Howdy, Stranger!

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

Howdy, Stranger!

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

Have you recently tried to purchase a new vehicle after being out of the market for a while and found that prices were much higher than you expected? A reporter would like to talk to you; please reach out to [email protected] by 1/22 for more details.
Did you get a great deal? Let us know in the Values & Prices Paid section!
Meet your fellow owners in our Owners Clubs

Hyundai Santa Fe vs Toyota RAV4 vs Mazda CX-7 vs Ford Edge



  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    That motor is not too heavy. Despite being almost 16" longer, having a bigger engine, and extra row of seats, the CX-9 only weight 600lbs more than the CX-7. Based on that, I don't think it would throw chassis dynamics off that much. I think you are right about Mazda wanting to be different though. It may have also been a tight squeeze for the 3.5L. The engine compartment looks fairly compact for a vehicle as big as it is.
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Posts: 498
    Nice review in the current online edition, but it worth noting an opposing review in the same article:

    "The Edge lacks a third row and weighs 4528 pounds, 300 more than the larger, three-row Ford Freestyle. On the plus side, handling dynamics are surprisingly sporty, and the new V-6 feels eager. But when it comes to five-seat unibody SUVs, the less-expensive Mazda CX-7 clobbers the Edge. The CX-7 is more than 600 pounds lighter, has better braking and skidpad numbers, accelerates nearly as fast despite a smaller engine, boasts better fuel economy, and possesses steering feel that embarrasses that of many sports cars. Looks like it’s Mazda that really has the edge."

    So, CX-7 rules...AGAIN!


  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    I think they typo-ed. Everywhere else I can find a curb weight for an AWD Edge says it weight 4282 lbs, which is still 300 lbs. more than the AWD CX-7. From what I hear, the Edge is no sports car, but it does cost a little bit less to operate, due to using regular fuel.

    All-in-all, I'd still say the CX-7 rules.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    They're counting the vista roof which has to add 200 lbs at least. Not exactly fair since the competition doesn't offer one, but factual.
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    It's not about being different, Mazda officials said it already - bigger engine won't fit on this smaller platform.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    If the vista roof weighs that much, that could have been the reason for their low performance numbers. Though could hurt everything from acceleration to cornering. 200 lbs. could certainly kick the Edge's stability control into "safety mode". Also, a 5% increase in weight is certainly significant to a 0-60 time.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    I don't know for sure but based on the test weight and the base AWD weight it sure seems likely that it weighs at least that much.
  • audia8qaudia8q Posts: 3,138
    There seems to be some confusion as to what the CX-7 shares with the Ford Edge....The CX-7 uses a mazda6 based front suspension that is also shared with the all new Japanese MPV...this is similar to the Edge and CX-9. The rear suspension is mazda5/3 based and is unique to the CX-7. The CX-9 and the Edge share similar rear suspensions. From the front firewall forward the CX-7 and Edge share similar Mazda6 components but with different engines, tranny's and drivelines. From the firewall back the CX-7 and Edge use different platforms. They only share rear brake compenents. The Cx-9 uses brakes that are unique to the CX-9.

    Another area of confusion seems to be the transmission and AWD system. The CX-7 uses a Aisin Tranny and the Edge uses a Ford Transmission. The CX-7 AWD system is Mazdaspeed6 based and the front wheel driveline is mazda6...the Edge uses a driveline that is unique to the Edge. The CX-9 will share with the CX-7.

    The CX-7 and the CX-9 were designed from the get go to be different vehicles. The CX-9 is not a stretched CX-7.
  • philmophilmo Posts: 77
    The CX-9 is not a stretched CX-7.

    Better let the sales team know. The one I spoke to "...with 25 years experience" was emphatic about this point as I expressed concerns about the size of the rear hatch opening. "It's gonna be exactly the same, except longer", he said even though here at Edmunds they note that other dimensions other than length have increased as well. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Unless something else catches our eye in the meanwhile.
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Posts: 498
    "The CX-9 is not a stretched CX-7"

    Maybe so, but if you compare pics side by side, there are remarkable similarities. You can tell the CX-7 and CX-9 share the same DNA. Even the interiors are similar.

