Howdy, Stranger!

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





Mazda CX-7

1161719212236

Comments

  • unixxusunixxus Posts: 97
    My statement on the NAV system was a tongue-in-cheek comment meant to show how illogical the "Bridgestone/Goodyear, Mazda pulling a fast one" post by syadasti was. I agree that Mazda did a good job showing most views. My point was that just because the prevalent interior shot is with the NAV does not mean Mazda cannot have models without the NAV. (Just because the car in the brochure and at the autoshow had Goodyear tires does not obligate mazda to sell all Cx-7s with these tires).
  • unixxusunixxus Posts: 97
    'Ford should have placed the new 3.5 V6, which only needs regular, into the CX-7.'
    Maybe we should change the name to Ford CX-7? Mazda chose to use the 2.3 Turbo engine not because Ford refused to let them use the new 3.5 V6, but because they 'Mazda' felt that was the best choice to achieve the dynamics they were looking for. A similar engine (also requiring premium) is being used in the upcoming Acura RDX. Did Honda refuse to let Acura use a V6? Since we are yet to drive the CX or the Edge, we cannot say which engine is better suited for the CX-7.
  • syadastisyadasti Posts: 24
    <<Syadasti, were you ever seriously considering buying a CX-7, or was the tire talk just for conversation? Can't wait to spot a CX-7 on Highway 35.>>

    I was considering getting it sooner, but now I'm definately going to wait. Other cars I am considering - I like the new RAV4's drivetrain, but don't like the rear door opening, boring styling, and features at the price point it comes it - hopefully there will be an improved Lexus version. I would like to know more about the upcoming Infinti CX35. I test drove a 2007 Passat Wagon 2L DI Turbo and thought it was pretty good for the money (the dealer said he'd give me invoice right off the bat when I'm looking to buy). The 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander coming in November seems like it could be decent (no. 1 selling SUV in Japan past 6 months, outsells new RAV4 and Lexus RX there), but it isn't quite as stylish on the outside.

    I also don't really want a first production run car, so waiting is probably the best thing to do. I don't see why Mazda can't shove a duratec 3.5 in there (works for their CX9, so I don't see why it was ruled out above). If GM's Saturn could shove the Honda J35 in their Vue smaller/lighter CUV in 2003, I don't see why Mazda couldn't do it too. Don't tell me its too heavy as the Infiniti FX35 and FX45 both are heavier and better performing cars than the CX7 and came out years ago...
  • mschmalmschmal Posts: 1,757
    From the reviews, it looks like this car was built on either the Mazda3 platform or on the new MAZDA MPV (that we will not get here) platform.

    The 2.3L engine reflects that MAZDA is a HI-Tech Premium but not quite Luxury brand.

    This 2.3 has technology that while developed with Ford's money has little chance of ending up in a Ford anytime soon.

    The 2.3 also has significant tax benefits for this vehicle when sold in European countries.

    Mark.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    By the way, the Edge is not built on the same platform as the CX-7, although they are similar.


    The Ford Edge and Mazda CX-7 are built on a variation of the Mazda6 platform
  • syadastisyadasti Posts: 24
    Nobody said they were the same vehicles (they only share the front suspension design derived from the Mazda6), but they could still probably fit the Duratec 3.5L in the CX7. It doesn't matter that its a ford engine design, its going in the more expensive CX9 and being made for that application in Japan under license from Ford, so they could put in the CX7 if they wanted to.

    2.3T DISI (which will also be used in European markets along with a diesel option I believe) is not a more clean drivetrain than the V6 3.5L Duratec. The Duratec is rated as a cleaner ULEV2, the 2.3T DISI is only a LEV2. The larger and heavier Edge AWD gets slightly better than CX7 AWD at 19/25 mpg and makes more HP with regular and without resorting to DI or turbocharging (both of which the new V6 engine supports to make it even more attractive).

    Supposedly there may be a Edge SVT in the works. Hopefully there is a Mazdaspeed CX-7 too...
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    The kind of person that is going to go through the trouble of calculating the annual fuel cost is more likely to buy a Toyota in the first place.

    Mazda is not going to win a fuel economy contest, instead they're trying to appeal to a more enthusiast crowd that puts Fun as the top priority and is willing to sacrifice a bit of passenger space and fuel economy.

    Plus, look at the RAV4 threads, half the guys can't break 20mpg with their V6s. The EPA numbers are very optimistic.

    Meanwhile, check the Mazda5 threads. That has the 2.3l engine that serves as the basis for the CX7. Those owners are actually doing better than EPA numbers.

    Don't rely on the EPA numbers, they're wrong more often than right.

