there is one benefit to Volkswagen’s plain styling on the outside, it is the massive interior. I haven’t been in such a spacious three-row crossover since the last GM Lambda I drove. Beginning with the third-row, I found that my 5’9” frame actually fit with only my knees just touching the rear of the second-row. Moving the second row slightly forward allows for a little more legroom. Getting in and out of the third-row is very easy as the second-row tilts and moves forward, providing a wide space. This particular tester came with a second-row bench seat. A set of captain chairs are available as an option on SE and above. Sitting back here felt like I was in a limousine with abundant head and legroom. The seats slide and recline which allows passengers to find that right position. The only downside to both rear rows is there isn’t enough padding for long trips. For the front seat, the driver gets a ten-way power seat while the passenger makes do with only a power recline and manual adjustments. No complaints about comfort as the Atlas’ front seats had the right amount of padding and firmness for any trip length.

    The cargo area is quite huge. With all seats up, the Atlas offers 20.6 cubic feet of space. This increases to 55.5 cubic feet when the third-row is folded and 96.8 cubic feet with both rows folded. Only the new Chevrolet Traverse beats the Atlas with measurements of 23, 58.1, and 98.2 cubic feet.

    As a way to differentiate itself from other automakers, Mazda is trying to become more premium. This is clearly evident in the CX-9’s interior. The dash is beautiful with contouring used throughout, and a mixture of brushed aluminum and soft-touch plastics with a grain texture. If I were to cover up the Mazda badge on the steering wheel and ask you to identify the brand, you might think it was from a German automaker. Ergonomics aren’t quite as good as the Atlas as you have to reach for certain controls like those for the climate system.

    The CX-9’s front seats don’t feel quite as spacious when compared to the Atlas with a narrow cockpit and the rakish exterior are to blame. Still, most drivers should be able to find a position that works. The seats themselves have a sporting edge with increased side bolstering and firm cushions. I found the seats to be quite comfortable and didn’t have issues of not having enough support. Moving to the second row, Mazda only offers a bench seat configuration. This is disappointing considering all of the CX-9’s competitors offer captain chairs as an option. There is more than enough legroom for most passengers, but those six-feet and above will find headroom to be a bit tight. Getting into the third-row is slightly tough. Like the Atlas, the CX-9’s second row slides and tilts to allow access. But space is noticeably smaller and does require some gymnastics to pass through. Once seated, I found it to be quite cramped with little head and legroom. This is best reserved for small kids.

    Cargo area is another weak point to the CX-9. With both back seats up, there is only 14.4 cubic feet. This puts it behind most of the competition aside from the GMC Acadia which has 12.8. It doesn’t get any better when the seats are folded. With the third-row down, the CX-9 has 38.2 cubic feet. Fold down the second-row and it expands to 71.2 cubic feet. To use the GMC Acadia again, it offers 41.7 cubic feet when the third-row is folded and rises to 79 with both rows. Keep in mind, the Acadia is about six inches shorter than the CX-9.

    Infotainment

    All CX-9’s come equipped with the Mazda Connect infotainment system. The base Sport comes with a 7-inch touchscreen, while the Touring and above use a larger 8-inch screen. A rotary knob and set of redundant buttons on the center console control the system. Using Mazda Connect is a bit of a mixed bag. The interface is beginning to look a bit dated with the use of dark colors and a dull screen. Trying to use the touchscreen is an exercise in frustration as it is not easy to tell which parts are touch-enabled and not. On the upside, moving around Mazda Connect is a breeze when using the knob and buttons. Currently, Mazda doesn’t offer Apple CarPlay or Android Auto compatibility. Thankfully, this is being remedied with the 2019 model as Touring models and above will come with both.

    For the Atlas, Volkswagen offers three different systems. A 6.5-inch touchscreen is standard on the S. Moving up to either the SE, SE w/Technology, or SEL nets you an 8-inch screen. The top line SEL Premium adds navigation to the 8-inch system. All of the systems feature Apple CarPlay and Android Auto compatibility. The current Volkswagen system is one of the easiest to use thanks in part to intuitive menu structure and quick responses. Moving through menus or presets is easy as the system reacts to the swiping gesture like you would do on your smartphone. There are a couple of downsides to the Volkswagen system. One is there is no haptic feedback when pressing the shortcut buttons on either side of the screen. Also, the glass surface becomes littered with fingerprints very quickly. 

    I did have an issue with the system when trying to use Apple CarPlay. At times, applications such as Spotify would freeze up. I could exit out to the CarPlay interface, but was unable to get the apps unfrozen until I shut the vehicle off. After resetting my iPhone, this problem went away. This leaves me wondering how much of this problem was with my phone and not the infotainment system.

