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



  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Very true, especially with an upgraded turbo or increase in boost . I don't really see many CX-7 owners up grading their turbos.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    Probably not, but definitely on the Mazdaspeed6 and Mazdaspeed3. :)
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Yes, they are already out. My buddy already has every bolt-on for the MS6, next is the turbo.

    It would be interesting, however, to see how an upgraded CX-7 would be like (Mazdaspeed CX-7, I know I am dreaming!). It surely would put to shame any big V6 like the Ford 3.5L in the Edge, or the RAV4 V6.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    You can expect those goodies to be available soon for the 3.5L V6 too. The 2008 Mazda6 is supposed to be available with th3 3.5L V6. Ford has been seriously looking at a Twin Turbo version for the Lincoln MKS.
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    They've been running a twin turbo 3.5L with Direct Injection around Detroit in a F150 for quite some time.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Ford has been seriously looking at a Twin Turbo version for the Lincoln MKS.

    I have heard that the twin turbo concept was scrapped for the MKS
  • akirbyakirby Posts: 8,062
    Lincoln sent out dealer press material recently that still showed the old 4.4L V8 which led some to conclude that they dropped the 3.5L TT and put the V8 back in the program. But that was just someone forgetting to update the documentation. It is possible it will be a TT 3.7L since the base Lincoln engine will be a 3.7L now, but AFAIK the TT is still planned even though it won't be available at launch.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    Smaller, sequential turbos seriously reduce lag although you can get more power from one larger turbo. I'm sure Ford will be going for smooth, sustained power delivery with this setup. What this means though is that the aftermarket will jump on the parts bandwagon which is good for Ford and Mazda.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 14,060
    saw one parked the in driveway, a couple of streets over.
    in a world of colonial style houses, it stands out! :)
    2019 Lincoln MKZ Reserve 1, 2017 Ford F-150 Limited
  • Hehehe... Maybe "colonial style" could apply to the RAV4 and Murano as well when compared to the Mazda. :P

    The Edge is "Gillette Mach3," though. Totally.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 14,060
    2019 Lincoln MKZ Reserve 1, 2017 Ford F-150 Limited
  • "The Murano seems a lot bigger and didn't handle as well (IMO)."

    Well, it is bigger. The CX-7 is a small, cramped toy by comparison. Interesting that the Murano pulled .81 g's in the Car and Driver road test and was described as "the Z of sport-utes." Enjoy your Ford...I mean Mazda.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    Enjoy your Ford...I mean Mazda.

    It's fun to poke fun in these forums, I do it a lot. However, CX-7 is no Ford, by any means. It's all Japanese.
  • audia8qaudia8q Posts: 3,138
    I've driven the Murano, which is a nice vehicle, but its a big load when pushed to the limits and there is no way it out handles a CX-7...of course the ignorant ford comment should have been the clue...
  • Iliked the Murano and would have bought that instead of the Cx-7, but couldn't get used to the CVT transmission. The Murano doesn't do much when you step on the gas.
  • sssfegysssfegy Posts: 132
    "cramped toy by comparison"
    "Bigger is always better"!!!LOL
  • d_hyperd_hyper Posts: 130
    ..another Renault owner trying to escape the reality.
  • explorerx4explorerx4 Central CTPosts: 14,060
    anyone who just quotes some magazine... :sick:
    2019 Lincoln MKZ Reserve 1, 2017 Ford F-150 Limited
  • I rented a Murano for a long trip a couple weeks ago and it was a real nice ride.I don't see why some say they can't get use to the CVT tranny?It feels fine to me.Really could'nt tell any differnce from a reg transmission.I like the look of the Mazda BUT it's to small for a family of four IMO.I have two small kids and with us all in there it felt crampt.I don't like 4 bangers for that price either.I've sat in the RAV4 V6 Limited and i really like it but leg room was a bit tight for my liking.I'm going to test drive the RAV4 V6 and the Santa Fe today.I don't like the look of the Santa Fe to much but i wanna give it a chance and see how the INT looks and feels.IF i had to pick what i thought was the best for the price i would go with the RAV4 V6 but we'll see how i feel after today
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    I don't like 4 bangers for that price either.

    Keep in mind, it's a turbo 4-cyl, with the power of a V6. What's wrong with that?
  • Well MPG seems to be lower than the RAV V6 Plus the 4 has to work much harder than a good V6.I really like the RDX also but the 4 Banger Turbo is a deal breaker for me.I do like the looks of the Mazda but when i factor in room for four and the 4 banger i have to check it off the list.I'm sure for some it's a great choice.I just can't get over the 4 vs V6
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Posts: 498
    "the 4 has to work much harder than a good V6"

    That's not quite true. Hitting 11K miles, I've put my CX-7 through it's paces. In 6th gear, doing 70 MPH, the engine is only pushing 2K RPM...compared to my 2004 Santa Fe, 3.5L 6 cylinder, the SF is revving at 3K my 4 banger, turbo, is running quite efficiently, thank you very much.

    Additionally, under hard acceleration, the CX-7 is a pocket rocket. And once again, the engine handles that with relative ease.

