I have rather enjoyed the nav system so far. Navteq is the company used and they supply software to a LOT of car manufacturers. Like I mentioned earlier, I would like live-traffic reportion though (or at least the ability to add it).
As for premium gas - do most folks realize that it's really only going to cost a few dollars more at the pump. If you're that concerned about a few dollars, you should be more concerned about gas mileage, not the difference from regular to premium... and probably shouldn't be looking at a CUV/SUV to begin with.
Bose Speakers: 2 for the rear passengers don't cut it. I could barely hear anything coming from the rears. Everything was coming from the fronts and I adjusted the audio controls.
Navigation: GPS is a hobby of mine. Navteq is very reputable and I trust them, IF it is the provider, and if it is, it is clearly an OLD version because Garmin uses Navteq software in their portable GPS Nav Units are not as dated as in the Mazda. Even some of my 4 year old Garmin software which uses Navteq has better maps or more current maps than in the Mazda. NO EXCUSE for using outdated software.
Heated Seats: No, it's not integrated with the climate control, at least not in the vehicle I drove.
Premium gas: It's a lot more than a few dollars per tank, at least where I live where it is around $5 a tank more where I live. In any case, the cost adds up very quickly.
The dealer also said that the Q7 has "more than it's fair share" of problems.
Hmmmm, maybe the CX-7 you got loaned was less loaded than you thought?
The CX-7 with Bose also has speakers in the cargo compartment body pillars, up high, facing forward. Maybe they weren't working in your car.
All things considered, this is the first car I've ever bought where I wasn't compelled to immediately put a new stereo in it. So it works for me, although I'm probably only a borderline "audiophile" in the grand scheme of things.
Well since this is a "what would you change" thread, here is my input: Driver storage for stuff like cell phone, sunglasses, mp3 player is not very good in this vehicle. Right now, I keep my sunglasses in that little space forward of the stick, my cel phone in one of the cup holders, and when I get the FM interface for my mp3 player, not sure where I will keep that. The center storage unit is very cavernous, but not very convenient for the driver to use in transit.
Oh yeah, how about an audio input jack for my mp3 player????
Also, no light in glove cpmpartment?? no light on passenger mirror???
Heated Seats: "The seat temperature is regulated automatically by the thermostat. Other than turning it on or off, it cannot be adjusted." (from the manual)
Premium Gas: Don't know where you live, but by me it averages 20 cents more per gallon (up from 87/regular). If you're filling the entire tank (all 18.2 gallons, which you never do) it's $3.64 more. Does it add up over the course of time... sure. But not enough to gripe about. Like I said, if you're that worried about it, you shouldn't have bought an SUV.
All the TSBs on this car have been minor so far... and they've been addressed quickly. First-year cars always have "bugs".
I like to pay attention to that kind of stuff - some cars just cost more to put gas into, or to buy insurance for and sometimes you wind up with an oddball tire size that makes buying new tires more expensive down the road. Some people will comparison price water pumps or alternators between various models to get an idea of the relative expense of replacement parts.
It all adds up yet the only time you can really control what your future operating costs are going to be is to pay attention to them before purchase. (See True Cost to Own).
Affording the car itself isn't really the issue since you can pre-plan that expense for years.
Good news for our CX-7, winner to be announced January 7, 2007:
As for Truck of the Year, the jurors had a total of fifteen different "trucks" to choose from, including sport utility vehicles, pickups and crossovers. The nominees were Acuras MDX and RDX, the Audi Q7, BMWs new X5, the Chevrolet Tahoe/Suburban, the new Silverado, the Dodge Nitro, Fords Edge, the GMC Acadia, Honda CR-V, Hyundai Santa Fe, Mazda CX-7, Saturn VUE Green Line, and Toyotas FJ Cruiser. From that list, the three selected finalists that are moving on include the Silverado, the CX-7 and the Edge.
"Anyway, I just find it ironic that most of the "trucks" in the competition aren't trucks."
Carlitos brings up a good point. That's the problem with trying to pigeon-hole vehicles into nice and tidy categories. What is the exact standard for defining a car? A sports car? A truck? SUV? CUV? Station Wagon? A lot of SUVs are based on truck platforms, but then, a lot of SUVs are also based on car platforms.
