Mazda CX-7

driverdm

I wouldn't change my buying decison over 3 miles per gallon, though it does add up quick. The Mazda, as I posted earlier, has 25 hp less than the RAV4 but has more torque and I believe will be lighter. The RAV4 has gained some pounds. I think the Mazda is more performance oreintated. Just like the sacrifices made by taking a 6 over a Camry or a 3 over a Corolla (I am assuming the Corolla has better mpg).

I included the Torrent in my post to get a good idea of the size of the CX-7. Exterior dimension wise it is close to a Torrent which is bigger than a RAV4.

navigator89

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/AutoshowArticles/articleId=108705

kernick

The CX7 has better flowing exterior styling than the Rav4. But yes, I have to agree that it's one thing to state the advantages of direct injection technology, and then put up EPA numbers that low. Come on Mazda this is a 2.3L engine, not a 4.0L!
And any engine with a turbo is going to want premium fuel.

rcf8000

The CX-7 is only slightly smaller in overall dimensions than a RX330, but what's with the 58 cubic feet of cargo volume compared to 84.7 for the RX330? This is an amazing achievement.

brutus22

Hey Guys,

Just put up from Mazda News are these tons of pictures, with close ups also with people to get size perspective...looks small and super sporty very un-suv like. There are 8 pages with about 15 pics per page.

http://images.rotarynews.com/images/la_autoshow_2006/

Later,
B.

allfiredup

I can't believe anyone is complaining about 24 mpg from something with almost 250hp. The CX-7 will be the quickest crossover available. I think those with the sophisticated taste and passion for driving who choose it won't be moaning and complaining about 24 mpg.

It sounds like all the Honda Civic and Toyota Corolla drivers in other forums that belly ache about the Mazda3's fuel economy. Real simple solution- if you don't like it, don't buy one.

Anyway, the CX-7 is stunning! It looks like a show car and not something you'd expect to actually make production. I think they'll sell every one they can build!

rcf8000

Quickest crossover available? I doubt that it is quicker than the new RAV4, which has a lot more HP and a lot higher MPG rating. It also weighs a lot less. The CX-7 looks a lot nicer, though, I'll give you that. It should sell well on that basis alone.

topgun7

Does anyone know the weight of CX7? RAV4 is about 3500lb (give or take). The new RAV4 size is about the same as highlander and I think CX7 is slightly smaller (by a few inches). With higher torque, we may have a draw to 60 but slower afterward if the weight is close. CX7 has a 6 sp, so it may be a little faster (Corvett 6sp has about 6-7% improvement over the 4 sp because of gearing, so the 6 sp in CX7 may do a few percentage (2-4%) better than the 5 sp that RAV4 has). I think the final result will most likely depend on the weight and the first 2 or 3 gear ratio of CX7.

rcf8000

According to the mazdausa.com site, the CX-7 FWD version weighs 3710lb and the 4WD version weighs 3929lb.

navigator89

The FWD RAV4 is 3300lbs and the 4WD version is 3676lbs.

Wow the Mazda is heavier than I thought. I thought the RAV4 would be heavier because it looks bigger. the RAV4 will definitely beat the CX7 in acceleration and quarter mile tests because of the weight advantage.

driverdm

I am amazed too. Good find on the weight, I had looked and not saw it for days though it was right in my face. I am kind of disapoointed because it won't be the fastest small SUV but it will handle better than the Rav4 and I prefer the CX-7's interior anyday. The Rav4 will be slightly faster but won't be better in the turns, just as the Mazda6 compared to its competition.

Also, though it is of little comfort right now, we all know that this isn't Mazda's fastest iteration of this SUV. When they drop the Mazdaspeed version in a couple years, it will be fast enough to satisfy anyone.

