Howdy, Stranger!

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

Mazda CX-7 vs. Nissan Murano



  • hpgatorhpgator Posts: 39
    I'm also wondering why everyone is still comparing the Murano to the CX-7. The Murano is a bigger car, more comfortable, and more "refined" than the CX-7 which is more for sport driving than cruise driving.

    If the CX-7 had a V6 option then I think it would be comparable, but you can't really compare a smooth CVT to a quick turbo. As someone has already said, the comparisson for the Mazda is more so the Rav4 V6, not the Murano. IMO the Murano competes with the CX-9 more than anything.

    Oh, and to whomever was saying that people drive the Mazda more... That's pretty silly. The Mazda gets around 4-5 mpg less in real world tests (consumer reports said it got 12 mpg in the city whereas Murano was around 16) and REQUIRES premium fuel -- something the Murano does not.

    Your fuel costs will be higher as will your repairs/maintenance. Now, like I said, a side-by-side of the CX-9 with the Murano would make more sense.
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Posts: 498
    "I would compare the CX-7 to the RAV4 before i would compare it to the Murano"

    The Murano and CX-7 are more like grapes and grapples, not apples and oranges. Their styling is remarkably similar. In fact, I gave a ride to a friend this weekend in my CX-7 and he immediately asked "Is this a Murano?" LOL.

    So, my friend, trying to compare the CX-7 to the RAV4 just won't work... they are so dis-similar, that the comparison doesnt make sense. That's why you have the CX-7 vs Murano thread. I'm sure both of us agree that both the Murano and CX-7 far outclass the RAV4, don't you think?


  • mike1111mike1111 Posts: 93
    If you just wanna compare the two because they somewhat have the same styling then yes thats comparable.My thing is one is a small cross over and one is a mid sized cross over.I have been next to the Mazda in traffic and it is small compared to the Murano.Thats where i think you get the differnce in handling with the smaller more sporty CX-7.I don't think you can compare the two on the same playing field because they are so differnt in size.To me the Murano is a cruise mobile.I'm not out trying to beat the guy to the next light but it is nice to know that in the mid sized test by Motor trend the Murano was regarded as the hot rod of the bunch.The CX-7 was'nt tested against the Murano in that test.i think cause its a small cross over. ;) At any rate i'm sure you are happy with the choice you made just as i am mine.I smile most at the pump with a nice V6 getting 19.5 in the city.
  • sssfegysssfegy Posts: 132
    "The Mazda gets around 4-5 mpg less in real world tests (consumer reports said it got 12 mpg in the city whereas Murano was around 16)"
    Ya they also said it does 0-60 in 9.5 seconds, how about reading about true mileage on Edmunds? How about the fact it gets same or better with a more aggressive style of driving? Being younger, if I own both the Murano would be parked! :)
    They are not in the same class, nor is the Rav IMO, much closer to the RDX and X3.
    "Your fuel costs will be higher as will your repairs/maintenance."
    Does $200/Yr (given they both get simillar mileage) makes it difficult for you to budget for a $25+K vehicle? Who said you have more maintenance to do? Was it CR again?
  • hpgatorhpgator Posts: 39
    Do you honestly think people are lying about gas mileage? The CX-7 is a turbo 4-banger... I've owned a WRX before and I can say that the gas mileage with turbo's is TERRIBLE in the city. They are fine on highways because the turbo won't be engaging at 65mph very frequently since you're usually at a constant speed (just the 4cyl running). However, in the city you'll do a ton of stop and go hurry-up driving that will kill gas mileage. That was my point.

    As someone already said in the post above yours, sss, the murano is a cruiser. It's not meant to be a slalom champion or speed racer. It can handle it's own (0-60 in 8 seconds isn't terrible for a mid-size SUV with decent gas mileage), but it was meant for better ride comfort and quietness.

    Don't get me wrong -- I loved the CX-7 for what it was. However, it's just not a comparable thing to the Murano. Like I said, the CX-9 is more the size and style comparisson (V6 engines, weight, dimensions, interior, etc.).
  • mike1111mike1111 Posts: 93
    This was a good compare by Motor Trend.The Murano was the "Hot Rod" of the bunch and tied for the best MPG afte the testing.
  • sssfegysssfegy Posts: 132
    "Do you honestly think people are lying about gas mileage?"
    Who would I beleive, someone trying to step on the car to get performance numbers, or normal folks that drive it?(Even though all CX buyers step on it!!) Check Murano MPG forum please, like a few others have mentioned, they are THE SAME. MT mentioned Murano requires premium!
    As for V6 vs I4, I have an A4 1.8T, I get 20-22 in town , my friend with the 2.8 gets 17-19!!Mine is a 2001 his is a 2002. Sorry but that's how you should look at it, not the WRX/Evo configuration.
    Yes we agree they are not the same class, but don't agree regarding depreciation, maintenance, MPG,fuel cost,repair cost. :P
  • sssfegysssfegy Posts: 132
    That's a comparison to other suv's, Cx is not included. :)
  • mike1111mike1111 Posts: 93
    Thats my point.They as i see the CX-7 as in a differnt class.I've drove them all and i didn't see the CX-7 as a mid sized crossover.I liked it for what it was.To me it was a tad small.I think comparing the Murano and the CX-7 side by side isn't really fair to either car.If you want something sporty and are not worried about cargo space or towing then go with the Mazda.If you want somewthing that has space and comfort and can still tow then go with the Murano or something else.To me they are two differnt cars for two differnt people.
  • hpgatorhpgator Posts: 39
    Exactly. I've been saying it all throughout the thread... the murano should be compared to the CX-9, not the CX-7. They are more similar in size, handling, comfort, cargo room, and engine power.

