Howdy, Stranger!

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

Mazda CX-7 v Toyota RAV4 v Honda CR-V



  • Bought '07 Cx-7 in October---2006....currently 37000 miles. No real problems since new, averaging about 20 mpg in town. Not unhappy with vehicle, would buy again. Does use premium fuel, could have less plastic in the interior.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    For 2010 we will see some changes for the CX-7. There will be 2 engine choices. The exact specs are not known, however, it is presumed that one will be the 2.5L and the 2.3L DISI Turbo might become a 2.5L DISI Turbo. I would expect some interior enhancements as well. Hopefully better quality plastic more on par with the Forester or CR-V.
  • I own a 2007 CRV LX-AWD/ great car. Extremely reliable however boring to drive. I dare to say that the CRV is a Chick car and not a manly ride. The engine on the CRV is great on gas, I drive long island to nyc and I get about 21.5 on highway/ 19 on city driving. Inside the CRV, is great if you need room for a baby seat and groceries. The CRV engine hardly has any humf, afterall it is only 165HP.

    I also own a 2008 CX-7 GT-AWD / awesome engine response, great braking system (better than Honda) This car aims to be a BMW from the inside and a wanna be Lexus rx330 from the outisde. Yes it is a bit noisey and perhaps not ergonomically well put as the CRV, trust me it is for sure a fun car to drive.
    I drive a lot so highway I get about 19 MPG/ 15 MPG for city driving.
    What can I say it is a hungry engine, love the turbo when it kicks in specially at highway speeeds.

    Overall both cars are great on snow /rain, space and ergonomics thumbs up for HONDA
    Engine, brake system and awesome sports looks thunbs up for MAZDA :)
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    Looks like both cars are chick cars: Niether has a clutch! :P
  • CRV is slightly cheaper than Rav4 but i really dislike the front end. I think Rav4 has more power too.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    I'm beginning to believe "chicks" do have more common sense and therefore are well deserving of "holding" 70% of the wealth.
  • My first experience with the RAV4 was test driving it in a V6. I was impressed with its power to the point where it had me questioning why would Toyota put this much power under the hood of a compact SUV. Considering the gas mileage is almost identical to the 4 cylinder, I thought perhaps it was not worth even test driving the 4 cyl. However after some thought and analysis, I noticed that the 6cyl. cost about 2000 dollars more than the 4cyl. and will also eat up brakes and tires much quicker than the 4 cyl. With that in mind I test drove the 4 cyl. engine. Although I have always gone for the bigger is better approach, this time around I was more careful. I noticed the 2.5 4 cylinder had plenty of torque and pep and was better suited for the RAV4 in everyday driving. So I bought one in the 4 cylinder. Now that I have been driving it for 2 weeks, I love it. It is quiet, smooth and has plenty of power on and off the highway. As a matter of fact, Toyota will put this 4cylinder in its bigger Highlander for late 2009. So considering the extra mile or 2, I get per gallon, coupled with the initial 2000 dollar savings on the smaller engine, the 4 cyl. is a great chioce. Hey, who knows where gas will go in the future. It was 5 bucks a gallon only 6 months ago and since then it has dropped over 100 dolllars a barrel to a 1.34 per gallon price. I think 2009 will be the year Americans start to focus more on saving then spending. After all that is what has got us in all this trouble to begin with. "out of control spending". Waste less, save more and you will come out ahead.
  • almattialmatti Posts: 164
    I have a CRV EX-L 2007 too. A Very, very good car for it's intended purpose - a CUV with AWD. My wife loves it. We're in the same gneral area that you are - Westchester Co, NY. I definetely agree with you, It's a "chick" car, even Honda's literature will tell you that. It was designed specifically for women with young children - easy access, a "cute" look to it, etc. I too liked the Mazda CX-7 , a lot. test drove it, didn't like the turbo lag and seeing the poor mileage results reported here and other sites. If it had the 3.0 Duratec V-6 , the one that was in the Mazda 6 (2005 that was totalled - not even a scratch with my son driving at UMASS - flipped over on Black Ice), I would have taken that in a nanosecond.
  • typesixtypesix Posts: 314
    It may be advertised as a "chick" car but I see plenty of men driving them in Boston area. Prefer the previous generation boxy look with its superior cargo space and visibility, only feature better in current generation is the upward folding cargo door.
  • phisherphisher Posts: 175
    You and your damm hatred of the slush box. ;)
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    You and your damm hatred of the slush box.

    Clutch Saves gas!

    Praise the Clutch!

    Clutch is the answer to all of your congestion problems!

    Banish that automatic to the Heidies where it came from!

  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Putting a clutch in a FWD or F/awd vehicle would do nothing but make the automotive insurance companies profits SOAR..!!!
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 39,982
    I had a 5 speed FWD for 17 years and the insurance was cheap. I don't hear Subaru owners with MTs complaining about their insurance rates either. I don't think there's any factual basis for your assertion.

    Need help navigating? - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Just have a look at how many FWD sticks are now discontinued.
  • steverstever YooperlandPosts: 39,982
    Yeah, but it's not because of insurance or safety. Can't eat, drink the Starbucks, and drive stick too good. :P

    The Future Of The Manual Transmission

    Need help navigating? - or send a private message by clicking on my name.

  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 4,737
    Just a thought, people should consider the Mazda 5. Very highly rated, it is like a very small minivan or wagon (only considered like a minivan because of sliding doors). We cross-shopped the CRV with the Mazda 5 and chose it because:

    - higher than a car but lower than an SUV
    - MUCH better handling with extremely tight turning circle - handles like a Mazda 3
    - Seats 6 in three rows, but can fold rear seats for cargo room
    - Bargain priced, fully loaded with nav, leather, bluetooth, heated seats around $25K
    - Outstanding crash test scores
    - Better mileage than CRV or RAV4
    - Sliding doors mean no doors swinging out in tight parking spots
    - Available with a stick shift if desired
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706

    Maybe that's why I have only 20k miles on my '01 Porsche C4........

    It's either take my wife along as a "holder" or no Starbucks.
  • phisherphisher Posts: 175
    Just FYI. I work in an Insurance agency and the MT cars are less expensive to insure simply because replacement value is less. :)
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,803
    Just FYI. I work in an Insurance agency and the MT cars are less expensive to insure simply because replacement value is less.

    Also, theft rates are a lot lower. New generation of joy riders have no clue what to do with the 3rd pedal.

    They have grown up with their parents driving slushbox minivans, and their computer games always shifted for them.

    There was an article in the paper about these car thieves that just sat in a manual Accord trying to figure out how to get it going! The police caught them while they were still trying to figure out how to put it in "drive"
  • My wife has the Rav-4 $28k and I have the CX-7 $24K, I think the Rav-4 have more room in the back row and it reclines love that thing, other thing that I love is the MP3 input for my Ipod, I wish the CX-7 has that option.
This discussion has been closed.