You are right, Audi doesn't make a vehicle in this class like a small SUV. I'm thinking if I can't tow close to 3500 lbs., a small wagon like A4 Avant - different class - so I was wrong about it being a competitor for the CX7.
I recently drove an A4 Sedan (among others) at the "Streets of Tomorrow" event, and was disappointed how small the back seat was, which made the A4 Avant unsuitable as an alternative for me. I really dug the A3! It's no SUV, and I didn't miss it.
Juice, I think you mentioned you need room for 5... A3 wouldn't work for you either, but it was still a fun ride for some others as one alternative. See the "Streets of Tomorrow" in the Audi Wagons discussions.
I have yet to drive a CX7, I'm still looking forward to it, even with the automatic. I'm in no hurry. And I don't have high hopes for the Q5... We will see...
A GTI 5 door will arrive soon, and it's taller, but it's still a bit small. I like the size of the Forester, though it could be just a tad wider, for that 5th passenger.
I can't downsize, though. I already have a small toy, my Miata, so the other car has to pay the bills, do the dirty work.
It will be interesting to see how a CX-7 and a RAV4 Sport perform side by side. I agree that acceleration is not the defining feature of a performance vehicle. At the same time I will tell you that a one second difference in 0-60 performance is a noticeable amount of "zoom-zoom" and that horsepower cures many ills.
Many people make the mistake at just looking at 0-60 performance numbers. The RAV4 obviously is faster 0-60, but, in Edmunds road test, the CX-7 did better in the slalom, braking, and handling. Personally, I would rather go for the total package over a sprint car. I live in New England with numerous curvey back roads. The CX-7 would seem a better fit for how I drive and the road conditions of where I live.
To comment on an earlier post, It would be nice to have the option of a manual in the CX-7, to add to the "zoom-zoom" scheme of things, but, I don't think it would sell that well.
Just took my first drive in the GT model. Was very impressed with the overall look of the car. definately more sports car than suv. to me it is the perfect combination of the two in appearance. i was not as impressed with the motor though. the turbo lag is considerable and definately cuts into the fun factor. i cant beleive the article i read in a previous post that talk about the cx7 "leaping" off the line. fit and finish is first rate though and interior appointments walk the line between soph">isticated and sporty although I am not a fan of the "snakeskin" stripe down the middle of the seat.
Overall a very nice vehicle with tons of curb appeal and wow factor. in a previous post i called the the "cayenne for the common man" - guess we will have to wait for the mazdaspeed version for that....
I didn't know they had hit dealer lots. I am leaving my house right now to go see if one is at the Mazda dealer up the street.
I am also glad to hear your first hand review. I thought they had eliminated turbo lag. Darn it. I tested a S40 and felt like I might get whip lash driving with the turbo.
I am also glad that the interior quality was up to par.
I think it would have been great for Mazda to put a manual in the base car. It would have dropped the entry price into the high $22K region (I figured the auto would be a $800 option). That would have made the car seemingly even more of a steal than it already is because then it would be cheaper than a RAV4, 4-cylinder model.
I think the Rav4 may be more expensive similarly equiped. The Touring is only $1,750 more than the base but adds a slew of options such as heated, power adjusted, leather seats.
Basically, premium fuel is a cleaner burning fuel. Engines with high performance, like turbo's, require the higher octane because of the lower amount of carbon build up. The engine will not perform well if you use regular. There is the potential to reduce engine life, for the engine will not be running how it was designed to run.
About the warranty, a warranty can never be "voided" however, a manufacturer can refuse warranty work if they feel the car has been misused by it's owner.
We had a 626 that ran on premium, and around 70k miles we needed to do a throttle-body service. It had been stuttering/stalling. At least that fixed it. $500 though, ouch.
More recently my Miata started to stutter a bit, I think it was the plug wires so I just swapped them out to see if that helps, but I still worry about the fuel injection system and wonder if it'll need service soon.
Any how, the fuel system on Mazdas is not exactly tolerant of low quality fuel. There's no way I'd put lower-than-recommended octane on a brand new Direct-Injection turbo that calls for it.
I think this would be a clear case of "penny wise, pound foolish". Don't do it.
