Howdy, Stranger!

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





Howdy, Stranger!

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

Have you recently bought/leased a new car online and requested a home delivery due to coronavirus? A reporter would like to speak to you; please reach out to [email protected] by 4/8 for more details.
Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Mazda CX-7 vs. Nissan Murano

SylviaSylvia Posts: 1,636
Plenty of people are comparing the two - are you? Thoughts?
«1345

Comments

  • I think the CX-7 is a clone/copy of the Murano from the outside. Compare a CX-7 with a Murano S (no roof rails), and they are almost identical. Dimensions are a bit smaller tho - be interested in a test/comparison in the future.

    Not sure about the turbo 4cyl - think they would have been better off with a V6...
  • ctxctx Posts: 50
    I posted this in another thread but here is my take on some of it:


    1. Price - Based on MSRP, the CX-7 is 5 grand less than the comparably equipped Murano. Murano is 36909 with Touring pkg, Navigation and Dynamic Stability Control, CX-7 is 31,040 – same options. I do realize the Murano probably will not sell at MSRP.. obviously no data on the CX-7.
    2. Warranty – CX-7 is 48 mo/50K miles. Murano is 36 mo/36K miles.
    3. Transmission – I’m not a huge fan of CVT so CX-7 wins (for now.. need to test drive the CX-7..)
    4. Time on market – Murano wins here. Had plenty of time to work the kinks out. I know how the first years are..
    5. Looks – I’m tending towards the Murano.

    JMHO! :shades:
  • maximafanmaximafan Posts: 592
    After checking the specs of both vehicles on
    the respective websites and brochures, the
    Murano appears to be an all around larger
    vehicle with more towing capacity than the
    CX-7. For example:
    Towing Cap.: Murano - 3500 lbs.
    CX-7 - 2000 lbs.
    Overall length: Murano - 187.6
    CX-7 - 184.1
    Width: Murano - 74.8
    CX-7 - 73.7
    Cargo Volume - seats down -
    Murano - 81.6 cu.ft.
    CX-7 - 58.6
    Fuel tank (Gals.): Murano - 21.7
    CX-7 - 18.27
    Fuel Economy: Murano(AWD)- 19/24
    CX-7(AWD)- 18/24

    Just a sampling of some of the specs.
    Interesting, huh?
  • Murano is bigger - it shows in the difference in the cargo volume.

    I am surprised that the towing for the CX-7 is only 2000lbs - It has similar torque to the Murano VQ engine. Must be something with the transmission and the Turbo-4cyl or the frame design.
  • russ_49russ_49 Posts: 54
    I must be in my mid-life crisis mode, but I own a 05 Tribute V-6 with a towing package which I will be hanging on to, my wife drives it, so I have no intention of towing anything with this. As a matter of fact, I told my dealer that I didn't want the towing package on mine when I placed my order.

    This is a fun, sporty CUV, in line with the Beemer for quality, fit, finish, and substantially less money. All preliminary reviews suggest that Mazda hit the mark with this one, and I can't wait. My dealer has told me to expect delivery of mine, sometime the beginnig of May. I was able to get my order placed in the dealerships second series of orders with Mazda. CX-7, Grand Touring, with NAV package, BOSE, AWD, and copper red!! ;)
  • richmlrichml Posts: 156
    I live at the Jersey Shore - lots of SUVs on the roads, including many Muranos. I've never seen one Murano towing anything.

    I don't think towing is a big consideration to many people who buy vehicles in this segment - Murano, CX-7, MDX, etc.
  • dmakodmako Posts: 5
    I am a Murano owner and will test drive a CX-7 when they come out. All I can say is the Murano will/is hard to beat in my opinion.

    I am tall and nothing, nothing comes close to how comfortable the Murano is. Sat in a 2006 RAV4 this past Sat. Didn't even want to test drive it, no leg room for me.

