1982 Mazda Rx-7 Gsl Coupe 2-door 1.1l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

10 of 18 midsize SUVs earn 'good' IIHS side impact safety rating

It's not terribly surprising that midsize SUVs earned better safety ratings than small SUVs in the latest side-impact tests performed by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS). Just how much better they scored, on the other hand, certainly raises an eyebrow. Ten out of 18 midsize SUVs earned the highest rating of 'good' in the stringent new test, altered for vehicles starting with the 2020 model year with a heavier barrier (4,200 pounds) that moves at a higher speed (37 miles per hour) and is fitted with a hard honeycomb frontal structure. By way of contrast, just one out of of 20 small SUVs earned a 'good' score.  SUVs that receiving 'good' scores were the Ford Explorer, Infiniti QX60, Lincoln Aviator, Mazda CX-9, Nissan Pathfinder, Subaru Ascent, Toyota Highlander, Volkswagen Atlas, Volkswagen Atlas Cross Sport and Volkswagen ID.4. For EV fans, it's worth noting the ID.4 was the only electric vehicle included in the test. The Buick Enclave and Chevrolet Traverse scraped away with 'acceptable' ratings while the Honda Passport, Honda Pilot, Hyundai Palisade, Jeep Wrangler 4-door, Kia Telluride and Nissan Murano were deemed merely 'marginal' in the tough new test. Only two models — the Mazda CX-9 and Volkswagen ID.4 — earned a "Good" rating in every test category.  Interestingly, the Jeep Wrangler would have scored a 'good' rating if it were equipped with side airbags for the rear seating positions. It would likely be an engineering challenge to equip its removable top and/or doors with airbags, but the lack of that safety feature allowed the head of the rear passenger dummy to hit the vertical support of the top. Otherwise, the Wrangler scored good ratings across the board. The new Ford Bronco, which makes more allowances for side-impact safety, has not yet been tested.  The popular Hyundai Palisade and Kia Telluride SUVs stand out in the test with 'poor' ratings for driver pelvis injuries. The Nissan Murano, a vehicle last redesigned for the 2015 model year, was the only vehicle tested that received a 'poor' rating for its structure and safety cage. Videos of the tests of 12 of these 18 SUVs can be found on the IIHS' YouTube page. Related video: Green Buick Chevrolet Ford Honda Hyundai Infiniti Jeep Kia Mazda Nissan Subaru Toyota Volkswagen Safety Crossover SUV IIHS Insurance Institute for Highway Safety

Mazda CX-6: How a wagon could sell better than the Mazda6

There is no Mazda CX-6. It doesn't exist, nor have we talked to anyone at Mazda about its existence. However, let me now say that there SHOULD be a Mazda CX-6, or to put it another way, a Mazda6 Wagon that's been Allroad-ified with a modestly raised suspension, plastic body cladding and all-wheel drive. You know, the way Americans prefer their wagons. During the Regal TourX launch, Buick's product planning folks pointed out that such a crossover wagon (let's go with that term for now) filled a market niche that's really not being satisfied. One that's more stylish and luxurious than a Subaru Outback, but more functional and less expensive than an Audi Allroad. It would cater to people who seek something different from the norm, both in terms of brand and body style. Sure, it's certainly not a big market niche, but it is seemingly growing. Well, if Buick is indeed onto something and that growth continues, then Mazda could most definitely go after that same market niche. Sure, it's a small niche, but all three Mazda6 generations have sold in such minuscule numbers (33,402 in 2017), why not try something completely different? I could easily see a CX-6 outselling its sedan sibling. Such a Mazda crossover wagon would only have a Buick and Subaru as competition, as opposed to trying to draw customers away from the Honda Accord, Toyota Camry and every other midsize sedan at a time when the entire segment is hemorrhaging sales. It would also nicely complement a lineup of crossovers that includes the CX-3, CX-5 and CX-9, providing yet another alternative to entice customers. View 30 Photos Let me also say that, having driven both the Regal TourX and a Mazda6, that the two could be cross-shopped. I'd argue the Mazda actually has a more luxurious cabin than the supposedly "premium" Regal, while Mazda's new turbocharged 2.5-liter (250 horsepower, 310 pound-feet of torque) outdoes the Buick's potent 2.0-liter. Meanwhile, the Mazda6's standard, naturally aspirated 2.5-liter (184 hp, 185 lb-ft) should offer comparable fuel economy as the Subaru Outback (28 mpg combined) without making you suffer through a CVT. Now, as for adding all-wheel drive, the Japanese market version of both the sedan and wagon (known as the Atenza) can apparently be had with it. Can it be packaged with the turbocharged engine? That's another question, but all the other pieces are seemingly in place to bring the Mazda6 wagon to the United States.

Mazda CX-9 Luggage Test | How much fits behind the third row?

We recently tested the luggage-carrying capability of one of the most spacious three-row crossovers, the Hyundai Palisade, and now it's time for one of the smallest. The Mazda CX-9 may look terrific and drive even better, but that zest comes at the expense of cargo capacity, as we're about to see. The big culprit is that rakish liftgate, which not only robs the CX-9 of luggage space, but third-row headroom as well. It's pretty dungeon-like back there despite competitive legroom, and there aren't any air vents or USB ports, either. But this is about cargo capacity, so let's see how much luggage will fit inside. According to the specs, the CX-9 has 38.2 cubic-feet with the third-row lowered. That's far less than the Palisade's 45.8 and Honda Pilot's 46.8. It's actually even less than the five-passenger Honda Passport (50.5).  The test car came with a $100 cargo mat, which is velcroed to the seats and folds OK with it, but the carpet also takes up some extra space ... and the CX-9 needs as much as it can get.  To raise the seats, lean inside and pull up/back on those two handles. There is 14.4 cubic-feet of space behind the raised third row. On paper, that is indeed one of the smaller amounts in the segment, but in practice, it seems even smaller.  You can free up space by removing the rigid floor panel. If you need to carry multiple pieces of luggage, it's almost a necessity.  OK, so I have two midsize roller suitcases, both of which would need to be checked. Then there's two larger carry-on roll-aboards and one smaller one. As a bonus, there's my wife's quasi-fancy weekend bag. It was a struggle to fit three of them aboard, and Tetrised together two formations. The first uses all three carry-on bags with the cargo floor removed. And no, the fancy bag won't fit atop the blue one because it'll run into the liftgate window. A smaller tote would definitely fit, however.  This is how I could fit one of the bigger check-in bags. The liftgate just barely closed. Again, you could fit a small tote atop the blue bag, plus some other items in the lower outboard regions.  OK, so how could you fit everything aboard? Lowering half of the 50/50-split third row is a must, obviously. Both big check-in bags then stack atop each other, and then stack the other four atop each other with the cargo floor in place.