    Powertrain

    Both of these crossovers are equipped with turbocharged four-cylinder engines. The CX-9 has a 2.5L producing either 227 or 250 (on premium fuel) horsepower and 310 pound-feet of torque. The Atlas has a 2.0L producing 235 horsepower and 258 pound-feet. An optional 3.6L V6 with 276 horsepower is available for the Atlas. For the Mazda, power is routed to a six-speed automatic and the choice of front or all-wheel drive. The Volkswagen makes do with an eight-speed automatic and front-wheel drive only. If you want AWD, you need the V6.

    Thanks to its higher torque figure, the CX-9 leaves the Atlas in the dust. There is barely any lag coming from the turbo-four. Instead, it delivers a linear throttle response and a steady stream of power.  NVH levels are noticeably quieter than the Atlas’ turbo-four. The six-speed automatic delivers seamless shifts and is quick to downshift when you need extra power such as merging.

    The turbo-four in the Atlas seems slightly overwhelmed at first. When leaving a stop, I found that there was a fair amount of turbo-lag. This is only exacerbated if the stop-start system is turned on. Once the turbo was spooling, the four-cylinder did a surprising job of moving the 4,222 pound Atlas with no issue. Stab the throttle and the engine comes into life, delivering a smooth and constant stream of power. The eight-speed automatic provided quick and smooth shifts, although it was sometimes hesitant to downshift when more power was called for.

    Fuel Economy

    Both of these models are close in fuel economy. EPA says the CX-9 AWD should return 20 City/26 Highway/23 Combined, while the Atlas 2.0T will get 22/26/24. During the week, the CX-9 returned 22.5 mpg in mostly city driving and the Atlas got 27.3 mpg with a 60/40 mix of highway and city driving. The eight-speed transmission in the Atlas makes a huge difference.

    Ride & Handling

    The CX-9 is clearly the driver’s choice. On a winding road, the crossover feels quite nimble thanks to a well-tuned suspension. There is a slight amount of body roll due to the tall ride height, but nothing that will sway your confidence. Steering has some heft when turning and feels quite responsive. Despite the firm suspension, the CX-9’s ride is supple enough to iron out most bumps. Only large imperfections and bumps would make their way inside. Barely any wind and road noise made it inside the cabin.

    The Atlas isn’t far behind in handling. Volkswagen’s suspension turning helps keep body roll in check and makes the crossover feel smaller than it actually is. The only weak point is the steering which feels somewhat light when turning. Ride quality is slightly better than the CX-9 as Atlas feels like riding on a magic carpet when driving on bumpy roads. Some of this can be attributed to smaller wheels. There is slightly more wind noise coming inside the cabin.

    Value

    It would be unfair to directly compare these two crossovers due to the large gap in price. Instead, I will be comparing them with the other’s similar trim.

    The 2018 Volkswagen Atlas SE with Technology begins at $35,690 for the 2.0T FWD. With destination, my test car came to $36,615, The Technology adds a lot of desirable features such as three-zone climate control, adaptive cruise control, automatic emergency braking, blind spot monitoring with rear-cross traffic alert, forward collision warning, and lane departure alert. The Mazda CX-9 Touring is slightly less expensive at $35,995 with destination and matches the Atlas on standard features, including all of the safety kit. But we’re giving the Atlas the slight edge as you do get more space for not that much more money.

    Over at the CX-9, the Grand Touring AWD begins at $42,270. With a couple of options including the Soul Red paint, the as-tested price came to $43,905. The comparable Atlas V6 SEL with 4Motion is only $30 more expensive when you factor in destination. Both come closely matched in terms of equipment with the only differences being the Grand Touring has navigation, while the SEL comes with a panoramic sunroof. This one is a draw as it will come down whether space or luxury is more important to you.

    Verdict

    Coming in second is the Mazda CX-9. It may have the sharpest exterior in the class, a premium interior that could embarrass some luxury cars, and pleasing driving characteristics. But ultimately, the CX-9 falls down on the key thing buyers want; space. It trails most everyone in passenger and cargo space. That is ultimately the price you pay for all of the positives listed. 

    For a first attempt, Volkswagen knocked it out of the park with the Atlas. It is a bit sluggish when leaving a stop and doesn’t have as luxurious of an interior as the CX-9. But Volkswagen gave the Atlas one of the largest interiors of the class, a chassis that balances a smooth ride with excellent body control, impressive fuel economy, and a price that won’t break the bank.

