2010 Mazda CX-7
Chuckles37
Member Posts: 16
I wanted to start a thread on the 2010 models. I just saw one at a local dealer and the Sport version has a 2.3L non-turbo engine rated at 20/23/28 mpg and around 160 HP and torque, which is a step up mileage and step down in power from the turbo models.
Only thing that looks different from the 09's is the front lower bumper has a bigger opening for air flow (a big smile) and corresponding larger inserts for the foglight (not standard on the Sport).
Base price with destination is 23090. The two options items were 200 for white pearl mica paint and 1750 for a convenience package consisting of power driver seat, heated front seats, moonroof, auto climate control, back up camera. That totals 25040.
Dealer had no brochures and the Mazda USA website has nothing on the 2010 model lineup and features. KBB and Edmunds have no pricing.
Anyone have any additional info?
Only thing that looks different from the 09's is the front lower bumper has a bigger opening for air flow (a big smile) and corresponding larger inserts for the foglight (not standard on the Sport).
Base price with destination is 23090. The two options items were 200 for white pearl mica paint and 1750 for a convenience package consisting of power driver seat, heated front seats, moonroof, auto climate control, back up camera. That totals 25040.
Dealer had no brochures and the Mazda USA website has nothing on the 2010 model lineup and features. KBB and Edmunds have no pricing.
Anyone have any additional info?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
http://www.mazdausamedia.com/content/2010-mazda-cx-7
I'm highly impressed with the 2010. My wife really wants one. She has wanted a CX-7 since it came out, but, I personally felt Mazda could have done a better job with it. Now what we have is what Mazda should have been done from day one. I really like it.
The car is fun to drive, I cannot imagine why you dont want the turbo version.
I have 30K, bought it in Dec 2007 as a 08 model, I can tell you I drive from NYC to Florida and it is pure joy when I push my car to over 85MPH in the highway.
My wife has a CRV and yes it is a reliable car with all the basic you need but the engine sucks!!!!!
If you are getting the 4 cylinder engine go for the CRV is a better buy, the gas mileage is over 23.5 MPG for an AWD vehicle. The Honda CRV is a better family car, the CX7 is just a fun ride if you dont have little ones to worry about as the back seat can be cramped.
They have made a thousand subtle, and cool, changes. As noted, the interior upgrade on the GT puts it in league with the Acura/Infiniti/etc. crowd. Materials aren't quite as plush... yet... but they have made HUGE improvements in the cabin.
Bluetooth that actually works when driving at 80 mph on a blacktop road... even Lexus didn't handle that test.
The exterior refresh and the unique 19' wheels on the GT rock!!
As you may see from my other posts... DO NOT get the CX-7 in AWD at this time. Until they make some design changes... the AWD system is nothing but bad news.
We'll see how this 2010 FWD holds up... but Zoom Zoom so far
to find that listed on the Mazda site.
Thanks
Old Mike
Marty
I also have about 1k miles on my CX-7 Sport (bought in early Nov) and I love it. Like everyone else said, the interior styling looks very luxury. With all other features (MPG, price) considered, I was also looking at the Nissan Rogue, but the Mazda interior won hands down.
The avg and current mpg display is excellent. For my budget I couldn't afford anything more than the Sport trim, but the Sport still has basic luxuries like bluetooth, leather wrapped steering wheel/shift knob, and the previously mentioned mpg/maintenance displays. I also LOVE the Cargo Area Rear Seatback Release Levers (as they call them on the Mazda website). Instead of having to open the passenger doors and release the seats on the top you just open the trunk and pull the lever. So convenient! Didn't spring for the AWD, but from the previous poster it sounds like the AWDs have problems?
It's a great crossover, and Zoom-Zoom indeed!
One thing that surprised me the most is the engine. On the paper it seems slow, and almost 20HP less than Toyota RAV4, but in real life, this thing doesn't feel slow at all. I dont' have any issues taking off from stop, or passing cars on highway at all. I traded in 2000 Passat V6 for this cuv, and this cuv feels just as powerful, and just as planted on the road as my Passat did. It handles like it's on rails.
Another thing is, the interior is sooo much better than 09 model...
Engine type: 2.5-liter DOHC 16-valve 4-cylinder with VVT
Horsepower: 161 hp @ 6000 rpm
Torque (lb-ft): 161 lb-ft @ 3500 rpm
Redline: 6500 rpm
Displacement (cc): 2488
Bore x stroke (mm): 89 x 100
Compression ratio: 9.7:1
Fuel system: Electronically-controlled multi-port fuel injection
Recommended fuel: Regular unleaded
Valvetrain: 4 valves per cylinder with variable intake valve timing (VVT)
Engine block: Aluminum-alloy
Cylinder head: Aluminum-alloy
Fuel Economy: Front-wheel drive (city/hwy) 20/28
The 2.3L has "Direct-Injection Spark Ignition (DISI)" and I'm not sure if that is Mazda's version of DFI. However, the turbo kills the MPG on the "s" version.
So, if it's not offered...
In the end, it is the "i" version that I am interested in getting drivers feedback.
With a fairly simple modification to the engine, techniques(***) already in modern day use, the 2.3L turbo engine could easily reach, and probably exceed (30MPG..??), the hwy FE of the NA 2.5L.
*** The latest Toyota HSD (Hybrid Synergy Drive) version uses a multi-mode engine technique, Otto mode, 13:1 compression ratio, for light engine loading, hwy cruising, and transitions into Atkinson cycle mode, 10:1 compression ratio, for POWER/Boost throttle openings.
Only real complaints would be the interior plastics-(sounds like the 2010 has some needed upgrades) and a little more legroom in back would be nice.
Change oil about 3,000 miles--transmission fluid/transfer case every 20,000. Remember, most motorists don't understand that fluids need to be changed BEFORE they get real dirty. Preventative maintenance is quite inexpensive compared to the alternative.
Would be interesting to compare performance of the naturally aspirated 2010 model compared to the turbo. Has anyone driven both?
If my ATF in my transaxle and PTO were dirty, or burned, enough to warrant changing even at 100,000 miles then I would expect something to be VERY wrong inside there.
Thanks..
Thanks...