For the CX-7, it has some qualities of a sports car, a SUV, a station wagon. I know, let's define a new category that fits the CX-7. "SPUVAGON" SPorts car, SUV, Station Wagon.
I can imagine how difficult it was for the sanctioning board for the North American International Auto Show to define it's categories.
It's all a moot point, really. Just glad to see that the CX-7 is amongst the finalists.
I always used to use whether it had a body-on-frame configuration to determine wther it was a truck or not. Ergo, the Corvette is a truck. :P
In all seriousness, Texas does not issue "Truck" plates for the CX-7 (like they do for pickups, etc.), so at least one government agency is in agreement with us.
I recently test drove the CX-7 Grand Touring AWD with the Technology Package. The local dealer allowed me to have this car for a weekend. The overall impression was quite positive, but we ended up leasing BMW X3. Besides the ridiculously high monthly payments that were higher than those of BMW's, there were several deal breakers:
- Lack of the trip computer: come on Mazda, it is very important to know miles to empty on the long trip.
- Highway gas mileage: driving almost 200 mi along a flat highway stretch with only two passengers (one child) and no cargo load I was able to get only 19 mpg. This is compared to 25 mpg for the 3.0L BMW X3.
- Heated seats were a joke. On the cold morning (32F) it took almost 15 min for the seats to get mildly warm.
- The navigation system is mediocre even when it is compared to a portable units, such as my Pioneer AVIC-S1.
Following threads on the Mazda Forum while still here in New Zealand :shades: , I noticed a reference to a computer update which talks about modifying some of the transmission problems that were talked about. Also taking care of some other minor details as well. So....... why not give your dealer a call about this.
"Lack of the trip computer: t is very important to know miles to empty on the long trip" -- You've really got to be kidding. I know some people have certain needs they prefer, and I can understand wanting a trip computer, but what you're expressing a need for is what a gas gauge is for.
"Highway gas mileage" -- You can't judge any car accurately until it's been broken in. Both of these cars are rated almostly identical according to the EPA so I'd expect in the real world them to get similar. I've heard of people getting 24-27 mpg on the highway with the Mazda.
"Heated seats were a joke" -- not sure what you experienced but mine heat up VERY quickly. Much less than 15 minutes!
"The navigation system is mediocre even when it is compared to a portable units, such as my Pioneer AVIC-S1" -- stick with the portable then, on either car, if you already have one. Why spend money on a tech package if you don't need it. I've also been pleasantly surprized with the nav system in the Mazda.
As for price, I don't know what kind of deal YOU got, but comparably equipped I ended up at $43K for the BMW. I got my CX-7 fully loaded for less than $30K. Only option I didn't get was AWD (I took FWD with traction control). AWD would have been $1250 more, which would have kept me at about $31K.
I also hope you know that predicted reliability for the X3 is consider "Fair" (one up from "Poor") and owner satisfaction is rated as "Good" (two down from "Excellent"). While buying a car new to the market it risky, I find it riskier to buy one that only rates as "Fair" in the reliability department, especially for that price.
Bought the AWD GT modelw/xenon,compass mirror and now have 3000 miles on the clock. Averaging 17.81 (you could say 18) MPG in 100% town driving. Haven't done any long distance yet. Window sticker says 18/24 mpg, so I'm getting "as advertised."
Like everything about the vehicle, except maybe could have more legroom for the rear passengers. Yes, of course, I wish it did 30 MPG , but for a nearly 4000 lb. vehicle w/ AWD, 18 in town is probably about average for the class of vehicle.
The Cx-7 had the best handling, braking , cornering of everything I test drove and so far, besides the replacement gas cap, no problems to report.
Hold your horses, cxrabbit! I understand that you love your CX-7, but please read my post carefully.
"You've really got to be kidding. I know some people have certain needs they prefer, and I can understand wanting a trip computer, but what you're expressing a need for is what a gas gauge is for". -- Obviously, you do not much of a long traveling. Let me ask you, you have less than a quarter of tank gas left: how far do you think you could go? Should you stop now and get 92 octane grade, the highest that you could get from Thornton's, or you would rather drove another 30-40 miles to get 93 Premium from Shell?