    Both of these crossovers are impressive and worthy of being at the top of the consideration list. But at the end of the day, the Atlas does the three-row crossover better than the CX-9.

    Disclaimer: Mazda and Volkswagen Provided the Vehicles, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas

    Year: 2018
    Make: Mazda
    Model: CX-9
    Trim: Grand Touring AWD
    Engine: Turbocharged 2.5L Skyactiv-G Four-Cylinder
    Driveline: Six-Speed Automatic, All-Wheel Drive
    Horsepower @ RPM: 227 @ 5,000 (Regular), 250 @ 5,000 (Premium)
    Torque @ RPM: 310 @ 2,000 rpm
    Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 20/26/23
    Curb Weight: 4,361 lbs
    Location of Manufacture: Hiroshima, Japan
    Base Price: $42,470
    As Tested Price: $43,905 (Includes $940.00 Destination Charge)

    Options:
    Soul Red Metallic - $595.00
    Cargo Mat - $100.00

    Year: 2018
    Make: Volkswagen
    Model: Atlas
    Trim: 2.0T SE w/Technology
    Engine: Turbocharged 2.0L DOHC 16-Valve TSI Four-Cylinder
    Driveline: Eight-Speed Automatic, Front-Wheel Drive
    Horsepower @ RPM: 235 @ 4,500
    Torque @ RPM: 258 @ 1,600
    Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 22/26/24
    Curb Weight: 4,222 lbs
    Location of Manufacture: Chattanooga, TN
    Base Price: $35,690
    As Tested Price: $36,615 (Includes $925.00 Destination Charge)

    Options: N/A



    User Feedback

    Recommended Comments



    27mpg combined is pretty impressive for a vehicle that large (the Atlas), though I wonder how the performance and MPG would suffer had it been the AWD model.

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    2 hours ago, frogger said:

    27mpg combined is pretty impressive for a vehicle that large (the Atlas), though I wonder how the performance and MPG would suffer had it been the AWD model.

     

    I can tell you fuel economy would take a major hit - EPA figures are 17 City/23 Highway/19 Combined

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    31 minutes ago, William Maley said:

    I can tell you fuel economy would take a major hit - EPA figures are 17 City/23 Highway/19 Combined

    WOW for AWD that really is a hit. Thank you

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Wow, surprised to see the Atlas get the nod. 

     

    While not an enthusiast vehicle, it nails the mission statement buyers in this segment demand. If they just gave us the same turbo-V6 it gets in China, the thing would be near perfect. The old N/A VR6 has just reached the end of it's lifespan.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Fantastic write-up. 

    The Mazda is an excellent vehicle, but for the mission statement of a large crossover, the Atlas is just a better vehicle all around.  I view the CX-9 the same way I view the Infiniti QX70, a sportier crossover best for singles or DINKs. 

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    14 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    Fantastic write-up. 

    The Mazda is an excellent vehicle, but for the mission statement of a large crossover, the Atlas is just a better vehicle all around.  I view the CX-9 the same way I view the Infiniti QX70, a sportier crossover best for singles or DINKs. 

    I somewhat disagree.  CX-9 while compromised on space vs Atlas or Pilot still has plenty of space for a family of four (my family is family of four so I speak from experience).

    Personally, Atlas might be very practical but I just can't get past the ugly and boring exterior.  I would rather have Pilot or Ascent if I needed something with more room than CX-9. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    7 minutes ago, ykX said:

    I somewhat disagree.  CX-9 while compromised on space vs Atlas or Pilot still has plenty of space for a family of four (my family is family of four so I speak from experience).

    Personally, Atlas might be very practical but I just can't get past the ugly and boring exterior.  I would rather have Pilot or Ascent if I needed something with more room than CX-9. 

    I didn't say they were identical... just that the CX-9 is less roomy than most others in its class and has more of an emphasis on sport.   Someone buying one of these to haul the rugrats around usually is going for the most cubic feet per dollar.  For that, there is the Atlas, the Pilot, and the Traverse. 

    On looks alone, the CX-9 every day and twice on Sundays. 

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    8 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    I didn't say they were identical... just that the CX-9 is less roomy than most others in its class and has more of an emphasis on sport.   Someone buying one of these to haul the rugrats around usually is going for the most cubic feet per dollar.  For that, there is the Atlas, the Pilot, and the Traverse. 

    On looks alone, the CX-9 every day and twice on Sundays. 

    Sure. CX-9 is compromised in terms of space but after I drove one I got hooked and I think it will be my wife's next vehicle.  But I love driving (so does my wife to some extent). Most of the people I know will go just for practicality or the badge. 

