Jump to content
  • Greetings Guest!

    CheersandGears.com was founded in 2001 and is one of the oldest continuously operating automotive forums out there.  Come see why we have users who visit nearly every day for the past 16+ years. Signup is fast and free, or you can opt for a premium subscription to view the site ad-free.

  • 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



    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    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.




About us

CheersandGears.com - Founded 2001

We ♥ Cars

Get in touch

Follow us

Recent tweets

facebook

×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.