    I have plenty of room in the murano, and can fit two dog crates side by side in the back for my hunting dogs. It drives smooth as silk (CVT) and the six is nice, not too sure about turbos, had a turbo VW Sirocco (Callaway) years ago. I know they've improved but still losts of heat and pressure.
  • richmlrichml Posts: 156
    Mazda is emphasizing sportiness and "fun to drive" for their new vehicles. I don't think a CVT fits that image.
  • dmakodmako Posts: 5
    As far as the CVT go, try it. VERY sporty, it keeps the RPM at prime level throughout the total band.

    i.e. no shifts to slow you down. thats why the Murano from 30-60 is as fast a a FX/45 with a V8! Granted a bit slow off the line but it is a heavy vehicle, but the mid range (the sweet spot for me) 30 - 80 is very sporty. Try one on D)rive and in S)port mode. It's like a sling shot.

    4 or 5 speed auto sporty? maybe a stick, thats why everyone is moving from 3 to 4 to 5 to 6 speed autos. Heck the CVT is about an 11 speed.
  • maximafanmaximafan Posts: 592
    I agree with you on the Murano's acceleration. I got to spend four days with an
    S Model as a rental. Took it to the Florida
    Keys to visit family. It's not as quick as
    my Maxima off the line, but it does appear to
    be quite zippy between 30 and 60 mph. Took
    three adults and my 10 year old nephew to
    Everglades National Park in the Murano and
    everyone was impressed with how roomy the car
    was, as it does not look that large on the
    outside. I'm strongly considering this car
    when my lease is up, unless I can get a decent
    deal on a Lexus RX350 (Yeah, I'm dreaming!)
  • CVT is smooth.. there is a bit of hesitation to start off, but once you stomp it, it hits the 6000 RPM fast and it zooms... now I sound like a Mazda commercial LOL...
  • I am really close to buyng a 06 Murano.
    But I like the idea of spending less and getting more on the CX AND getting a car that won't be replaced by a new design (like the Murano, since its been pretty much unchanged for 4 years)

    First year models are scary for quality, and I dont want to wait until May and pay sticker (Murano's are selling below invoice with 3% financing now)...so I'm leaning towards just buying a murano.

    Unless somene can convince me to wait for it. :-)
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Unless somene can convince me to wait for it.

    I would say at least wait until the CX-7 comes out, and you test drive it.

    Nissan has had a decent reliability record. As for the CX-7, the engine has been out for a little while now. They did run into a little glitch with a possible heat soak problem, witch could possibly be linked to poor engine compartment air circulation and too much boost on the Mazdaspeed6. The CX-7 has less HP, I'm assuming less boost, and with an SUV, it should be easier for air to circulate in the engine compartment. Therefore, no heat soak problem. Hopefully. Other then that, Mazda rates better as a company in overall quality and reliability Vs. Nissan, according to Consumer Reports.

    The other plus to the CX-7 is that it is new, and the Murano design is a few years old. If you are one who likes to have something that no one has, it could be worth the wait.

    On buying one at sticker price. I can't see that lasting too long. The public only put's up with that for so long. And, I believe the CX-7 is a bit cheaper to begin with. But, not by much.
  • ctxctx Posts: 50
    I would agree with the previous poster and wait for a test drive! Another point is the CX-7 has a 4 yr/48K warranty.. the Murano has 3 yr/36K.
  • audia8qaudia8q Posts: 3,138
    Off the top of my head I can think of a few areas in which the CX-7 tops the Murano..

    std 6 speed trans
    std dynamic stability control
    std traction control
    std tire pressure monitoring system
    longer standard cargo area
    no cost roadside assistance
    available advanced keyless entry and start system
    more torque
    The Murano is a little bigger overall and a little bit hevier...but it's amazing how well they stack up agaisnt each other...

    The ride and drive will probably be the deciding factor for most folks...
  • audia8qaudia8q Posts: 3,138
    Another point is the CX-7 has a 4 yr/48K warranty.. the Murano has 3 yr/36K.

