By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
Gosh, too bad the experts disagree with you there...of all the things to pick to dis a Murano, that was a mistake. :P
The CX is a good car, but the turbo on a 4 at high elevation, on any car, is crap, and a 4 is still a 4, and 6 is still a 6......
Hopefully I can get into a few cars this week: Murano, Xterra, CX-7, Outlander, Escape Hybrid. Yeah, I'm all over the map but will compromise in some areas to gain in others. I just haven't been in anything yet that made me fall in love.
As far as a 6 being a 6, blah blah blah goes, your Renault is known for a consistent whine when you try to make top speed. What expert wants that? :confuse:
I don't own a Renault. I own a 2006 Murano SE... :surprise:
As for crap, anyone who has a rudimentary knowledge of turbos knows at higher elevations, its purpose is made all the harder by the thinner air. Therefore its effectiveness is compromised as compared to sea level.
It is fine that you like your turbo, and I have owned several that were great cars. But turbos do suffer at high elevations, as do standard aspirated engines. The key here is to look at the HP and torque.
However, given that most turbo engines are capable of producing overboost at sea level (otherwise there would be no need for blowoff valves), at some range in their powerband they able to skirt this loss in high-altitude effectiveness. "On the mountain," pressurized intakes lose less power than unpressurized.
Rebadged Renault or not, I would not race any "crap turbo four-cylinder" Subarus in that V-6 if I were you.
Now you are claiming a Murano is a re-badged Renault? LMAO! :P
Maybe you need to start reading race and testing results done in Denver.......
As for race results in Denver, I'm not interested. For all I know, there are a group of loonies that tweak their Muranos to 400 HP and outrun WRXs. Good for them. But for off-the-shelf cars, physics applies in Colorado just as it does anywhere else. I'm sorry if it does not make sense to you.
Party on.
Lots of loonies out there who love to tweak Mazdas *or* Nissans. Best not to discriminate. Just love your car and get over it. Motor on.
At 5280 ft
The CX7 makes 244hp
The Murano makes 202hp
With the same effect on torque; the real killer with heavy SUV's
As posted, turbos do not suffer from variances in altitude.
However – not sure I buy the 244 hp (i.e. no change at altitude) for the Mazda. Can you please explain how you calculated this number? With really rough calcs I’m getting around 90 percent of hp or 220.
I just found this page
carlitos92 gave a good explanation
Simply put, there is less air at higher altitudes. Therefore the mixture of air and fuel gets thinned out and you make less power. A turbo/super-charger sends compressed air into the engine at a set compression amount; this works the same at any altitude.
So if you live in Denver (5280 ft or so) and compare these two automobiles you'll notice the CX-7 being much more powerful...especially by making the FULL torque at that low rpm.
Just want to see your calculations!
However for pressure and HP - well shouldn't rpm increase to improve pressure to the cylinders? Just asking.
This is what I perceive - let me know if I left anything out of the equation.
The Murano: 3.5-liter DOHC 24-valve V6 engine 245 hp @ 5,800 rpm 244 lb-ft of torque @ 4,400 rpm, with a CVT. Maximum horsepower is 245 at 5800 rpm, with 246 lb-ft of torque at 4400 RPM. Curb Weight: 3,996 lbs. Pounds Per Horsepower: 16.3
At a given gross weight, increase in density altitude (DA) means a reduction in engine horsepower, 2.5% per 1000 feet of elevation for each 1000' above 1000'. Denver would bring a decrease of approximately 10% HP, being its elevation is roughly 5350 feet. The CVT might make the loss a little less by 1% or so.
I mispoke when saying turbos are less effective generally, at higher altitudes, I was thinking of airplanes, which suffer at altitude, even with turbos, due to less effieient props and wings. Although turbos have been show to be less responsive above 8,000 feet, that really isn't a driving issue for 99% of all of us. Sorry for being confused about that.
I believe that the calculations (for normally aspirated engines) at this site are correct...which is approx 16% for 1 mile.
So the turbo charged vehicle will always make a consistent amount of power..whether the effects are a hot humid day (inter-coolers = good) or high altitude.
I'm not sure what the reference to CVT is; this would not have a different effect in high or low altitudes.
The CVT actually increases drive power, by continually adjusting, rather than being stuck in one particular gear ratio. It also saves about 10% in fuel.
CVT, yes I suppose that is true. But I think the CTV argument would be used in a CVT versus regular tranny discussion. Though I supposed you could make that argument here as well in the Murano versus CX-7 forum. I don't think it has an effect in negating any adverse altitude effects.
That is...if anybody cares about high altitude driving...
And, as you said, nothing to be concerned about except those who live and work at those altitudes, which isn't that many.
I think Mazda/Ford has done a superb job making a car very much like the Murano, sans some of the more luxurious features, and selling it for less money. Now, as to the Turbo's usual higher cost of maintenance and repair, and that damn whine......that's another story! :P
Murano also has a big edge in terms of materials on the dash and door panels. The Mazda just felt kind of cheap to me.
