Yesterday I saw a CX-7 in a mall parking lot in Northern Virginia (Fair Oaks Mall). It had a Michigan plate on it though, so I think it might have actually been the test vehicle that Mazda had for the media about a month ago. Edmunds review of it said the event was in Washington (just across the river.)
Anyway, I was little dissapointed in the exterior. Not in the design, but in the ... gravitas. It looks great in pictures, but when my wife and I stood next to it, I was sadly unimpressive. She went so far as to say it looked more like a station wagon.
I will say though that the inside looked great. From what I saw without pressing my face on the window, it looked like a luxury car inside.
I always thought that the CX-7 appeared small in pictures. When I saw it in person, I was surprised that it was actually a good size. I didn't think it looked like a station wagon. I thought it looked like an CUV that was ready to run. It is bigger in all dimensions than a RAV-4 so I don't know. Maybe when I see it out and about and not in a carshow with all the nice lighting and 4 costs of wax, it may look different.
In that last pic, you see the Mazda3 next to it, and the CX7 is not that much taller. I think the outgoing Tribute was higher up. Some people won't like that, but I'm sure Mazda wanted the lowest center of gravity possible.
driverdm: it's funny, but I had the opposite impression.
I guess I'd seen photos and even in person it was always up on a platform stand, up high. On the ground it's not as tall as I expected, and the rear seats are a bit low for my tastes, they should have gone with stadium seating.
I also didn't find the interior very roomy, for instance the RAV4 and new Santa Fe are more spacious, at least it seemed that way to me.
According to Edmunds.com, the true cost to own (not just fuel costs) for a mid-upper 27K variant of either works out to $.53/mi for the regular using RAV4 V6 and $.56/mi for the premium using CX-7 4cyl Turbo DI.
It cost 5% more per mi over the life of the vehicle or about $450 a year more assuming you drive 15000 miles a year. Thats not a lot of money.
16 mpg fine considering Edmunds got 19 mpg for the RAV4 V6 which is supposed to have much better mileage 21/28 and Car and Driver got 16 mpg for the RAV4 V6 AWD.
The LA times reviewer got 24 mpg combined around their test drive in NJ - thats pretty damn good for real world driving:
In my test drive through the five boroughs, New Jersey and Connecticut, I got terrific gas mileage, about 24 mpg combined, which is outstanding considering the seventh-circle-of-Hell traffic conditions.
You have to take in consideration that these journalists' don't always tell you how fast they were going, how hard they were stomping on the accelerator, or how soft they were being on the drive. If a journalist is bias towards a car, even though they claim they are not, they will not press the car as hard, resulting in better gas mileage. Or, perhaps tell you how well it performs, just because they like it, not actually because it performs well. That happens quite often. A journalist will do whatever they can to get their story read, including embellishing on the truth.
The LA Times reviewer is known as one of the harshest auto critics out there, so your logic does not apply. His review is one of least positive CX7 reviews out there out of all the US and CDN reviews currently available.
"Mazda says premium fuel (91 octane) is required, not just recommended. CX-7 safely burns regular, Mazda says, but goes into an emergency mode that cuts power considerably."
Now we're talking, I wonder if fuel ecomnoy improves due to the decrease in power.
The CX-7 isn't a very tall vehicle but let's look at some specs:
Height: Rav4:66.3 CX-7:64.8
Width: Rav4:71.5 CX-7:73.7
Length: Rav4: 181.1 CX-7: 184
The CX-7 is meant to be an all out performer even though it is an SUV. It looks the part in person as well. It had to be low to minimize body roll. It is low, long, and wide.
"I also didn't find the interior very roomy, for instance the RAV4 and new Santa Fe are more spacious, at least it seemed that way to me."
ateixeira::I always question how much room is enough. I don't need the biggest cabin, just enough so that people will be comfortable. I am 6'0 tall and I always sit in the back when I preview a car just to see how I'd like to drive back there. THe CX-7 was fine to me, I was actually pretty comfortable.
Legroom Front/Back RAV4:41.8/38.3 CX-7:41.7/36.4
Headroom: RAV4:40.8:39.7 CX-7:39.7/39.3
In almost every measurement they are right on top of each other. I'd say they are about the same size only the Mazda is more performance oriented and has a nicer interior. I like performance so I'd choose the Mazda anyday. THe Mazda just has more of a premium feel. The real question is with the Mazda and RAV-4, why would someone buy a Murano?
I think they are after to different markets. I think the Sante Fe is an all around player and the Mazda is after the performance niche. Anyway, the Sante Fe may be bigger but it is also heavier because of this. On top of that Hyundai loads their newer cars with a good amount of sound deadening material. With a 242hp engine it may be an "okay" drive, with the 185hp you may feel like you want to get out and push to help it down the street.
I agree that $450 per year is not that a deal breaker. It is just that Rav4 is quicker and more fuel efficient. My only fear is engine smoothness compared to a V6. Two new road test out today form Road & Track and Motor Trend. Cannot fine a e file to link lets try this
Slightly faster acceleration from a stop is a not very useful performance feature (both are very adequate for merging from a stop) - nobody cares, its irresponsible to do on public roads and a half decent sports cars can smoke SUVs, end of story.
Handling and braking are real world performance features that you can practically use in day to day driving.
The CX7 is a high performance CUV easily surpassing overweight "sports" luxury SUVs in handling and braking. In fact it virtual matches a WRX in slalom and beats in braking. All taken from Edmunds road tests results for each vehicle:
The Mazda CX-7's interior and styling are much more premium than the RAV-4. The interior of the Mazda is a ways up the ladder in the materials. Additionally the steering accuracy of the Mazda is much better and bodyroll. That says a lot when you are talking about performance. To me this SUV is a bargain and I can't wait to get in one.
Let's not jump to conclusions...the RAV4 Edmunds tested was not the sportiest model, it was the high-end luxury package. The sportier model would have had better tires and one inch bigger rims, plus less weight. That would certainly improve its numbers.
And again, I don't really disagree with driverdm's numbers, he just sees the glass half full and I see it half empty, in this case.
The CX7 is an inch and a half taller, 2.2" wider, and nearly 3" longer, yet it gives up headroom and legroom in both rows, plus cargo space. It's fair to say Toyota was a *lot* more space efficient, at the very least.
