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
What the hell is a CUV? Compact Utility Vehicle? Well, ok. Sure. But calling the CX-7 an SUV or even putting it remotely in it's class is just ridiculous. No offense to Mazda or any other maker of these compact sports car's parading as an SUV's, but this isn't anywhere near what an SUV is intented for. 4cyl, hatchback, sports car. It even has car tires. I checked out the CX-7 after reading Motor Trends comparison to it, the RAV and the Acura model. I came back from looking at the new 07 Jeep Liberty, and stopped by the Mazda dealer to take a look at what was in the running of being my next car. Saw it parked outside... took a look around it... and didn't even go find a salesman. Walked off the lot, never looked back. Very disappointed. No matter what the inside looks like, it's what you do with an SUV that makes it the animal that it is.
SPORTS - for the active, sporty lifestyle - camping, competative sports, active/demanding terrain, gear heads, and those with a team, partners or pets to transport
-The only thing 'sport' on the Mazda is the performance, design and interior. A completely DIFFERENT type of 'sport'.
UTILITY - Multi-purpose, for transporting cargo, to car camping, to group road trips. Large room to spare and able to get through mud, dirt or sand to get you to your destination without scrambling the heads or crago inside.
-CX-7 has room, for sure. So does a station wagon. This car is even without a roof rack. Ground clearance minimum even with it's 18" tires. Max 4 maybe 5 others to travel with you. Just hope they don't have any camping gear to lug along!
VEHICLE - Basically a motorized 4 wheel trasport.
The Mazda - it qualifies here.
Sorry for the gripe. Those CX-7 owners out there, you have a very powerful, aggresive, sexy, roomy sports CAR. Congrats. All of you seem to be very happy with your vehicle. I must admit, the specs are rather impressive. And although you very well could drive it up to Sequoia or Joshua Tree, I wouldn't take beyond the road signs or painted highway lines!
Respectfully,
PRE SUV OWNER
I've never viewed my CX-7 as anything but a car. Aren't SUV's cars? All these terms seems so interchangeable to me! Anyway...my idea of off-roading is accidently driving on some grass at the edge of the driveway, so I couldn't car less what the CX-7 can or can't do in the desert or driving up Mt. Everest. It gets me to work, to my errands, etc. in style and I feel great driving it. Don't care if it's called a CUV, SUV, or any acronym under the sun. It's just a car to me.
The styling reflects a mix of the SUV, station wagon, and auto, all rolled into one. The other aspect is that these cross-overs, by and large, get better gas milage than the true, truck-based SUVs.
So, the CX7, RAV4, Santa Fe, Edge, RDX, etc, has the styling of the racy RX8 and the utility (cargo capacity) of the SUV.
If you want the towing capacity, pure off-road capability (like the Jeep Wrangler), and large capacity and bulk (such as the Tahoe), then the truck based SUVs are your choice.
In other words, the lines are really blurred. You really need to focus on the feature you want, pricing, etc, and not worry about those labels.
Hope that clarifies the confusion on the CUV terminology.
Vince.
That being said, sometimes I really do miss my F-150 4x4 that I swapped for my CX-7...
With Navigation:
Without navigation:
a>
The urban assult vehicle (UAV) is a much more adaptable animal than the SUV, agreed. And for those of us commuting daily through the concrete jungle, the CX-7 will certainly turn heads while doing it. Unlike the SF. I still think they are a much DIFFERENT class of car.
thanks for not butchering me for the post.
Be Well
Out of curiosity, what CUVs in the same class/category as the CX7, do you find appealing?
Vince.
LOL...
I'm not trying to compare the CX-7 to anything I like the interior alot I'm just saying from seeing it in person it looks like a cross between a wagon and a minivan ... really ugly would NEVER turn heads.
I've received many positive comments on the look of my CX-7. I've come out of the supermarket several times to find a person inspecting the car closely, and have had some wonderful conversations with those folks - a few of whom specifically said they were drawn to the car by its looks and wanted to see what it was. One guy asked if it was re-designed Murano; someone else asked if it was a Porsche. But if you think it's ugly, that's cool...I've got a long list of cars that to me are the visual equivalent of nails on a chalkboard! Variety is the spice of life.
Man oh man, I WISH you were right about that, but you're not. There are plenty of hideous cars on the road that even their manufacturers are embarrassed by now... yet somehow... i can't... look away... "Oh, the humanity..."