    -juice
  • mschmalmschmal Posts: 1,757
    The CX-7 does not use the short and long arm or double wishbone front suspension that is used in the Mazda 6.

    It uses a strut suspension probably from the Mazda MPV.

    The CX-7 is a unique vehicle under the Ford Umbrella.

    The CX-9 appears to basically a Ford Edge with a third row.

    I don't know how you can say the Edge gets better gas milage since this vehicle isn't even certified yet and we only have preliminary numbers.

    I wish people didn't feel the need to try to catigorize everthing. Just accept the CX-7 for what it is. A tall fun to drive station wagen.

    Mark.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    It uses a strut suspension probably from the Mazda MPV.

    Correct. The rear multi-link is from the Mazda3-Mazda5.

    The CX-9 appears to basically a Ford Edge with a third row.

    Except they look nothing alike, it's bigger, will most likely use a Mazda tranny and is built in Japan. I would say it has more in common with the CX-7 then the Edge.
  • richmlrichml Posts: 156
    The kind of person that is going to go through the trouble of calculating the annual fuel cost is more likely to buy a Toyota in the first place.

    Mazda is not going to win a fuel economy contest, instead they're trying to appeal to a more enthusiast crowd that puts Fun as the top priority and is willing to sacrifice a bit of passenger space and fuel economy.


    Amen! This reminds me of a poster who was putting down the Mazda3 in another thread a few months ago. He couldn't understand why anyone would pay more for a 3 than for other sub-compacts. His criteria when comparing the cars was the bottom-line purchase price and EPA MPG. Whatever bucket of bolts offered the cheapest purchase price and highest MPG was for him. Driving fun was not a consideration.
  • driver56driver56 Posts: 408
    You sure do get around juice! I'm just surfin' and keeping my options open, thinking outside the box. Looking forward to seeing the 07 Forester's in June.
    Cheers!
  • russ_49russ_49 Posts: 54
    OK! OK, FOLKS...enough of the chattering...the cars are now in the dealerships...let's hear from someone who's taken delivery...and can fill us in....is there anyone out there??????? :confuse:
  • syadastisyadasti Posts: 24
    Not exactly, the front end IS similar to that on the 6/Edge/MKX/etc:

    Mechanically, the CX-7 borrows bits from all across the Mazda product spectrum. Contrary to some reports, it is not based on the same platform as the soon-to-be-Oakville-built Ford Edge and Lincoln MK X, which are more closely related to Mazda's new Japan-only MPV minivan.

    "Those three are more like siblings to each other, but cousins to the CX-7," said Kawasaki.

    The front MacPherson strut suspension is similar though, while the rear is closer to that of the Mazda3 and Mazda5, although the lower mounting point for the rear dampers has been moved from the bottom of the upright to the top, to allow clearance for the rear drive shafts in the optional four-wheel drive system.


    Specs are available. I can't find the newer page I saw with MPG ratings and the were 19/25mpg on 87 octane and performance has been revised higher to 265HP@6250 and 250lb-ft@4500. The Edge has out performed the Murano in the performance numbers in internal testing, so thats a good sign.
  • deaniedeanie Posts: 172
    Hi Juice:
    I don't think EPA numbers are to be used to determine mileage in daily driving, but are rather to be used to compare the fuel economy between similar vehicles (Camry vs. Accord) because the EPA repeats its fuel economy tests for all vehicles. That way you know which vehicle of the two has better economy if each were driven identically (theoretically anyway, because the tests are simulated).
    Regards,
    Deanie
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    His criteria when comparing the cars was the bottom-line purchase price and EPA MPG. Whatever bucket of bolts offered the cheapest purchase price and highest MPG was for him. Driving fun was not a consideration

    Now that's just sad.

    By that logic, the most boring car possible would win. Something light and slow and with the cheapest (worst) suspension they could think of. Maybe a cheap ol' twist beam with drum brakes. Sheesh.

    I saw a top 10 list of economical cars, and they evaluated them to pick the most fun of those 10. Guess what? It was the Mazda3 i with the 2.0l engine.

    Zoom zoom indeed.

    -juice
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,997
    Based on the specs for the CX-7, it looks to be more of a Ford Freestyle with better style and more horsepower.
  • ateixeiraateixeira Posts: 72,587
    I don't think so....the Freestyle is on the Volvo P2 platform, and uses the older Duratec 3.0l V6.

    -juice
  • fowler3fowler3 Posts: 1,919
    syadasti said: I don't see why Mazda can't shove a duratec 3.5 in there (works for their CX9, so I don't see why it was ruled out above).