It's less sporty, absolutely, but I don't see why Mazda couldn't have been more space efficient, too. You don't necessarily give up performance. I guess it's style over substance, and they figure people like me would just get the CX9, perhaps.
My experience indicates that real world fuel mileage will probably be better than some other vehicles with higher ratings. We currently own a Mercedes-Benz with a supercharged four cylinder engine, and I previously owned a Pontiac with a turbocharged four cylinder engine. Power when needed and small engine economy at other times is an excellent combination.
"Let's not jump to conclusions...the RAV4 Edmunds tested was not the sportiest model, it was the high-end luxury package. The sportier model would have had better tires and one inch bigger rims, plus less weight. That would certainly improve its numbers."
ateixeira - not to be anal about this but according to Toyota.com, the Sport model is the heaviest of Toyota's three trim lines. This is probably due to the larger rim size which added a couple pounds. I don't think that it would have improved numbers drastically, maybe by 1 mph or so.
As someone else pointed out. Mazda, like Lexus with the RX and Buick with the upcoming Enclave gave up space for styling. The question comes down to how much space do you want. I want just as much space as in a midsize sedan just in an SUV with more cargo space. The CX-7 delivers that and at a great price, I might add. I also love performance but the other performance SUVs are too expensive for me, A Range Rover Sport, a X.5, a Porche Cayenne, an Infiniti FX, those are just dreams to me. All I am waiting on for the Mazda is for next year when year end incentives give me a nice discount.
What is the difference between curb weight and gross vehicle weight?
On another note, I'd like to say I really like this forum. Everybody brings up good ideas and points that are both negative and positive about the vehicle. I may not see its flaws but many of you have eyes where I don't. This is unlike some of the forums with the Sonata in it where there are Sonata loyalists that would tell you why buy a Bentley when you can have a Sonata.
Curb weight is the weight of the empty vehicle with installed options. Base curb weight figures may not reflect the weight of the actual vehicle your purchase. Yours may have a higher curb weight do to options on your vehicle. Ask to see the invoice if you want to know the exact curb weight and look for "shipped weight"
GVWR is the MAX weigth the vehicle is rated to carry. This includes the extra weight of any customer add ons, passengers and cargo. This figure is usually reflected on the door jab sticker of your vehicle. Damage caused by operating a vehicle over weight will not be covered under your warrenty!
Does anyone out there know whether the 2007 CX7 is zinc coated or otherwise protected from rust at the factory on both sides of the sheet metal and is part or all of the exhaust system made from stainless steel so that mufflers & pipes don't have to be replaced every 3 years?
Come on juice, those kids don't need that much room. I am 6'0 and I fit in the back nicely. You don't need all that space. I say save some money and pick up a CX-7 with me on a buying deal.
We have a Forester now and might get something roomier, the CX7 has a tad more passenger space but about the same cargo space and less box-shaped so perhaps less useful to me.
We have 2 kids, but also have a nanny, so at times it's 5 of us, plus a lap dog. We might end up with a Mazda5, too bad they don't offer AWD.
Mazda comes with a 60 month, unlimited mileage anti-perforation warranty. Unless there is damage to the vehicles paint or body, Mazda will back the car saying it wont rust.
I don't know about the exhaust, but, I have never replaced my exhaust system every 3 years due to rust, and I live in New England where sand,salt,and rough winters are NOT a cars best friend..
Gangs in America are as old as the coming of the European settlers. You will remember Butch and Sundance’s Hole in the Wall Gang; Chicago had Capone, New York the (fictional) Sharks and Jets. But here in Washington DC I have just come face to face with the Metropolitan Hawks. The Hawks are in the US capital to conduct a bit of business before returning to Japan. They’re not extorting anything, merely trying to convince old cynics like me that what you’re looking at is anything but just another mid-sized SUV. You guessed it: the self-styled Hawks are a bunch of mild-mannered car designers from Mazda.
So far has Mazda gone in its attempt to convince you and me that the CX-7 stands apart from the general run of on/off-roaders that it has given its designers a makeover. They even wear jackets with “Metropolitan Hawks” on the back.
You can see why. Whether you choose to call them “lifestyle vehicles”, “crossover cars” or, to choose one of Mazda’s favourites, an “advanced frontier design”, all such cars are created to make their owners look different. The fatal flaw is that their very success means nobody looks different. But at least the Hawks have made a car that looks good and they have found a niche within a niche — between small SUVs like the Honda CR-V and larger, more expensive ones like the Nissan Murano.
There is nothing innovative in its design and, in engineering terms, it is something of a patchwork quilt. It’s an SUV but one that relies on the platform of the Mazda5 MPV, the frontal structure of another Mazda MPV that’s sold only in Japan, and the engine from the Mazda6 MPS sports saloon. Yet it has all come together rather well, despite the fact that only American spec cars were available to drive, because while the car goes on sale in the US next month, the rest of the world is going to have to wait until next year.
There is one engine: the 2.3 litre turbo motor found in the Mazda6 MPS. In the US it’s tied to a rather unsatisfactory automatic gearbox and limited to 244bhp. By the time it reaches here, it’ll have six manual gears and the full 258bhp of the MPS. Mazda has not given figures, but this one felt like it would get to 60mph in about 9sec with a top speed of 125mph, so expect British versions to be substantially quicker. Diesel versions arrive in 2008.
They should handle well, too, for even this car on soggier American suspension was pretty damn good to drive. All of which supports Mazda’s contention that the CX-7 crosses the line between SUV and sports car. Unfortunately, it is also clear that anyone hoping it will be an alternative SUV is going to be sorely disappointed.
Model Mazda CX-7
Engine type 2261cc, four cylinders
Power/Torque 244bhp @ 5000rpm / 258 lb ft @ 2500rpm
Transmission Six-speed automatic
Fuel/CO² n/a
Performance 0-60mph: 9sec (est.) Top speed: 125mph (est.)
Price £24,500 approx
Verdict Good to drive, good to look at
Rating
Release date Spring 2007
There are only two rows of seats, and while the rear bench folds, that is all it does. Its creator, Shunsuke Kawasaki, told me that those who travelled in the back “were at the bottom of our priorities”, and if you spend long on the rather flat rear seat and look at the cheap, hard plastic that surrounds you, you’ll believe him.
