I am trying to view this (on the normal carasdvice website – not mobile), but all of the images are blown up well across the page and does not line up with the text. Data input bug?
Same here, using IE8.
mine’s fine. but a few days ago the comments weren’t showing up
Well for the money I’d rather a RWD petrol TS Territory. It’s better equipped and would be a lot better to drive than the FWD CX-9 with a smoother engine and better economy. You can always get a diesel too.
It has always surprised me that car journos don’t seem to highlight the shocking economy of the CX-9 and Kluger nearly as much as they do of the petrol Territory. The Japs are actually worse on paper, and worse still in the real world due to peak torque arriving later.
The CX-9 is great in its own right though, especially in the Luxury AWD model. Having sat in the third row for a long trip, I can vouch that there is heaps more room than any SUV or smaller people mover. It’s close to Tarago/Carnival size.
Territory is quite hard on the juice in the real world. A friend has one and it uses around 15 ltr/100 ks in town. That’s the petrol.
I’m not sure about the CX9 but my brother’s CX7 is up for sale because of the economy being so bad.
Only bad thing with territories is the 5 page recall list & poor quality service you receive from your local ford dealer. Not to mention the crappy resale value due to large government fleet deals they do.
Have to very strongly agree with ethe build quality of the Ford, its just shocking. Fit and finish is no where NEAR what mazda put into their vehicles.
Re-sale is a another moot point for the private buyer of the Ford. Fleet sales of the vehicle have all but moleseted the trade in price.
The fuel ecconomy really isnt THAT bad when you look at similar cars with petrol engines in the same class. Its actually quite on par with a lot of others. You cant compare diesel with petrol in terms of fuel consumption its not realistcally fair.
fuel economy not great you say??
rephrase that to “fuel economy is HIDEOUS”
A colleague has one, CAN NOT get under 19L per 100 kms around town. may as well drive my 5.9L v8 1975 chrysler for some economy!
19 litres I doubt that very much. I own one and when driven hard it’s lucky to reach 14 litres Per hundred.
19 litres sounds exactly right to me in city driving. My 2.4L i45 gets around 14L.
My 1.8L 2005 pulsar gets about 10L/100KM in urban driving!
I don’t buy that for a moment even the falcon uses more than 14 ltrs per 100k’s when driven hard and it’s lighter than the territory. My mate’s car isn’t driven hard ,is serviced regulalry and still drinks like a fish.
I averaged around 16.4l/100 with the CX9 I had for a few days, under the same conditions the Murano was doing around 11.7l/100!
They are thirsty no doubt and I would say that a Territory would be more fuel efficient than the CX9 over the same conditions.
I’m in the market for a 7-seater SUV – has car advice done a comparison on the 7-seaters on offer in Australia recently (or at all?). I’d be keen to see how the CX-9 compares to the Territory, Santa Fe and Sorento, and throw in the Kluger and Challenger too! Any views, reviews or comments welcome! I like the CX-9 but really want to buy a diesel after owning a very thirsty 2007 RAV4 2.4L petrol.
I have recently traded in a CX9 on a new diesel Territory and just over the moon. Economy has gone from 17.6L/100km in the CX9 to 9.2/L to 100km in the Territory. The Territory is also better finished and nicer to drive. The Mazda has a lot of rattles and felt cheap which annoyed me for a car which cost me almost 60 grand at the time.
We did the comparison on the Kluger, Sorento/ Santa Fe, Tribeca and CX 9 18 months ago – very large spreadsheet including warranty period, fuel economy, insurance, features and associated yearly cost. Once we had done the maths and even with the Toyota dealers willingness to sell us a Kluger we could not go past the Koreans. We got the Sorento and have had over 50 000Ks of problem free, very pleasant driving. It has not skipped a beat – combined fuel economy is around 7.5L/100K. The zippy engine is fun and we opted for the top of the range Platinum so we have some nice features which we would not have got had we elected to purchase a more basic Kluger or CX9 for similar money. The Sorento handles ok off road as well. Towing is a breeze – 2 tonne towing sees fuel economys of under 10L/100K. No doubt we would have enjoyed a CX9 but the wallet prefers the Sorento!
why do people still buy large, “sissy” SUV like this when they can get a grand cherokee with 3.6 high tech PENTASTAR engine for an extra 5K. It’s a proper $WD with low range gears!
The CX-9 has quite a large behind making it unsuitable for off-road purposes, you’re better off buying a Hyundai Santa Fe
the build quality of the cx9 is far better than anything on the market, and for a 7 seater youve got tobe kidding if your looking at the ford, we got a sales man to get in the back row of the ford, and he conseded he’d do his nanna sitting in the back, slide though seat!! what tha???
The CX9 needs to be updated, looks old… Get the skyactiv engines into it too and I’ll consider it.