The real question is what the pricing of this will be. I anxiously await that announcement. A Rav can easily run you over 25K, real easily, so we'll see what Mazda's value proposition is.

dave90

The CX-7 is 3 inches longer than the RAV4 (RAV4 measurement includes the rear spare tire so the real measurement is probably closer to 6 inches) and is 2 inches wider. It's probably no surprise that it is heavier since it is larger - closer to Murano size.

wilsoch

Not sure where the RAV4 weight figures are coming from, but Carpoint says the lightest V6 RAV4 is 3655 pounds. That's still lighter than the CX-7 (even with its turbo 4), but the weights are a lot closer. I think the RAV4's peak horsepower and torque come at higher revs as well, so that might also close the gap a bit. I suspect the RAV4 will be quicker, but the difference might not be that great. And the CX-7 looks a LOT better, in my opinion.

topgun7

I went to toyota site and download the e-brochure and page 14 listed the weight of the V6 Sport model to be 3549 (2wd) and 3677 (4WD). The 3300 number is for 4 cyl model... So CX7 will probably a little slower but close with the 6 sp Auto (250+lb more but the 6 sp should be about 3-4% faster than the 5 sp used in Rav4 becuase of closer gearing) . I like the CX7 style much better and the lack of a nav is a deal breaker for Rav4. So CX7 and RDX may be the 2 to look into further ..

navigator89

Here are the weight figures for the RAV4.

Base 2.4 FWD - 3300lbs.
Base 2.4 4WD - 3444lbs.
Base 3.5 FWD - 3527lbs.
Base 3.5 4WD - 3655lbs.

Limited 2.4 FWD - 3371lbs.
Limited 2.4 4WD - 3512lbs.
Limited 3.5 FWD - 3547lbs.
Limited 3.5 4WD - 3675lbs.

Sport 2.4 FWD - 3373lbs.
Sport 2.4 4WD - 3514lbs.
Sport 3.5 FWD - 3549lbs.
Sport 3.5 4WD - 3677lbs.

Wilsoch I'm not sure your figures are right. 3655lbs is the weight of a Base 3.5 4WD which isnt the lightest. The Base 3.5 FWD is 3527lbs. making it the lightest V6 RAV4.

I think the RAV4 will be quicker by maybe 2 or 3 tenths of a second because of the less weight and the additional 24hp. However maybe the CX7's power comes earlier due to gearing and all that. We'll just have to see. I like the CX-7 looks a lot better, both inside and outside.

Sorry for the 3300lbs figure I posted earlier that was for a 4 cylinder.

The CX-7 is 3710lbs. for the FWD and 3929lbs. for the 4WD. So the FWD RAV4's are lighter by

183lbs.(Base)
163lbs.(Limited)
161lbs.(Sport)

Average - FWD RAV4's are 169lbs. lighter than a FWD CX-7.

while 4WD RAV4's are lighter by

274lbs.(Base)
254lbs.(Limited)
252lbs.(Sport)

Average - 4WD RAV4's are 260lbs. lighter than a 4WD CX-7.

russ_49

OK folks...Let's do a little simple math!!!...I see that all you techie geeks complaining about the 4MPG difference between the CX-7 and RAV 4. Simple math states, if you drive 15K a year, at the difference of 4MPG in a CX-7, and if premium gas costs $2.40 per/gal., your additional cost per week to feed the CX-7 works out to about $4!!!

IF $4 A WEEK is going to influence your decision, you don't deserve to have one of the sweetest looking rides that has ever come off an assembly line!!

I've ordered mine already!! A Grand Touring, fully loaded, in Copper-Red!!! I don't care about what it's going to cost me!!!

kernick

I agree with most of what you said. But when using an average cost per gallon, you shouldn't use the current cost, which is at its lowest in Winter. Gas is only going to increase. Figure a new vehicle will last 10 years, so we should discuss the average gas price 5 years from now. That might be $3.50 - $4.00 gallon?
And the reason I'm disappointed with the mpg relative to other similar weight vehicles is that with 15 years ago with the technology of that age, the rather heavy Mitsu 3000 VR-4 and Dodge Stealth's AWDs with V-6 turbos were getting that sort of mpg. They were 3.0L twin-trubos making 320hp. I just expect some improvement I guess.

atlantabenny

Hey folks, am a regular on the Edmunds Accord board but this CX-7 has sure gotten my attention.