  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    Looks do not make the vehicle. The mechanical aspects have to be in sync too. I think Mazda took this to heart a little bit more than Ford this time around.
  • audia8qaudia8q Posts: 3,138
    I can't help it if folks don't want to learn the facts and just make assumptions.
  • joe97joe97 Posts: 2,248
    Platform: CD3/GG/GY (CD3 is Ford; GG/GY is Mazda, very similar setup)

    Mazda Mazda6
    Mazda CX-7
    Mazda CX-9
    Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan/Lincoln Zephyr (scratch that, MKZ)
    Ford Edge/Lincoln MKX

    All above, except the CX-7, use the same platform.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    Except the CD3 is wider and longer than the GG/GY that it was based on.
  • topgun7topgun7 Posts: 412
    How would you rate the seat of the pant acceleration and daily handling of these SUV? I am more thinking about day to day freeway, city street type of situation where we may need to accelerate for a short distant, merge into freeway, taking U turn, merging into next lane etc. If you have test driven some of these SUV, what is your impression?
  • I don't think that you will find any that will beat the RAV4 4WD V6 for accelaration, agility and short turning diameter. It is also a great fun car to drive.
  • I drove the vehicles you mentioned and chose the Mazda Cx-7. My driving impressions: The Hyundai SF was nice but just a standard cruising SUV made for moderate driving. THE Acura was overpriced, had no leg room in the back, and seating was too uncomfortable even in the front. The Honda CRV wasn't bad, but no real guts at a 166 hp. Also drove the TOY Rav 4, found the drivetrain to be jerky, the interior very plain, and just hated the sideways opening back "barn door." Also drove the Murano, very nice interior, couldn't get used to the transmission setup.

    The CX-7, in my opinion,has the best styling, the best cornering, handling, by far the best braking, and real close on acceleration with the TOY. The price was in line, fully loaded except navigation for $28,350.00 and it sports the all important Xenon lights. Once you drive at night with Xenon, you will never go back to halogen. Only the Murano offered Xenon lights, besides Mazda.

    After 1700 miles, still pleased with the vehicle, however, there are also issues, as always, with the Mazda as well. Back seat legroom is fairly tight, hauling space is decreased because of the sculpted rear end, gas mileage could always be better(last fill up, not to bad at 18.5mpg), and it does run on premium fuel.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    The CX-7 beats the Rav4 in agility any day of the week, but the RAV4 is much stronger in a straight line. The RAV4 with 18" wheels only undercuts the CX-7 by around 6", but with the smaller wheels, which decrease performance a bit, it is 2 ft. shorter. Mazda's interior is on a whole different level compared the RAV4 though.
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    For straight line acceleration no, but agility and handling, better interior and design - yes, Mazda CX7 and Mitsubishi Outlander, both offering better performance and premium features (Xenon headlamps, navigation, DVD, premium sound systems etc). Mitsubishi standard V6 drinks regular, has more rear leg room (39") and cargo room (39 cu ft) than any of them, better warranty and price as well.
    " ...once you get past the stellar V6, The RAV4 is a bit ordinary and doesn't offer the same value as its competitors" A.Harwood DEC Motor Trend issue.
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    You missed one. Almost the same good handling, standard V6 (220 hp), regular fuel, more rear leg room (39"), 6 speed transmission with paddle shifters, close on acceleration (8.1sec O-60 mph), available navigation, DVD, Xenon headlights, 39 cu ft of cargo. Check my other post to find out.
  • "The CX-7 beats the Rav4 in agility any day of the week"...maybe and maybe not. I find no hard stats on that as I do on this: the RAV4 V6 has a much shorter turning diameter, requires regular fuel not premium which the CX-7 does, tows 3500 pounds vs 2000 pounds and has a full size spare vs a temp. The RAV4 also gets better gas mileage. Edmund's lists the RAV4 and the Mit as having the same cargo capacity- 73 cu ft.

    The RAV4 has bluetooth and ipod hookup. As to the Nav, my portabe Garmin does a great job with one feature that I like better then my LS430 Nav. Incidently, the latest Consumer Reports 2007 Buying Guide gives the RAV4 a higher rating then any other SUV, except for the Toyoto and Lexus hybrid Suvs.
  • sssfegysssfegy Posts: 132
    "It doesn’t quite match competitors like the Toyota RAV4 for material quality, but it blows its competitors away with gadgets galore." Car&Driver. I'll add: Is that a Rav4/Xterra combo? What a deal! Ugly in my book.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    Handling is not equal to turning radius. The CX-7, according to Motor, posted .79g on the skidpad as opposed to a .74g for the RAV4. It also was .6 seconds faster in the figure 8, and stopped 2 feet shorter in braking. The turning radius has to do with the CX-7's bigger, wider wheels. These results have also been confirmed by Car and Driver.