Some who own Muranos say it runs just fine on regular gas. I wonder what that would do to the Mazda's turboed engine.
(maybe to change the oil!)
Remember the Murano has been out for years now, and the Mazda is new. Murano will come out with a complete redesign in 2008, I believe....
The CX-7 is much more like a sports car. The steering, handling, cornering, acceleration and of course braking are much more high performance style.
Two different vehicles for different driving styles.
As far as resale values.... they both will drop 50% over 3 years, like most any new car!
Mazada builds some great cars, but they do not do well in the trade in department..
Tony
Also, having driven the CX-7, I must say that the Murano is a MUCH better car all around, but you do pay for that difference (a few grand for a comparably equired Murano SL vs a fully loaded CX-7). Ride quality, comfort, technology, and interior aesthetics are all better in Murano not to mention a more reliable V6.
Having driven a turbo before I can tell you that it's a very risky venture for the long term as they tend to burn out and also have mechanical issues after 60,000 miles.
Also, I'm not sure what year or make your turbo was, but modern turbo engines aren't risky at all. There is plenty of experience and engineering knowledge out there, and the reputation is good, particularly in Japan and Germany, if not in America. (Turbos have been around for 60-something years) So, yes, 1980 Turbo Trans Ams may implode after 60,000 miles, but that really has nothing to do with the modern day.
In my region the difference between regular and premium (leap-frogging mid-grade) is 20-cents. At 20 gallons per week -- which is way more than I currently drive -- you're looking at $4. That's less than the price of the #1 combo at Burger King. So, take your lunch one day a week.
$208 per year is a bargain for the price of happiness, but will only get you maybe an hour and a half with a therapist.
Of course, if you're using significantly higher quantities of fuel the math gets progressively poorer. At some point you may consider economy over performance.
Regards, Phil
Having driven a turbo before I can tell you that it's a very risky venture for the long term as they tend to burn out and also have mechanical issues after 60,000 miles.
Determing which vehicles ride better depends on what you are looking for in a ride. It's obvious, the Murano is designed as cushier riding vehicle. The CX7 rides sportier and handles better. You can say that the Murano is a much better car all around, but that doesn't make it so. It simply means you like it better. Many people who drive the Murano, hate the CVT transmission. The only real commonality in these two vehicles is body styling.
I drove a Murano and it just didn't do it for me. If I was going to spend a few thousand more, there are other vehicles worth looking at. The CX7 may not appeal to everyone, but it is still the best bang for the buck out there.
1) On take-off the car is extremely "jumpy" (it's not the turbo yet either at under 2,000 revs) and tends to hesitate immediately aftewards.
2) Nav unit looks aftermarket and controls are poorly layed out.
3) Much noisier all around, and the turbo BOV sound gets annoying after a while (I've owned a WRX so I love turbo machines) even for me.
I did like the leather and the instrument panel as well as the package price though.
I've never felt the jumpy part but there a PCM update for the Turbo Lag and once updated as all future models will be corrects this condition. It smooths out evrything and I can assure my vehicle is not jumpy and the lag is gone.
2) Nav unit looks aftermarket and controls are poorly layed out.
It looks simliar to some of the ones I've seen. I don't know what the defintion of looks aftermerket means so I'll have to take your word for it. I have very little issues using the NAV and it's not something that I would expect to get to know on a test drive. In fact, the first time I drove one it didn't have the NAV. I don't normally pick a car based on how good it's NAV. I knew I wanted NAV and it really didn't matter to me how good it was.
3) Much noisier all around, and the turbo BOV sound gets annoying after a while (I've owned a WRX so I love turbo machines) even for me.
The vehicle is not the noisest I've ever driven and certainly not the quietest. I don't hear the sound of the Turbo.
As far as the nav goes, I mean "aftermarket" in the sense that it's not integrated into the dash like Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc. but rather folds flat to place a CD in. If you've ever bought a 4" double-DIN DVD navi unit (like this one from Eclipse) then you know that they slide out horizontally. I guess to each their own, but I'd like a dedicated cd/dvd slot with a screen that looks recessed to the dash. The Honda CR-V has the same style with the navi as the CX-7 and IMO that's just something else that can easily break (a motorized screen spells trouble).
The car is noisy on the highways, but then again most cars usually are. I guess the difference for me was noise level in general, and it was just very rough probably due to the nature of the car and the wheels they used (more sporty, less noise reduction).
Anyway, the CX7 is a good car, don't get me wrong. If they'd made it in a V6 model (not the CX9, that's a lot bigger) then I would have given it more consideration. The turbo I4 just is too much of a gas monster.