Does anyone have news of a V6 CX-7 on the horizon ? Or if not, can someone comment on today's turbo longevity and overall ownership experience ?

Thanks.

audia8q

The Lincoln version will get a 3.5 V6.....Mazda is sticking with the turbo, no V6 planned at this point.

bpraxis

How is this vehicle going to compete with the Nissan Murano which has a far superior drive train and starts at $27,000 well equipped.

Who would want a turbo charged four cylinder? I have had a high performance turbo four and would never do it again. Turbo engines will not have the durability of a naturally aspirated engine. Especially pushing a heavy 3800 pounds around.

The CX-7 looks great from the front looking like the RX-8, love the fenders, but I find the side and rear not as exciting.

To my eye the Murano is much more exciting to look at even after four years on the market.

The RAV4 also has a far superior drive train in the V6 configuration.

Something else interesting about the Murano that may bode well for the Mazda is that after four years the Murano is selling better than ever. Seems to be a growing demand for a fun looking crossover that rides like a car.

And one can by the Murano after discounts of about $26,000 well equipped.

Nice to see the fresh sheet metal though.

The upcoming Toyota FJ has much more charismatic styling in my opinion.

Cheers

driverdm

You're joking right? First, tell me how the RAV4's drivetrain is far superior? Tell me how it gets that far designation in there? Marginally would be a better adjective. And when the weight and tuning is taken into consideration, the RAV4 and Mazda CX-7 are about equal performance wise on a straight road. In the twists, I'd give the Mazda the nod.

The Murano, to me, never looked good. It wasn't sporty looking or rugid looking, it was just a cutsy little jeely bean. But tell me how it's powertrain is again "far" superior? It is rated at 245 horsepower @ 5,800 and 246 lbs of torque at 4,400. The Mazda's engine is 244 at 5000 and 258 @ 2500. With those specs, I'd definitely say the Mazda's powertrain is better, especially adding the 6 speed sport automatic. THe base Nissan Murano is 3851 (FWD) and 3983 (AWD. The CX-7 is 3710lbs. for the FWD and 3929lbs. for the 4WD. This equates to me that the CX-7 is faster.

How is this vehicle going to compete with the Nissan Murano which has a far superior drive train and starts at $27,000 well equipped.

That sentence alludes to the fact that the CX-7's pricing will be similar to the Muranos. Since pricing for the CX-7 hasn't been announced, it isn't fair to say anything about pricing. THe CX-7 base model is nicely equipped. In fact I'd take a base model, if they offered a sunroof with it as a stand alone option.

THe Toyota FJ isn't even relavent. The Mazda's styling is set on sporty and it has the sportiest styling of ANY crossover in its segment. Name another if you can that is more sporty. The Toyota FJ is more like an Element to me. But also it can cost upwards to H3 territory and I think we all know that the Hummer image for off roading and rugidness is better than the Toyota image for the same.

As for the turbo 4 cyl not being durable, I have but one reply. Proof?

audia8q

Since pricing for the CX-7 hasn't been announced, it isn't fair to say anything about pricing.

Nothing solid but I have been told to expect the pricing to be in the V6 Tribute range without the Tribute incentives...$26K for a nicely equipped unit.

russ_49

I'll more than likely buy a couple more cars before the price of gas gets to $4.00 a gallon! And I never hold a car for more than a few years! So, I guess that I look at things much more differently than most people! If a new vehicle is going to last 10 years, it's not going to be sitting in by garage for anywhere near that long... :confuse:

kernick

No, but I think if you took a poll, you'd find that the majority of people are expecting gas to go back over $3.00/gal for regular this year. The economy is doing well, China's economy is still growing and millions of cars are being added there, and there's sure to be some Gulf hurricanes; so gas is going to be in demand.

Again and this is not just a knock on Mazda or this vehicle. When a manufacturer brings out these marketing statements that their engine is so advanced and has this great technology - especially on a 4-cyl - and then puts up a 24mpg number, its rather disappointing. I would have expected numbers BETTER than the RAV4 V-6 and the Saturn Vue (3.5L Honda engine).