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    22 minutes ago, ykX said:

    I somewhat disagree.  CX-9 while compromised on space vs Atlas or Pilot still has plenty of space for a family of four (my family is family of four so I speak from experience).

    Personally, Atlas might be very practical but I just can't get past the ugly and boring exterior.  I would rather have Pilot or Ascent if I needed something with more room than CX-9. 

    LOL, I find the Mazda to be butt ugly and trying to hard to look like the rest of Mazda ugly car family. Rather take an Atlas that truly looks more SUV like and deal with a boring look but more functionality.

    3 minutes ago, ykX said:

    Sure. CX-9 is compromised in terms of space but after I drove one I got hooked and I think it will be my wife's next vehicle.  But I love driving (so does my wife to some extent). Most of the people I know will go just for practicality or the badge. 

    Not ture, I love to drive and love performance as to why I own a Trailblazer SS. While not the best on interior space, it looks like a traditional SUV and drives like a Corvette out of hell. 😈

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I'm fairly certain.... no... super certain... that the CX-9 will beat a TBSS the moment a corner is involved.  The TBSS was fast for its day, but it was never a renowned handling vehicle. 

    • Upvote 4

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    23 minutes ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    I'm fairly certain.... no... super certain... that the CX-9 will beat a TBSS the moment a corner is involved.  The TBSS was fast for its day, but it was never a renowned handling vehicle. 

    That would be a fun drive comparison.  Unless they drastically updated the driving characteristics from the 2018 model year that I had for 2 weeks, I would say in comparison to the one I drove on my 25 wedding anniversary, that no my TBSS beats it. I doubt the CX9 could handle what I have done in the 130 -150mph range of my SS.

    • Haha 3

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    My SO likes the CX-9 more than most CUV's because it is  stylish and smallish for a 3 row CUV, but then she is 5'0" and we don't have 3 kids..  I wonder how it compares to the 2019 Sorrento V6.

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    2 hours ago, dfelt said:

    That would be a fun drive comparison.  Unless they drastically updated the driving characteristics from the 2018 model year that I had for 2 weeks, I would say in comparison to the one I drove on my 25 wedding anniversary, that no my TBSS beats it. I doubt the CX9 could handle what I have done in the 130 -150mph range of my SS.

    Just no... let it go.  There is no way a live axle, 15 year old, body on frame SUV is going to out-handle a brand new, unibody crossover with independent suspension and an advanced computer controlled AWD system.  Even just the center of gravity is going to be a giant disadvantage on the TBSS if nothing else not to mention weight. 

    • Upvote 3

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Apples and oranges; can't really compare old SUVs from the last decade with their cheesy plastic interiors to new CUVs.

    Edited by Cubical-aka-Moltar
    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    What's funny about it Cubical-aka-Moltar ?  It looks better, it is RWD/AWD with longitudinal engine...  it certainly has more macho presence than the ninny Envision.

    • Haha 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    7 minutes ago, ocnblu said:

    What's funny about it Cubical-aka-Moltar ?  It looks better, it is RWD/AWD with longitudinal engine...  it certainly has more macho presence than the ninny Envision.

    Most Rainiers now are rusty old used SUVs, nothing 'macho' about that...

    • Upvote 2

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I agree with this write-up. The Mazda is the better car if you viewed every day as it’s own occasion. 

     

    But the VW is flat out the better 3 row family crossover.

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    14 hours ago, Drew Dowdell said:

    Just no... let it go.  There is no way a live axle, 15 year old, body on frame SUV is going to out-handle a brand new, unibody crossover with independent suspension and an advanced computer controlled AWD system.  Even just the center of gravity is going to be a giant disadvantage on the TBSS if nothing else not to mention weight. 

    Yes, from an engineering standpoint all the box's are ticked and it does beat my TBSS. Take driving experience into consideration and I still would put it up against a CX9 and in most cases unless it is another well experienced professional driver would win.

    But your point is valid and I do agree with it from that standpoint.

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    13 hours ago, ocnblu said:

    What's funny about it Cubical-aka-Moltar ?  It looks better, it is RWD/AWD with longitudinal engine...  it certainly has more macho presence than the ninny Envision.

    For it's day when new, not a bad looking SUV, but the Envision wins hands down as the better looking ute.

    See the source image

    See the source image

    • Haha 1
    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    In the Ranier's time, off the top of my head, give me a 2007 4Runner Limited...
    In the Envision's time, give me almost any other ~45K two row CUV released in the last two years.

     

     

     

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I don't need a 3rd row, so for the price, styling, features and broad range of trim levels, for a midsize, I'll stick with (surprise) Jeep Grand Cherokee.   

