Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Mazda CX-7 vs. Nissan Murano

24567

Comments

  • disladisla Posts: 55
    I totally agree. If you were looking for a vehicle based purely on its performance data, you wouldn't be looking into a crossover segment. Utility and comfort matter a lot!
    Why do you need a crossover with such a small cargo(compare ~59c.ft for Mazda vs. ~84 for Murano) as well as very low back seat
  • audia8qaudia8q Posts: 3,138
    Well I guess Mazda should cancel the CX-7 since the experts have spoken. Of course there is no need to actually drive the CX-7 to make a legit comparison.
  • disladisla Posts: 55
    Oh, please, why be sarcastic? We are not disputing the existence of CX-7, just comparing it to another vehicle.
    CX-7 would definitely appeal to people that need a smaller SUV with a good performance and don't necessarily need a big cargo room or a comfortable back seat.
  • unixxusunixxus Posts: 97
    "CX-7 would definitely appeal to people that need a smaller SUV with a good performance and don't necessarily need a big cargo room or a comfortable back seat."

    Since I doubt you have sat in the back seat of the Cx-7 for any length of time, how did you come to the conclusion that it is uncomfortable? I would also not classify the cargo room of the Murano as 'big'. If cargo room is such a priority for me, The Murano will not be on my list.
  • audia8qaudia8q Posts: 3,138
    It easy to be sarcastic when people are making such direct comparisons without driving the vehicle. Without a test drive the comparisons don't really mean much..After 20+ years in the car biz I have seen alot people do endless statistical comparisons that end up meaning nothing after one 15 minute test drive.
  • disladisla Posts: 55
    You shouldn't have doubts, that was the first vehicle I actually thoroughly inspected at the NY Autoshow, as I was genuinely interested in comparing it to the Murano (my lease on 2003 Murano was about to expire). You can guess that I leased a 2006 Murano after being able to compare the two. I do regret that I wasn't able to drive CX-7, but again, cosidering ALL of the factors, I went for the Murano. Moreover, CX-7 is a brand new model with yet unknown reliability compared to Murano. I also wanted the features that Murano offers and that would only be available as a part of CX-7 Technology package(with Nav System that I didn't need): MP3-capable changer, intelligent key security system, rear view camera. Oops, sorry, the first one isn't even available on CX-7, not sure about the intelligent key.
  • disladisla Posts: 55
    You should have mentioned earlier that you have been more than "20+ years in the car biz". Why aren't you also saying that you are simply trying to sell this car?? That actually disqualifies you as an unbiased consumer, you are just a sponsor.
  • unixxusunixxus Posts: 97
    You should have mentioned earlier that you have been more than "20+ years in the car biz". Why aren't you also saying that you are simply trying to sell this car?? That actually disqualifies you as an unbiased consumer, you are just a sponsor.

    I guess by that same token, you are also disqualified as an unbiased consumer since you own a Murano. Seems like you are trying to justify your purchase by highlighting your perceived shortcomings of the Mazda Cx-7.
  • disladisla Posts: 55
    man, you are really funny :)
    Of course I am a consumer, the one who makes the choice.
    unlike me, you don't really choose what to sell if you work for a certain dealership. Whatever you blame me for, I just expressed my unbiased opinion, everyone is entitled to one. I didn't have to purchase the same car again, why would I even look at the CX-7 then? Well, i don't really want to make it a personal discussion, let me add that an upcoming CX-9 looks MUCH better, inside and out, it's much closer to the Murano from a size and features stand point, and would probably be priced even higher. Maybe I'd get myself one after my current lease is up?
    Good Luck with selling Mazda, but don't publsih any "consumer" reviews on cars, the ones you are selling or competing ones. :)
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Of course I am a consumer, the one who makes the choice.
    unlike me, you don't really choose what to sell if you work for a certain dealership


    That would hold true only if you were to walk into a dealership looking for a job, not caring about the product. However, if he chose to sell Mazda, because he likes the product, that is totally different. It's just like buying one, and being a customer.

    upcoming CX-9 looks MUCH better, inside and out, it's much closer to the Murano from a size and features stand poin

    CX-9 is much bigger. More along the lines of the Honda Pilot. The Murano is rather small as far as SUV's go. So is the CX-7. If you were looking for cargo room, neither would be on my list. I would opt for a 4-Runner, Explorer, Pilot, CX-9.