Oh, and if you want a sporty ride buy a sports car. If you want an SUV/truck buy one. Otherwise all you end up with is a very compromised crossover. Sort of like an NFL team trying to get 1 player who can be a wide receiver and a nose-tackle.

driverdm

Oh, and if you want a sporty ride buy a sports car.

Why is that? The Porche Cayenne says different. The Range Rover Sport says different. The X5 definitely says different.

Times have changed. I like in New England. I like the increased ride height, I like the added weight which is a benefit when we have freezing rain. We all have "wintery mixes" which are freezing rain, snow, and rain all basically at the same time or over the same night. But when we get our two weeks of summer and spring I like to move and move fast.

navigator89

http://www.leftlanenews.com/2006/01/08/detroit-2006-mazda-cx-7-to-start-at-23750- - /

Sounds affordable. Wonder what the Edge pricing will be like. Navigate around in that website and you will find pictures of the similar Ford Edge. Dont forget to check out the Challenger and better yet, the Camaro.

And here, some more pictures.

kernick

Yes, I live in rural NH. I have 2 vehicles with 2 different purpose, not trying to do everything with 1 vehicle. A hammer is a great tool, but sometimes it's better to have a screwdriver to drive screws.

I have a modified '01 Firebird, and an AWD X-Type. Oh, and for other tasks my wife drives a Pickup. By the way 245hp in a 4,000Lb vehicle is not that fast today. If I wanted fast in an SUV I'd consider a Trailblazer SS which is only a few thousand more than this Mazda. Or if you have the extra money get a G. Cherokee SRT-8.

russ_49

I definately understand, I live on the south shore of Boston, and those wintery mixes are a pain. This is only going to be a fun toy to ride, having the confort of sittin up higher than in my 02 Milli S, and more traction with the AWD package, is going to work for me. My wife has an 05 Tribute S with the V6 electronically controlled FWD, and she states that she has never felt safer, being able to handle the snow covered roads, and with the hight advantage for view, she loves the ride.

I'm a big Mazda guy, buying now my 6th one in just over a 5 year period. And if they finally build the AWD V8 9-sadan, the tribute will not be around very long!!!

atlantabenny

Thanks Rich. Given your info, the Lincoln version would be worth looking into. If the Lincoln's interior matches the presence (a subjective factor of course) and quality level of the Mazda interior, the Lincoln model should be a nice proposition.

nowakj66

How will interior space of the CX-7 compare to a Murano? The new RAV4? A Pilot?

I am tall and need a decent size back seat legroom so I can use all the front seat legroom.

driverdm

The specs with interior dimensions is posted on the Mazda website so you can compare it to the Murano that way. They are right on top of each other in most dimensions.

See what I was sayign earlier? At $23K this thing is a bargain. The Murano starts at $26K. I really wonder where the Ford is going to come in at. It should be south of the Mazda but I could be wrong. The Mazda seems to have more features, and more upscale quality than the Ford. That being said, they may have a real pricing issue if these two are too close to each other. If they bill the Ford as a family hauler and the Mazda as a sports SUV, and price them aroudn the same, it may make for an interesting time in the market.

That being said, I wonder where the Lincoln will come in at? Since it won't canabilize anything in the portfolio if it starts at $30K, I wonder if it will slip in at that mark. If so, it too would be a screaming bargain. THen again Lincoln has a way of overpricing its products.

driverdm

"If I wanted fast in an SUV I'd consider a Trailblazer SS which is only a few thousand more than this Mazda. Or if you have the extra money get a G. Cherokee SRT-8."