-c92
So, if you like the RX-8 I'm curious why you find the CX7, with almost identical styling, is "freaking" ugly? You're almost contradicting yourself.
Vince.
Here are some pics of my hyundai fully stock except for some badges.
Ouch!! I'm 44!! Oh well, at least there are plenty of people out there old than I am...
I don't think anyone would confuse the CX-7 with an Odyssey, Windstar, or a Town & Country, but whatever! I'm so old my vision ain't what it used to be.
I'm off to take my Geritol, adjust my cane, put new batteries in BOTH hearing aids, make sure my will is up to date, purchase a burial plot at the cemetary (I guess I'll be there soon), and see if I can catch the Early Bird Senior Discount dinner (ends at 4:00 p.m. at the local Old Person's restaurant) before going to bed at 6:00 p.m. Kids these days!!
looks like a minivan/wagon to me
You should atleast go for the Murano or the infinti
Vince.
From an OBJECTIVE standpoint, you need to really go look at the alternatives you mentioned. Vince mentioned aesthetic similarities, but there are also size, feature, and price DIFFERENCES. I never even cross-shopped the three. I did, however, buy a CX-7 largely because of its looks... Whoops, would love to chat more, but I have to go pick up the kids from soccer practice. :P
It must be an oversight - I didn't notice those two brands in the title of this topic.
tidester, host
Hey though atleast the Cx-7 is a lot better looking then the 2007 Honda CR-V
Oh yeah, and no offense, but saying the CX-7 is better than the new CR-V is a pretty back-handed compliment. My own subjective opinion is that the CR-V is goofy on a scale that even Japanese-market cars don't achieve. :surprise: Cheers.
-c92
Oh yeah I get these two mixed up ALL the time!
Check your meds, brau... :confuse:
First off how did you come up with Xenon lights from EURO TAIL LIGHTS? ... Xenon's are nice.. one reason why I don't like hyundai all there cars come with projectors but no Xenons stupid.. You know who puts Euro lights on there car? People who drive 1995 honda civics and cant afford anything else...so they think there cool by putting on euro tail's
MAN WHAT A HEADTURNER LOOKS JUST LIKE A FERRARI WOWOWO
By the way, I wouldn't rag too much on Civics with "Euro TAIL lights." Driving a Tiburon with chrome wheels is pretty much like throwing stones from a glass house in my book.
But thanks for the pics of the great-looking CX-7s. I like the copper color a LOT. You're obviously just out for a fight, so I'm done here.
The SF on the other hand was very roomy and great legroom. The instrument cluster was pleasant to read and the layout was very nice. Now the SF in the test drive handled very well and was much more comfortable then the RAV4. I did like the shiftronic feature; but I noticed the take off was alittle sluggish - but to the SF's defense, it does have less HP and weighs alittle more than the RAV4. With the help of the torque, this was not an issue.
After talking to my wife, I listed the pros and cons of each and as much as I was convincing myself and the wife about leaning towards the RAV4 (just because it's a Toyota really); I had to smack myself to put things into perspective to face realization that Hyundai has done some serious homework and the SF is hands down, night and day compared to the outgoing model.
Now... sitting in the CX-7, it did feel like I was sitting in my Mazda3 Hatch, with the performance oriented instrument cluster. The seating felt as if I was sitting in a sports car while enjoying the interior space and legroom. I'm a recent Mazda owner and have nothing but good things to say about my Mazda3 Hatch. As a matter of fact, I'm anxiously waiting for my Mazdaspeed 3 hatch that's on order. I'm going to take a look again and test drive the CX-7, since now I'll need to compare it to the SF. I guess if I really like it, then it'll boil down to which I can get a better deal. Having the S-Plan for both the Mazda and Hyundai, this is going to be very interesting. And maybe, just maybe if I do go with the CX-7, I'm sure getting both my car and my wife's would grant me an additional savings.
In the meantime, I'll share my experience with the CX-7 in a couple of days...
Hopefully we can bring back this thread to some enlightening conversations again. ;-)
Here is what I feel like Toyota cut corners big time in RAV4 compared to sata fe (SF).