    • Like 1
    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites
    16 minutes ago, Cubical-aka-Moltar said:

    I don't need a 3rd row, so for the price, styling, features and broad range of trim levels, for a midsize, I'll stick with (surprise) Jeep Grand Cherokee.   

    We only occasionally use third row for short trips (kids friends, or if we going somewhere close with parents) so a tight third row not a huge problem for us.  But if we didn't need third row I think Grand Cherokee would be a strong contender for us.

    • Upvote 1

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites



    Join the conversation

    You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
    Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

    Guest
    Add a comment...

    ×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

      Only 75 emoji are allowed.

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

    ×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Similar Content

    • By William Maley
      Hyundai can’t seem to stop itself from tinkering with the Santa Fe crossover. This is apparent when you consider the nameplate first debuted on compact crossover in the early 2000s before growing into a two-model family up until last year. Hyundai has made another drastic change to the Santa Fe by making it a single model again - the three-row Santa Fe XL has been replaced by the Palisade. Does this re-focus make the model competitive?
      The overall shape of the 2019 Santa Fe is more upright than the outgoing Santa Fe Sport. This solves one of the biggest issues I had with the Sport, poor visibility. The upright shape and flatter belt line allowed Hyundai designers to increase the amount of glass used. Not only does this improve overall visibility. This also makes the interior feel more airy. Up front, Hyundai uses a hexagonal grille that is flanked by a split headlight layout. Slim LED daytime running lights sit on either side of the grille, while a pod housing the headlights sit underneath.
      Where the Santa Fe really shines is the interior. It’s a modern and clean design with a two-tone dashboard, unique fabric covering the pillars and headliner; and the use of polygons in the seat pattern and speaker grilles. Materials for the most part are soft-touch plastics and leather on my Ultimate tester. There are some hard plastics used here and there, but it will not detract from the premium feel Hyundai is going for. The layout for the controls is excellent with all in easy reach for driver or passenger. Also earning top marks is the eight-inch infotainment system which is simple to use, provides snappy performance, and allows a driver to use either Apple CarPlay or Android Auto.
      For those sitting up front, the Santa Fe Ultimate provides power adjustments, heat, and ventilation. Getting settled in and finding the correct position, I found the seats to be quite comfortable with enough padding to tackle any trip length. Back seat passengers will find plenty of leg and headroom. Those sitting in the back will also appreciate the rear seats can recline along with heat during the cold winter months. Cargo space is about average with 35.9 cubic feet with the rear seats up and 71.3 when folded.
      Most Santa Fes will come with the base 2.4L inline-four with 185 horsepower. My Ultimate AWD tester featured the optional turbocharged 2.0L inline-four with 235 horsepower. Both engines come paired with an eight-speed automatic. Whenever a Hyundai vehicle is equipped with a turbo-four, it falls into one of two camps - works perfectly or there is a performance issue. The Santa Fe falls into the latter. There is a noticeable amount of turbo-lag when leaving from a stop. Once up to speed, the engine can sometimes be a bit too responsive with a jumpiness that makes smooth acceleration a difficult task. Whether this is something with the programming of the engine, transmission, or throttle, I cannot say. I hope this gets fixed with the 2020 model.
      EPA fuel economy figures for the turbo-four with AWD are 19 City/24 Highway/21 Combined. I saw an average of 20.7 mpg during my week of testing. It should be noted this is the same as the Honda Passport with its slightly more powerful 3.5L V6 producing 280 horsepower.
      The Santa Fe’s ride is still smooth and relaxing over many of the bumps and imperfections that dot the roads of Metro Detroit. It is also surprisingly quiet with barely any wind or road noise coming inside. Handling is where the Santa Fe really surprised me as it felt agile when driven around a bend. There was barely any body roll and steering provided excellent response. 
      On the surface, the 2019 Santa Fe is an improvement over the Santa Fe Sport. It features a fetching design, comfortable ride, simple tech, and a lot of equipment for the money. My Ultimate tester came with an as-tested price of $39,905 and that includes adaptive cruise control with stop & go; blind spot monitoring, Infinity premium audio system, panoramic sunroof, and much more. Build up one of the Santa Fe’s competition to similar specs and you’re looking at spending on average around $5,000 more.
      But the Santa Fe is soured by the turbocharged 2.0L four-cylinder engine which appears to have two settings - slow off the line performance and unpredictable acceleration at higher speeds. Until Hyundai can figure out what is going on, stick with the base 2.4L four-cylinder. It may be a little bit underpowered, but at least it is more consistent in its power delivery.
      Disclaimer: Hyundai Provided the Santa Fe, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas
      Year: 2019
      Make: Hyundai
      Model: Santa Fe
      Trim: Ultimate
      Engine: Turbocharged 2.0L GDI 16-Valve DOHC CVVT Four-Cylinder
      Driveline: Eight-Speed Automatic, All-Wheel Drive
      Horsepower @ RPM: 235 @ 6,000
      Torque @ RPM: 260 @ 1,450 - 3,500
      Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 19/24/21
      Curb Weight: 4,085 lbs
      Location of Manufacture: Montgomery, Alabama
      Base Price: $38,800
      As Tested Price: $39,905 (Includes $980.00 Destination Charge)
      Options:
      Carpeted Floor Mats - $125.00