Define a few thousand dollars more, since a Trailblazer SS starts at $33,600, that is a whooping 10K more than the Mazda. The G. Cherokee is $39,995 without any options. Now you may be talking about a $20K difference. I'm glad that life is treating you so well that $10K is simply a "few" thousand dollars more and $20K is "if you have the extra money". For the rest of us that want a sport SUV, I think the Mazda is the only thing in its price and "common man" league.

kernick

you: Define a few thousand dollars more, since a Trailblazer SS starts at $33,600, that is a whooping 10K more than the Mazda.

me: That's sticker price. I had checked during the "Red Tag Sale" that just ended and you could get $5,500 off right there + rebates. GM will shortly have their next even higher discount program soon. Maybe you'll get $1K off the Cx-7 after its on the market for a few months.

It looks like a nice vehicle, that is why I'm here. I just think everyone should be objective when comparing vehicles. There are many good choices.

bpraxis

I certainly appreciate your enthusiasm for the new CX-7. The front has a very fun sports car appearance but as I mentioned before the rear tailights remind me of a Chevrolet. Do you work for Mazda may I ask?

Recently there was an article on KBB.com that ranked how many people would buy the same brand again. Lexus and Toyota were at the top with approximetely 64% that would buy the same brand again.

Mazda was a disaster with only 23% that would buy Mazda again. That is a surprise to me because the Mazda 3 gets such great press and I like the new Mazda 5 MicroVan which I feel would do very well.

In my opinion the new CX-7 is far more sexy than the RAV-4 but if one does not care about looks than the RAV4 is the logical choice. The RAV will have much better resale value, be more durable, and the six cylinder the the RAV is simply a much better engine. The RAV will smoke the new CX-7 in the quarter mile also.

Driverdm, why do you think that many manufacturers do not use a turbo four. They were used extensively in the 1980s and were durability nightmares for the manufacturers. I have had turbo fours so I speak from limitted experience. My preference would be for a naturally aspirated engine anyday. It is a shame that Mazda is not yet offering a V6 for the new CX-7.

I am looking forward to seeing the new CX-7 on the road.

carguy58

"Mazda was a disaster with only 23% that would buy Mazda again. That is a surprise to me because the Mazda 3 gets such great press and I like the new Mazda 5 MicroVan which I feel would do very well."

When does this survey of 23% of people buying a Mazda again date back to? 2002 Mazda owners. I mean Mazda is a different brand entirely than it was back 3 years ago.

"The RAV will have much better resale value, be more durable, and the six cylinder the the RAV is simply a much better engine. The RAV will smoke the new CX-7 in the quarter mile also."

Who knows the Mazda may have good resale value. It depends how much the car buying public likes the Mazda CX weither if it will have good resale or not. I have heard the Mazda 3 has pretty good resale value. I don't think somebody shopping for a car based SUV will care if the RAV-4 smokes the CX in the quarter mile. Its not like we are talking about a Camaro vs a Mustang.

driverdm

I am a Mazda fan, I have to admit it. When I was looking for a sporty four door car, Mazda was the onbly company that delivered at the time and at the right price. Since buying my 6, every highway drive has been pure joy. I just came back from a drive on 91 South between Hartford and Massachusetts that was as relaxing as a good nights sleep after having some Nyquil. So I don't work for Mazda, but maybe someday they'll give me a call. I want to be the guy that test drives the cars before they hit production.

The 6 did win some customer satisfaction award, as I saw on a commercial during the New England vs JAcksonville game this weekend. I'd buy another one. As someone else stated, that study isn't based on the new Mazda's as much as the old. Think about it,what did Mazda have to offer before the Mazda6?

I respectfully disagree that the Rav4 is the more "logical" choice. THe resale value of the Mazda is dictated by demand which we can only speculate right now.

The Rav4 will get the Mazda in the quarter mile, but in the corners, the Mazda will own the road. And I'm sure there is a speed version coming that will not only run through the quarter mile but blaze a fiery trail from 0 - 60 and 0 - 100 as well.

As for turbo fours in the 80s. Alot of things in the 80s sucked. Cars, economy, interest rates, disco, fuzzy dice,... you get the picture. Now-in-days everything is durability checked.

richml

Why all the comments about the RAV4? Seems to me it is aiming for a much different target/market than the CX-7.

mmcar

"I certainly appreciate your enthusiasm for the new CX-7... Do you work for Mazda may I ask?"