    On another note. I sell Mazda's, and I am a Mazda owner. So, do I have the right to give a "customer" review? :P :confuse:
  • audia8qaudia8q Posts: 3,138
    You should have mentioned earlier that you have been more than "20+ years in the car biz". Why aren't you also saying that you are simply trying to sell this car??

    I didn't need to mention it since its on my profile and it clearly states my profession...That doesnt disqualify me as a consumer because I am a consumer just like you.

    I'm not selling anything to anyone on here so if you don't like a particular make or model thats fine...everyone has their own likes and dislikes.

    I have driven both vehicles so that gives me insight that you don't have....so using your thinking, I guess that makes you unqualified to speak about the CX-7 right?
  • maximafanmaximafan Posts: 592
    I got to spend four days with a Nissan Murano
    rental, and, yes it has pretty darned
    impressive cargo room. It's got almost as
    much cargo room as a Honda Pilot, but with
    no third row seat. My family members, of
    which I was visiting when I rented the Murano,
    were also impressed since the car really does
    not look like it would be that roomy if
    judging from the looks of the outside
    Also, there was plenty of elbow and knee room
    for two adults and my 10-year old nephew in
    the rear seat.
  • disladisla Posts: 55
    I think that Pilot, Explorer and 4-Runner are more truck-like than they are crossovers, they drive and handle very differently. Of course performance, drivability and handling matter, they do a lot. again, i just tried to choose a car that doesn't compromize the qualities listed above, but would also have a Utility part(read "cargo") of a substantional amount. You know what, guys? It seems like this forum or, rather you attacking me, remind me on "mazdafanclub.org", where i wouldn't be praising another vehicle. But this is Edmunds, so again, everyone has their own opinion and there's no need in doind it.
    If you drive a Mazda and sell those cars, too, you definitely can express your opinion on it, although I, personally, wouldn't think of it as unbiased, that's all.
    If you have actually driven the Murano before comparing those two, than it's a different story altogether.
    By the way, Pilot's cargo capacity is just 6 cu.ft. over Murano's, as opposed to 23 cu.ft difference between Murano and CX-7
  • richmlrichml Posts: 156
    I think the discourse on Edmunds forums is genteel compared to other forums. I'm posting here because my wife is interested in the CX-7 - me too!

    I own a Mazda3, and participate in Edmunds' 3 forums. Almost everyone there shares an interest in the 3 and is a Mazda3 owner, or about to become one.

    When moderators start "X vs. Y" threads, such as this one, they attract followers of at least two different makes of vehicles. They don't usually agree on much.

    Some moderator started a "Honda Fit vs. Mazda3" thread recently - even though the Civic would seem to be more of a comparison with the 3 - and there is a "Civic vs. 3" thread. The result - fans of one vehicle bashing fans of another.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    No doubt the Pilot, Explorer and 4-Runner are very trucky. That is why there are CUV's. Better handling, style and ride comfort.

    There is also no-doubting how successful the Murano has been, just look how many there are out there. The CX-7 is, in my opinion, the first REAL alternative to the Murano. Also, this vehicle has so much hype, it's crazy for Mazda people, and Mazda owners to not get so excited.

    There are advantages and disadvantages to both. We can, and will, dispute them all day long, for this is the Murano Vs. CX-7 forum.

    As for who is qualified to leave remarks on this web site is everyone, as long as there is some substance to back up your opinion. It's YOUR opinion, and everyone has the right to have a different one. Also, those who have driven, or drive these vehicles on a daily basis should share their opinion. Personally, I have never driven the Murano or the CX-7 (I will when they come in next week). So, for now I leave posts on what info Mazda has disclosed to us. And on the Murano, I post what I have read and I have only been talking about features and price.

    I don't think anyone was attacking you. Internet posts are tough to read emotion, and are often misinterpreted. There is nothing wrong with poking a little fun every now and then ;)

    If you want to find tough posters who like to cry a bit, and get very malicious, go to a Honda forum. Heaven forbid anyone who says anything negative about a Honda! :D ;)
  • driverdmdriverdm Posts: 505
    I have been looking at a Mazda CX-7 for some time now and since it is so close to a Murano, I thought I'd pay this forum a visit.

    My cousin owns a new Murano sand I have driven in it many times. I sat in the CX-7 at the NY auto show. To me, right now, the CX-7 is a better vehicle for me.