    As for the gas mileage, I've seen people say most get 19-20 mpg in "mixed" driving, and around 15-16mpg in straight city driving. For a car with a more powerful V6 to have the same if not slightly better numbers than a 4cyl turbo should tell you something. Like I said, I've had both, and turbo's are fun but most people that are smart will tell you a V6 is where it's at. Maybe I've grown out of my teenage years (I'm in my 20s) but a turbo 4-banger just doesn't satisfy like the rumbling of a V6 with serious torque on tap.

    And in respose to the article... I would hope the Murano is a "hot rod" when compared to a Toyota Highlander, Hyundai Santa Fe, and a Ford Edge :P.
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Posts: 498
    Just a bit slight history and perspective here...keep in mind that this thread was started LONG before the CX-9 hit the market. So, back then, the only two vehicles in this class were the CX-7 and the Murano...then, it was appropriate to start comparing the two.

    Now, in today's market, you may be might be more prudent to compare the Murano with the 9. But in the near future, when the new re-designed Murano hits the market, then a new thread can be started. Can the new Murano be compared, then, with the CX-9? Stay tuned!

  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    the murano should be compared to the CX-9, not the CX-7.

    How so? The CX-9 has superior interior room, 3rd row seating, more powerful engine, only 87 octane required, more luxury features. All this at almost the same price range. I guess they do have that in common.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    keep in mind that this thread was started LONG before the CX-9 hit the market

    Mazda lists the Murano as a direct competitor. They did this with full knowledge of the CX-9 coming a year later.
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Posts: 498
    That's probably true, but the moderators of these Mazda forums, most likely, did NOT consult with Mazda, before establishing this thread. I'm willing to bet, that Edmunds simply responded to reader/user/subscriber wishes to create a thread, contrasting the Murano and CX-7. CX-9 wasn't on the market then.

    Vince. :)
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    True, but, we all knew about it. Mazda announced it in April of 06 I think. Heck, it was at the 2006 NY Auto Show, but, just as a shell.
  • d_hyperd_hyper Posts: 130
    As you perhaps know, people cross-shop different market segments all the time in the search for a vehicle that fits them best. Minivans vs SUVs. Even economy cars vs motorcycles. So what you've been doing in the previous posts is comparing how CX-7 differs from Murano, which means they compare well! There are no 2 vehicles that are 100% matched in all characteristics. People just need to know what are the pros/cons of each and how it may fit their lifestyles.

    I never had a problem comparing apples and oranges for that matter.
  • mike1111mike1111 Posts: 93
    That seems pretty simple then.If you want to have cargo space and be able to tow something AND be comfortable get a Murano or something like that.If you want something smaller that has tighter steering and you don't need to tow or don't need cargo space then get the CX-7.They both get similar mpg with the Murano not needing premium gas.
  • maltbmaltb Posts: 3,572
    Hmmm, I just don't need as much cargo space, nor tow more than 2k pounds but I enjoy the comfort of a car that handles almost as well as a sports sedan and has very good brakes.
  • ctxctx Posts: 50
    I don't consider 3rd row seating a benefit. For my tastes that is too close to a minivan. Murano works great with it's "Luxury seating for five" and I think that is part of the draw.

    Now before you all jump my sorry a$$ I think both the CX-7 and CX-9 are beautifully styled vehicles and yes, Mazda does have a lot to offer.

    Murano is also a beautiful vehicle.. I think, though (and I've said it before) that a comparison between it and the CX-7 is a bit silly as they are (other than great looks) completely different vehicles. I will say the same for the CX-9.

    I own a Murano and will forever be biased but I will not forget my Mazda days.. especially those free loaners!!! :D
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Now before you all jump my sorry a$$ I think both the CX-7 and CX-9 are beautifully styled vehicles and yes, Mazda does have a lot to offer.

    No jumping here! Just asking how the Murano compared to the CX-9.

    All three are great vehicles, all offering something different. However, this is where we all come to disagree with each other :P
  • mike1111mike1111 Posts: 93
    Seems like a easy choice then huh?If i didn't need cargo space or didn't have to tow something i would have got a car not a crossover but thats just me.Why buy a thirsty 4 banger that handles ALMOST like a sports car when you could have just bought the sports car?
  • maltbmaltb Posts: 3,572
    Maybe you need to re-read the post a few times to fully understand. Look for key words like "as much" and "more than".