    I'm not saying the CX-7 doesn't have its faults because it obviously does (heavy, thirsty, premium fuel, less cargo room), but it handles very good and has a much nicer interior design/quality and exterior design IMHO. I suppose it all depends on what you need in a vehicle. I need 3 good rows so both of these are out. I don't consider the Rav4 to have a "good" 3rd row. I wouldn't even put my worst enemies back there.
  • philmophilmo Posts: 77
    Well, Carspace has been a great resource but I'm bailing out on the SUV purchase until 2008. I hopped in our Grand Cherokee yesterday for the 65-mile drive to the airport and thought "why in the heck am I selling this now?" Paid for, 20 mpg, nothing below on the garage floor, more than capable off-road and I can stuff a pontoon boat in the back.

    Sure, eventually it'll need to be replaced but there's nothing out there right now that I fell in love with was compelling enough to make me get rid of a usable vehicle in great shape.

    Thanks all for your input. Let's do this again after the Highlander is redesigned, the Edge and CX-9 have been around enough for feedback, Toyoter gets rid of the barn door (we hope), Murano gets a facelift and lastly maybe there's a great big surprise out there that we haven't seen yet.
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    In DEC MT SUV of the Year issue Mitsubishi got high ratings in performance and safety with rest of them being equal to RAV4. The interior in Mitsu received four stars, RAV4 got three. Both cars can tow 3500 lbs, both using regular fuel. Total cargo yes, but more in Mitsu with second row up. Handling?
    Braking ft........ .... 128..............130
    600ft slalom mph ... 62.7.............60.6
    Lateral acceleration g 078..............0.75
    MT figure 8 (sec) ....... 28.3.............28.6
    07 Outlander is outselling RAV 4 and CRV in Japan 3:1 so far this year.
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    In OCT MT issue Ron Kiino wrote: "Interior quality is premium and design contemporary... 3.0 liter with MIVEC is a refined and robust unit... New Outlander has an air that's all SUV enhanced with such luxury as standard LED tail lamps, available Xenon headlamps and 18" wheels...Outlander can easily hang with the best in it's class...delivers excellent balance through high-speed maneuvers."
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    There is some more from
    "..The automatic transmission is almost as smooth as the new CR-V's, while the engine provides considerably more power. The combination is far superior to the RAV4 despite the Toyota's higher horsepower figure, and the Outlander is a better highway companion overall.... the Outlander handles steeply banked highway onramps with superb control and minimal body lean, giving the driver a sense of confidence not found in many SUVs — compact, car-based or otherwise.The ride was also car-like. Bumps were softly muted and road noise was minimal...Available with an optional manual four-wheel-drive system, the Outlander is one of the more affordable four-wheel-drive SUVs on the market, ...Surprisingly, the new Outlander seems to outclass its competitors on just about every front, although the RAV4 does offer more power with its optional V-6 engine (269 horsepower)."
  • cxrabbitcxrabbit Posts: 134
    So I've been car shopping since last week... researching a lot on the net and going out and test driving quite a bit. My mom started the whole thing with her desire for a new car and all the research I was doing for her lead me to the CX-7.

    I'm not really an SUV person... never have been. Some of them actually down-right piss me off. But I want more luxury (current car is a Toyota Matrix) and a bit more get-up-and-go. Love the fuel economy of the Matrix, and while the car has been good, it's missing a lot of what I want.

    Below is what I looked at and my impressions... I'm looking at the top trims of each.

    Mazda CX-7
    CX-7 was first (and Mom test-drove the 3 Hatchback) - Loved the handling and size. I didn't feel like I was in an SUV at all. Didn't feel overwhelmed by the size, but felt like I was in a car big enough to compete with others on the road (from a safety stand-point). I'm in love with the aesthetics of the car inside and out, so nothing but thumbs-up there. Cabin was noisier than I expected but quieter than the Matrix. Very roomy in all areas accept when you're getting in... I actually bumped my head on the door frame (but that could also be because I'm just used to the low stance of a car and I was too gung-ho in my step up into the CX-7).