Basically, premium fuel is a cleaner burning fuel. Engines with high performance, like turbo's, require the higher octane because of the lower amount of carbon build up. The engine will not perform well if you use regular. There is the potential to reduce engine life, for the engine will not be running how it was designed to run.
Thanks for the feedback.
I am not a big fan of increasing my vehicle operational expense...even if it is $200 per year. Mazda should have realized that premium fuel is not going to be popular in these times. This is sure to put a damper on sales. In fact, it just did. I am not going to buy the CX-7.
Going to the Santa Fe board to start my research on the all new 2007 Santa Fe. Hopefully, Hyundai was smarter than Mazda....
I have been comparing the Mazda and Hyundai for some time now. After going to the NYC Auto Show, I came away with just the Mazda on my list and new Altima.
Why?
I feel you 100% on the premium gas thing. That was not a good idea at all. The one thing that hooked me about the Mazda was its looks, quality, and performance. I need performance, it is good for my development. The CX-7 will provide me with it in an SUV. The Hyundai is going to be a slow porker unless you go for the V-6 which will also be slow in my opinion.
A test drive of the base V6 with 185hp gave performance at "0-60 in 11.6 secs with the manual gearbox, 12.9 secs for the auto". That is a long wait. With the optional V6 it will make 242hp but will still weigh a lot. It's suspension is set for a soft ride so it won't corner either. Here are the exerts from the review that did the Sante Fe in for me.
" Not that you're likely to want to drive this like a sports car, anyway. The five-speed manual gearbox standard with the diesel is a little sticky, though it should loosen up with mileage, and the four-speed auto that comes with the 2.7 V6 is slow to respond, constantly 'hunting' for gears and not always choosing the right ones."
"Hyundai has done a good job to make sure the Santa Fe's bulk stays under control when cornering hard; it takes a lot to get it off-balance, though it can get a little wallowy if pushed and gets floaty over sudden camber-changes."
I haven't given up on the Hyundai yet though. Pricing has not been anounced and though it didn't look aww inspiring at the car show, in a different color than the one they shown in normal lighting, it may be okay. I don't liek taking car reviews word for it so I will drive it myself and see.
Mazda should have realized that premium fuel is not going to be popular in these times. This is sure to put a damper on sales. In fact, it just did. I am not going to buy the CX-7.
Since this vehicle went into development well over a year ago, it was impossible to predict these stupid gas prices. This time last year, premium fuel was around $2.50/gal. You can't find regular below $3.10 where I am, today.
Just a bad break, probably will hurt Mazda some. But, the new Acura RDX I believe requires premium as well. It is a very similar vehicle.
With the optional V6 it will make 242hp but will still weigh a lot. It's suspension is set for a soft ride so it won't corner either. I agree completely with this. The Hyundai will definitely be less sporty, both slower and in the handling department. Current Hyundai models also get much worse fuel economy as compaired to other vehicles of the same size and similar power. A freind with a Kia Sorrento (Hyundai) with V6 gets only 13 MPG. This lower fuel economy will easily cost more than the 20 cent difference for premium fuel.
If operating costs are the big criteria, I don't see premium as being a big mover. At about 20 cents per gallon, it should be less than a penny per mile. Other factors have a much bigger impact than that. I anyone concerned with those costs should consider all those factors. Probably a Yaris or Fit scores best if that is your primary goal.
Octane rating has nothing to do with how clean a fuel burns although some retailers do advertise how much more detergent they put in the premium.
Octane just rates the fuel's resistance to premature combustion caused by the heat generated by the compression of the engine.
Higher compression engines require higher octane. Ignition timing can also affect octane requirement.
Ford is pretty strict about only requiring 87 octane; however, the Mustang GT gives up at least 10 hp because the engine was detuned to run on regular.
Basically its a balancing between output and fuel requirements. I think Mazda assumes it's customers and import buyers in general are more experienced with a premium fuel requirement and thus more likely not to be put off by it.
The CR-V comes with either Brigestone Duelers or BF Goodrich T/As, and it's not even according to model or even country where it's produced. Very odd.