I don't know what kind of chevy you were talking about but the CX-7's taillight is pretty. BTW, may I ask you work for Toyota bpraxis?

I like driverdm's enthusiasm for CX-7 and that's why I like to see guys like him in this thread. There is also another RAV-4 thread in this forum.

CX-7 is designed for a small market and like RX-8 it will not be a high volume vehicle. I personally would welcome a more practical CX-7 but also concern the "change" would undermine its unique style. Based on the record of RX-8, the CX-7 is supposed to have a very good resale value. BTW, It is not reasonable to compare two SUVs with different sizes.

About the "22%", some old models caused some problems in the past. Like what they say, things change after 2002.

About the Turbo, 1980's is about 20 years ago. I believe engine technology has been improved a lot since then. Actually, european companies use a lot of Turbo engines in their currently lines (like Passat, Audi and others). Haven't heard any "Turbo related" problem so far.

driverdm

mmcar, nice points, especially about the turbo charged engine.

bpraxis, I think what we are collectively trying to say is that there is no tangible evidence to suggest that the RAV4's powertrain is better. There is also no evidence to suggest that the CX-7's resale or reliability will be significantly worse than the Toyotas.

mmcar, I think the same way you do. Mazda said it was only trying to sell 40K units a year. That's 3,333 a month. I think it can muster that easily. It is small volume but highly sport orientated. Look at Mazda's portfolio and you'll see it has a lot of sporty vehicles that sell at lower volumes. Even the 3 isn't significantly high volume. The Miata, the RX-8, the rumored RX-7, all lower volume than the big leagues like Toyota and Honda. Mazda has a niche and it is providing excellent product for that niche. I can't wait till they unveal the next 6 either this year or the next.

I am trully excited about what is going on in Detroit. To sum up the whole NAIAS, the word "hope" comes to mind. If you haven't looked at the pics of the Buick Enclave, I suggest you do. It is hope in a curvy mid-sive SUV box.

driverdm

I don't think the Mazda CX-7 will have to worry about the Enclave. The Edge either. And I hope Lincoln will not charge more than common sense tells them for the MKX.

The Enclave should be renamed, "Why Buy An Escalade Again?". That thing is amazing. Bentley could copy that concept to make their SUV. If I had to pick between it and an M-Class. Give me the Buick (I write this as I duck under my desk, affraid of the ensuing lightning bolt from the heavens for saying I'd ever buy a Buick).

brutus22

Ok, I had to pipe in. First the Ford Edge is not competing against the CX-7, as I understand it will not only be bigger but offer a 3rd row....Mazda is supposed to come out with an Edge twin called the CX-9 with 3rd row same engine as Edge, but with styling like the CX-7. As for the RAV4, arguably it does not stand up to the CX-7 in the exterior or interior styling. Styling is always subjective, but I would argue 7-10 people would say that the CX-7 looks better in and out. I think the RAV4 is a solid vehicle but I would not cross shop these 2.

To me the CX-7 is truly the first suv-type vehicle that offers wagon AWD utility without being a wagon and without being a ponderous truck suv. I prefer cars but I do need awd and more utility here in NH and am not crazy about the current crop of wagons out there. Finally here is something that meets my wants and needs. I am a Honda guy and was hoping the new Acura RDX truly the closest competitor, would be my next car but the styling of the CX-7 is a home run IMO, the RDX only a triple...not to mention if the pricing indicated is correct, I am impressed.

B.

bpraxis

Thankyou for your interesting replys and I do not work for any automotive company. I am an auto enthusiast like many of you and am looking forward to seeing the new CX-7 in person.

The CX-7 seems to be going after the Nissan Murano, Infiniti FX market which I own, which is the sporty suv with edgy styling.

Playing devils advocate regarding the CX how are people going to react in the marketplace to 58 cubic feet of space for luggage. This is the worst by far related to the competition. The Murano has 82 cubic feet of space, the RAV has 73 cubic feet of space, the Infiniti has 65 cubic feet of space, etc.