    I am looking for a performance SUV that will give me more cargo space than my midsize sedan and have a premium feel to it. So, for me, the cargo space in the CX-7 is good, though the Murano's is more. I also like the Mazda interior design better. I'd say they are about even in terms of quality. The Mazda has a kind of luxury sports car feel to it with the high shifter position and short distance between steering wheel and shifter. Very very G35 like, minus the cheap interior of the G. And the Mazda's performance is exceptional at its pricing. Mazda's always have very good road feel when driving... spiritedly.

    Also, although this is purely subjective, O like the CX-7 styling better. If you see it in the flesh, you'll actually notice that it and the Murano look nothing alike but have a similar silhouette.
  • driverdmdriverdm Posts: 505
    I think one of the weaknesses of the CX-7 is the turbo engine because it requires premium fuel. I think, likewise, a weakness of the Nissan is the CVT because people don't really know about it and it hasn't received the warmest of reviews. Here's what Edmunds said about the Murano:

    "It was also the vehicle that most intrigued our editors, possibly because it looked like a winner, even if the shape didn't appeal. Because it was such a fun vehicle to drive, we were all pulling for it to win, but it didn't.

    Unfortunately, the Murano was ultimately hamstrung by its continuously variable transmission (CVT). The tranny, which gave the Nissan the best fuel economy (a miserly 20 mpg city and 24 mpg highway) of all the vehicles in the test, was also responsible for its third-place finish. We found the CVT interfered too much with the wonderful performance of its 245-horsepower, 3.5-liter V6. Despite having the most ponies in the test, the confused wind-up of the CVT made the Murano feel sluggish at takeoff.

    The CVT does offer a Sport mode, but we didn't like how it kept the engine boiling at 2,000 to 2,500 rpm more than in the regular mode at any given speed. However, the Sport mode provided instant acceleration and a deep-throated roar. One of our editors pointed out that Nissan was supposed to offer automanual capability for the CVT (as Audi does) but, much to his regret, it never made it to production. He suggested that Nissan's engineers should just set the transmission's programming in between the current "D" and "Sport" settings and be done with it.

    Off-road ability aside, the Murano is a likable vehicle that blends unique styling with a spacious, comfortable interior and a fun-to-drive character. If it wasn't for the power-sapping CVT transmission, it might have won the test, but such is the chance you take with new technology. Future revisions may cure the Murano's transmission woes, but until then, it will have to be satisfied with a strong third-place finish in a field of four strong competitors."
  • lilarrylilarry Posts: 13
    "I think one of the weaknesses of the CX-7 is the turbo engine because it requires premium fuel. I think, likewise, a weakness of the Nissan is the CVT because people don't really know about it and it hasn't received the warmest of reviews."

    The Murano also requires premium fuel.
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    Sorry Lilarry, I use to own a Murano, I never put a drop of premium fuel in it and never heard one knock or ping!
  • honakerhonaker Posts: 74
    I don't know, I've never owned or driven a murano, but from the nissan website murano specs, it says

    Engine
    3.5-liter DOHC 24-valve V6 engine1
    245 hp @ 5,800 rpm
    246 lb-ft of torque @ 4,400 rpm

    1Use regular unleaded fuel with 87 octane. For maximum power use premium fuel.
  • lilarrylilarry Posts: 13
    You are being taken in by marketing verbiage. Try reading it the other way around.

    The Murano's engine is designed for premium fuel. The Murano's computer will adjust the engine for regular fuel. You won't knock or ping and it'll run okay but you will have reduced power when using regular fuel.

    In this forum we are comparing the Murano with the CX-7. We can't fairly compare the Murano's acceleration and road manners to the CX-7 without acknowledging that, to reach the capabilities we are comparing, the Murano needs premium fuel.

    From what I've read, the CX-7 also has an "emergency mode" where the computer will adjust the engine for lower octaine fuel. It'll run on regular too, albeit with much reduced power. But where's the "zoom zoom" in that?