That brings us to the Navigation System: "...stick with the portable then, on either car, if you already have one. Why spend money on a tech package if you don't need it. I've also been pleasantly surprised with the nav system in the Mazda ". -- I would assume, you do not use your navi system very often. If you did, than you would know a difference between portable and in-car navigation systems. First and more obvious, the screen size: the bigger screen in in-car systems allows you to see much info at higher resolution along your planned route, such as gas different gas stations that I have mentioned above. Second, the size of a memory chip or a hard drive (30 Gb in the new Mitsubishi Outlander)will be a major determinant of how elaborate and useful will your navigation system: the bigger, the more POIs, the better. Another advantage of having in-car navigation system is its location. In some states, it is illegal to drive a vehicle with the windshield mounted devices. Not to mention that some people could get to curious and take your system with them.
"As for price, I don't know what kind of deal YOU got, but comparably equipped I ended up at $43K for the BMW. I got my CX-7 fully loaded for less than $30K. Only option I didn't get was AWD (I took FWD with traction control). AWD would have been $1250 more, which would have kept me at about $31K ". -- Please read my original post: I was referring to the difference in the lease monthly payments, not the price of two cars. Basically, when you lease a car, you pay only for what you have used: therefore, the higher residual values, the lower you monthly payments will be.
"Highway gas mileage" -- You can't judge any car accurately until it's been broken in. Both of these cars are rated almostly identical according to the EPA so I'd expect in the real world them to get similar. I've heard of people getting 24-27 mpg on the highway with the Mazda." -- When i was comparing CX-7 and X3, I was comparing apples to apples, to cars(trucks) with 200-300 miles on them. Following your own logic, X3 should be even more fuel efficient, as compared to CX-7 as it breaks in.
"I also hope you know that predicted reliability for the X3 is consider "Fair" (one up from "Poor") and owner satisfaction is rated as "Good" (two down from "Excellent"). While buying a car new to the market it risky, I find it riskier to buy one that only rates as "Fair" in the reliability department, especially for that price". --I am not sure what reliability ratings your are talking about. Look at JD Power's and see for yourself. X3 is rated above average in all the categories.
Finally, I was making my comments regarding potential CX-7 improvements in a hope that the above obvious weaknesses in the overall nice car will be addressed in the not so near future. It is a shame that Mazda overlooked them. That is how I understand the scope of this forum. It is not about "my car is better than yours".
Therefore, relax and enjoy your ride. You made your choice and I made mine. There is nothing wrong with that.
"Obviously, you do not much of a long traveling. Let me ask you, you have less than a quarter of tank gas left: how far do you think you could go? Should you stop now and get 92 octane grade, the highest that you could get from Thornton's, or you would rather drove another 30-40 miles to get 93 Premium from Shell?"
As someone who DOES do a lot of long traveling, I agree with cxrabbit. Once you get in tune with what your Mazda's range is, you don't need a trip computer. You just need more time with the car. For example, I put 2500 miles on my CX-7 in less than two weeks. Sure, I gave the "how far have I got to go" issue some thought, but never really had to WORRY about it, because even my short experience in the car told me what range I had left. And this was in Mexico and West Texas, where running out of gas would have been a much larger problem than what octane I got. Speaking of octane, my preference on a road trip has ALWAYS been lowest-cost, not highest octane. Your CX-7 really only needs 91 octane, so why worry about 92 vs. 93 when it's all going to be used up in a non-stop highway jaunt?
Dude, I do long-drives a lot (especially in the summer time), but guess what? We've all lived without trip computers for a very long time. Matter of fact, some of us have never had them at all. You figure out pretty quickly just how far you can go with your car by the GAS GAUGE (you know, that round thing in front of your steering wheel). BTW, it's recommended by all car manufacturers that you don't let your gas go down below 1/4 of a tank.
BTW, I believe in Australia the trip computer is already working on the CX-7. No doubt it will definitely be in the 2008 CX-7, and I wouldn't doubt it if it'll be available to be "turned on" through a software update on the 2007 in the near future. If you look at the instrument cluster on the upper dash, above the clock, you can see in the LCD darkness the character set is already there for it.
I also have been using nav systems for a long time. I came from doing it on a laptop, which is MUCH more detailed and bigger than portables or OEM. I know all the pro's and cons to each system. But you were the one comparing the CX-7's to a portable that was "better"... I merely stated, then stick with what you're already using. Yes, lots of POIs are useful, and the more the better, but NO system is perfect when it comes to that. Coming from a very comprehensive and expensive laptop nav system, I'm very happy with the CX-7 nav so far.