I think they simply hedge their bets by using more than one supplier.
Fuel - if you want to use regular, get the CX9. CX7 is the performance crossover, so it goes with the territory. Very, very few turbos are tuned to run on regular fuel. Even then I'm not sure I'd do it. You're asking for trouble.
Most if not all the interior shots in the CX-7 brochure and on Mazda's website show a 7 inch screen navigation/CD/radio system. Most of the reviews and the pictures accompanying the reviews show this system. At the NY autoshow the CX-7 on display had the navigation system. It is misleading of Mazda to have models without this system. :P
Mazda like most carmakers pick a "feature car" that is highlighted in most of the marketing....The feature vehicle for the CX-7 is a Grand Touring AWD with the Tech package in copper red.
"Most if not all the interior shots in the CX-7 brochure and on Mazda's website show a 7 inch screen navigation/CD/radio system. Most of the reviews and the pictures accompanying the reviews show this system. At the NY autoshow the CX-7 on display had the navigation system. It is misleading of Mazda to have models without this system."
A terribly poor comparison. The Nav system is clearly advertised as an available option. The tires are not.
I think this tire issue needs some clarification. I do not believe Mazda fans are upset because there might be some tire other than the Goodyear Eagles on the CX-7. What is upsetting people is Mazda's decision to replace the Eagles (which are rated fairly good) with the Bridgestones (which are rated near the bottom of the heap). I'm sure no one would be complaining if Mazda replaced the Eagles with top line Michelin, Pirelli, or even BFG's. But Mazda's choice of a clearly inferior tire for a vehicle everyone has been excited about and waiting for is a big let down. It is a mistake, which I hope Mazda catches and rectifies.
"Once more. This is NOT a replacement. There are 2 (at least) different tires for the car."
All right, all right - if it makes you happy, the Bridgestones are not a replacement, they are another tire offered on the car. Okay? However, it does not change my point one bit.
According to Tire Rack Tire Survey Results, Bridgestone Turanza EL42 rank 23 out of 25 all season touring tires surveyed. Goodyear Eagle LS ranked 16 - not great but far better than the Bridgestones - especially if you look at the stats. See for yourself: tirerack.com survey results
Then, after looking at the chart, click on the tire and read the reviews. Among other comments, when asked,"Would You Buy This Tire Again?", Most said: "Definitely Not" (Average of 2.2 out of 10)
Bridgestone Turanza EL42 is an an inferior tire and has no business on a vehicle like the CX-7. This is why Mazda fans are unhappy.
Now, if they instead equipped the CX-7 with the Turanza LS-T's, or the Yokohama TRZ's, I'm sure absolutely no one would gripe.
Having driven many cars with many tires on many roads, I think I will still try them out for myself. In my experience, the tire/vehicle match makes a big difference. A tire that may be good on one vehicle may be bad on another.
Road surface makes a big difference too, especially regarding noise. I have found that a tire that is noisier on roads in my area may be quieter on roads in another area.
So, all in all, I think I will try both tires on this vehicle and my local roads before I come to a conclusion. Most of the tirerack survey people probably don't drive in my neighborhood and none of them drive CX-7s.
Are the RS-A's really that good to warrant all of this bickering? If I do recall, owners of the 3 with RSA's were crying boody murder when the snow began to fly and temps dropped close to freezing.
No, the RS-A's are not a great tire, but they are not a bad tire and are a standard TireRack uses to compare many other passenger car tires. There are better tires, but at least it is a decent tire. Turanza EL-42 is disliked by a ratio of more than 8 to 1 by my quick survey of the TireRack reviews by a lot of Nissan Altima, Toyota Solara and Acura TL owners, among others. It doesn't rate well in any category and is especially poor on snow and ice and in hydroplane resistance. The funny thing is TireRack doesn't sell it in the 235/60R18 size required by the CX-7.
The fuel mileage and premium requirement of the RDX and CX-7 really do place them at a disadvantage. I have calculated my annual fuel usage for the vehicles I am considering as follows:
I prefer rear wheel drive, although four wheel drive on a vehicle which is basically a front wheel drive vehicle (all on my list except the Explorer) is acceptable. Even at the rate I drive, the fuel cost difference between the Explorer and the CX-7 is trivial.