    For 2007 Mazda is changing their warranty to be similar to their competators. 3/36 bumper to bumper and 5/60K on powertrain. Roadsides assist stays.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    audi is correct, Mazda will be reducing their warranty to be similar to their competitors for the 2007 model year. The CX-7 will be the first to have the 3/36 and 5/60 warranty.
  • dmakodmako Posts: 5
    Yes a test drive would be in order I'm planning on one and I own a MuranO.

    Size would be a factor for me both in front/rear seat space as well as cargo. The reviews so far seem to indicate a very small rear seating area and cargo space. Fine if you have just two people. But I need and want to be able to say pick up a sheet of plywood. The Murano is perfect handle like a sports cars, and hauls like a SUV.

    Sorry get carried away, the Murano is that good.

    The Murano has a lot going for it, and right now I'd go for a 06/07 if I retire my 03.
  • richmlrichml Posts: 156
    The online New York Times site has their annual Q&A with car industry folks in conjunction with the NY Auto Show.

    Eleven automotive industry insiders were interviewed, ground rules were they couldn't discuss their own products.

    There were good comments about the CX-7 and the Kabura concept, the only Nissan comments were about the Urge - the Mazda2 competition.
  • Actually the Murano comes with the keyless entry/ignition too if you pop for the Touring package.

    I decided to go with the Murano mainly because I couldn't wait and the whole first production year issues (like reliability lack of discounts)

    I bought a SL FWD with Touring and Navigation last week.
    I'm lovin it!
  • lilarrylilarry Posts: 13
    I had my eye on the Murano for a while. I test drove it and liked the performance very much - including the CVT. But the CX-7 has been intriguing me. So I went to the New York Auto Show Sunday to compare the two (and a few other CUVs). I went back and forth from the CX-7 to the Murano (not easy since the CX-7 was upstairs and the Muranos downstairs). Here’s what I found:

    Seating position and driver comfort: CX-7 hands down. Perfect! I just can’t get completely comfortable in the Murano’s seat.

    Dash: CX-7 wins again. It’s perfectly laid out and definitely cool. The Murano dash pod looks like an out-of-place plastic toy

    Looks: The Murano is a great looking vehicle, but I like the CX-7 better. And they don’t really look all that much alike.

    Cargo Space: The Murano wins all the way. Don’t buy a CX-7 if you plan on hauling much with the rear seats up - or even down.

    Rear Seating: Murano wins. CX-7 rear seating is sparse by comparison. The Murano’s rear seats even recline!

    Quality/Feel – Externally they seem about equal. Inside, The CX-7 feels solid and of high quality in the driver and front passenger areas. Rear seat and cargo areas seem cheap and flimsy. The Murano seems the reverse: Cargo and rear seating high quality, driver and front passenger areas cheap and flimsy – especially the dash and center console storage area. Go figure!

    I have to say, after the auto show I am definitely less interested in the Murano and more interested in the CX-7. Of course, a test drive will still be required.
  • ctxctx Posts: 50
    I'm with you. I'm a long time Mazda fan but went with Murano due to a. time on market, b. cargo space, c. awesome to drive and d. awesome discounts.

    Love my new Platinum Touring pkg. For the short term, I suspect I paid slightly less than MSRP on a similiarly equipt CX-7.. but who cares? I love my new car.

    p.s. I traded from a Miata. Go figure :)
  • lilarrylilarry Posts: 13
    Forgot a few of things:

    Memory Power Driver's Seat: Murano has it, CX-7 doesn't.

    Power Passenger Seat: Murano has it, CX-7 doesn't.

    Dual Climate Control: Murano has it, CX-7 doesn't.

    Roof Rack: Murano has it, CX-7 doesn't.

    Towing Capacity: Murano tows 3500lbs - enough for a 19 foot boat with capacity to spare. CX-7 tows 2000lbs - enough for a jet ski or maybe two.