As for price - to each his/her own. I hate to lease. But the BMW is significantly more expensive.
MPG - you weren't comparing apples to apples. You were comparing two engines not yet broken in, one being a turbo, the other being a 6 cylinder. Check around for REAL world results from people driving both AFTER the break-in period. They are getting very similar results. Like I said, it's been reported right here in these forums some people on the highway are getting 23, 24, I've even seen 27mpg. Also, on a turbo, it's going to depend how you drive it.
Uh... I don't know what you're looking at on JD Powers, but the appeal was "better than most" and initial quality was rated "the rest" (the lowest possible score). http://www.jdpower.com/autos/BMW/X3/2007 Also, in the list it got high scores for MANUFACTURING but very low for DESIGN. It's not the prince you paint it to be.
and ps. Consumer Reports represents it as below average to buy as a used car, and it's used car verdict is "poor". Obviously, that's for older models, the 2006 seemed to do particularly bad in this area, which is probably why the 2007's predicted reliability is not so good.
but, hey, I know you love your new BMW. You're right, we both made our choices. I wasn't criticizing yours, but correcting your misrepresentations.
I went through my first car wash and the rear wiper got stripped off by the dryer vents. I went through a full service wash and was watching the car go through. They had put a plastic sleeve on the wiper arm - apparently to protect it from the brushes, but the sleeve ended up flapping in the wind of the dryer. Next thing, the whole wiper arm flopped right down. When I looked at it, the aluminum teeth on the mount had been stripped down. I could tighten it down again and it works, but now it happens every time through the wash. The manager offered to replace the wiper arm, but I don't see any point if it's just going to happen again. Seems like the Mazda engineers need to take the car through a wash once or twice to make sure it can get through without damage.
I can't complain about my mileage...we're consistently getting 21-22 in city/hwy mixed to and from work.
Things I would have liked improved upon:
Vanity Mirror Telescopic Wheel Pwr Pass. Seat Better heated seats - My acuras are much better IMO. Multi-funtion computer: Trip/MPG/Avg. Speed/Etc.
I'm sure there is more but with that said, I realize this isn't my Acura its a Mazda and its perfectly suitable for what we need...and my wife really likes it.
I double checked this forum title: still reads Mazda CX-7- what would you improve? not the CX-7 cheerleading contest. No car is perfect and there is always a room for an improvement: so, deal with it.
Please find below JD Powers links that rates 2007 X3 model as "among the best", and 2005 X3 model as "above average". Like you said, I am just correcting your misrepresentations.
As to the trip computer, it appears that Mazda is listening and this convenient feature will be available soon. It is all about convenience, not a necessity. Certainly, one could finally develop a good guess through trial and error, or make a habit to fill up a tank when it is half full, no matter what. But for the most people having a trip computer would me more convenient. Something like to have power windows and power locks. It is not a problem to roll your windows or lock your car manually, but it is more convenient if they are automatic. If you had a choice, would you opt for the automatic or stick with the manual ones?
Now, let us get to the four cylinder turbo vs normally aspirated six cylinder. As a rule of thumb, at the equal power and torque, four cylinder engine should be more fuel efficient. CX-7 is not alone, new Honda RDX also has not up to the par gas mileage. On the other hand, the VW/Audi 2.0L turbo is an exemplary.
I am glad that your are happy with Mazda navigation system. Again, it is a matter of a personal choice. That it is why there are so many different navi systems around.
"No car is perfect and there is always a room for an improvement"
Sure. Problem is you are going to run across people who disagree with what constitutes an "improvement." There are some who think the styling of the RDX would be an "improvement" to the CX-7. I don't. Likewise, you've stated your case about the trip computer, and there are at least a few of us that find it silly. Personally, if it adds $100 to the cost of the car, and/or adds buttons to my dash, I don't want it. At some point, when adding on options and improvements, you have to draw the line, or else you've morphed your "dream CX-7" into something else. Like a Murano. Yuck.
"On the other hand, the VW/Audi 2.0L turbo is an exemplary."
The VW/Audi 2.0T is an exemplary... example of an engine that doesn't put out 240 horsepower, that's what. Nor is it asked to cart around the same weight and vehicle form factor as the Mazda or Acura I4s. There may be some truth to a 4 being more efficient than a 6 because of less internal friction, etc., but you're going to have to find a better apples-to-apples comparison than the 2.0T.