    Downsides: Fuel effeciency. Not the best in it's class and definitely a step down from what I currently drive, and it takes premium gas. Noise only because I expected it to be quieter. Tech package is VERY nice but lacks iPod support, live traffic reporting and blue tooth. No memory setting on power seats. Back seats could be a tad more comfortable.

    Nissan Murano
    Very plushy inside, and very quiet. The leather had a more luxury feel (rather than sporty). Aesthics were nice, but a bit weird how the whole thing looks jacked up in the back. Big inside. Seats have memory. Supports iPod.

    Downsides: other than the perks above, I didn't like it. I felt like I was driving a HUGE truck. Handling was more luxury than sporty. Turning radius, I felt, wasn't so good. It had get-up-and-go, but not in the same fun way as the CX-7. Overall it's just bigger, and too big for me. I ruled it out almost right away.

    Toyota Rav 4
    I didn't even want to go look until I realized they changed the body this year. I did not test-drive after seeing it.

    I did like the interior and the option for a third row of seats (though not something I really need). iPod support is standard. Navigation system is not available. Fuel efficiency is better than CX-7, even in the 6 cylinder. Takes regular gas not premium.

    Aesthetically, on the outside, I just don't like it (it just screams SUV to me). I hate the tire on the back. Don't like the side-opening back door. Inside it's okay, but not half as nice as the CX-7.

    Honda CR-V
    This is the closest runner-up to the CX-7 so far. I test drove it tonight. I saw one on the road and wasn't all that impressed with it's looks, but decided to head to the dealership anyway. Seeing one "all done up" in the showroom in the dark blue it looked real nice.

    Better gas mileage. Dealership will put in any nav system I want (for comparible price to an audio pro)... so I could get nav with live traffic, bluetooth and iPod support. Loved the top and bottom opening, dual glove box and all the other little storage compartments. Leather seats were nice, and back seats recline and slide forward and back. More cargo space, but the vehicle isn't bigger.

    It road pretty nice, with decent handling. Cabin in quieter than the CX-7... or at least seemed so. Get-up-and-go was decent for a 4 cylinder without turbo, but nothing special. It wouldn't be as much fun to drive as the CX-7, but it would also get better fuel efficiency.

    Downsides: No auto headlights. No power seats. No keyless entry. No auto climate control -- maybe silly, but things important to me and at least some of the reasons I'm even buying a new car. Exterior looks nice with all the right items added and in certain colors, but the interior is typical Honda... not that impressive. With the nav it looks better, but still the rest of the dash and doors look on-the-cheap. The fact they're willing to put in any head unit I want is a plus and makes it easy, but it also makes the car a magnet for theives (which has been a concern if I decided to go aftermarket with the CX-7).

    In conclusion...
    I decided today on the CX-7. It just LOOKS so much nicer than everything else, inside and out. It has more of those creature comforts I want and I'll live with iPod through FM for now. Estimated gas cost will be more, but only about $7 more per week than the Rav or CR-V and $12 more per week than what I drive now (guess I'll have to quit smoking!). The price is right for all the features I want and it's just the nicest looking one of the bunch (IMO).
  • astegmanastegman Posts: 171
    cxrabbit, congrats on deciding on the CX-7! Welcome to the family. A quick note about bumping your head getting in - that happened to me as well, and I'm only 5'4". However, after a day or so, I realized that the driver's seat can be lowered and thus, no more head bumping. Not sure if the passenger seat can be lowered, haven't bothered to look, but at least my noggin is safe now!
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Posts: 498
    Excellent report, my friend! You've done your research, so you'll go to bed knowing you've made the right decision.

    Now, if we can only get those TOY, HYU, HON, MITS, and NIS owners to acknowledge that CX-7 RULES, then the world will definately be a better place! :P

    This has been public service announcement by MAZDA. ZOOM-ZOOM!!!

  • Great discussion, guys. Even tho I have a few more positives to add for the RAV4s, I'm out. One-up-manship really gets no where, if in the end we are perfectly satisfied with our cars/SUVs. If you appreciate and enjoy your choices as I do mine, we all end up as happy campers.

  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    To each his/her own, each of these SUVs has their own specialty, whether it be handling, performance, utility, or value. Actually, each of them do several of these well. It just depends on which of these values you need or want. Everyone just wants to validate the reason they picked which ever one they picked.
  • Didn't realize that the HONDA CRV does not offer power seats. I became spoiled with Xenon lights and the MAzda has them!
  • cxrabbitcxrabbit Posts: 134
    >Didn't realize that the HONDA CRV does not offer
    >power seats. I became spoiled with Xenon lights
    >and the MAzda has them!