    Premium Bose Stereo Systems: Both the CX-7 and Murano have premium sound from Bose. But the Murano's subwoofer is attached to the spare tire and must be removed to get to the spare ... and it sounds like its in a garbage can. I can't believe that was the best Nissan/Bose could do! They should be ashamed of that one. I didn't get to hear the CX-7 stereo but, looking it over it is certainly designed better, with 9 speakers including dual subwoofers in the doors and plenty of power. (I can tell you that the basic stock stereo in the Mazda 3 blows the doors off the Murano's Bose premium)

    Sirius or XM: CX-7-Sirius only. Murano gives you your choice of either. Neither gives you HD radio (which would be my choice).

    Smart Key - Murano's is more like the usual key fob we are used to. CX-7 is more like a fat credit card - fits better in a shirt pocket.

    Hmmm - The Murano may be starting to look better again - just a little though..
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Roof Rack: Murano has it, CX-7 doesn't.

    You can get the following as an accessories from Mazda for the CX-7:

    Bike carrier, roof rack mounted.
    Cargo box, roof mounted
    Ski/snowboard rack, roof mounted.
    Roof luggage basket
  • One feature that my wife loved about our 2006 MO is the adjustable pedals, in which I don't know of any other import SUV that has it.
  • DIMNJDIMNJ NJPosts: 71
    My answer to the above comparison:
    I disagree that Murano's dashboard layout and front seat position lose to Mazda. First of all, Murano uses much better materials, such as real aluminum and chrome on door handles and shifter. In comparison, Mazda's interior is made completely out of VERY CHEAP hard plastic. Furthermore, everyone seems to have forgotten about great Murano's graphic interface on the STANDARD 7in-LCD, that, by the way, also offers a rear view camera as a part of its Touring Package. Mazda doesn't have any of it available. I love Murano's graphics, when using 6-in-dash mp3 changer, as well as settings menu that lets you adjust pretty much all of the computer-controlled options.
    I recently leased my second Murano, first being a 2003 one, as I saw no alternative to it in this class and price range.
    and yeah, Mazda has a MUCH smaller interior AND cargo room!
  • ctxctx Posts: 50
    While I am with you (love the Murano)would like to point out that Standard LCD/back-up cam comes with every model of Murano (not just with Touring pkg). Also CX-7 does offer LCD but back-up cam only with the Technology package which is a 4K adder.
  • syadastisyadasti Posts: 24
    But the CX7 is cheaper when similarly equipped, handles/brakes better (read: blows the Murano away in slalom and 60-0 braking numbers), better ergonomics, and IMHO nicer looking interior and exterior.

    From the Edmunds.com performance test database:

    Mazda CX-7
    60-0 braking: 112.9 ft !!
    Slalom: 64.3 mph !
    0-60 acc 7.7 s
    quarter 15.9 s

    Nissan Murano
    60-0 Braking 123.6 ft
    Slalom 60.7 mph
    0-60 acc 8.2 s
    quarter 16.2 s

    No contest, Murano has minivan performance compared to a CX-7 ;)
  • DIMNJDIMNJ NJPosts: 71
    well, it's much smaller and lighter, too.
  • rennie4rennie4 Posts: 55
    0-60 mph 7.4s
    0-100 mph 21.8s
    1/4 Mile 15.7 s @ 88 mph
    Top Speed 116 mph
    Gas Mileage 20 MPG City / 25 MPG Highway