But anyway, back to the cheerleading contest... :P
Not that it's your fault, but the JD Powers site (not the info, the site itself) sucks. LOL.
I already linked to JD's info on the 2007 BMW X3. Don't just look at the first page. Look at the page with all the JD Power ratings: http://www.jdpower.com/autos/BMW/X3/2007
and this backs up exactly what I said.
You can't just pick the "overview" page and claim it rates the best. Like I said, in manufacturing, according to JD, it did good. But in design it did bad. And according to consumer reports, bad.
Something well worth considering these days is where the money goes. With Ford's 33% holding of Mazda, a significant portion of Mazda profits comes back to USA.
It is nice to hear from you again, cx rabbit! I missed you!
Surely, I can use the "overview" rating as a summary (overall) vehicle quality rating. That is what the overview rating is for. The overall rating could be braked down into subcategories, such as manufacturing and design quality.
There is also a significant difference between the manufacturing quality and the design quality. The former reflects as how mechanical parts are produced put together at the manufacturing plant, as well as how the whole unit performs in the vehicle. The latter tells you how well this unit had been designed. When you see the highest manufacturing rating combined with not so good of the design one, it might indicate mostly some inconvenient feature of the given unit, not its reliability. The good example of the latter could be the transmission shifter in the previous generation of Honda C-RV. The lever was protruding from a dashboard and mostly female drivers had thought it was a very awkward shifter placement because they often grabbed it by a blouse or blazer sleeves while trying to adjust radio controls. Was there a major transmission reliability problem? Not at all.
In my original post I have cited the reasons for not purchasing CX-7. I have not provided the reasons for choosing BMW X3 instead (except better lease offers and In think that Mazda also needs to address it in order to attract more buyers), because it was beyond the scope of this forum. You keep on switching a discussion from the CX-7 drawbacks to the BMW reliability ratings. My advice: stick to the topic of this forum or go to the CX-7 vs X3 comparison one.
Not sure I understand the low 19/24 mpg-epa rating. My last three vehicles achieved or exceeded the epa rating so I presume the CX7 will do the same for me. I think that Toyotas V6 3.5L-263hp-30 mpg highway is outstanding. The RAV4 V6 is about the same size and weight as the CX7 so why the big difference in mileage and the CX7 requires 91 Octane fuel. I wish the CX7 had the Toyota V6. That way we could have the sportyness of the CX7 and the preformance (read 0-60 in 6.2s) and very good gas mileage. Ed
Hello? I think the number one reason for choosing an X3 over a CX-7 is probably that one has $10,000 extra to blow. Features, leases, reliability, and all that aside, there is no more comparability between an X3 and a CX-7 than there is a 335i and a Jetta. But if you have buckets of cash to spend on a smallish, on-road CUV, more power to ya.
I am considering purchasing a cx-9. Many features are identical. I am wondering from those of you who have cx-7s, do you think the $1200 is worth it for the AWD or can I do without it considering the traction control, stability control, EBD all come on the FWD?
Well, I doubt any of us own BOTH an AWD AND a FWD, so I'd bet we've all made our decisions and believe that we're right. I only get 2-3 ice days a year, but still felt like the AWD was worth it. On the other hand, some of my neighbors in North Texas might think it's overkill... To each his own.
What part of the country do you live in? Weather is really the biggest and maybe only factor that I can see for choosing the AWD. Even the FWD would do fine on dirt roads, unless it rains a lot and they turn to muck.
No Matroskin, I was countering all your CX-7 "downsides" originally. YOU were the one to compare it to the BMW when you said you bought one INSTEAD of the CX-7 because blah blah blah.
As for reliability, I can clearly see the BMW has some issues, according to both JD Powers and Consumer Reports ratings. If you cannot, your ignorance is bliss and more power to ya. Sometimes it's better that way from a "why I spent X dollar more for this car vs. that one".
Good luck with your new car (not being sarcastic). We should ALL enjoy our new cars.
Please find above a link to the recent Edmunds 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander full-test article. It states that Mitsu V6 has averaged 18.6 mpg, Toyota RAV4 V6-19.3 mpg, and Mazda CX-7 only 16.6 mpg.
It supports my notion, as well as erhayes on this forum, that CX-7 gas mileage is not up to par.