    I frequently tow my bikes to the dessert, use the roof racks for home depot stops and flip the back seats down (effortlessly) for my side work. Monday through Friday, the CX-7's sporty attributes make my 15 mile commute a joy to drive. When I hit 60, in 24 years, I'll likely be up for something more cushy.
  • hpgatorhpgator Posts: 39
    LOL you're joking right? The Murano was specifically designed without a 3rd row seat to give people far more interior space and comfort. If you want a 3rd row, go for something else. However, I guarantee that the CX-9 doesn't have the back seat room of the Murano. It's an "adult" car while the CX-9 was made for families (only small children ever fit in 3rd rows anyway). I sat in the back of a Murano and was able to cross my legs with still about 6" of room to go (and I'm 6'1").

    The murano takes 87 octane. It does not require premium.

    CX-9 has a more powerful engine, yes, but all that gets you is less efficient fuel mileage and a half-second faster on the 0-60 speed. I guess if you like that, go ahead.

    Btw, a fully loaded CX-9 is more expensive than a loaded Murano SL (FWD w/ touring and navigation).
  • mike1111mike1111 Posts: 93
    Hey thanks for making my point for me.I do need to tow something over 2,000 pounds.I do need the extra cargo space.I do like to have my front seat all the way back and still have leg room for my adult rear pasanger.Thats why i have said the CX-7 and the Murano are differnt cars for diffent people.You don't need to tow and you don't need the space so why buy something big?I needed more space and to tow so why would i buy a turbo 4 banger?It's just a diffenrt car for differnt things.To compare the two side by side isn't fair to either cause they do diffent things.
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Posts: 458
    "However, I guarantee that the CX-9 doesn't have the back seat room of the Murano."

    I love it when people guarantee something without posting the basis for it. Nevertheless, in a way you are right. :P

    Rear seat (2nd row) stats in inches, from mfr websites:
    Headroom: Murano 39.2, CX-9 39.0
    Legroom: Murano 36.1, CX-9 39.8
    Hiproom: Murano 56.6, CX-9 56.0
    Shoulder room: Murano 59.1, CX-9 58.7

    And before the Nissan-lovers feel slighted and start to rebut, let me just ask - which do you think you'll notice more in the back seat: the 0.6 inches of hiproom, or the 3.7 inches of legroom?

    Sure, people come in a variety of shapes and sizes, and don't always find comfort in the same ways - but by the numbers, your assumptions about the design intent for the vehicles are bunk.
  • zoom49zoom49 Posts: 76
    When we were shopping for a crossover, we checked out the Murano and the CX-7 as well as the Rav-4, Saturn Vue, and the Kia Sorrento. Kia too mushy, Saturn good with the V6 but
    styling and interior too dull. We liked the new Rav-4 V6 as it had good interior room but didn't like the rear tire and dash. Murano had nice interior (except dash)and we liked the handling and ride, but it had a small rear seat and the
    transmission was horrible. The CX-7 had the best combo of excellent handling, good fuel economy (we get 18 city 23 hwy)with our FWD. Interior room is great except behind the rear seat, and the styling both inside and out is the leader in this price segment. We love to Zoom Zoom and are both well over the hill in age. :shades:
  • hpgatorhpgator Posts: 39
    You like that huh Carlitos? I was basing my statement off of personal experience. I have never said the CX-7 is a bad machine, but it seems a lot of Mazda homers are all over anyone that dares make a statement anti-mazda.

    I'm surprised to see Mazda has more legroom, but to me the seats didn't feel as supportive under my legs. To each their own, carlitos, but I'd like to know if you've actually ever driven, sat in, or ridden in the back seat of a Murano? I have. In fact, I've done that in the CX-7 as well just so I could get that feel for it. The car is different from a CX-7, but it seems the Napoleon complexes around here want the small car to be equivalently compared.

    Do you care to tell me why reviews like Consumer Reports say one of the drawbacks of the CX-7 is "rear seat comfort" while one of the excellent ratings for the Murano is the same thing? They show rear seat legroom as 28" on CX-7 while 29" on Murano (they say "rear fore-aft room").
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Posts: 458
    Your original post said CX-9, not CX-7.

    I'm not knocking the Murano, or even saying that one is better than the other for everybody. Quite the opposite: like I alluded to in my post, what you or I find "comfortable," someone else may not. Even two people 6'1" like me might have different inseams. My point was if you're going to make bold claims, you ought to do the research on the numbers and not just personal experience.

    The Murano may be bigger than the CX-7 in many, if not all respects, but I still think they are cross-shopped and can be compared. And yes, I have sat in and driven a Murano. The styling and CVT were the biggest turnoffs for me, but aside from that, I did not prioritize the extra room or towing capacity very high on my list. As we've said, to each his own.
  • hpgatorhpgator Posts: 39
    My mistake then... I just find it interesting that not many people on here are willing to budge.

    Speaking of research, who was on here saying the CX-7 was faster than the Murano? According to most speed tests, the CX-7 isn't even close. It's a full second behind the murano at least in the 0-60 tests alone....

    According to CR... Murano 0-60 is 8.0 seconds and CX-7 is 9.1 seconds. In other tests the CX-7 is as high as 10 seconds! Pretty sad for a turbo.
  • mike1111mike1111 Posts: 93
    I've seen the Murano timed as low as 7.5 to 7.7.I've seen the CX-7 timed in that area as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.