    The performance of the mazda are not gonna sway me away from the murano. The muranos numbers are not that far behind for me to stray away from a better all around vehicle.
  • DIMNJDIMNJ NJPosts: 71
    I totally agree. If you were looking for a vehicle based purely on its performance data, you wouldn't be looking into a crossover segment. Utility and comfort matter a lot!
    Why do you need a crossover with such a small cargo(compare ~59c.ft for Mazda vs. ~84 for Murano) as well as very low back seat
  • audia8qaudia8q Posts: 3,138
    Well I guess Mazda should cancel the CX-7 since the experts have spoken. Of course there is no need to actually drive the CX-7 to make a legit comparison.
  • DIMNJDIMNJ NJPosts: 71
    Oh, please, why be sarcastic? We are not disputing the existence of CX-7, just comparing it to another vehicle.
    CX-7 would definitely appeal to people that need a smaller SUV with a good performance and don't necessarily need a big cargo room or a comfortable back seat.
  • unixxusunixxus Posts: 97
    "CX-7 would definitely appeal to people that need a smaller SUV with a good performance and don't necessarily need a big cargo room or a comfortable back seat."

    Since I doubt you have sat in the back seat of the Cx-7 for any length of time, how did you come to the conclusion that it is uncomfortable? I would also not classify the cargo room of the Murano as 'big'. If cargo room is such a priority for me, The Murano will not be on my list.
  • audia8qaudia8q Posts: 3,138
    It easy to be sarcastic when people are making such direct comparisons without driving the vehicle. Without a test drive the comparisons don't really mean much..After 20+ years in the car biz I have seen alot people do endless statistical comparisons that end up meaning nothing after one 15 minute test drive.
  • DIMNJDIMNJ NJPosts: 71
    You shouldn't have doubts, that was the first vehicle I actually thoroughly inspected at the NY Autoshow, as I was genuinely interested in comparing it to the Murano (my lease on 2003 Murano was about to expire). You can guess that I leased a 2006 Murano after being able to compare the two. I do regret that I wasn't able to drive CX-7, but again, cosidering ALL of the factors, I went for the Murano. Moreover, CX-7 is a brand new model with yet unknown reliability compared to Murano. I also wanted the features that Murano offers and that would only be available as a part of CX-7 Technology package(with Nav System that I didn't need): MP3-capable changer, intelligent key security system, rear view camera. Oops, sorry, the first one isn't even available on CX-7, not sure about the intelligent key.
  • DIMNJDIMNJ NJPosts: 71
    You should have mentioned earlier that you have been more than "20+ years in the car biz". Why aren't you also saying that you are simply trying to sell this car?? That actually disqualifies you as an unbiased consumer, you are just a sponsor.
  • unixxusunixxus Posts: 97
    You should have mentioned earlier that you have been more than "20+ years in the car biz". Why aren't you also saying that you are simply trying to sell this car?? That actually disqualifies you as an unbiased consumer, you are just a sponsor.

    I guess by that same token, you are also disqualified as an unbiased consumer since you own a Murano. Seems like you are trying to justify your purchase by highlighting your perceived shortcomings of the Mazda Cx-7.
  • DIMNJDIMNJ NJPosts: 71
    man, you are really funny :)
    Of course I am a consumer, the one who makes the choice.
    unlike me, you don't really choose what to sell if you work for a certain dealership. Whatever you blame me for, I just expressed my unbiased opinion, everyone is entitled to one. I didn't have to purchase the same car again, why would I even look at the CX-7 then? Well, i don't really want to make it a personal discussion, let me add that an upcoming CX-9 looks MUCH better, inside and out, it's much closer to the Murano from a size and features stand point, and would probably be priced even higher. Maybe I'd get myself one after my current lease is up?
    Good Luck with selling Mazda, but don't publsih any "consumer" reviews on cars, the ones you are selling or competing ones. :)
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Of course I am a consumer, the one who makes the choice.
    unlike me, you don't really choose what to sell if you work for a certain dealership


    That would hold true only if you were to walk into a dealership looking for a job, not caring about the product. However, if he chose to sell Mazda, because he likes the product, that is totally different. It's just like buying one, and being a customer.

    upcoming CX-9 looks MUCH better, inside and out, it's much closer to the Murano from a size and features stand poin

    CX-9 is much bigger. More along the lines of the Honda Pilot. The Murano is rather small as far as SUV's go. So is the CX-7. If you were looking for cargo room, neither would be on my list. I would opt for a 4-Runner, Explorer, Pilot, CX-9.