LOL considering I just got a little better than 18 (18.18 to be exact) I'm not too worried. With ANY Turbo it's going to matter more how you drive it than non-Turbo cars.
"TomTom or Garmin Nuvi" I feel like a lot of people are split on this one. It depends on what you are looking for. I used to be back and forth between these two but now that TomTom updated it's north american maps I would def go with TT. I would do either the TT 510 or 910 if you are looking for the best possible gps for the least amount of money!
I've owned my CX-7 for almost a month, and these are the things I wish it had: Speedometer Calibration at lower speeds iPod Integration Rear Vents for heater & AC Lighted Vanity Mirrors Passenger Seat Automatic Controls Center Storage Compartment - ditch it. (an open space there would be leg room for the middle person in the back and a spot for purses).
Even with all that, when it comes to driving & handling & zoom-zoom, it rocks!! :shades:
- Change the horn beep when you arm the alarm. I really don't need to wake the neighbors when I arm late at night. A nice pleasant beep would do.
- Someone mentioned a trip computer and MPG readout. I'd like that too and it's curious because if you look closely at the LED panel on top of the dash, there are clearly lights for that very thing.
I would like to also vote for a trip computer accessory. At first I wondered how you would toggle the computer, but then I remembered that there are several slots available for buttons next to the TCS Off button that could be used to control the computer. I'd also like to see an ambient temperature readout for the non-GT models. I believe the 3 has this, i.e. just a constant readout of the outside temp if you don't have the auto climate control, as an accessory option.
I'd cross-shopped the Ford Edge when I bought our CX-7, and wished it had the trip computer that I'd seen on the Edge (and elsewhere).
I did purchase and install a ScanGauge II to help with this. Five minutes to install, and now I have miles-to-empty, miles-on-this-tank, MPG instant/current trip/day/tank readouts, and a bunch of other function (like reading CEL codes and resetting them if you choose).
But it would be nice to have some of this function included. Along with MP3-device integration, bluetooth, lighted mirrors, and power passenger seat.
i have a 2008 cx-7 GT / improvements cabin noise is high, car needs major improvement in that area specially at low speeds. radio & HVAC system in car, Mazda guys you have way too many buttons. make it nice and simple. the back seat is a bit cramp. base audio system sucks, bose system is mediocre and not worth the money. improve the gas mileage, currently there are other SUV that have better mileage. I own a 2007 crv-lx and It gives me 21 miles a gallon on every day driving.
Is anyone having a problem with vibrations coming from the arm rest on the driver and passenger doors? The plastic-on-plastic by the window controls makes for very loud and annoying vibrations with the slightest bass. When I physically push the side moulding towards the door, it tightens the contact between the two pieces and dampens the vibrations a bit, but not completely. The part furthest towards the back of the vehicle is made of cushioned rubber, and there are no vibrations whatsoever from that area. If the entire piece were made out of this, or if there was a rubber buffer between the two pieces of plastic, there shouldn't be any problems. Overall I love the vehicle, but this "minor" problem has proved incredibly annoying and a "major" disappointment. I bought the Bose system for a reason and now I can't listen to it without this constant buzzing. Other things I would change would obviously be mp3 integration, manually adjustable heated seats, and I am also having the problem with very long heat/cool times with the heater and the A/C. This morning it was 5 F up here in Green Bay, and although I warmed my car for 15 mins before I left, the heat did not really kick in for a good 7-10 mins AFTER I started driving. The A/C is the same, and really never gets ice cold.I have the GT AWD loaded except the Technology package, and as this is my first brand new vehicle, I am extremely pleased with the performance, but the construction of the inside components and the heater/AC really disappoints me. Seems cheap for a vehicle like this.