    And yes, the CX-7 sucks down the go-juice, like its cool-aid! :P

    Vince aka Mr. CX-7
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    4 has to work much harder than a good V6

    That is not true. That is a notion people cannot get over, and I do not know why. Lack of education on turbo charging, I guess.

    The turbo 4 in the RDX and CX-7 are built to have a turbo, so, the engine is under virtually no strain.

    I will not sit here and try and convince you that what you think is wrong, even though it is. It is a personal choice you have made, and the RAV4 V6 is rather nice. There are plenty of threads that say the RAV4 V6 does not get the mpg that Toyota better read those.
  • From what i've read the V6 gets better MPG that the 4 banger turbo and is MUCH qicker.I do like the looks of the Mazda though.
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Posts: 498
    Sorry but you need to check your performance specs. CX-7 is superior.

    True, the RAV-4 beats CX-7 hands down in the MPG department, but looses out in performance specs, i.e. acceleration /braking/cornering, nav and sound systems, etc.

    All depends on your priorities and preferences. For me, MPG was never a consideration. Styling and performance are tops, in my book! :shades:

    Vince aka Mr. CX-7
  • bobw3bobw3 Posts: 2,992
    In general, Mazdas are known more for their zoom-zoom then their MPG. Pretty much all the vehicles in their line-up from the Mazda3 on up are like this. But they're also known for their better handling then either Toyota or Honda.
  • I was'nt aware the Mazda did better than 0-60 in 6.4 seconds.Thats becasue it don't.The Rav V6 has better MPG and is faster.
  • piastpiast Posts: 269
    We already have same discussion few weeks back. Please check posts from # 325 on this forum. DEC MT published all performance numbers in this segment to compare.
  • Anybody who does NOT think the turbo-4-cylinder in the CX-7 is more highly stressed needs to think about how difficult it is to engineer piston rings to hold back blowby while allowing a tiny amount of oil to keep the cylinder walls from wearing down, exacerbated by high combustion pressures in a turbo. Also think about how smaller crankshaft main bearing area has to handle lots of horsepower/torque in a small engine compared to a V6. Then think of head gasket design difficulties, partially compensated for by using more bolts, but still a difficult engineering issue over the life of a vehicle. One more: the valves have to take the extra beating of high combustion pressures in the 4-banger. Still not convinced? Time will tell.
  • So, after 60-some-odd years with turbos, you don't think "time has told" yet? ;) You can think of all the technical intricacies you want, but my response would be simple: modern engineering. All the things you mention play a part, but guys have been doing this engine stuff a lo-o-o-ng time. Over the ages, technology improves, engineering gets better, stresses increase, tolerances get tighter. No big whoop. It's all part of getting more power from the same amount of fuel.
  • We did already have this discussion, but it was mostly people (probably me included :blush:) taunting their favorite flavor of CUV with some random spec-sheet numbers being thrown around. There is no question that the RAV4 V6 is quicker than the CX-7 in a straight line (sorry, Vince!). But it is all just numbers... if the butt behind the wheel thinks their CUV is "sporty enough," then it is.
  • And don't forget the 4-banger is either shaking (... and baking -- Ricky Bobby) or working against the balance shaft, adding more stress. Modern engineering helps turbo-4's, to be sure, but the V6's are smoother and also have modern engineering. Go with normally-aspirated V6's in this comparo forum.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    with some random spec-sheet numbers being thrown around...

    Well, no, they are not random! People select numbers to bolster their case. Otherwise, they run the risk of contradicting themselves. ;)

    tidester, host
  • Yup, maybe you're right. You know, it'd be ridiculous to opt for anything but an IRON BLOCK (aluminum is too flimsy and soft) V-12 (V6s aren't perfectly balanced) with a CARBURETOR (electronic fuel injection is not as fail-safe as a good ol' mechanical choke 4-barrel).

    Should we get rid of hydraulic brakes, too? C'mon.
  • Yeah, I'm probably as guilty as the next guy at mixing-and-matching test results from different magazines... Whatever makes the Mazda "turning circle diameter" look the best! :shades:
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    And don't forget the 4-banger is either shaking (... and baking -- Ricky Bobby) or working against the balance shaft, adding more stress.

    That is not really true. V6's place the same stress. You are forgetting that all 4 pistons are NOT going in the same direction, at the same time, therefor reducing stress, and add constant power delivery. All engines are designed that way.
  • Does anybody know if the CX-7 4-cylinder actually does have one or two balance shafts? I would think it has to have it, given the extra shaking inherent with that configuration.

    Thing is, if it does have a balance shaft (or two shafts) then internal push/pull stress is set up. Bottom line is that technology can help quite a bit, but a modern 60-degree V-angle V6 is very balanced and even-firing compared to a 4.
  • Ive read some but not all. All i can say is that MISinformation is the WORST information one can look at.