    On another note. I sell Mazda's, and I am a Mazda owner. So, do I have the right to give a "customer" review? :P :confuse:
  • audia8qaudia8q Posts: 3,138
    You should have mentioned earlier that you have been more than "20+ years in the car biz". Why aren't you also saying that you are simply trying to sell this car??

    I didn't need to mention it since its on my profile and it clearly states my profession...That doesnt disqualify me as a consumer because I am a consumer just like you.

    I'm not selling anything to anyone on here so if you don't like a particular make or model thats fine...everyone has their own likes and dislikes.

    I have driven both vehicles so that gives me insight that you don't have....so using your thinking, I guess that makes you unqualified to speak about the CX-7 right?
  • maximafanmaximafan Posts: 592
    I got to spend four days with a Nissan Murano
    rental, and, yes it has pretty darned
    impressive cargo room. It's got almost as
    much cargo room as a Honda Pilot, but with
    no third row seat. My family members, of
    which I was visiting when I rented the Murano,
    were also impressed since the car really does
    not look like it would be that roomy if
    judging from the looks of the outside
    Also, there was plenty of elbow and knee room
    for two adults and my 10-year old nephew in
    the rear seat.
  • DIMNJDIMNJ NJPosts: 71
    I think that Pilot, Explorer and 4-Runner are more truck-like than they are crossovers, they drive and handle very differently. Of course performance, drivability and handling matter, they do a lot. again, i just tried to choose a car that doesn't compromize the qualities listed above, but would also have a Utility part(read "cargo") of a substantional amount. You know what, guys? It seems like this forum or, rather you attacking me, remind me on "mazdafanclub.org", where i wouldn't be praising another vehicle. But this is Edmunds, so again, everyone has their own opinion and there's no need in doind it.
    If you drive a Mazda and sell those cars, too, you definitely can express your opinion on it, although I, personally, wouldn't think of it as unbiased, that's all.
    If you have actually driven the Murano before comparing those two, than it's a different story altogether.
    By the way, Pilot's cargo capacity is just 6 cu.ft. over Murano's, as opposed to 23 cu.ft difference between Murano and CX-7
  • richmlrichml Posts: 156
    I think the discourse on Edmunds forums is genteel compared to other forums. I'm posting here because my wife is interested in the CX-7 - me too!

    I own a Mazda3, and participate in Edmunds' 3 forums. Almost everyone there shares an interest in the 3 and is a Mazda3 owner, or about to become one.

    When moderators start "X vs. Y" threads, such as this one, they attract followers of at least two different makes of vehicles. They don't usually agree on much.

    Some moderator started a "Honda Fit vs. Mazda3" thread recently - even though the Civic would seem to be more of a comparison with the 3 - and there is a "Civic vs. 3" thread. The result - fans of one vehicle bashing fans of another.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    No doubt the Pilot, Explorer and 4-Runner are very trucky. That is why there are CUV's. Better handling, style and ride comfort.

    There is also no-doubting how successful the Murano has been, just look how many there are out there. The CX-7 is, in my opinion, the first REAL alternative to the Murano. Also, this vehicle has so much hype, it's crazy for Mazda people, and Mazda owners to not get so excited.

    There are advantages and disadvantages to both. We can, and will, dispute them all day long, for this is the Murano Vs. CX-7 forum.

    As for who is qualified to leave remarks on this web site is everyone, as long as there is some substance to back up your opinion. It's YOUR opinion, and everyone has the right to have a different one. Also, those who have driven, or drive these vehicles on a daily basis should share their opinion. Personally, I have never driven the Murano or the CX-7 (I will when they come in next week). So, for now I leave posts on what info Mazda has disclosed to us. And on the Murano, I post what I have read and I have only been talking about features and price.

