Howdy, Stranger!

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

Mazda CX-7 v Toyota RAV4 v Honda CR-V



  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,798
    You and your damm hatred of the slush box.

    Clutch Saves gas!

    Praise the Clutch!

    Clutch is the answer to all of your congestion problems!

    Banish that automatic to the Heidies where it came from!

  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Putting a clutch in a FWD or F/awd vehicle would do nothing but make the automotive insurance companies profits SOAR..!!!
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    I had a 5 speed FWD for 17 years and the insurance was cheap. I don't hear Subaru owners with MTs complaining about their insurance rates either. I don't think there's any factual basis for your assertion.
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706
    Just have a look at how many FWD sticks are now discontinued.
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    Yeah, but it's not because of insurance or safety. Can't eat, drink the Starbucks, and drive stick too good. :P

    The Future Of The Manual Transmission
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 5,159
    Just a thought, people should consider the Mazda 5. Very highly rated, it is like a very small minivan or wagon (only considered like a minivan because of sliding doors). We cross-shopped the CRV with the Mazda 5 and chose it because:

    - higher than a car but lower than an SUV
    - MUCH better handling with extremely tight turning circle - handles like a Mazda 3
    - Seats 6 in three rows, but can fold rear seats for cargo room
    - Bargain priced, fully loaded with nav, leather, bluetooth, heated seats around $25K
    - Outstanding crash test scores
    - Better mileage than CRV or RAV4
    - Sliding doors mean no doors swinging out in tight parking spots
    - Available with a stick shift if desired
  • wwestwwest Posts: 10,706

    Maybe that's why I have only 20k miles on my '01 Porsche C4........

    It's either take my wife along as a "holder" or no Starbucks.
  • phisherphisher Posts: 175
    Just FYI. I work in an Insurance agency and the MT cars are less expensive to insure simply because replacement value is less. :)
  • blueiedgodblueiedgod Posts: 2,798
    Just FYI. I work in an Insurance agency and the MT cars are less expensive to insure simply because replacement value is less.

    Also, theft rates are a lot lower. New generation of joy riders have no clue what to do with the 3rd pedal.

    They have grown up with their parents driving slushbox minivans, and their computer games always shifted for them.

    There was an article in the paper about these car thieves that just sat in a manual Accord trying to figure out how to get it going! The police caught them while they were still trying to figure out how to put it in "drive"
  • My wife has the Rav-4 $28k and I have the CX-7 $24K, I think the Rav-4 have more room in the back row and it reclines love that thing, other thing that I love is the MP3 input for my Ipod, I wish the CX-7 has that option.
  • ingvaringvar Posts: 205
    Get Rav-4 2008 Limited in Hertz, bring it back at the evening after 50 miles ride because of back pain. Driver's seat is non supportive. Changed car to CX-7 and enjoyed 380miles ride.
  • tlongtlong CaliforniaPosts: 5,159
    We were looking for a small, reliable vehicle with a lot of space. Looked at RAV4 and CRV. Then we discovered the Mazda 5, a tall wagon/micro-minivan. We've had it a year and really like it for the following features:

    - It's taller than a sedan but lower than a CRV. No climbing up or stooping down to get in. The height is just perfect.
    - Three rows of two - seats 6
    - Handles like a Mazda 3 since it is on the same platform. Less rollover potential than a SUV. Really excellent steering feel and handling.
    - Same cargo space as the CRV with more seating flexibility
    - About $5K cheaper, similarly equipped
    - Sliding rear doors = get in easily in tight parking spots
    - Very tight turning circle makes it very maneuverable

    I know this is an SUV thread, those were the vehicles we were cross-shopping and the Mazda 5 defies comparisons; there is no other vehicle quite like it on the US market.

    I would have still bought the CRV as a second choice. We looked at the CX-7 but wanted a bit better mileage and didn't feel the turbo was as refined as the other engines.
  • Didn't even think of the Mazda 5 for the reason linked below.. Reliability issues for the long term

    CR-V was much better....

    Comparison...2009 models, not 2010 from link below... CR-V is now 180 HP with 21 mpg city and 28 mpg highway as well. Safety features listed on below link are way way off and in no way are up to date with some false none available items.[]=30- - 8099&trimIds[]=305968&trimIds[]=307572
  • I would have considered the Mazda 5 if they upgraded the drivetrain with the new 2.5L Mazda now has available.

    Otherwise, its' a much more cramped interior than the CR-V. But it does have more cargo room and flexibility, the 3rd row, and more car-like dynamics.

    The CR-V does have AWD available and better ground clearance and visibility.

    Don't be fooled by peak HP numbers. Always look at th torque number and where it's peak is located. the Honda 2.4L caompares well to the GM 190 HP 2.4L. But for comparison, the Nissan 2.5L is a much stronger motor across the whole RPM range, espeically the bottom end where you use it the most.

    An engine that makes 180ft-lbs at 3900 RPM is going ot feel much more pwoerful than one that makes 169ft-lbs at 5300RPM even if the first makes 175HP but and the later makes 180HP. Unless the 180HP motor has shorter gearing, the slightly less pwoerful but torquier motor will out perform it.
This discussion has been closed.