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      Hyundai can’t seem to stop itself from tinkering with the Santa Fe crossover. This is apparent when you consider the nameplate first debuted on compact crossover in the early 2000s before growing into a two-model family up until last year. Hyundai has made another drastic change to the Santa Fe by making it a single model again - the three-row Santa Fe XL has been replaced by the Palisade. Does this re-focus make the model competitive?
      The overall shape of the 2019 Santa Fe is more upright than the outgoing Santa Fe Sport. This solves one of the biggest issues I had with the Sport, poor visibility. The upright shape and flatter belt line allowed Hyundai designers to increase the amount of glass used. Not only does this improve overall visibility. This also makes the interior feel more airy. Up front, Hyundai uses a hexagonal grille that is flanked by a split headlight layout. Slim LED daytime running lights sit on either side of the grille, while a pod housing the headlights sit underneath.
      Where the Santa Fe really shines is the interior. It’s a modern and clean design with a two-tone dashboard, unique fabric covering the pillars and headliner; and the use of polygons in the seat pattern and speaker grilles. Materials for the most part are soft-touch plastics and leather on my Ultimate tester. There are some hard plastics used here and there, but it will not detract from the premium feel Hyundai is going for. The layout for the controls is excellent with all in easy reach for driver or passenger. Also earning top marks is the eight-inch infotainment system which is simple to use, provides snappy performance, and allows a driver to use either Apple CarPlay or Android Auto.
      For those sitting up front, the Santa Fe Ultimate provides power adjustments, heat, and ventilation. Getting settled in and finding the correct position, I found the seats to be quite comfortable with enough padding to tackle any trip length. Back seat passengers will find plenty of leg and headroom. Those sitting in the back will also appreciate the rear seats can recline along with heat during the cold winter months. Cargo space is about average with 35.9 cubic feet with the rear seats up and 71.3 when folded.
      Most Santa Fes will come with the base 2.4L inline-four with 185 horsepower. My Ultimate AWD tester featured the optional turbocharged 2.0L inline-four with 235 horsepower. Both engines come paired with an eight-speed automatic. Whenever a Hyundai vehicle is equipped with a turbo-four, it falls into one of two camps - works perfectly or there is a performance issue. The Santa Fe falls into the latter. There is a noticeable amount of turbo-lag when leaving from a stop. Once up to speed, the engine can sometimes be a bit too responsive with a jumpiness that makes smooth acceleration a difficult task. Whether this is something with the programming of the engine, transmission, or throttle, I cannot say. I hope this gets fixed with the 2020 model.
      EPA fuel economy figures for the turbo-four with AWD are 19 City/24 Highway/21 Combined. I saw an average of 20.7 mpg during my week of testing. It should be noted this is the same as the Honda Passport with its slightly more powerful 3.5L V6 producing 280 horsepower.
      The Santa Fe’s ride is still smooth and relaxing over many of the bumps and imperfections that dot the roads of Metro Detroit. It is also surprisingly quiet with barely any wind or road noise coming inside. Handling is where the Santa Fe really surprised me as it felt agile when driven around a bend. There was barely any body roll and steering provided excellent response. 
      On the surface, the 2019 Santa Fe is an improvement over the Santa Fe Sport. It features a fetching design, comfortable ride, simple tech, and a lot of equipment for the money. My Ultimate tester came with an as-tested price of $39,905 and that includes adaptive cruise control with stop & go; blind spot monitoring, Infinity premium audio system, panoramic sunroof, and much more. Build up one of the Santa Fe’s competition to similar specs and you’re looking at spending on average around $5,000 more.
      But the Santa Fe is soured by the turbocharged 2.0L four-cylinder engine which appears to have two settings - slow off the line performance and unpredictable acceleration at higher speeds. Until Hyundai can figure out what is going on, stick with the base 2.4L four-cylinder. It may be a little bit underpowered, but at least it is more consistent in its power delivery.
      Disclaimer: Hyundai Provided the Santa Fe, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas
      Year: 2019
      Make: Hyundai
      Model: Santa Fe
      Trim: Ultimate
      Engine: Turbocharged 2.0L GDI 16-Valve DOHC CVVT Four-Cylinder
      Driveline: Eight-Speed Automatic, All-Wheel Drive
      Horsepower @ RPM: 235 @ 6,000
      Torque @ RPM: 260 @ 1,450 - 3,500
      Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 19/24/21
      Curb Weight: 4,085 lbs
      Location of Manufacture: Montgomery, Alabama
      Base Price: $38,800
      As Tested Price: $39,905 (Includes $980.00 Destination Charge)
      Options:
      Carpeted Floor Mats - $125.00
    • By William Maley
      Over a year ago, I pitted the Mazda CX-9 against the Volkswagen Atlas to find out which was the better three-row crossover. The CX-9 put up a good fight with a very luxurious interior and impressive driving dynamics. However, the Atlas took home the win as it proved to be the better carrier of passengers and cargo, along with providing a slightly smoother ride. A year on, the CX-9 makes a return to the C&G Detroit Garage to see if it could redeem itself. Spoiler alert: I still feel the same way as I did last year.
      Going on three years, the CX-9 is still one of the best looking three-row crossovers on sale. Its graceful lines, tapered rear pillar, and slim lights make the crossover look more expensive than it actually is. The Grand Touring may miss out on the Nappa leather for the seats and Rosewood trim found on the Signature, it is still a nice place to sit in. Bright metalwork contrasts nicely with soft-touch plastics and leather upholstery on the seats. But the interior also houses some of the CX-9’s key flaws beginning with the seat arrangement. All 2019 CX-9s come with seating for seven people, there is no option for six with a set of captain chairs - that is being rectified for 2020. Those sitting in the second-row will have no complaints about space, but anyone sitting in the third-row will bemoan the lack of legroom. This can improve if the second-row is slid forward. Cargo space is another weak spot. The CX-9 only offers 14.4 cubic feet behind the third-row, 38.2 cubic feet behind the second row, and 71.2 cubic feet with both rows folded. To give some perspective, the Atlas offers 20.6, 55.5, and 96.8 cubic feet of space. 2019 finally sees Mazda add Apple CarPlay and Android Auto compatibility to their MazdaConnect infotainment system. This is an improvement as MazdaConnect trails competitors in terms of graphics and a slightly confusing menu structure. At least the control knob and shortcut buttons make using the system less aggravating. Power comes from a turbocharged 2.5L four-cylinder with 227 horsepower (250 if you fill up with premium) and 310 pound-feet. This is channeled through a six-speed automatic and the choice of front- or all-wheel drive. Putting a turbo-four into a three-row crossover seems like madness, but Mazda was able to make it work with no issue. Torque arrives at a low 2,000 rpm, allowing the CX-9 to leap away from any driving situation. Response from the transmission is excellent with snappy up and downshifts. Fuel economy is rated by the EPA at 20 City/26 Highway/23 Combined. My average for the week landed around 23, slightly better than the 22.5 mpg for the 2018 model. The ace up the CX-9’s sleeve is the handling. No other crossover can close to matching the taut characteristics on offer with body motions kept in check and sharp steering. Though how many people consider a plus is likely very small. Ride quality falls under supple with most bumps and imperfections being ironed out. Impressive when you consider this is riding 20-inch wheels. The Mazda CX-9 is an outlier in the three-row crossover class as it focuses more on the driving experience and looks. That isn’t a bad thing as it gives Mazda a unique selling point. But a small space for passengers and cargo is the CX-9’s major downfall.  Disclaimer: Mazda Provided the CX-9, Insurance, and One Tank of Gas
      Year: 2019
      Make: Mazda
      Model: CX-9
      Trim: Grand Touring AWD
      Engine: Turbocharged 2.5L Skyactiv-G Inline-Four
      Driveline: Six-Speed Automatic, All-Wheel Drive
      Horsepower @ RPM: 227 or 250 @ 5,000 (Depending on the fuel)
      Torque @ RPM: 310 @ 2,000
      Fuel Economy: City/Highway/Combined - 20/26/23
      Curb Weight: 4,383 lbs
      Location of Manufacture: Hiroshima, Japan
      Base Price: $42,640
      As Tested Price: $45,060 (Includes $995.00 Destination Charge)
      Options:
      Illuminated Door Sill Trim Plates - $575.00
      Front & Rear Bumper Trim - $550.00
      Snowflake White Pearl - $200.00
      Cargo Mat - $100.00