    Two words -- WEIGHT and BALANCE. The CX-7 is smaller than most SUVs which use V6s. A six in the CX-7 would be frontend heavy.

    Drive the Mazda6 with the 2.3 engine and the V6 and you will feel the difference. The 2.3 won't have the zoom zoom the V6 has,but neither will it be as nose-heavy. The 2.3 makes a more balanced car. Also it makes a big difference in pricing which doesn't fit Mazda's marketing plan.

    syadasti, if Mazda had used the V6 you would be here arguing why Mazda didn't make the CX-7 longer for more cargo space. With all the see-saw arguing it wouldn't take much to turn the CX-7 into a Navigator.

    fowler3
  • fowler3fowler3 Posts: 1,919
    Richml said: This reminds me of a poster who was putting down the Mazda3 in another thread a few months ago. He couldn't understand why anyone would pay more for a 3 than for other sub-compacts.

    Not hard to understand this guy. He's never owned anything other than a bucket of bolts and thinks they are just fine. I have heard many of these types say,"Best car I have ever owned." They don't know the difference and will never know it on test drives around the block. It's hard to zoom at 35mph.

    fowler3
  • syadastisyadasti Posts: 24
    ((Two words -- WEIGHT and BALANCE. The CX-7 is smaller than most SUVs which use V6s. A six in the CX-7 would be frontend heavy.))

    I don't think so. The Edge is larger than the CX7 yet only weighs 150 lbs more and is besting the performance of the Murano (another V6 competitor to the CX7) in testing. The RAV4 V6 is about the same size as the CX-7 and has more interior space and weighs about 250 lbs. less than the CX7 - Edmunds ranks the handling and braking as excellent in the limited trim which does not have sport suspension and 18" tire/wheels like the performance sport trim does. The Saturn Vue Redline V6 AWD is about the same weight as the RAV4 V6 AWD. So I don't think small cars with V6 3.5L have to be heavy or have bad handling.

    Even if they are heavy as the Infiniti FX45 (600 lbs more than CX7!), balance can be achieved. The FX45 has faster acceleration and shorter braking than the CX7. Slalom isn't quite as fast, but the lighter FX35 (still 250 lbs heavier than the Edge even) is probably pretty closer in slalom performance compared to the CX7 (of course Infiniti platform is RWD layout based, so that helps a bit).
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    We have had a couple of our CX-7's released from port in NJ on the 25th. We are expecting them any day now!
  • I just got in our first CX-7 yesterday afternoon...INCREDIBLE MACHINE!!! I have three more sitting at the local Mazda hub waiting to be dropped off Tuesday.

    ZOOM ZOOM
  • vanfor3vanfor3 Posts: 14
    Local dealer (Nashville) just told me another 3 weeks before they start getting them in !
  • fsmmcsifsmmcsi Posts: 792
    Yes, it is important to really drive vehicles after comparing them on paper.

    The Car & Driver test results for the CX-7 with four wheel drive and the RAV4 Limited V6 with four wheel drive suggest that they will be very similar, but only good long test drives in both (or multiple short drives at different dealers)will show which is best for each person:

    RAV4: 0-60 6.3; 70 to 0 180'; 300' skid pad 0.83g, noise at 70MPH 68 dBA

    CX-7: 0-60 7.9; 70 to 0 179'; 300' skid pad 0.84g, noise at 70MPH 67 dBA
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    audi, have your CX-7's been released yet? Since some of mine have, I am assuming yours will follow soon.
  • fsmmcsifsmmcsi Posts: 792
    It seems from the photos and features / options lists that the CX-7 also lacks dual (right and left) zone climate control. Is that correct? In southern CA we often find ourselves driving on freeways at times when the sun is on one side of the car, and the dual zone climate control really does help. The RAV-4, RDX, and Edge and many other vehicles in the same price range have/will have it, so it would be a surprise if the CX-7 does not.
  • zoom49zoom49 Posts: 76
    It is not dual zone only single. Sport and Touring trim have standard analog control with the GT package getting fully automatic climate control single zone.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    I know I am knit picking here, but, outside temp. is only available on the GT trim. Most Mazda's have that standard on all trim levels. (Mazda3,5,6,RX-8).
  • cx7byercx7byer Posts: 9
    My local dealer in the Denver area said, as of May 27, two weeks. Any possibility they may come earlier? I didn't give the dealer my phone number and I'm afriad I'll be too late if I just come in around two weeks. Also, which is a better buy, Kia Sorento or Mazda CX-7. My family believes that the Kia may be a better buy for its low price, but personally I prefer the CX-7. What do you think?
Sign In or Register to comment.