The Toyota is probably the fastest of them all, and offers the lowest fuel cost, making it clear that Ford should have placed the new 3.5 V6, which only needs regular, into the CX-7. Perhaps they will do so, although the Edge and Freestyle will have it. The Freestyle has the most interior, seating, and cargo space, and the best safety ratings, yet is second best in regards to fuel cost.
Wow, you must drive a lot of miles. Figuring, $3 a gallon for your calculations, it must be over $40k miles?
In any case, the numbers you mention have virtually nothing to do with the cost of premium fuel. Assuming $40k miles and about 20 miles / gallon, the CX-7 without premium would have cost about $400 more.
No matter how you slice it, premium adds less than a penny a mile and most people don't drive 40,000 miles a year. Your example includes too many variables to blame the difference on premium.
For people with different priorities, the penny a mile is minor relative to the other costs of ownership.
Enjoy your RAV4 (I wouldn't, but we all have different priorities). I don't like it, but I don't spend my time in that group trying to convince people not to buy it.
The Toyota is probably the fastest of them all, and offers the lowest fuel cost, making it clear that Ford should have placed the new 3.5 V6, which only needs regular, into the CX-7. Perhaps they will do so, although the Edge and Freestyle will have it
Well, there is no Ford Duratec35 in the CX-7, because Ford did not build the CX-7, Mazda did. So, it has a Mazda engine. Mazda wanted to build an SUV/CUV of their own, not a Ford clone. Ford borrowed the platform from Mazda to build the Edge on. Also, I think it is safe to say we will not see the Duratec35 in the CX-7. If we were having this conversation a year ago, when the car was being developed, we would not be so concerned with premium fuel, because it was far less expensive at the time of development.
The Freestyle is not a small CUV like the RDX, CX-7, and RAV4. The Mazda competition to the Freestyle is the up-coming CX-9, with the Duratec35 in it.
On your calculations, what did you figure for mileage driven, and what price did you use for regular and premium fuel?
Most if not all the interior shots in the CX-7 brochure and on Mazda's website show a 7 inch screen navigation/CD/radio system. Most of the reviews and the pictures accompanying the reviews show this system. At the NY autoshow the CX-7 on display had the navigation system. It is misleading of Mazda to have models without this system.
If you look at the CX-7 brochure, available at your local Mazda dealer, you will see 2 nice pictures of the CX-7 w/o the technology package, and 5 with the touch screen. But, each picture shows a different feature of the touch screen (nav, radio, EQ, and rear-view camera) I would say they did a decent job of showing you all views.
dave90, don't jump the gun, as I haven't yet decided.
dave90 and by, I assumed my mileage was 50% city and 50% highway, 35,000 miles per year, regular at $3.50 and premium at $3.75 (I am in southern CA).
Ford controls Mazda, so I will not pretend that any significant decisions are not made without consideration of how the vehicles fit into Ford's overall palns and without approval of Ford management.
Yes, for people who drive less, the differences become less significant, but I still think the CX-7 is heavy enough that it would be better off with the new 3.5 V6. By the way, the Edge is not built on the same platform as the CX-7, although they are similar.
The CX-7, Edge, RAV4, and RDX/CR-V probably are the vehicles most likely to be cross-shopped by most buyers.
qddave is right - I own a 3 with "all weather" RSAs, they were dangerous in snow/ice. I ended up buying a set of Blizzaks for the winter - what a difference. The RSAs are ok for summer driving.
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.
Hi: The RS-A's are really that good when compared to the Bridgestones - yuck. I had them on my 05 Avalon XLS, which I had earlier compared them against Michelin tires standard on the 05 Avalon Limited (same suspension as the XLS). The Michelins were far superior to the Bridgestones, but I needed the car right away and was unable to locate an XLS with the Michelins. Never again. Regards, Deanie
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).
'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.
<<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...
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...
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.
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.
Comments
I recently drove an A4 Sedan (among others) at the "Streets of Tomorrow" event, and was disappointed how small the back seat was, which made the A4 Avant unsuitable as an alternative for me. I really dug the A3! It's no SUV, and I didn't miss it.
