The CX-9 was one of many first automobiles to be baggage examined … and remained one of many smallest three-row automobiles to be baggage examined within the ensuing 4 years. Wow, have I actually been doing these that lengthy?!?
Anyway, the CX-9 had 14.4 cubic toes of house behind its raised third-row, which is on the low finish for the phase. Nicely, the CX-9 is lifeless. Lengthy reside the brand new 2024 Mazda CX-90. With that further zero you get further fanciness, further energy, further hybrid availability and, vital for this explicit train, further cargo house. However not that a lot further. The specs say most variations have 14.9 cubic-feet, so do not anticipate a big-time enchancment right here.
“Most” variations would come with this CX-90. Nevertheless, the CX-90 Turbo S model has solely a two-person third-row quite than a three-place one, which for some cause will increase cargo capability again there to fifteen.9 cubic-feet. I am curious to understand how that will impact what you are about to see, however for now, onto a model I really can check.
Above left is the house out there. It is fairly typical for a three-row household crossover, nevertheless it’s undoubtedly completely different from the CX-9 pictured above proper. The CX-90 seems to not have as a lot depth, however because it seems, that is an optical phantasm. The higher portion is unquestionably much less raked, which ought to make a distinction by offering a boxier space higher fitted to stacking baggage.
Sadly …
The CX-90 doesn’t inherit the CX-9’s helpful underfloor storage space, which significantly expanded the out there house.
I have been informed that that is what the underfloor space appears like no matter whether or not you get the turbo powertrain or the plug-in hybrid, the latter of which this CX-90 has.
With all this thought of, let’s have a look at how the cargo-carrying skills differ (and should you’re questioning, I’ll get to comparisons with at present for-sale rivals later).
As with each baggage check, I take advantage of two midsize curler suitcases that will have to be checked in on the airport (26 inches lengthy, 16 extensive, 11 deep), two roll-aboard suitcases that simply barely match within the overhead (24L x 15W x 10D), and one smaller roll-aboard that matches simply (23L x 15W x 10D). I additionally embrace my spouse’s fancy in a single day bag simply to spruce issues up a bit (21L x 12W x 12D).
Not unhealthy, truthfully. That may be the 4 smallest baggage, together with the flowery bag that simply barely match. By comparability, the CX-9 couldn’t match the flowery bag, though a barely much less inflexible duffel would match.
As such, the much less raked higher cargo space does in truth make an enormous distinction right here. It successfully permits the CX-90 to surpass the quantity the CX-9 might obtain WITH the underfloor storage counted. When you did not depend that, the CX-90 could be even higher.
That mentioned, the shortage of an underfloor storage space does imply the CX-90 can not maintain as a lot because the (clockwise from prime left) Honda Pilot, Kia Telluride, Subaru Ascent and Nissan Pathfinder. It additionally holds the identical baggage because the Toyota Highlander, nevertheless it’s a a lot worse match.
So, though it is higher than the CX-9, that is not saying that a lot. It nonetheless trails each mainstream rivals. Mwah-mwah, worst at school.
However wait, Mazda has premium aspirations and the remainder of the CX-90 definitely signifies it achieves them. What about luxurious fashions?
Of the fashions I’ve examined, seems its precisely the identical because the Volvo XC90 and WAY higher than the Cadillac XT6. So there you go, the CX-90’s cargo competitiveness completely depends upon whether or not you contemplate it a luxurious mannequin or not.
Lastly, there’s yet one more factor. The liftgate itself.
It would not open practically excessive sufficient. I clonked my head thrice doing this check. I actually must bow to get below there. Rivals are approach higher on this regard, too.