    AT least Mazda is being honest and direct in their marketing specs.
  • honakerhonaker Posts: 74
    Heh, no, I was saying that according to spec, the Murano should use premium.
  • bosi77bosi77 Posts: 37
    Mazda CX-7 is better for image. A little more sporty
  • cx7byercx7byer Posts: 9
    I visited a Nissan dealership yesterday and found that the CX-7 offers far better value. For 31,000 (without tax) you can purchase a CX-7 Grand Touring AWD model with leather interior and the tech package including a Navigation system, moonroof, Bose audio system, six cd changer, and all the rest. I found that the Nissan requires at least 4,000 more dollars for leather and a sunroof, and you'd have to splurge even further for a Navigation system. So Nissan, while an attractive car, is definetly off the list, as well as the Lexus I was considering. I find there is far more value in the Mazda than either car. After all, an SUV is an SUV, right?
  • ctxctx Posts: 50
    No, an SUV is not an SUV. The Murano is larger, back seat is roomier, more towing capacity, etc. Which is great for some folks (me for example). CX-7 (in my mind anyhow) is much smaller and engine performance is much different than the Murano (nothing bad.. just different). They are not the same vehicles even though they have the same bells/whistles available.

    Please note I’m not saying that either is better, just depends on what one wants out of their transportation. For me.. well I gave up my very small "zoom-zoom" (Miata) because I wanted more "room-room", a comfy ride and the ability to “haul stuff”. Trust me I was very interested in the CX-7 when I took the gamble and bought my Murano before CX-7 came out and after driving one I believe I made the right decision (again....for me).

    Anyhow, I was wary of the Muranos cost when I was looking but they are heavily discounted off of MSRP. I got an SL 2wd with Touring (has leather,sunroof, zenon headlights, backup cam, etc) for about 31K. I’ve seen AWDs being had for 31.5-33K (leather, sunroof, etc). Not sure they included Nav tho…
  • jbuswelljbuswell Posts: 16
    Yesterday my CX-7 was parked next to a Nissan Murano while I was waiting for my wife at the doctors office. The Murano owner was very interested in my CX-7 and we talked for a few minutes comparing the vehicles. He had just bought his Murano about a month ago.

    There wasn't much size difference between the cars, the hood on the Murano is a little higher, but the styling on the windshield looked "dated" compared to the sleek and sharp angle of the windshield on the CX-7. The interior of the Murano looks a little roomier, but there wasn't much difference. I say looks, because the way the dash curves around the windshield makes the front seem roomier, the same way with my 2001 Aztek, but not really much difference. The Murano's dash / drivers console sticks out, while the CX-7 seems to be styled better (blends into the dash more). The Murano does have roomier rear seats, the extra couple of inches is the difference between a full sized adult fitting between two car seats, and not. Trunk space, the CX-7 and the Murano seemed to be pretty much on par.

    If I needed to tow something, I'd probably go with the Murano, but considering the Murano cost about $8k more than my CX-7, the CX-7 is by far better value for money.

    On the whole towing thing, I'm just not sure if I'd want to tow anything with the CX-7. I've seen plenty of Lexus, Muranos, Jeeps and other SUVs with tow bars, but I've never actually seen an SUV around here other than Ford Explorers towing anything. Most people seem to use pickups for towing, probably not a bad idea :)
  • disladisla Posts: 55
    "Trunk space, the CX-7 and the Murano seemed to be pretty much on par. "

    I looked up the cargo room numbers and, according to them,
    Mo's cargo is larger by over 20 cu.ft. Do you think those numbers aren't accurate if the trunks are equal, as you said?
  • cowbellcowbell Posts: 125
    I'm going to have to agree with disla on this one when it comes to cargo room. While the CX-7 is definitely the sportier car, and has a much better looking cockpit, the Murano has much more storage space.

    This was the deciding factor in buying the Murano as we do a lot of things around the house and are always buying very large objects. The Murano's seat down capacity is 81.6 ft^2 while the CX-7's is only 58.6 ft^2. Thinking of the deck set that we barely squeezed into the Murano, I'm afraid the CX-7 is much more Sport than Utility in the SUV department.
  • dave90dave90 Posts: 27
    I was wondering about the cargo area as well. The numbers you state are clear from both websites, but I took a tape measure to both and don't find nearly as significant a difference.

    With the seats down, the CX-7 cargo area was about 2" shorter and about 1" narrower. Hardly the numbers you'd expect from those figures.

    I've seen other odd examples before too. A couple of years ago, I was helping a friend shop a Nissan Armada and a Toyota Seqoia. The Toyota was supposed to have more cargo room, but everywhere we measured, the Nissan was bigger :confuse: ">
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    maybe they appear to be "on par" from an exterior visual point. Also, if you do not look toward the ceiling of both vehicles, you may not notice that much of a difference. The CX-7 is sloped and curved in the rear which inhibits cargo space, the Murano, actually, is more squared off, giving it more room.
Sign In or Register to comment.