Juice, I think you mentioned you need room for 5... A3 wouldn't work for you either, but it was still a fun ride for some others as one alternative. See the "Streets of Tomorrow" in the Audi Wagons discussions.
I have yet to drive a CX7, I'm still looking forward to it, even with the automatic. I'm in no hurry. And I don't have high hopes for the Q5... We will see...
A GTI 5 door will arrive soon, and it's taller, but it's still a bit small. I like the size of the Forester, though it could be just a tad wider, for that 5th passenger.
I can't downsize, though. I already have a small toy, my Miata, so the other car has to pay the bills, do the dirty work.
-juice
To comment on an earlier post, It would be nice to have the option of a manual in the CX-7, to add to the "zoom-zoom" scheme of things, but, I don't think it would sell that well.
-juice
Overall a very nice vehicle with tons of curb appeal and wow factor. in a previous post i called the the "cayenne for the common man" - guess we will have to wait for the mazdaspeed version for that....
I am also glad to hear your first hand review. I thought they had eliminated turbo lag. Darn it. I tested a S40 and felt like I might get whip lash driving with the turbo.
I am also glad that the interior quality was up to par.
I think the Rav4 may be more expensive similarly equiped. The Touring is only $1,750 more than the base but adds a slew of options such as heated, power adjusted, leather seats.
-juice
I like the CX-7. It is an affordable mid-size crossover SUV.
Per the USA Today review, CX-7 "requires premium gasoline".
If I use regular gas from day one,
-Would that decrease the life of the engine?
-Would it void any part of the Mazda warranty?
Thanks!
At about $.20 more per gallon, it should cost about $120-$150 more per year for premium depending on your driving distance.
I don't think I would disregard the recommendation over this amount of money. Plus, the engine is meant to be fun, I'd want to enjoy the power.
About the warranty, a warranty can never be "voided" however, a manufacturer can refuse warranty work if they feel the car has been misused by it's owner.
We had a 626 that ran on premium, and around 70k miles we needed to do a throttle-body service. It had been stuttering/stalling. At least that fixed it. $500 though, ouch.
More recently my Miata started to stutter a bit, I think it was the plug wires so I just swapped them out to see if that helps, but I still worry about the fuel injection system and wonder if it'll need service soon.
Any how, the fuel system on Mazdas is not exactly tolerant of low quality fuel. There's no way I'd put lower-than-recommended octane on a brand new Direct-Injection turbo that calls for it.
I think this would be a clear case of "penny wise, pound foolish". Don't do it.
-juice
E85 is higher octane, cleaner burning, and cheaper - seems like it would be a great option for the CX7 engine I would think?
Thanks for the feedback.
I am not a big fan of increasing my vehicle operational expense...even if it is $200 per year. Mazda should have realized that premium fuel is not going to be popular in these times. This is sure to put a damper on sales. In fact, it just did. I am not going to buy the CX-7.
Going to the Santa Fe board to start my research on the all new 2007 Santa Fe. Hopefully, Hyundai was smarter than Mazda....
Why?
I feel you 100% on the premium gas thing. That was not a good idea at all. The one thing that hooked me about the Mazda was its looks, quality, and performance. I need performance, it is good for my development. The CX-7 will provide me with it in an SUV. The Hyundai is going to be a slow porker unless you go for the V-6 which will also be slow in my opinion.
A test drive of the base V6 with 185hp gave performance at "0-60 in 11.6 secs with the manual gearbox, 12.9 secs for the auto". That is a long wait. With the optional V6 it will make 242hp but will still weigh a lot. It's suspension is set for a soft ride so it won't corner either. Here are the exerts from the review that did the Sante Fe in for me.
" Not that you're likely to want to drive this like a sports car, anyway. The five-speed manual gearbox standard with the diesel is a little sticky, though it should loosen up with mileage, and the four-speed auto that comes with the 2.7 V6 is slow to respond, constantly 'hunting' for gears and not always choosing the right ones."
"Hyundai has done a good job to make sure the Santa Fe's bulk stays under control when cornering hard; it takes a lot to get it off-balance, though it can get a little wallowy if pushed and gets floaty over sudden camber-changes."