In fact the quality of its interior is the CX-7’s one serious flaw. “We hope our customers will agree that getting the way the car looks and drives was the most important thing,” Kawasaki said. We’ll see. When it goes on sale it should cost less than £25,000, giving it a healthy price advantage over its closest rivals, the BMW X3 and Nissan Murano, but it remains to be seen how the public will react to a car that looks so good on the outside and feels so cheap within.
Otherwise the CX-7 seems well judged. Even saddled with inappropriate gears, a down-on- power engine and US suspension, it was not difficult to enjoy. If these problems are resolved you could add another star to the three given. The Metropolitan Hawks may have a silly name, but they appear to have done their jobs well.
THE OPPOSITION
Model Nissan Murano £29,995 For Good distinctive looks, comfortable ride, well equipped Against Not much fun to drive, seems a little expensive
Model BMW X3 3.0i SE £33,205 For Smooth six-cylinder engine, BMW image, interior room Against Looks hideous, expensive, poor ride quality
There are several points in this review that I will have to agree to disagree with.
1. There is one engine: the 2.3 litre turbo motor found in the Mazda6 MPS. In the US it’s tied to a rather unsatisfactory automatic gearbox and limited to 244bhp
Even saddled with inappropriate gears, a down-on- power engine and US suspension, it was not difficult to enjoy
From OTHER reviews the tranny has worked fine. And how is 244hp "limited". Come on now. THe SUV is zero to sixty in around the 7.5 region and this is not the Speed version.
2. There is nothing innovative in its design and, in engineering terms, it is something of a patchwork quilt.
WHAT? Other reviews and people who have seen the vehicle absolutely love the design and believe it is innovation. Also, is the Murano a patchwork as it uses its platform, engine, etc from somewhere else and what about the Lexus RX?
3.They should handle well, too, for even this car on soggier American suspension was pretty damn good to drive.
How hard of a ride would this guy like, maybe a bicycle would be more of his comfort level.
4.In fact the quality of its interior is the CX-7’s one serious flaw. “We hope our customers will agree that getting the way the car looks and drives was the most important thing,” Kawasaki said.
I have sat in it and again he is in direct contention with all the other reviewers, Edmunds, Motortrend, C&D. Also what guy from Mazda would say such a remark in regards to interior quality. If it were true, if I were Mazda I'd get somebody to hand him a stupid sign and get the Donald himself to deliver the final two words.
It is also clear that he does not like American vehicles which puts him at a bias that is seen throughout the article.
I am with you. I hope the guy was either misquoted or taken out of context, just like his comments that seem to be in regards to the interior quality. I could see both statements said within the discussion in a different context and be fine. Notice only the last part is in quotes with the first part being paraphrased. Something smells fishy about the whole thing. I have never seen people from a company put their foot in their mouth like this on a product test. And I even pay attention to GM!!!
Lastly, Mazda says the CX-7 was built for small families. Again why would a Mazda guy say they weren't concerned about people sitting in the back when to the target buyers, these are their kids! There is a lot of raw fish in that article. Something is real fishy there.
Thanks for the rebuttal, driverdm & others. The Brits often have a different perspective on everything, so I thought it was interesting. I don't understand all this technical gargon but I appreciate the feedback. I am going to wait to drive the car and see how I like it. I am going to post another review from Australia that I think is more favorable, but you all may disagree.
So far, the only negative I see in the CX-7 is that the reviewers seem to agree that the back seat is cheap. This may be a problem for me because I, or someone else, spend a lot of time sitting next to my 2 year old.
I have driven several cars in my size range and researched many other. I am down to the CX-7 or the BMW wagon - quite different in price ranges, but I pretty much eliminated everything in between for various reasons. I loved the way the Mazda5 drove but it was too cheap inside with no options for upgrades. I have high hopes for the CX-7 - not too keen on spending all that money on the BMW.
Mazda's new CX-7 ignores SUV category conventions to create a sporty, stand-out performer
2006 Mazda CX-7 International Launch
WHAT WE LIKED Good looks Strong, responsive and refined engine Chassis refinement
NOT SO MUCH Exhaust drone at low revs in high gears No manual gearbox available Australian launch not until November
OVERVIEW There is no rule that says compact SUVs have to be boring to look at and even duller to drive. It's just that this is the way most seem to turn out. Until the new CX-7, that is.
The Mazda satisfies the category criteria, being a tall, five-seat wagon with all-wheel drive, but it also defies category conventions. It's not shaped like a stack of boxes. It's not so sluggish that it leaves a slime trail. It doesn't squeal in terror when confronted with a corner. Yes, the Mazda is different from the rest.
Beneath the shapely body, with its distinctive, waisted daylight opening, the CX-7 utilises major components from a number of existing models. The engine, for example, is from the 6 MPS. From the same source comes the CX-7's clever, electronically controlled, on-demand all-wheel drive system. Up front, the strut-type suspension is closely related to the new MPV, developed from the earlier Mazda 6. And the rear suspension is a wide-track version of the compact multi-link design employed in the Mazda 3 and Mazda 5.
The CX-7's exterior design has the effect of making it appear smaller than it really is. For the record, wheelbase, width, and especially height, are all greater than the Mazda 6, but length is damned close to identical.
The CX-7 was designed for the US market, which is where we had our preview drive. However, the concept version MX Crossport -- first shown at last year's Detroit motor show and at this year's Melbourne motor show -- generated so much interest internationally that the CX-7 has become a hot ticket item in other markets, including Australia.
Mazda Australia says the turbocharged CX-7 goes on sale here in November, so expect a Sydney motor show launch. Although it's available in both front- and all-wheel drive versions in the US, Mazda says we'll get only the all-wheel-drive CX-7 here.
We can explain the CX part of the name -- it's part of Mazda's new global naming strategy, whereby crossover-type SUVs carry the CX designation. But we can't shed any light on the "7" part of the equation, since the CX-7 seats five. The longer-wheelbase CX-9 version to follow in the US -- and being assessed by Mazda Australia for here -- seats seven.
After our North American drive of the CX-7 (see On the Road, below) we can tell you that there's very little wrong with it, and an awful lot that's right. If you've appreciated the pragmatic appeal of a compact SUV, but never been able to bring yourself to take the backward step in style, performance and handling, Mazda has built the car to change your mind.