      View full article
  • Posts

    • Wow. If that really is the escalade it sucks. Worse than the chevys suck. Can we assume then the yukon will just have the sierra front on it?
    • (Looks at the new GLA and thinks some folks have no idea what “ugly” really is).
    • The interior looks to be a huge jump from the current models. Very sharp. Now my question is, how in the hell could this interior (or at least a variation of it) NOT be in the Silverado/Sierra? You really need to start informing yourself before trolling this hard. Everything is completely new from top to bottom.
    • Au contraire I believe.  I personally think that one contributing factor in the demise of Oldsmobile and Pontiac was BECAUSE GM went with the "corporate" engine route.  Many loyal Pontiac and Oldsmobile fans and buyers never forgave GM for eliminating Oldsmobile's and Pontiac's right to produce their own engines.  There were many loyal Pontiac and Oldsmobile engine fanatics that never really wanted or loved Chevrolet engines. The corporate V8 to this day is a Chevrolet V8...  At least Oldsmobile designed the Northstar V8 and had its mark on V8s for GM, but the Northstar was touted and marketed as a Cadillac engine. The Aurora V8 was Oldsmobile's V8 which was a smaller displacement version of the "Cadillac Northstar"... it lacked  cubic displacement, horsepower and torque in the road cars to actually make Oldsmobile fanboys happy and proud and ultimately keep them as clients.  At least the engine had success in racing, but GM was using mixed marketing signals and wasnt clear as to which division the North star/Aurora really belonged to and which "version" had success in the racing programs of the 1990s.  At least Oldsmobile also had a hand in GM's 4 cylinder development in keeping up with the times in the 1980s and well into the 1990s with the Quad 4...but the engine was ridiculed by the American automotive journalists for a lack of balance shafts and therefore less "refined" than the Japanese counterparts, which was a bunch of bullshyte...and which of course the Japanese jumped on that immediately with their advertisements in the American market... The bad thing about the Quad 4 was the gaskets leaked over a period of time...a problem that the Northstar had too... At least Oldsmobile also had hindsight to see the market perception of the need not only for 4 valves/cylinder DOHC V8 engines, and 4 bangers, but for 6 cylinders as well and the Shortstar was born.  Based on the Northstar/Aurora V8... But, GM did not really advertise that Oldsmobile still produced engines for itself and those engines were "corporate" engines in effect...  Poor old Pontiac though, had to concern itself in selling copy cat Chevrolet pony cars, it was always like that, but at least in the early 1970s, those were powered by pure Poncho engines, but by the time the 1980s rolled along, with a Pontiac fanboy's point of view, those awesome Firebirds/Trans Ams are not just shytty badge engineered Chevys with shytty Chevy engines underneath... And yes, along with the billions of dollars creating Saturn, and the billions in buying SAAB and trying to sustain both Saturn and SAAB, those 3 things had a huuuuuuge impact in the demise of Pontiac and Oldsmobile. And if we think clearly enough, many fans of those brands never came back to GM to buy Chevrolets or Buicks or Cadillacs. Not only did GM lose market share to the Japanese and Germans, because of the reasons we have discussed ad nauseam,  but because of the decision from GM itself to consolidate its brands. GM underestimated the loyalty of its customers and arrogantly thought that just because Oldsmobile and Pontiac were under the GM umbrella, that Pontiac and Oldsmobile buyers were actually in fact, GM customers....for life...  In other words, they believed their own marketing bullshyte in that a GM buyer will start life as a beginner and buy himself a Chevy, and as his finances grow, the customer will upgrade or graduate to Pontiac, then Oldsmobile, the Buick, then Cadillac... A good marketing strategy, but not really reality... Not a good thing when you start believing your own bullshyte...and yes...marketing in general is bullshyte...effective bullshyte...but bullshyte non the less...     I personally believe, instead of spending billions on the billions they spent on trying to reverse the market share decline on compliance  shyteboxes such as the X platform Citation and its badge engineered siblings, on the dumb decision to make a Cavalier into a Cadillac, (Nothing really wrong with the J platform), the crappy launch and the billions lost on the W-Body, the idiocy to develop a new kind of car company Saturn, the stupid decision to buy SAAB... Instead of all those BILLIONS lost and the result was MEDIOCRE to POOR and SHYTE vehicles, if GM had spent those BILLIONS  on REALLY engineering GREAT cars INCLUDING keeping the AUTONOMOUS identity of ALL its BRANDS that were Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, Oldsmobile, Cadillac and GMC, then market share would stabilize and probably grow...  
    • Guest
  • Social Stream

  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • My Clubs

About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×
×
  • Create New...