    It's funny because with each of them there were sacrifices. The Rav didn't offer navigation. The CR-V didn't offer power seats, auto headlights, keyless entry/ignition or climate control. The Murano seems a lot bigger and didn't handle as well (IMO). Lexus, Infinity, Acura -- too expensive so I didn't get any further as far as features.

    While subjective, I didn't like the way the Hyundai looked, nor the Mitsubishi -- but it's seems from an interior feature standpoint the Mitsubishi might actually win.
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    " but it's seems from an interior feature standpoint the Mitsubishi might actually win."
    ... and from handling standpoint (second best behind CX7), warranty (same as Santa Fe), price standpoint, and is the only one here with selectable 2WD/4WD or 6 speed tranny with paddle shifters. Hyundai is a very strong entry here too with a bit nicer interior and softer ride.
    Happy Thanksgiving Everyone.
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Posts: 498
    What would yours be? Keep in mind, I'm a CX-7 owner and proud of it, but it doesn't hurt to dream, eh?

    I just looked at the Tribeca interior...very, very stylish. Much nicer than the CX-7. Unfortunately, the Tribeca exterior is just flat-out ugly (IMHO) :)

    So, I'd wish for a Tribeca type interior, plush leather seating with Nav, including real-time traffic, satellite radio, moonroof, iPOD, bluetooth, advanced keyless entry, remote start. Dual environmental controls, air vents for the rear.

    Combined with the CX-7 exterior, 6 cylinder, turbo, getting 30 MPG and oh, costing no more than $35K.

    Now, if I could only come up with a few investors....


  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    Check out the Hyundai Veracruz. It may fit what you are looking for, especially if they offer the diesel motor.

    3.0L VGT V6 diesel with 240hp & 350 ft. lb. averaging 26mpg in combined driving. It also seats 7 with bluetooth and nav said to be available when it debuts. I don't know what other options it is going to have in the US or what it will cost yet.
  • Hmmm, I think you mean "Dream CUV." My dream Vehicle is a Ferrari 599GTB with actual rear seat room, rear-biased all-wheel-drive, modified air suspension to give it 12" ground clearance when required, and the same Ferrari engine, but that produces 600HP on ordinary tap water... ;)

    Happy T-day, everybody.

  • Hmmm... while I can't exactly think of what would constitute my "Dream SUV" at the moment, I'd also have to say that the upcoming Hyundai Veracruz is probably the closest thing to it! But, with an estimated price of over $40K US fully-loaded this puts the Veracruz squarely in the position of being only a "dream." for me.

    On a more realistic note, I suppose it would be an SUV with all the neat "techie" features that the Outlander has, with the handling of a CX-7, an engine on par with the RAV4, and perhaps, the exterior of a Santa Fe.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    I doubt it will be quite that expensive. It will not be getting all the fancy options that the South Koreans get. Some of those are bit interesting. Chances are it will not get the diesel engine in the US, which is disappointing, but the 3.8L V6 is a much cheaper option. Most estimates are that it will start around $26 to $27k with full optioned out models being around $36-37k. The vehicle was created mostly for the American market. This fits in with pricing on the Saturn Outlook and Mazda CX-9.
  • So, you come onto the boards and prais the Edge with a handful of subjective 'facts'. Then you go out of your way to put down Hyundai owners by calling them 'poor'. Then you reframe from commenting further on a vehicle (rated behind Lexus and Porsche for initial quality) that heads the title of this thread, claiming 'it just wouldn't be polite.'

    Dude, you aren't gaining friends here pal. And taking personal slams at those who don't share your opinions, yes they are opinions, won't gain a single case to your cause. I would take offense from your last comment as a recent hyundai owner myself, but I'm too damn estatic driving my new luxury compact SUV, having people mistake it as a lexus and picking up my new 42" Plasma screen TV with all the money I saved. ;)