FEATURES No specifics for the Australian market yet, and prices are yet to be fixed, but plans are for a two-tier line-up opening at around $45,000, with a lavishly equipped top model at close to $50,000. Premium prices, for sure, but the CX-7 is in a different league.
Standard equipment should include 18-inch wheels, six airbags and such active safety essentials as anti-lock brakes, traction control and ESP. Likely options are a sat-nav system, premium audio and rear-view camera.
The novel two-storey design of the instrument panel disguises its bulk beautifully. The centre console storage box is massive, easily big enough to accommodate a laptop computer. This is great, but it did force the adoption of a foot-operated parking brake. There simply wasn't enough room left for a proper, between-the-seats handbrake lever, apparently.
COMFORT While the dynamic picture remains frustratingly incomplete until late this year, the drive program left no lingering doubts about the interior's space, comfort and quality.
With its taller body allowing higher seating, the CX-7 contains ample leg and headroom. Front and rear. And despite the slanting tailgate, the cargo compartment is both deep and long. Trim and upholstery materials and fit are high grade, too.
SAFETY As we've said above, Mazda Australia has yet to confirm features and equipment levels for CX-7, but even on the entry level model likely standard equipment is six airbags, anti-lock brakes, traction control and ESP.
MECHANICAL Naturally, as it joins the suspensions from two different Mazda model families, the centre section of the CX-7's floor is unique. So, too, is its assisted rack and pinion steering.
CX-7 also marks the first use by Mazda of a new six-speed automatic from Japanese transmission specialist, Aisin. This transmission will be the only one offered in the CX-7 when it reaches Australia around November this year.
Europe, which will receive the CX-7 later, will initially have only the same six-speed manual as the 6 MPS. It's possible, but not certain, that this option eventually could be made available here.
While the CX-7's version of Mazda's turbocharged 2.3-litre inline twin-cam four with in-cylinder direct fuel-injection is less powerful than the 6 MPS's similar engine, it still delivers around 180kW. This is a V6-like number.
Reasons for the reduction are a different turbocharger, changes to the engine management system associated with the CX-7's automatic transmission, and Mazda's decision that it should run on 95 octane petrol instead of the 98 octane recommended for the 6 MPS.
COMPETITORS The CX-7 will land in the thick of the strong compact SUV market dominated by Toyota RAV4, Subaru Forester and Nissan X-Trail. But they're not the only solid performers in that market segment, with Hyundai's Tucson, Subaru Outback, Honda CR-V, Mazda's own Tribute (which remains in Mazda's Australian range even after CX-7 gets here), Suzuki Grand Vitara and Mitsubishi Outlander all doing well and selling pretty much in that order.
The wild cards in that pack also will launch during or soon after the fourth quarter of this year. Perhaps the dark horse will be Mitsubishi's new Outlander. The Outlander's already creating waves overseas, and we'll get the 2.4-litre four-cylinder version in October, followed by a 3.0-litre V6 with around 165kW next March. Importantly, the Outlander will be available with five or seven seats.
In terms of bang for your bucks, only Subaru's Outback 3.0R Premium offers a similar 180kW punch, albeit at $53,440. The Outback Premium gets a five-speed automatic. The turbocharged Forester XT Luxury comes close, with 169kW, four-speed auto and a $46,990 pricetag.
ON THE ROAD Strong, responsive and refined, the CX-7's engine teams very well with the smooth and
ON THE ROAD Strong, responsive and refined, the CX-7's engine teams very well with the smooth and swift shifting auto. If it wasn't for an exhaust drone at low revs in high gears, the turbo four would be pretty well perfect.
Chassis refinement seems impressive, too. Noise from the tyres on the CX-7's standard 18-inch alloy wheels isn't intrusive, and the suspension is unfailingly quiet. Wind roar is never annoying at legal speeds.
The drive program for the international launch of the CX-7, staged in and around Washington DC, wasn't particularly challenging. Despite the limited time and miles allowed, it was enough to gain a positive initial impression of the CX-7's dynamic ability.
On the none too smooth city streets of the US capital, its low-speed ride seemed rather firm. At high speed, leaving the city behind on interstate freeways, the Mazda was perfectly disciplined and reassuringly stable.
It was on the winding and narrow country roads of Virginia that the CX-7 felt best. It steers with precision, corners with grace. These aren't attributes that other compact SUVs can claim.
There were important questions left unanswered by the drive program. It was an all tarmac route, so the Mazda's gravel road handling remains an unknown. So, too, is the quality of its non-switchable electronic stability system. Both will be the subject of scrutiny when the CX-7 finally reaches Australia, but given Mazda's track record with other recent models you could safely bet on excellence.
So, what is the problem? The engine IS limited. In Mazdaspeed it delivers 258hp, so... 14 ponies less. I call that -"limited". Now, there might be a good reason to do so, such as low RPM torque and safety of an automatic tranny, but never the less... The "fine" work of the tranny does not exclude "inappropriate gears". And those gears were, probably, the reason to consider the tranny "unsatisfactory". Hey, he might be a car guy, for whom all automatics are "unsatisfactory". About innovation. Maybe for Mazda, but Lexus makes those RXs seams forever now. And THEY were innovative. Mazda just "refined" the concept, in their taste and the tastes of potential customers. And the guy is writing a review of CX-7, not Murano! And it IS a patchwork. What, the word sounds too derogatory? But it is short and to the point. Besides, he does say, that the result is pretty good, doesn't he? There is no secret, that american suspensions tuned to be "soggier". That's how it is! And again, the guy said it was "pretty damn good to drive". In my book that's a compliment. I sat in the CX-7 too. And all I can say: "Good seats". Front. It DOES look cheap, for the money, thou. And also he probably have a bunch of european cars to compare the interior of CX-7 to. We-don't. The bottom line: you don't like his review. You don't even believe him, about back seats. What, is it not possible that Mazda didn't pay much attention to the rear seats regarding comfort? Heck, they speeded up (by Mazda standards) the development of this model, so it's very plausible. And the last thing. We are all -humans, and it is all-subjective.
yustas, I will not delve too far into your post as most people on here seem to agree with my take on the article and the article stands in direct contradiction to almost every other review, including the recent one posted from Australia. I think everyone, reading what the British guy wrote in its context perceived the negative connotation of the entire article.