    I don't think anyone was attacking you. Internet posts are tough to read emotion, and are often misinterpreted. There is nothing wrong with poking a little fun every now and then ;)

    If you want to find tough posters who like to cry a bit, and get very malicious, go to a Honda forum. Heaven forbid anyone who says anything negative about a Honda! :D;)
  • driverdmdriverdm Posts: 505
    I have been looking at a Mazda CX-7 for some time now and since it is so close to a Murano, I thought I'd pay this forum a visit.

    My cousin owns a new Murano sand I have driven in it many times. I sat in the CX-7 at the NY auto show. To me, right now, the CX-7 is a better vehicle for me.

    I am looking for a performance SUV that will give me more cargo space than my midsize sedan and have a premium feel to it. So, for me, the cargo space in the CX-7 is good, though the Murano's is more. I also like the Mazda interior design better. I'd say they are about even in terms of quality. The Mazda has a kind of luxury sports car feel to it with the high shifter position and short distance between steering wheel and shifter. Very very G35 like, minus the cheap interior of the G. And the Mazda's performance is exceptional at its pricing. Mazda's always have very good road feel when driving... spiritedly.

    Also, although this is purely subjective, O like the CX-7 styling better. If you see it in the flesh, you'll actually notice that it and the Murano look nothing alike but have a similar silhouette.
  • driverdmdriverdm Posts: 505
    I think one of the weaknesses of the CX-7 is the turbo engine because it requires premium fuel. I think, likewise, a weakness of the Nissan is the CVT because people don't really know about it and it hasn't received the warmest of reviews. Here's what Edmunds said about the Murano:

    "It was also the vehicle that most intrigued our editors, possibly because it looked like a winner, even if the shape didn't appeal. Because it was such a fun vehicle to drive, we were all pulling for it to win, but it didn't.

    Unfortunately, the Murano was ultimately hamstrung by its continuously variable transmission (CVT). The tranny, which gave the Nissan the best fuel economy (a miserly 20 mpg city and 24 mpg highway) of all the vehicles in the test, was also responsible for its third-place finish. We found the CVT interfered too much with the wonderful performance of its 245-horsepower, 3.5-liter V6. Despite having the most ponies in the test, the confused wind-up of the CVT made the Murano feel sluggish at takeoff.

    The CVT does offer a Sport mode, but we didn't like how it kept the engine boiling at 2,000 to 2,500 rpm more than in the regular mode at any given speed. However, the Sport mode provided instant acceleration and a deep-throated roar. One of our editors pointed out that Nissan was supposed to offer automanual capability for the CVT (as Audi does) but, much to his regret, it never made it to production. He suggested that Nissan's engineers should just set the transmission's programming in between the current "D" and "Sport" settings and be done with it.

    Off-road ability aside, the Murano is a likable vehicle that blends unique styling with a spacious, comfortable interior and a fun-to-drive character. If it wasn't for the power-sapping CVT transmission, it might have won the test, but such is the chance you take with new technology. Future revisions may cure the Murano's transmission woes, but until then, it will have to be satisfied with a strong third-place finish in a field of four strong competitors."
  • lilarrylilarry Posts: 13
    "I think one of the weaknesses of the CX-7 is the turbo engine because it requires premium fuel. I think, likewise, a weakness of the Nissan is the CVT because people don't really know about it and it hasn't received the warmest of reviews."

    The Murano also requires premium fuel.
  • tinycadontinycadon Posts: 287
    Sorry Lilarry, I use to own a Murano, I never put a drop of premium fuel in it and never heard one knock or ping!
  • honakerhonaker Posts: 74
    I don't know, I've never owned or driven a murano, but from the nissan website murano specs, it says

    Engine
    3.5-liter DOHC 24-valve V6 engine1
    245 hp @ 5,800 rpm
    246 lb-ft of torque @ 4,400 rpm

    1Use regular unleaded fuel with 87 octane. For maximum power use premium fuel.
Sign In or Register to comment.