In my mind a sexy bodystyle can overcome just about any objection. Of course nobody buys a exotic looking car for practicality as we know.

You may want to also check out the new Saturn Vue which was designed in Europe and has a fantastic appearance, very exotic cooming out also as an 07 model.

aviboy97

Def. no V6...The V6 would have to be a Ford motor. Mazda insisted that this vehicle would be all Mazda.

Or if not, can someone comment on today's turbo longevity and overall ownership experience ?


Turbo technology has vastly improved in the last 20 years. Mazda's turbo is made by Hitachi-Warner. It's a single scroll turbo, that uses updated turbo technology. Turbos are built to last much longer then the past. I remember turbos from the 80's had to be rebuilt around 30K miles. Some Saab's still have that problem!
Turbocharging is also becoming very popular amongst auto makers again, because of the new found reliability in turbocharging. Although Mazda's MZR 2.3L DISI Turbo is new, it's tough to judge reliability. The regular MZR 2.3L has been very reliable. Since the MZR 2.3L Turbo is built in Japan, one can assume that reliability will be above average. I hope I answered the question for you!

qddave

Just read this on Edmunds, about the Edge. Apparently, there is no 3rd row.

link title

carguy58

"As someone else stated, that study isn't based on the new Mazda's as much as the old."

I;m not sure if it was Mazda's from 2002 but I was just saying Mazda's selling a totally different product than they did 3 years ago. If that survey was from 2002 cars it basically just doesn't mean anything to me.

"Think about it,what did Mazda have to offer before the
Mazda6?"

Well they had the 99 Protege and the Tribute. I see my share of last generation Protege's out there as well as some Tribute's.

"As for turbo fours in the 80s. Alot of things in the 80s sucked. Cars, economy, interest rates, disco, fuzzy dice,... you get the picture."

Disco died comletely by 1982. It was New Wave bands and Pop/R&B singers after that. The Hair metal trend was kinda ugly.

carguy58

"About the "22%", some old models caused some problems in the past. Like what they say, things change after 2002."

It's not 22% of models caused problems the survey was saying that 22% of whoever owns a Mazda from whatever time period the survey was taken from would buy a Mazda again.

nowakj66

It seems like everyone is gunning for it from the CX-7, RDX, Edge, 5 passenger Tribeca, MKS.

One advantage of the Murano - its been out for a few years so the early adopter prices and the first year bugs are gone.

I like the look of the CX-7 but I'll be darned if I do not like the exterior styling of the Edge a little better. They key is the top and bottom of the side glass run parallel and then meet at the C-pillar. They also meet in a rearward arc at the back.

In the CX-7, there is a little rear hip and the glass line on the last third of the vehicle kicks up over it. I do like the C-pillar.

Too many vehicles (Versa, Rav 4, Tribeca, Vibe RX-8) copied the Murano's C-pillar which may look cool but seems to create a blind spot.

I do like the CX-7 and Edge appear to be priced quite a bit less than the Murano. It's not hard to spend $35k on a Murano with leather.

brutus22

I have now learned that the Edge will not have 3rd row I stand corrected. Even though I did read that promise in several places.

B.

aviboy97

here is the price information for the CX-7

FWD Sport...........$24,310
Touring.........$26,060
Grand Touring...$26,860

AWD Sport...........$26,010
Touring.........$27,760
Grand Touring...$28,560

Options:
Moonroof/Bose Audio/6CD..........$1,585
Crystal White Pearl Mica Paint...$200
Power Seat (sport)...............$350
Technology Package...............$4,005

Technology Package includes:
Power sliding glass moonroof with interior sunshade, in-dash 6 CD changer, 9 speaker Bose CENTERPOINT Surround System with audio pilot, DVD navigation system with voice command and touch screen, rearview camera, Mazda Advanced Keyless & Start System, anti-theft peripheral system.

navigator89

Just wondering where did you get these prices from? I heard the base price for a FWD Sport model is $23,750.

Pricing