Some points though I think should be pointed out: In its context, when the write used the word "limited", he was using it to mean slow as well as restricted.
Every reviewer and their mother has said that the CX-7 rides firm compared to the soft ride of other SUVs. To then have someone complain about it being too soft, is hard to swallow.
And you are saying it looks cheap for the money while people who have also sat in it and every review besides this one is saying something completely different.
From motortrend: "... the high-grade interior trim seemed commendable, as did the two-tone color scheme"
From Edmunds: "The striking and well-finished interior preserves the steering and shifter relationship found in Mazda's RX-8. "
From the Australian review: "Trim and upholstery materials and fit are high grade, too."
bottomline, when taking the review in context, it brings up serious question about its validity. Also, I never said I didn't beleive him about the back seat. I just said I didn't beleive a Mazda marketing guy would say what was written in the article.
How many people would be interesting in a manual trans for this vehicle? I'm curious.
Subaru and BMW offer them, in the Forester XT and X3, but most do not. RDX and Saturn Vue Redline and RAV4 don't.
I think most people will opt for an auto anyway, so it probably won't cost them too many sales. But the whole Zoom Zoom thing, shouldn't they offer a manual?
Comments
and
Anyway, I was little dissapointed in the exterior. Not in the design, but in the ... gravitas. It looks great in pictures, but when my wife and I stood next to it, I was sadly unimpressive. She went so far as to say it looked more like a station wagon.
I will say though that the inside looked great. From what I saw without pressing my face on the window, it looked like a luxury car inside.
driverdm: it's funny, but I had the opposite impression.
I guess I'd seen photos and even in person it was always up on a platform stand, up high. On the ground it's not as tall as I expected, and the rear seats are a bit low for my tastes, they should have gone with stadium seating.
I also didn't find the interior very roomy, for instance the RAV4 and new Santa Fe are more spacious, at least it seemed that way to me.
Maybe our expectations were different.
-juice
• Turbodiesel model due in 2008
whatcar.com
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/reviews/healey/2006-04-27-cx-7_x.htm">link title
According to Edmunds.com, the true cost to own (not just fuel costs) for a mid-upper 27K variant of either works out to $.53/mi for the regular using RAV4 V6 and $.56/mi for the premium using CX-7 4cyl Turbo DI.
It cost 5% more per mi over the life of the vehicle or about $450 a year more assuming you drive 15000 miles a year. Thats not a lot of money.
16 mpg fine considering Edmunds got 19 mpg for the RAV4 V6 which is supposed to have much better mileage 21/28 and Car and Driver got 16 mpg for the RAV4 V6 AWD.
The LA times reviewer got 24 mpg combined around their test drive in NJ - thats pretty damn good for real world driving:
In my test drive through the five boroughs, New Jersey and Connecticut, I got terrific gas mileage, about 24 mpg combined, which is outstanding considering the seventh-circle-of-Hell traffic conditions.
Now we're talking, I wonder if fuel ecomnoy improves due to the decrease in power.
Height:
Rav4:66.3
CX-7:64.8
Width:
Rav4:71.5
CX-7:73.7
Length:
Rav4: 181.1
CX-7: 184
The CX-7 is meant to be an all out performer even though it is an SUV. It looks the part in person as well. It had to be low to minimize body roll. It is low, long, and wide.
"I also didn't find the interior very roomy, for instance the RAV4 and new Santa Fe are more spacious, at least it seemed that way to me."
ateixeira::I always question how much room is enough. I don't need the biggest cabin, just enough so that people will be comfortable. I am 6'0 tall and I always sit in the back when I preview a car just to see how I'd like to drive back there. THe CX-7 was fine to me, I was actually pretty comfortable.
Legroom Front/Back
RAV4:41.8/38.3
CX-7:41.7/36.4
Headroom:
RAV4:40.8:39.7
CX-7:39.7/39.3
In almost every measurement they are right on top of each other. I'd say they are about the same size only the Mazda is more performance oriented and has a nicer interior. I like performance so I'd choose the Mazda anyday. THe Mazda just has more of a premium feel. The real question is with the Mazda and RAV-4, why would someone buy a Murano?
Cannot fine a e file to link lets try this
">http://www.msprotege.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=78099
Handling and braking are real world performance features that you can practically use in day to day driving.
The CX7 is a high performance CUV easily surpassing overweight "sports" luxury SUVs in handling and braking. In fact it virtual matches a WRX in slalom and beats in braking. All taken from Edmunds road tests results for each vehicle:
2002 Subaru WRX AWD 3,085 lbs.
60-0 braking: 115 ft
Slalom: 64.5 mph
2007 Mazda CX-7 AWD 3929 lbs.
60-0 braking: 112.9 ft
Slalom: 64.3 mph
2006 Range Rover Sport Supercharged 4WD 5670 lbs.
60-0 braking: 115.63 ft
Slalom: 58.1 mph
2004 Porsche Cayenne Turbo AWD 5200 lbs.
60-0 braking: 116.34 ft
Slalom: 63.5 mph
2006 Toyota RAV4 V6 4WD 3675 lbs.
60-0 braking: 120 ft
Slalom: 61.3 mph
There you go, RAV4, not in the same league - as mentioned in Motortrend, some canadian reviews and others, its just not in the same playing field...
And again, I don't really disagree with driverdm's numbers, he just sees the glass half full and I see it half empty, in this case.
The CX7 is an inch and a half taller, 2.2" wider, and nearly 3" longer, yet it gives up headroom and legroom in both rows, plus cargo space. It's fair to say Toyota was a *lot* more space efficient, at the very least.
It's less sporty, absolutely, but I don't see why Mazda couldn't have been more space efficient, too. You don't necessarily give up performance. I guess it's style over substance, and they figure people like me would just get the CX9, perhaps.
-juice
The Murano, RX330, etc. also give up space relative to an idealized box, but not everyone wants the box.
ateixeira - not to be anal about this but according to Toyota.com, the Sport model is the heaviest of Toyota's three trim lines. This is probably due to the larger rim size which added a couple pounds. I don't think that it would have improved numbers drastically, maybe by 1 mph or so.