    The facts are, the CX-7 IS NOT a Ford, The Edge is its own iteration of the 7 but completely different

    The FORD is extremely overpriced & overweight. And other than being an iteration of the Mazda, all comparisons to the Ford Edge should end there. They are not the same vehicle, not even close. And if you are going to spend 35k plus on one, short of the "I support America" motive, you need your head examined
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    you need your head examined

    We usually relegate psychoanalysis to other venues.

    but completely different

    I think it would be insane to compare vehicles that were completely the same! ;)

    tidester, host
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Posts: 498
    I'm the guy who originally requested that the Edge be added to this discussion group. Purpose of this particular discussion group is to help consumers weigh the similarities, differences, advantanges, disadvantages amongst similar vehicles loosely grouped under a the Crossover Utility Vehicle Category. The CX-7 and Edge have similar underpinnings and in fact, they bear a resemblance to one another, i.e. cousins. Add the Lincoln MKX, since it too is similar. Checkout the Ford website, and you'll see links to Mazda. All one big happy family.

    Vince aka Mr. CX-7 :)
  • Looked at the Rav4 and hated the rear door that hinges to the side with the spare hanging off of it due to my last car being a crv. this design is terrible, especially when you are unpacking the car in the garage.......

    btw - I am a CX-7 owner.
  • markanmarkan Posts: 48
    Does anyone know why the RAV 4 rear door hinges to the side? Is there any advantage to this design? After having several vehicles with top opening rear doors I can not imagine any reason for side opening other than for a really short person. Present RAV 4 owners please enlighten me. We're just starting to comparison shop for a CUV.
  • d_hyperd_hyper Posts: 130
    Is it because there's an extra wheel = mass on it, so it'd be very heavy to maintain/use?!
  • mark19mark19 Posts: 123
    well the rav4 is from japan. they never changed the hinges when they came over here to the US! that's why it opens to the right. and it's quite annoying, friend of mine has one, forget about opening it in tight spaces (or if a car is behind you on the street).

    The hatch (opens up not to the side) idea of the backend is a much better idea..
  • philmophilmo Posts: 77
    Honda figured it out withe CR-V. Toyota's marketing dinks most likely wanted to be able to pimp the "Most-Glorious-Feature-of-Third-Row-Seat" (apologies to Borat). Useless except for a family of circus performers. The third row seat has to go somewhere when folded, which is the volume below the cargo deck that would otherwise be used for a spare tire. Wait... Mitsubishi figured that out with the Outlander which stows the tire below AND has a third row seat! Ok, maybe they wanted to amortize the hinge assembly used for the FJ-50 which has that manly-man look with the rear-mounted, exposed spare tire. Ok, last hypothesis... like Germans making fun of our penchant for cupholders -- maybe Japanese designers want to watch us parallel park AND load the cargo area by walking all the way around the front of the car and into the street.
  • markanmarkan Posts: 48
    Always wanted to go splat on the street while carrying Christmas gifts. Are there no RAV4 owners out there to defend and explain this stupid design?
  • steverstever Posts: 52,462
    Unless you live in Tribeca or maybe Reno, you probably don't parallel park that often anyway, especially when getting groceries or big box stuff. Places like Durango or Aspen probably don't even have parallel parking anymore (ok, wonder how many people searching for the B9 or the Kia Reno or the Dodges are gonna get irritated when they land in a tailgate thread? :P ).

    I prefer a hatch too, but I still have to open my garage door to load my rides from the rear so it's not that big an issue. You'd think it'd be pretty easy to swap the hinges and wiring though since they are already moving the steering wheel back and forth for different markets. Maybe it's a safety testing expense changing the hinges to the other side?
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Posts: 498
    I used to have a 04 RAV 4 and 04 Santa Fe and now the CX-7. All store their spares differently. I'm speculating, that it all hinges (pardon the pun) on cargo space.

    The RAV 4 put the spare on the door to gain more space. What's nice about that, is that getting to the tire to fix a flat is very easy.

    For the CRV, I'll bet the designers were thinking the same thing as Toyota's...maximize cargo space.

    Santa Fe stores theirs underneath (undercarriage). There's a big tray under the cargo panel for storing tools, etc. Unfortunately, that option is truly a pain the rear, when it comes changing a tire.

    For the CX-7, it underneath the cargo panel and even has some room to store tools, etc.

    It'll be interesting to see how the CX-9 stores its spare.

    Of the 3, I like Mazda's design the best.

  • cxrabbitcxrabbit Posts: 134
    I like Mazda's design best as well. That's also the same design my Toyota Matrix uses, and my previous Saturn Station Wagon (from a few years ago) used. It's very convenience, easy to get to, and doesn't interfere with hatch design.

    The way the door opened on the Rav is a big part of why I ruled the car out quickly. I DO go into NYC a lot and often parallel park no only in there, but around here. It was too easy to imagine not being able to access the hatch at all because of a stupid side opening door design.
  • philmophilmo Posts: 77
    Places like Aspen and Durango do, however, have folks that use their SUVs for Sports and Utility. To that end, standing around in the snow while putting on ski gear, or in a thunderstorm -- a daily ocurrance in the summer -- while putting on yer waders, or otherwise setting up a camp is much better with the lid up rather than hanging around on the side getting soaked. I'm not grinding on anybody here in the forum, I'm just cranky with Toyota for the design. At one point we thought we might really spoil ourselves with a Lexus GX lease but guess what? The rear door opens the same way as the RAV4!
This discussion has been closed.