"when it comes to handling the road, I'd rather have a suspension that's well suited for driving the curves than one thats suited to looking for a mall parking spot."
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......
Thanks to all for the input. I guess I gotta get out there and put my butt in the seat to see what's up. It was worthwhile to get an extended test drive on the Volvo XC70 -- an aircraft carrier landing deck in the back once the seats were folded down, and with more clearance than the Murano, but the driving experience and mileage was far different from my S60 with essentially the same engine. Lumpy and not lively, the weight, wider and higher track definately take their toll.
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.
Too bad you don't have any numbers to back up that "crap" statement.
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.
Anyone who has a rudimentary knowledge of internal combustion engines knows that there is less oxygen at high altitude, and that HP and torque are diminished as a result.
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.
No, the "rebadged Renault" comment is just to perpetuate the running joke. I didn't phrase it as a claim, but it made at least as much sense as the statement that a CX-7 is a rebadged Ford.
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.
I live in CO, and drive a CX7 as a demo, drove the Murano with a friend, and the Cx7 is quicker, I and all experts would agree with carlitos92, turbo's at higher alt. don't lose horsepower like V6's.
Good luck Philmo. Car buying is definitely a personal experience. I was in a Miata for 12 yrs (1 G1 and 2 G2s) before I switched to a Nissan SUV. Plenty of good qualities from Murano or CX-7. Wanna haul stuff and have room with a great driving experience (and comfy back seat? Yes I am biased...) Get the Murano. Want some Zoom-zoom with lesser capabilities to tow but some awesome shifting? Get the CX-7 (note I miss the Mazda Service departments - they were great!) Anywho - up to you.
I have a few questions for you. First – how did you come up with the 202 hp for the Murano? If one estimates around 3 percent loss per 1k altitude then I could see this number. WOW for ANY naturally aspirated vehicle at a high altitude!!! I can now better understand the concern of Philmo.
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.
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.
Yep. I think we all get the less air at higher altitude.
Just want to see your calculations! For torque - if you do not change RPMs the the only factor that will change is HP. And if RPMs do not change - with lower air pressure the HP will diminish as hp/pressure is *somewhat* linear.
However for pressure and HP - well shouldn't rpm increase to improve pressure to the cylinders? Just asking.
p.s. - it is all about compression. And if a turbo is compressing (at a constant rate) less mass (due to the higher elevation) then the engine will be producing less power. Now seeing that a turbo gives say (1.3-3x - I don't know the Mazda's ratio) to the engine - of course it will be more than a normally aspirated engine. But if you do the math (say 2:1 compression on a turbo) it will not give you 100 percent of orignal power.
This is what I perceive - let me know if I left anything out of the equation.
The CX-7 is rated with a 244-hp Direct-Injection turbocharged engine. Turbocharged 2.3L DISI DOHC 16-valve inline-4 Intercooler. 258 ft·lbf (350 N·m) of torque at 2500 rpm. Curb weight: 3,927 Pounds. Pounds per HP: 16.1
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.
I used the calculator there, inputting 5,280 feet which is one mile, and the horsepower of the Murano, which is 245, and it says the loss is 38.81 HP.
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...
It has an effect inasmuch as it boosts the overall power of the drive train, and thus mitigates the Murano's engine loss of power to that minimal 1%-.75% is all. Minimal, as I said before.
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
At six-foot-five, I can stretch my legs comfortably in the Murano driver's seat, and then move to the back seat behind the driver's seat and sit comfortably there. The CX-7 feels like a compact car in comparison. The back seat, in particular, is cramped and is equivalent to a Mazda 3. The sense of apaciousness in the two vehicles is like night and day.
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.
They did not make it like the Murano, if you get over the bulkiness of the Murano, and the interior material "make you think luxry but not according to their reputation, check Z's reviews), everything else is inferior to the Mazda, because it is a different category, Sport Cross over, just park both next to eachother and you'll notice Mazda has a much more advanced design,smaller if you want to load a trip to Mars! I guarentee you if you owned both of them, you would only drive the Murano when you have to (maybe to change the oil!)
I test drove the Murano before choosing the CX-7. The Murano is bigger, roomier, more luxury, and of course, more expensive! It drives nice for someone looking for a moderate, average driving experience. The CVT does take some getting used to, it works great in most drive situations.
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!
Thanks for confirming. You can also check the residual values of both vehicles according to the manufacture. And again I beleive they should not be in one comparison, it's like comparing a WRX to an EX Accord.
by trade-in do you mean depreciation? Several years ago you would have been correct, but they have increased quite a bit in the last few years. In fact, if you look at Edmunds' comparison data, the CX-7 does just fine against the others in its class.