RAV 4 Sport 4WD: 3677lbs
Rav 4 Limited 4WD: 3675 lbs
As someone else pointed out. Mazda, like Lexus with the RX and Buick with the upcoming Enclave gave up space for styling. The question comes down to how much space do you want. I want just as much space as in a midsize sedan just in an SUV with more cargo space. The CX-7 delivers that and at a great price, I might add. I also love performance but the other performance SUVs are too expensive for me, A Range Rover Sport, a X.5, a Porche Cayenne, an Infiniti FX, those are just dreams to me. All I am waiting on for the Mazda is for next year when year end incentives give me a nice discount.
On another note, I'd like to say I really like this forum. Everybody brings up good ideas and points that are both negative and positive about the vehicle. I may not see its flaws but many of you have eyes where I don't. This is unlike some of the forums with the Sonata in it where there are Sonata loyalists that would tell you why buy a Bentley when you can have a Sonata.
GVWR is the MAX weigth the vehicle is rated to carry. This includes the extra weight of any customer add ons, passengers and cargo. This figure is usually reflected on the door jab sticker of your vehicle. Damage caused by operating a vehicle over weight will not be covered under your warrenty!
Mark
Typically the answer is "yes" to both. It will be lighter and have less drivetrain loss, so the FWD should be quicker and get better mileage.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I guess I want it all, something sporty and practical since I have 2 kids but they're not always in the vehicle with me.
I think the CX9 is more for me, I dunno.
-juice
I love the looks of the CX-7. I also love the looks of the Land Rover Defender - the iconic box.
The Murano, RX330, etc. also give up space relative to an idealized box, but not everyone wants the box.
Highways around us are swarming with RX330s - seems the vast majority are driven by women.
Most SUV's are driven by women. Look at Ford Expedition's, Explorer's, RX330's....they give the aura of being safer...
We have 2 kids, but also have a nanny, so at times it's 5 of us, plus a lap dog. We might end up with a Mazda5, too bad they don't offer AWD.
-juice
What a vehicle that would be w/ AWD...
-juice
Oh, heck yeah! Mazda5 with 240 hp turbo and 5-speed stick! All in a 6-seat 3400 lb. package. Now we're talkin! (oh, i'd prefer FWD, by the way)
*sniff* ... is that a Mazdaspeed5 i smell?
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
I don't know about the exhaust, but, I have never replaced my exhaust system every 3 years due to rust, and I live in New England where sand,salt,and rough winters are NOT a cars best friend..
Times Online April 30, 2006
Mazda CX-7
By Andrew Frankel of The Sunday Times
Fills a niche you hadn't noticed
Gangs in America are as old as the coming of the European settlers. You will remember Butch and Sundance’s Hole in the Wall Gang; Chicago had Capone, New York the (fictional) Sharks and Jets. But here in Washington DC I have just come face to face with the Metropolitan Hawks.
The Hawks are in the US capital to conduct a bit of business before returning to Japan. They’re not extorting anything, merely trying to convince old cynics like me that what you’re looking at is anything but just another mid-sized SUV. You guessed it: the self-styled Hawks are a bunch of mild-mannered car designers from Mazda.
So far has Mazda gone in its attempt to convince you and me that the CX-7 stands apart from the general run of on/off-roaders that it has given its designers a makeover. They even wear jackets with “Metropolitan Hawks” on the back.
You can see why. Whether you choose to call them “lifestyle vehicles”, “crossover cars” or, to choose one of Mazda’s favourites, an “advanced frontier design”, all such cars are created to make their owners look different. The fatal flaw is that their very success means nobody looks different. But at least the Hawks have made a car that looks good and they have found a niche within a niche — between small SUVs like the Honda CR-V and larger, more expensive ones like the Nissan Murano.
There is nothing innovative in its design and, in engineering terms, it is something of a patchwork quilt. It’s an SUV but one that relies on the platform of the Mazda5 MPV, the frontal structure of another Mazda MPV that’s sold only in Japan, and the engine from the Mazda6 MPS sports saloon. Yet it has all come together rather well, despite the fact that only American spec cars were available to drive, because while the car goes on sale in the US next month, the rest of the world is going to have to wait until next year.
There is one engine: the 2.3 litre turbo motor found in the Mazda6 MPS. In the US it’s tied to a rather unsatisfactory automatic gearbox and limited to 244bhp. By the time it reaches here, it’ll have six manual gears and the full 258bhp of the MPS. Mazda has not given figures, but this one felt like it would get to 60mph in about 9sec with a top speed of 125mph, so expect British versions to be substantially quicker. Diesel versions arrive in 2008.
They should handle well, too, for even this car on soggier American suspension was pretty damn good to drive. All of which supports Mazda’s contention that the CX-7 crosses the line between SUV and sports car. Unfortunately, it is also clear that anyone hoping it will be an alternative SUV is going to be sorely disappointed.
Model Mazda CX-7
Engine type 2261cc, four cylinders
Power/Torque 244bhp @ 5000rpm /
258 lb ft @ 2500rpm
Transmission Six-speed automatic
Fuel/CO² n/a
Performance 0-60mph: 9sec (est.)
Top speed: 125mph (est.)
Price £24,500 approx
Verdict Good to drive, good to look at
Rating
Release date Spring 2007
There are only two rows of seats, and while the rear bench folds, that is all it does. Its creator, Shunsuke Kawasaki, told me that those who travelled in the back “were at the bottom of our priorities”, and if you spend long on the rather flat rear seat and look at the cheap, hard plastic that surrounds you, you’ll believe him.
In fact the quality of its interior is the CX-7’s one serious flaw. “We hope our customers will agree that getting the way the car looks and drives was the most important thing,” Kawasaki said. We’ll see. When it goes on sale it should cost less than £25,000, giving it a healthy price advantage over its closest rivals, the BMW X3 and Nissan Murano, but it remains to be seen how the public will react to a car that looks so good on the outside and feels so cheap within.
Otherwise the CX-7 seems well judged. Even saddled with inappropriate gears, a down-on- power engine and US suspension, it was not difficult to enjoy. If these problems are resolved you could add another star to the three given. The Metropolitan Hawks may have a silly name, but they appear to have done their jobs well.