- no rear vent (common even 10k has it available now)
- no leather (with leather car looks so luxurious, dont believe me, before commmiting to RAV4 just peep at Santa Fe interior)
- Beautiful dials
- Lot of lighting (particularly huge one in the back) in SF
- Comfortable rear seats in SF
- double glove compartment
- bigger storage (between driver and passenger)
- Lexus-like buttons
- fully loaded sf is miles cheaper than r4
- R4 is bit tight for 3 adults (or 2 adults and car seat) in back seat, SF is slight wider and good enough for 3 adults.
Interiorwise only negative I can think about SF is that rear seats can't slide.
Just give you an example of Hyundai is serious when they say they build SF right from empty canvas, front vents are vertical oriented to cover maximum driver's body. Problem with round or horizontally oriented rectangle vents are that it propels lot of air in empty spaces.
BTW, with these 2 high quality world-class vehicles, I dont understand why I should take risk on Ford Edge even if they improved quality. I still have to develop any opinion about Mazda, though I was considering Mazda5, I have to say the company has long way to go as far as making cars on par with Toyota or even Hyundai.
I have one problem with the Edge: fear. I purchased a 2002 Explorer. It was a huge improvement over the previous generation, but has serious quality problems. The sad part is that I don't think Ford can't engineer a nice quality vehicle; I believe their problem is rooted in the quality of parts used. I have a number of quality issue areas with my Explorer. (My 1990 Ford Ranger was solid. I sold it at around 177,000 miles.)
I don't know if my problems are rooted in the fact the 2002 Explorer is a 1.0 version of the vehicle or an overall parts problem with Ford. I don't want to get burned again, but the Edge looks great on paper.
Dare I take the risk? (My second choice at this point is the 07 Sante Fe.)
I feel that the CX-7 has very nice fit and finish. And although they may not be where Toyota is at, but if Toyota continues missing the details, they can end up where Hyundai was 5-10 yrs ago.
Hyundai eliminated because the second row DOES NOT SLIDE fore and aft. That truly makes the almost unusable 3rd row completely unusable. I really need the tiny third row to at least be usable for that extra kid or two. Also...no bluetooth or MP3 audio plug. (dealer said bluetooth/mp3 jack would be on 07's starting in November. True or not, can't say.) The Hyundai's interior was alot nicer than RAV4.
Mazda, can't tow our camper and no third row.
Rav4 engine beats both in all respects. The Rav interior is a compromise, as is the swing tailgate (can't open wide to load stuff with my camper attached, hits the handle on the pop-up that raises and lowers front of camper). Oh and what agooofy seatbelt arrangement for the middle passenger in the second row. Downright weird! But overall it wins..the engine (6.3 seconds to 60!!), the bluetooth, the mp3 jack, the Toyota name.
Thank you for the accurate interpretation of my post! ;-) (Now if only the Prius had Bluetooth, I'd buy that. JUST KIDDING..thought I'd throw you ALL off!)
it's pretty much acknowledged that the v6 overpowers the rav chassis. for towing power it is a plus.
For myself, I will rarely use the second or third row. I want seven passenger seating for those occasional times when friends or relatives are over and we can successfully squeeze into one car instead of taking two. Our next vehicle is replacing a 7 passenger minivan, which is overkill for us now that we're empty nesters.
The RAV4 is out for me because I want heated seats and must have the third row seating. You can't get both in the RAV4. Similarly the Mazda is out. That leaves the Santa Fe. I find the Santa Fe power to be more than adequate for my driving needs and desires.
I sat in an Edge, did not drive it. I am not impartial...my 2000 Mazda MPV ES had a Ford engine, and it had serious reliability issues...so I really was never mentally ready to accept the Edge. I also really did not care for the Edge interior.
Please read "Comparison Test: Small All-Wheel-Drive SUVs" which compares CX-7, RAV4, and Santa Fe.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=116618
So all you non-CX-7 owners...read it and weep! :shades:
I have been reading that the 269hp RAV4 has been getting barely over 20mpg, and Toyota rates the engine to get near 30mpg. At least Mazda is up front to tell you you will get low to mid 20's at best in mpg.
The CX-7 does not need a 6-cyl. The engine is built to have a turbo, therefor no strain on the engine.
Fuel efficiency fanatics should not be looking at SUVs in the first place since SUV are not inherently fuel efficient. 19/24 city/highway while producing 244 HP cannot be considered thirty.
Well, I would encourage you to keep reading this post. I've had my 4WD V6 Rav since April. I'm averaging 24.6 and have gotten as high as 27.8 on a road trip.