I almost leased the RDX but my husband refused the idea of preumium gas. What about the CX7 what type of gas? Last we have looking at the Sabura Tribeca it has all the features of the Murano?
CX-7 requires premium because it has a turbo engine just like the RDX.
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.
To clarify, Nissan recommends premium fuel in the Murano "for maximum power," but the engine can run on regular unleaded.
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.
As I've posted elsewhere, you should do the math before making what may be more of an an emotional decision about whether or not a requirement to use premium fuel is a deal-breaker.
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.
Phil, I agree on that. However, for the performance difference in a Murano you'd need to get at least 1mpg more per 20 gallon fillup (basically one gallon of gas) to make up the difference in economy. If you get that difference then go for it.
I got 15.8 mpg with the dealer tank and assume that was 89 octane.I filled up with 93 and my first tank i got in the mid 17s using the caculator.I have got a high of 19.6 using 93 and thats 90% city driving.The mpg on the trip is always 1 gallon over estimate on mine.It says 20.7 right now and i'm expecting mid 19s with the caculator
"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.
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.
Sorry, I was not intending to bash the CX-7 as I can see how that came out the wrong way. My point was that the CX-7 is a good car for the dollar, sure, but long term you will pay more for fuel, repairs (still not convinced that Mazda is awesome for LT maintenance), etc.
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.
"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." 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.
I agree, I've never heard the blow-off valve on my CX-7, but it's only been 11,000 miles. Maybe you can hear it at 12k. But, perhaps you were driving next to a riced up WRX for that test drive and mistook the two. Even the turbo itself is very quiet; with the window down I have to really focus to hear it.
When did this PCM update come out? I drove it in March, and it was very squirrely when you'd throttle up (usually at low speeds or off the line).
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.
"When did this PCM update come out? I drove it in March, and it was very squirrely when you'd throttle up (usually at low speeds or off the line)."
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 $800 in 5 years than the CX-7 around the same price, also Nissan wins in terms of depreciation and for fuel (even both using premium gas) Just another reason why the Murano in this case is better for your pocket now and in the long run. IF you dont belive me here are the links for the two For Murano... link title For CX-7... link title
Taz, nice bit of research! But...doesn't change my mind. Your figures reflect parity (roughly) and in the final analysis (for me), CX-7 is still a better choice. Performance, styling were the draws. What killed my interest in the Murano, was that instrument pod, stuck on the dash, almost as an afterthought. It just looks bad.
Murano's exterior styling is still de bomb, however. Too bad one couldn't custom order...i.e. Tribeca's interior and Mazda CX-7 exterior....or Mazda's interior with Murano exterior. Now, that WOULD be awesome.
But until an idea like that becomes a reality, I'll still with the CX-7, as is.
I hope you did not buy a car based on that info.Murano being more MSRP, should be bringing more$ than CX7. 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.
I suppose if you're really on the fence with deciding between the two cars you could comfort yourself by using this comparison as a deciding factor. But the reality is that you're making a decision which boils down to $13.33 a month for 5 years. Have you worked your mortgage numbers that hard? How about weather-stripping or other utilities conservation? Do you clip coupons weekly for your groceries? My point is that not many of us are working our budgets such that $800 over 5 years will matter greatly. But for that, "Intellichoice" will label one vehicle "better" than another vehicle's "average".
To my earlier economic point, agreed. The nugget here is that with the Murano you're buying a design that has essentially remained unchanged since it's introduction vs. a brand new design with the CX-7. Further, who do you feel has the development momentum these days, Nissan or Mazda? I'll pick the latter.
Thanks all of you, i guess we just have to wait this fall and see how the redesigned 2008 Murano will be, i guess nissan will try to get rid of all the cons out of it (like any redesigned model)and keep the good things about it, but Nissan will probably keep the CVT in it because its in more than 25% of the company's line up Versa,Sentra,Altima,Maxima, and upcoming Rogue 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
The CX-7 is nice but it is small imo.For me the Murano was much more comfortable.I'm getting 19.5 mpg with the Murano and i drive 90% city.I didn't want to spend that much on a small 4 banger with a turbo.It does look nice but not as nice as the bigger more comfortable Murano.I was gonna get the RAV4 V6 but it too was to small for a family of four imo.I would compare the CX-7 to the RAV4 before i would compare it to the Murano
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