THE OPPOSITION
Model Nissan Murano £29,995
For Good distinctive looks, comfortable ride, well equipped
Against Not much fun to drive, seems a little expensive
Model BMW X3 3.0i SE £33,205
For Smooth six-cylinder engine, BMW image, interior room
Against Looks hideous, expensive, poor ride quality
That was a poor decision. I'm not sure how many empty nesters or DINKs need an SUV in the first place.
-juice
1. There is one engine: the 2.3 litre turbo motor found in the Mazda6 MPS. In the US it’s tied to a rather unsatisfactory automatic gearbox and limited to 244bhp
Even saddled with inappropriate gears, a down-on- power engine and US suspension, it was not difficult to enjoy
From OTHER reviews the tranny has worked fine. And how is 244hp "limited". Come on now. THe SUV is zero to sixty in around the 7.5 region and this is not the Speed version.
2. There is nothing innovative in its design and, in engineering terms, it is something of a patchwork quilt.
WHAT? Other reviews and people who have seen the vehicle absolutely love the design and believe it is innovation. Also, is the Murano a patchwork as it uses its platform, engine, etc from somewhere else and what about the Lexus RX?
3.They should handle well, too, for even this car on soggier American suspension was pretty damn good to drive.
How hard of a ride would this guy like, maybe a bicycle would be more of his comfort level.
4.In fact the quality of its interior is the CX-7’s one serious flaw. “We hope our customers will agree that getting the way the car looks and drives was the most important thing,” Kawasaki said.
I have sat in it and again he is in direct contention with all the other reviewers, Edmunds, Motortrend, C&D. Also what guy from Mazda would say such a remark in regards to interior quality. If it were true, if I were Mazda I'd get somebody to hand him a stupid sign and get the Donald himself to deliver the final two words.
It is also clear that he does not like American vehicles which puts him at a bias that is seen throughout the article.
I am with you. I hope the guy was either misquoted or taken out of context, just like his comments that seem to be in regards to the interior quality. I could see both statements said within the discussion in a different context and be fine. Notice only the last part is in quotes with the first part being paraphrased. Something smells fishy about the whole thing. I have never seen people from a company put their foot in their mouth like this on a product test. And I even pay attention to GM!!!
Lastly, Mazda says the CX-7 was built for small families. Again why would a Mazda guy say they weren't concerned about people sitting in the back when to the target buyers, these are their kids! There is a lot of raw fish in that article. Something is real fishy there.
-juice
If a brit read, he would probably think it was a good review.
Mark.
So far, the only negative I see in the CX-7 is that the reviewers seem to agree that the back seat is cheap. This may be a problem for me because I, or someone else, spend a lot of time sitting next to my 2 year old.
I have driven several cars in my size range and researched many other. I am down to the CX-7 or the BMW wagon - quite different in price ranges, but I pretty much eliminated everything in between for various reasons. I loved the way the Mazda5 drove but it was too cheap inside with no options for upgrades. I have high hopes for the CX-7 - not too keen on spending all that money on the BMW.
My dealer says "mid-May."
Mazda CX-7
7 photos available - click to enlarge
Words - John Carey
Words - Chris Gable
Mazda's new CX-7 ignores SUV category conventions to create a sporty, stand-out performer
2006 Mazda CX-7
International Launch
WHAT WE LIKED
Good looks
Strong, responsive and refined engine
Chassis refinement
NOT SO MUCH
Exhaust drone at low revs in high gears
No manual gearbox available
Australian launch not until November
OVERVIEW
There is no rule that says compact SUVs have to be boring to look at and even duller to drive. It's just that this is the way most seem to turn out. Until the new CX-7, that is.
The Mazda satisfies the category criteria, being a tall, five-seat wagon with all-wheel drive, but it also defies category conventions. It's not shaped like a stack of boxes. It's not so sluggish that it leaves a slime trail. It doesn't squeal in terror when confronted with a corner. Yes, the Mazda is different from the rest.
Beneath the shapely body, with its distinctive, waisted daylight opening, the CX-7 utilises major components from a number of existing models. The engine, for example, is from the 6 MPS. From the same source comes the CX-7's clever, electronically controlled, on-demand all-wheel drive system. Up front, the strut-type suspension is closely related to the new MPV, developed from the earlier Mazda 6. And the rear suspension is a wide-track version of the compact multi-link design employed in the Mazda 3 and Mazda 5.
The CX-7's exterior design has the effect of making it appear smaller than it really is. For the record, wheelbase, width, and especially height, are all greater than the Mazda 6, but length is damned close to identical.
The CX-7 was designed for the US market, which is where we had our preview drive. However, the concept version MX Crossport -- first shown at last year's Detroit motor show and at this year's Melbourne motor show -- generated so much interest internationally that the CX-7 has become a hot ticket item in other markets, including Australia.
Mazda Australia says the turbocharged CX-7 goes on sale here in November, so expect a Sydney motor show launch. Although it's available in both front- and all-wheel drive versions in the US, Mazda says we'll get only the all-wheel-drive CX-7 here.
We can explain the CX part of the name -- it's part of Mazda's new global naming strategy, whereby crossover-type SUVs carry the CX designation. But we can't shed any light on the "7" part of the equation, since the CX-7 seats five. The longer-wheelbase CX-9 version to follow in the US -- and being assessed by Mazda Australia for here -- seats seven.
After our North American drive of the CX-7 (see On the Road, below) we can tell you that there's very little wrong with it, and an awful lot that's right. If you've appreciated the pragmatic appeal of a compact SUV, but never been able to bring yourself to take the backward step in style, performance and handling, Mazda has built the car to change your mind.
FEATURES
No specifics for the Australian market yet, and prices are yet to be fixed, but plans are for a two-tier line-up opening at around $45,000, with a lavishly equipped top model at close to $50,000. Premium prices, for sure, but the CX-7 is in a different league.
Standard equipment should include 18-inch wheels, six airbags and such active safety essentials as anti-lock brakes, traction control and ESP. Likely options are a sat-nav system, premium audio and rear-view camera.
The novel two-storey design of the instrument panel disguises its bulk beautifully. The centre console storage box is massive, easily big enough to accommodate a laptop computer. This is great, but it did force the adoption of a foot-operated parking brake. There simply wasn't enough room left for a proper, between-the-seats handbrake lever, apparently.