The update is fairly new but if you drove one in March, it probably was manufactured before the update and most dealers don't address updates until the cars are prepped just before delivery. In fact, I'm not sure this update is performed unless you complain about it. I never found the car to be a problem off the line except the turbo lag. It didn't bother me much, but with the update it is smoother.
"As far as the nav goes, I mean "aftermarket" in the sense that it's not integrated into the dash like Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc. but rather folds flat to place a CD in. If you've ever bought a 4" double-DIN DVD navi unit (like this one from Eclipse) then you know that they slide out horizontally. I guess to each their own, but I'd like a dedicated cd/dvd slot with a screen that looks recessed to the dash. The Honda CR-V has the same style with the navi as the CX-7 and IMO that's just something else that can easily break (a motorized screen spells trouble)."
The motorized screen doesn't bother me and I don't keep my cars much past th warranty anyway. I can load 6 CDs at once and if I use MP3 cds that is a lot of music and I doubt I will open and close it that often. Again I don't buy a car based on how good it's NAV is.
"The car is noisy on the highways, but then again most cars usually are. I guess the difference for me was noise level in general, and it was just very rough probably due to the nature of the car and the wheels they used (more sporty, less noise reduction)."
I don't find it any worse than a lot of the cars I have owned the last 20 years. I have been in a few simliar luxury CUVs and find them slightly quieter.
"Anyway, the CX7 is a good car, don't get me wrong. If they'd made it in a V6 model (not the CX9, that's a lot bigger) then I would have given it more consideration. The turbo I4 just is too much of a gas monster."
I don't see a V6 as being any better on gas. I get 16-18 combo driving and 22-23 higway. I can't ask for much more than that. I did not want a 4 cyl vehicle till I drove the CX7. Based on several months of ownership and about 6000 the CX7 is a great car. It is as fun to drive as the first day I got it. It handles real well... not as good as my Jetta, but it is faster so it makes up for it. My wife used to fight over who got to drive the Jetta. Now she drives either car and sometimes I think she prefers the CX7. It's tough these days with some much competition and so many decent cars t choose from. I don't see a lot of bad choices out there but sometimes there are bad decisions
This is the average ownership costs for a Nissan Murano S AWD
Cost of Ownership
Depreciation $15,821
Financing $4,322
Insurance $7,494
State Fees $376
Fuel $8,776
Maintenance
(Detail) $1,698
Repairs $589
Gas Guzzler Tax TBD
Hybrid Tax Credit N/A
Total 5-Year Ownership Costs $39,078
intellichoice value rating
Vehicle Class Midsize Crossover
5-Year Ownership Cost $39,078
5-Year Cost, Similar Vehicles $41,324
Difference -$2,246
Final IntelliChoice Value Rating Better Than Average
Now about for the same price here is the Mazda CX-7 Grand Touring AWD ownership costs...
Cost of Ownership
Depreciation $16,024
Financing $4,168
Insurance $7,696
State Fees $368
Fuel $9,209
Maintenance
(Detail) $1,690
Repairs $757
Gas Guzzler Tax TBD
Hybrid Tax Credit N/A
Total 5-Year Ownership Costs $39,912
intellichoice value rating
Vehicle Class Midsize Crossover
5-Year Ownership Cost $39,912
5-Year Cost, Similar Vehicles $40,055
Difference -$143
Final IntelliChoice Value Rating Average
As far as paying for the two vehicles, the murano will save you about $800 in 5 years than the CX-7 around the same price, also Nissan wins in terms of depreciation and for fuel (even both using premium gas)
Just another reason why the Murano in this case is better for your pocket now and in the long run.
IF you dont belive me here are the links for the two
For Murano...
link title
For CX-7... link title
Murano's exterior styling is still de bomb, however. Too bad one couldn't custom order...i.e. Tribeca's interior and Mazda CX-7 exterior....or Mazda's interior with Murano exterior. Now, that WOULD be awesome.
But until an idea like that becomes a reality, I'll still with the CX-7, as is.
:P
Vince.
Here is "True Reality": Manheim:
2007 Nissan Murano AWD S:
For Week Ending Apr 23
Above Average Below
Sale Price$23,995 $22,672 $21,349
Mileage 5,275 10,549 15,824
Total Sold All 84 62 10
For CX7 AWD (only 18 went to auction in the USA):
For Week Ending Apr 23
Above Average Below
Sale Price $25,661 $23,500 $21,339
Mileage 3,447 6,894 10,341
Total Sold All 18
Did your site say the Murano will cost less $/ yr. to drive? not because they get better mileage(check edmunds its less), but because you won't drive it as much as the Mazda!! So much for these programs, nobody should go by them.
Styling is surely subjective, but I'd pay $800 NOT to have to drive a Murano any day. :P
For 08 the V6 will probably bump in horses within the area of the maxima(255) and altima(270, I wouldn't be surprised that Nisan will squeeze more horses out of it, the most nissan tweak in the same 3.5 liter had 306 horses in the Infiniti G35