Overall I am very pleased with the vehicle. But there is always room for improvements in every car. My personal suggestions: (1) Slightly higher, (lower numerically) gear ratios for 4th thru 6th gears, particularly for 6th. Perhaps half of my mileage is on interstates, (daughter 800 miles away). The engine turns at about 2,600 rpm at 75 mph. Would prefer something closer to 2000, as in the GM crossovers with their 3.6 V6 and 6 speed. Would lower noise levels at speed, and improve highway mileage. Trade off for the CX-7 Turbo, (to keep the engine rpm in the optimum power range), would be the necessity to downshift a little more frequently on steep grades and in passing maneuvers. I would be more than willing to accept that. (2) Memory positions on driver seat, and power functions for the passenger seat. Should be standard on GT, and in option package on Touring model. Not even a consideration on my MX-5 where I am the driver over 90% of the time. But a consideration in the CX-7 where my wife and I share the driving duties. I am sure the demographics of the CX-7 would show that most are in two driver homes. (3) Lighted vanity mirrors- so far my wife's only complaint. (4) A one hour dealer course in operating the Technology System. I am partially kidding here; but I am still learning the system, and consult the owner's manual all the time. But then, like my MX-5, I am sure that I am in an age group "slightly" higher than the norm for the CX-7, ( 63 next month ). My 25 year old son was dancing across the screens in less than 10 minutes. (5) Lighted glove compartment; again for my interstate trips. Lights over rear view mirror are too distracting at night. I do like the blue indirect light over the dash and console. (6) Regular gas. Zoom Zoom not withstanding. As gas prices climb over $3.00 a gallon, this is a major consideration. If the local Saturn dealer hadn't been so greedy, ($1,900 higher on comparably equipped Vue Redline), I would have been driving another vehicle.
I have been driving the car for 6 weeks and I have put 1500 miles on the odometer. this is my list (Mazda-Engineers please read this post) 1-engine management computer (similar to what Honda has on their cars) this is nice because it provides info to the driver reagrding fuel consumption, avg-miles, oil life and it even lets the driver know if the car requires maintenance) Mazda engineers could have added that at no greater cost. 2-sound dampening all over, the car is noisy, I live in NYC and the roads in Manhattan are full of pot holes and the road noise transfers itself right into the cabin. Such is the lack of dampening material that even when you have the windows closed and I listen to the AM-radio news, people within 15 feet of my car can hear the radio.(Oh did I mentioned my windows were closed!) 3-back seat is cramp for adult passengers, ok for kids. The car could have had more leg room in the back but the odd shape and layout of the back decreases rear passanger. 4-Windshiled washer noozles could spray more fluid not just at the lower part of the windshield, the way the system disperses the windshield washer fluid is not effective. Surprizing it is even worst in the back. If Honda can get it right in their cars, why not Mazda. I dont think I am asking for too much! 5-MAZDA ENGINEERS DO YOU LOOK AT THE COMPETITION????? If Honda and Nissan get it right, why are you guys not getting the basics correct? The car lacks ergonomics when compared to a car like a Honda CRV. True the CX-7 has more ZOOM power, but the cabin comforts are just not there. Trust me I know what I am talking about because I have been driving Hondas since 1996. The competition has evolved and so should you.
I got sports model with moonroof option(cd changer and power seat) after comparing ford edge and hyundai santa fe. I like it so far especially sporty design BUT it lack some of basic stuff that other competitors have.
1. trip computer---> i ordered scangauge for $160 !! -.-
2. crazy horn when I arm the alarm..: just gentle beep sound would do it
3. glove compartment should have Light: come on it's BASIC for every car lighted mirror also
4. sunglass compartment: don't understand there's room for it but why not installed them in factory? Is there any body who tried to install overhead sunglass compartment from any other model like cx-9 or any other make? I'd like to insall it right away.....
5. more rooms for small stuff : double console cover or small compartments on the dash board or under the air control panel
============ 6. better quality ipod or other type of mp3 audio connector
7. heated seat for sports model
8. dimming & turn signal side mirrors
all in all, I like this car in general especially "lexus like" (back side) exterior design but I think I would consider other makes for my mext car
For the CX-7 Db @ Idle: 40.9 Db @ Full Throttle: 74.4 Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 69.5 Rogue Db @ Idle: 42.4 Db @ Full Throttle: 81 Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 70.8 McCR-V Db @ Idle: 40.7 Db @ Full Throttle: 72.5 Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 67.1
Ok so it's not the quietest at 70MPH but seriously it's in your head.
Comments
As for premium gas - do most folks realize that it's really only going to cost a few dollars more at the pump. If you're that concerned about a few dollars, you should be more concerned about gas mileage, not the difference from regular to premium... and probably shouldn't be looking at a CUV/SUV to begin with.
