So how are things going with the CX-9? Is it the Sport, Touring or Grand Touring model? And it is AWD (all-wheel-drive) or FWD (front-wheel-drive)?
I have a 2012 CX-9 Grand Touring FWD that I bought new in November 2012. Ive already racked up 34k miles in less than two years and I couldnt be happier with it! The Stormy Blue Mica is a beautiful color and really looks good on the CX-9. I wanted either Liquid Silver or Dolphin Gray, but since I was buying previous model year leftovers, my choices were limited. To get a FWD with the Bose/Moonroof but without Navigation, my only option ended being Crystal White Pearl Mica. But I got an incredible deal on it (sticker was $38,385 and I paid $29,207), so I learned to live with the Pearl White.
If you guys were looking at the previous-generation Explorer (2006-2010), the CX-9 is by far the better vehicle! Prior to my CX-9, I had two Explorers- a 2003 XLT 4WD and 2007 Eddie Bauer 2WD (both with the standard 4.0L V6). My sister is still driving the 2003 and it has just over 260k miles on the original engine/transmission and its still going strong. The 2007 was the worst vehicle I have ever owned in my life! It had 132k miles on it when I trade it on the Mazda and I had spent over $7000 in repairs after the warranty expired. I went thru 3 radiators, the entire A/C system had to be replaced twice, the power drivers seat motor failed, the digital display screen in the instrument panel fried, the gearshift lever got stuck in PARK, the solenoid that allows the transmission to shift into O/D went out and the PowerFold 3rd row seat was permanently stuck in the down position on one side (so the 3rd row could only seat one, never two) because the gear and motor were stripped out. The moonroof also developed a leak when it was barely two years old and it ultimately caused the headliner and moonroof motor to be replaced (which I forced them to do under warranty even though I was way over the mileage limit). And thats only about half of the things that went wrong with that heap
When Ford redesigned the Explorer for 2006, they made the interior look nicer (floor mounted shifter and console, nicer gauges, even nicer door panels and trim materials). But they cut corners with mechanical quality to compensate and I learned that very painful lesson. KBB valued my Explorer at $8,200 trade-in and Carmax offered to buy it for $7,500. After I negotiated the price on my CX-9, I told them to match the Carmax offer and that would close the deal. They might have offered more but I just wanted it to be gone.
The Explorers fuel economy was rated at 15/21mpg (4.0L RWD) but my fuel economy was around 18mpg overall until around 115k miles. For some unknown reason, it started to drink gas and my mechanic couldnt figure out why. I was struggling to get 14mpg overall by the time I got rid of it. My CX-9 is rated at 17/24mpg and I get 18.5-19mpg average in mostly city driving. On the highway with the cruise set at 80mph and A/C on, it gets 21mpg. So it manages to get better fuel economy than the Explorer ever did and it has a LOT more power! In some Ford forums, the 4.0L V6 is called the boat anchor because thats the only thing it would very good at it. The additional 63hp in the CX-9 paired with a much more responsive 6-speed Sport Automatic (vs. 5-speed Auto) moves the 400lb lighter vehicle much faster.
Im sure youve noticed that the CX-9 handles more like a sporty mid-size sedan than a large Crossover/SUV. Its very easy to forget how big it is because it never feels big from behind the wheel.
Anyway, I hope you guys are as happy with yours as I am with mine! =)