I haven't given up on the Hyundai yet though. Pricing has not been anounced and though it didn't look aww inspiring at the car show, in a different color than the one they shown in normal lighting, it may be okay. I don't liek taking car reviews word for it so I will drive it myself and see.
Since this vehicle went into development well over a year ago, it was impossible to predict these stupid gas prices. This time last year, premium fuel was around $2.50/gal. You can't find regular below $3.10 where I am, today.
Just a bad break, probably will hurt Mazda some. But, the new Acura RDX I believe requires premium as well. It is a very similar vehicle.
I agree completely with this. The Hyundai will definitely be less sporty, both slower and in the handling department.
Current Hyundai models also get much worse fuel economy as compaired to other vehicles of the same size and similar power. A freind with a Kia Sorrento (Hyundai) with V6 gets only 13 MPG. This lower fuel economy will easily cost more than the 20 cent difference for premium fuel.
Octane just rates the fuel's resistance to premature combustion caused by the heat generated by the compression of the engine.
Higher compression engines require higher octane. Ignition timing can also affect octane requirement.
Ford is pretty strict about only requiring 87 octane; however, the Mustang GT gives up at least 10 hp because the engine was detuned to run on regular.
Basically its a balancing between output and fuel requirements. I think Mazda assumes it's customers and import buyers in general are more experienced with a premium fuel requirement and thus more likely not to be put off by it.
Mark
Mark
Customers regularly pay extra on a truck to get OWL or AT tires.
I bet the Mazdas with the weak tires that you saw are either lower trim or FWD.
Mark.
I think they simply hedge their bets by using more than one supplier.
Fuel - if you want to use regular, get the CX9. CX7 is the performance crossover, so it goes with the territory. Very, very few turbos are tuned to run on regular fuel. Even then I'm not sure I'd do it. You're asking for trouble.
-juice
A terribly poor comparison. The Nav system is clearly advertised as an available option. The tires are not.
I think this tire issue needs some clarification. I do not believe Mazda fans are upset because there might be some tire other than the Goodyear Eagles on the CX-7. What is upsetting people is Mazda's decision to replace the Eagles (which are rated fairly good) with the Bridgestones (which are rated near the bottom of the heap). I'm sure no one would be complaining if Mazda replaced the Eagles with top line Michelin, Pirelli, or even BFG's. But Mazda's choice of a clearly inferior tire for a vehicle everyone has been excited about and waiting for is a big let down. It is a mistake, which I hope Mazda catches and rectifies.
The Goodyears will be on some of the CX-7s and the Bridgestone's will be on other CX-7s.
Moreover, the idea that the Bridgestone's are inferior is an opinion. Other opinions may differ.
All right, all right - if it makes you happy, the Bridgestones are not a replacement, they are another tire offered on the car. Okay? However, it does not change my point one bit.
According to Tire Rack Tire Survey Results, Bridgestone Turanza EL42 rank 23 out of 25 all season touring tires surveyed. Goodyear Eagle LS ranked 16 - not great but far better than the Bridgestones - especially if you look at the stats. See for yourself: tirerack.com survey results
Then, after looking at the chart, click on the tire and read the reviews. Among other comments, when asked,"Would You Buy This Tire Again?", Most said: "Definitely Not" (Average of 2.2 out of 10)
Bridgestone Turanza EL42 is an an inferior tire and has no business on a vehicle like the CX-7. This is why Mazda fans are unhappy.
Now, if they instead equipped the CX-7 with the Turanza LS-T's, or the Yokohama TRZ's, I'm sure absolutely no one would gripe.
Having driven many cars with many tires on many roads, I think I will still try them out for myself. In my experience, the tire/vehicle match makes a big difference. A tire that may be good on one vehicle may be bad on another.
Road surface makes a big difference too, especially regarding noise. I have found that a tire that is noisier on roads in my area may be quieter on roads in another area.
So, all in all, I think I will try both tires on this vehicle and my local roads before I come to a conclusion. Most of the tirerack survey people probably don't drive in my neighborhood and none of them drive CX-7s.