COMFORT
While the dynamic picture remains frustratingly incomplete until late this year, the drive program left no lingering doubts about the interior's space, comfort and quality.
With its taller body allowing higher seating, the CX-7 contains ample leg and headroom. Front and rear. And despite the slanting tailgate, the cargo compartment is both deep and long. Trim and upholstery materials and fit are high grade, too.
SAFETY
As we've said above, Mazda Australia has yet to confirm features and equipment levels for CX-7, but even on the entry level model likely standard equipment is six airbags, anti-lock brakes, traction control and ESP.
MECHANICAL
Naturally, as it joins the suspensions from two different Mazda model families, the centre section of the CX-7's floor is unique. So, too, is its assisted rack and pinion steering.
CX-7 also marks the first use by Mazda of a new six-speed automatic from Japanese transmission specialist, Aisin. This transmission will be the only one offered in the CX-7 when it reaches Australia around November this year.
Europe, which will receive the CX-7 later, will initially have only the same six-speed manual as the 6 MPS. It's possible, but not certain, that this option eventually could be made available here.
While the CX-7's version of Mazda's turbocharged 2.3-litre inline twin-cam four with in-cylinder direct fuel-injection is less powerful than the 6 MPS's similar engine, it still delivers around 180kW. This is a V6-like number.
Reasons for the reduction are a different turbocharger, changes to the engine management system associated with the CX-7's automatic transmission, and Mazda's decision that it should run on 95 octane petrol instead of the 98 octane recommended for the 6 MPS.
COMPETITORS
The CX-7 will land in the thick of the strong compact SUV market dominated by Toyota RAV4, Subaru Forester and Nissan X-Trail. But they're not the only solid performers in that market segment, with Hyundai's Tucson, Subaru Outback, Honda CR-V, Mazda's own Tribute (which remains in Mazda's Australian range even after CX-7 gets here), Suzuki Grand Vitara and Mitsubishi Outlander all doing well and selling pretty much in that order.
The wild cards in that pack also will launch during or soon after the fourth quarter of this year. Perhaps the dark horse will be Mitsubishi's new Outlander. The Outlander's already creating waves overseas, and we'll get the 2.4-litre four-cylinder version in October, followed by a 3.0-litre V6 with around 165kW next March. Importantly, the Outlander will be available with five or seven seats.
In terms of bang for your bucks, only Subaru's Outback 3.0R Premium offers a similar 180kW punch, albeit at $53,440. The Outback Premium gets a five-speed automatic. The turbocharged Forester XT Luxury comes close, with 169kW, four-speed auto and a $46,990 pricetag.
ON THE ROAD
Strong, responsive and refined, the CX-7's engine teams very well with the smooth and
ON THE ROAD
Strong, responsive and refined, the CX-7's engine teams very well with the smooth and swift shifting auto. If it wasn't for an exhaust drone at low revs in high gears, the turbo four would be pretty well perfect.
Chassis refinement seems impressive, too. Noise from the tyres on the CX-7's standard 18-inch alloy wheels isn't intrusive, and the suspension is unfailingly quiet. Wind roar is never annoying at legal speeds.
The drive program for the international launch of the CX-7, staged in and around Washington DC, wasn't particularly challenging. Despite the limited time and miles allowed, it was enough to gain a positive initial impression of the CX-7's dynamic ability.
On the none too smooth city streets of the US capital, its low-speed ride seemed rather firm. At high speed, leaving the city behind on interstate freeways, the Mazda was perfectly disciplined and reassuringly stable.
It was on the winding and narrow country roads of Virginia that the CX-7 felt best. It steers with precision, corners with grace. These aren't attributes that other compact SUVs can claim.
There were important questions left unanswered by the drive program. It was an all tarmac route, so the Mazda's gravel road handling remains an unknown. So, too, is the quality of its non-switchable electronic stability system. Both will be the subject of scrutiny when the CX-7 finally reaches Australia, but given Mazda's track record with other recent models you could safely bet on excellence.
The "fine" work of the tranny does not exclude "inappropriate gears". And those gears were, probably, the reason to consider the tranny "unsatisfactory". Hey, he might be a car guy, for whom all automatics are "unsatisfactory".
About innovation. Maybe for Mazda, but Lexus makes those RXs seams forever now. And THEY were innovative. Mazda just "refined" the concept, in their taste and the tastes of potential customers. And the guy is writing a review of CX-7, not Murano! And it IS a patchwork. What, the word sounds too derogatory? But it is short and to the point. Besides, he does say, that the result is pretty good, doesn't he?
There is no secret, that american suspensions tuned to be "soggier". That's how it is! And again, the guy said it was "pretty damn good to drive". In my book that's a compliment.
I sat in the CX-7 too. And all I can say: "Good seats". Front. It DOES look cheap, for the money, thou. And also he probably have a bunch of european cars to compare the interior of CX-7 to. We-don't.
The bottom line: you don't like his review. You don't even believe him, about back seats. What, is it not possible that Mazda didn't pay much attention to the rear seats regarding comfort? Heck, they speeded up (by Mazda standards) the development of this model, so it's very plausible.
And the last thing. We are all -humans, and it is all-subjective.
Some points though I think should be pointed out:
In its context, when the write used the word "limited", he was using it to mean slow as well as restricted.
Every reviewer and their mother has said that the CX-7 rides firm compared to the soft ride of other SUVs. To then have someone complain about it being too soft, is hard to swallow.
And you are saying it looks cheap for the money while people who have also sat in it and every review besides this one is saying something completely different.
From motortrend: "... the high-grade interior trim seemed commendable, as did the two-tone color scheme"
From Edmunds: "The striking and well-finished interior preserves the steering and shifter relationship found in Mazda's RX-8. "
From the Australian review: "Trim and upholstery materials and fit are high grade, too."
bottomline, when taking the review in context, it brings up serious question about its validity. Also, I never said I didn't beleive him about the back seat. I just said I didn't beleive a Mazda marketing guy would say what was written in the article.
Subaru and BMW offer them, in the Forester XT and X3, but most do not. RDX and Saturn Vue Redline and RAV4 don't.
I think most people will opt for an auto anyway, so it probably won't cost them too many sales. But the whole Zoom Zoom thing, shouldn't they offer a manual?
-juice
-juice