    good luck with your glass-housed Edge (huh, that aint a saftey hazard....)
  • foxrun is just rooting for the home team. He works for Ford. Go easy on him. You both make good points. I admit I'm surprised at how good the Koreans are getting. (Makes me think the Chinese are next.) I agree with foxrun about the fact that the CX-7's 4-cylinder is under a lot of stress from the turbo, possibly affecting longevity (still a cool engine, though). Still, the Edge doesn't quite impress me enough. It would if it were about 300 lbs lighter.
  • Any truth to the matter about the Mazda 4 cylinder engine being "under stress" which would lower the engine longevity because of the Turbo construction?
  • Yes, there is truth to that matter. A boosted 4-cylinder small displacement engine operates under much higher pressures and stress on the few main bearings and scant piston ring total circumferences. Better metallurgy can help a little, but for a reasonably-priced non-racing engine, there is only so much compensation thats actually done. In summary, the valves, rings, and bearings in a high-rpm, boosted 4-cylinder experience brutal conditions compared to a larger V-6 loafing along comparatively. Plus, the turbo cooks oil like mad.
  • It's all relative. Maybe the turbo engines experience higher pressures than understressed larger NA engines, but I disagree that it's anything to be concerned about, or even to really take notice of.

    There are plenty of NA V6 engines hovering around 3.5L that make a LOT more power than the Ford V6, and they are sold every day in mainstream cars. In fact, I say the Ford is not a good comparison to a turbo engine, or even a modern-day true Japanese NA V6 if you want to justify stresses. Call it either low-tech or a lowball market strategy (the Ford leaves plenty of room for power upgrades) but turbo engines are no less reliable.

    Yes, there are caveats to a turbo engine where you can ask for trouble... run hard and then shut the engine off immediately before the turbo bearings can cool - or run the cheapest Wal-Mart oil you can find in it and drag race regularly. In other words, just because drop-clutching your 350Z at every stoplight kills the clutch prematurely doesn't mean it was designed "overstressed" to begin with.

    So, for every Ralph Nader out there that remembers old 70's GM turbos that imploded, there is another semi-geezer (like me) that has a 100,000-mile turbo engine that has been driven HARD with no signs of trouble.

    You have nothing to worry about if you buy a modern-day Japanese turbo and treat it with a smidgen of common sense.
  • carlitos92,
    I hope you're right. (I don't think you are.) The future may be to put both a supercharger and a turbo on an engine, like VW has done recently (sold in Europe now), and they can get near-diesel efficiencies. So, the CX-7's engine is certainly progressive. CX-7 people should consider using RedLine polyol ester motor oil, since its the same base stock used on jet engine turbomachinery bearings, and could at least help bearings survive. Valves have nothing to save them, however.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    Normal turbo setups aren't any different than normal engines except that they usual utilize lower compression and obviously have a turbo and maybe an intercooler. Turbos use exhaust pressure to feed air into the engine. That's one reason the is a bit of lag when you press the accelerator. This is more pressure on the motor, but motors generally only experience problems when they are overboosted. Engines with high boost need stronger internal parts because of the high boost pressure. All the intercooler does is help to cool the air before it is injected by the turbo. Cooler air means more power.

    It might be wise to invest in a good blow off valve to release pressure though. Most manufacturers don't include them because most people don't want to make it sound like their car just farted, but they do certainly serve a purpose. :)
  • Well, I'm going by my own experience with a 7-year-old turbo engine, which I admit I have always used Mobil 1 in. I guess with the CX-7, now I have a garage FULL of turbos... :D

    You might also look at the fact that both Acura and BMW have introduced turbo engines in the US this year... neither of those companies wants their image tarnished. I don't know about what those manufacturers ask for with regards to oil, but I assume it's normal garden-variety.

    The VW twincharger setup is really neat and something to watch but is a LOT of moving parts for my taste. As far as stresses, I would think it ends up boosting the little 1.4l motor just as much as any OEM turbo installation.

    Arumage, remember now that with direct injection, some of these turbo engines are actually running with higher compression than some of their NA counterparts... :surprise:

  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Most manufacturers don't include them because most people don't want to make it sound like their car just farted, but they do certainly serve a purpose.

    The CX-7/Mazdaspeed6 have one, you just don't hear it. It's the round black plastic thing with a hose comming out the side of it, located on the right front side of the intercooler. You do not hear a noise, because it is in "recirculation" mode.

    When you hear the "psssht" noise, it is aftermarket, usually vented to atmosphere. That is the pressure release. One downside to a blow off valve that vents to atmosphere is that with pressure loss, it takes a split second more for the turbo to spool, in some cases.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    Usually it will only impact spool time if there is an immediate need for acceleration after a dead stop. Once boost pressure increase even higher, a more stout blow off valve would probably be needed.
This discussion has been closed.