Dave
Turanza EL-42 is disliked by a ratio of more than 8 to 1 by my quick survey of the TireRack reviews by a lot of Nissan Altima, Toyota Solara and Acura TL owners, among others. It doesn't rate well in any category and is especially poor on snow and ice and in hydroplane resistance. The funny thing is TireRack doesn't sell it in the 235/60R18 size required by the CX-7.
Toyota RAV4 4WD V6, 3,675 Lbs.: $5,001
2008 Freestyle AWD (3.0 V6, 3.5 V6 no worse), 3,825 Lbs.: $5,697
Edge, 4,086 Lbs.: $unknown
Acura RDX, 3,982 Lbs.: $6,105
Mazda CX-7, 3,929 Lbs.: $6,251
Explorer V8 RWD, 4,531 Lbs.: $6,804
I prefer rear wheel drive, although four wheel drive on a vehicle which is basically a front wheel drive vehicle (all on my list except the Explorer) is acceptable. Even at the rate I drive, the fuel cost difference between the Explorer and the CX-7 is trivial.
The Toyota is probably the fastest of them all, and offers the lowest fuel cost, making it clear that Ford should have placed the new 3.5 V6, which only needs regular, into the CX-7. Perhaps they will do so, although the Edge and Freestyle will have it. The Freestyle has the most interior, seating, and cargo space, and the best safety ratings, yet is second best in regards to fuel cost.
In any case, the numbers you mention have virtually nothing to do with the cost of premium fuel. Assuming $40k miles and about 20 miles / gallon, the CX-7 without premium would have cost about $400 more.
No matter how you slice it, premium adds less than a penny a mile and most people don't drive 40,000 miles a year. Your example includes too many variables to blame the difference on premium.
For people with different priorities, the penny a mile is minor relative to the other costs of ownership.
Enjoy your RAV4 (I wouldn't, but we all have different priorities). I don't like it, but I don't spend my time in that group trying to convince people not to buy it.
Well, there is no Ford Duratec35 in the CX-7, because Ford did not build the CX-7, Mazda did. So, it has a Mazda engine. Mazda wanted to build an SUV/CUV of their own, not a Ford clone. Ford borrowed the platform from Mazda to build the Edge on. Also, I think it is safe to say we will not see the Duratec35 in the CX-7. If we were having this conversation a year ago, when the car was being developed, we would not be so concerned with premium fuel, because it was far less expensive at the time of development.
The Freestyle is not a small CUV like the RDX, CX-7, and RAV4. The Mazda competition to the Freestyle is the up-coming CX-9, with the Duratec35 in it.
On your calculations, what did you figure for mileage driven, and what price did you use for regular and premium fuel?
If you look at the CX-7 brochure, available at your local Mazda dealer, you will see 2 nice pictures of the CX-7 w/o the technology package, and 5 with the touch screen. But, each picture shows a different feature of the touch screen (nav, radio, EQ, and rear-view camera) I would say they did a decent job of showing you all views.
dave90 and by, I assumed my mileage was 50% city and 50% highway, 35,000 miles per year, regular at $3.50 and premium at $3.75 (I am in southern CA).
Ford controls Mazda, so I will not pretend that any significant decisions are not made without consideration of how the vehicles fit into Ford's overall palns and without approval of Ford management.
Yes, for people who drive less, the differences become less significant, but I still think the CX-7 is heavy enough that it would be better off with the new 3.5 V6. By the way, the Edge is not built on the same platform as the CX-7, although they are similar.
The CX-7, Edge, RAV4, and RDX/CR-V probably are the vehicles most likely to be cross-shopped by most buyers.
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.
The RS-A's are really that good when compared to the Bridgestones - yuck. I had them on my 05 Avalon XLS, which I had earlier compared them against Michelin tires standard on the 05 Avalon Limited (same suspension as the XLS). The Michelins were far superior to the Bridgestones, but I needed the car right away and was unable to locate an XLS with the Michelins. Never again.
Regards,
Deanie
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.
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...
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.
The Ford Edge and Mazda CX-7 are built on a variation of the Mazda6 platform
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...
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
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.
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.