Navigation: GPS is a hobby of mine. Navteq is very reputable and I trust them, IF it is the provider, and if it is, it is clearly an OLD version because Garmin uses Navteq software in their portable GPS Nav Units are not as dated as in the Mazda. Even some of my 4 year old Garmin software which uses Navteq has better maps or more current maps than in the Mazda. NO EXCUSE for using outdated software.
Heated Seats: No, it's not integrated with the climate control, at least not in the vehicle I drove.
Premium gas: It's a lot more than a few dollars per tank, at least where I live where it is around $5 a tank more where I live. In any case, the cost adds up very quickly.
The dealer also said that the Q7 has "more than it's fair share" of problems.
Just passing the info along to y'all.
The CX-7 with Bose also has speakers in the cargo compartment body pillars, up high, facing forward. Maybe they weren't working in your car.
All things considered, this is the first car I've ever bought where I wasn't compelled to immediately put a new stereo in it. So it works for me, although I'm probably only a borderline "audiophile" in the grand scheme of things.
Oh yeah, how about an audio input jack for my mp3 player????
Also, no light in glove cpmpartment?? no light on passenger mirror???
btw - I still love the car.......
Navigation: The version of the map, going on memory, say 2006, but I'll double check that later when I'm in the car.
Conference call about earnings state that Navteq indeed supplies the navigation ("NAVTEQ-enabled in dash systems were offered for the first time in Q2 on all the new Audi 67, Mercedes Benz GL Class, and Mazda’s CX7.")
Heated Seats: "The seat temperature is regulated automatically by the thermostat. Other than turning it on or off, it cannot be adjusted." (from the manual)
Premium Gas: Don't know where you live, but by me it averages 20 cents more per gallon (up from 87/regular). If you're filling the entire tank (all 18.2 gallons, which you never do) it's $3.64 more. Does it add up over the course of time... sure. But not enough to gripe about. Like I said, if you're that worried about it, you shouldn't have bought an SUV.
All the TSBs on this car have been minor so far... and they've been addressed quickly. First-year cars always have "bugs".
I like to pay attention to that kind of stuff - some cars just cost more to put gas into, or to buy insurance for and sometimes you wind up with an oddball tire size that makes buying new tires more expensive down the road. Some people will comparison price water pumps or alternators between various models to get an idea of the relative expense of replacement parts.
It all adds up yet the only time you can really control what your future operating costs are going to be is to pay attention to them before purchase. (See True Cost to Own).
Affording the car itself isn't really the issue since you can pre-plan that expense for years.
As for Truck of the Year, the jurors had a total of fifteen different "trucks" to choose from, including sport utility vehicles, pickups and crossovers. The nominees were Acuras MDX and RDX, the Audi Q7, BMWs new X5, the Chevrolet Tahoe/Suburban, the new Silverado, the Dodge Nitro, Fords Edge, the GMC Acadia, Honda CR-V, Hyundai Santa Fe, Mazda CX-7, Saturn VUE Green Line, and Toyotas FJ Cruiser. From that list, the three selected finalists that are moving on include the Silverado, the CX-7 and the Edge.
Vince.
Anyway, I just find it ironic that most of the "trucks" in the competition aren't trucks.
Vince.
Carlitos brings up a good point. That's the problem with trying to pigeon-hole vehicles into nice and tidy categories. What is the exact standard for defining a car? A sports car? A truck? SUV? CUV? Station Wagon? A lot of SUVs are based on truck platforms, but then, a lot of SUVs are also based on car platforms.
For the CX-7, it has some qualities of a sports car, a SUV, a station wagon. I know, let's define a new category that fits the CX-7. "SPUVAGON" SPorts car, SUV, Station Wagon.
I can imagine how difficult it was for the sanctioning board for the North American International Auto Show to define it's categories.
It's all a moot point, really. Just glad to see that the CX-7 is amongst the finalists.
Vince.
In all seriousness, Texas does not issue "Truck" plates for the CX-7 (like they do for pickups, etc.), so at least one government agency is in agreement with us.
- Lack of the trip computer: come on Mazda, it is very important to know miles to empty on the long trip.
- Highway gas mileage: driving almost 200 mi along a flat highway stretch with only two passengers (one child) and no cargo load I was able to get only 19 mpg. This is compared to 25 mpg for the 3.0L BMW X3.
- Heated seats were a joke. On the cold morning (32F) it took almost 15 min for the seats to get mildly warm.
- The navigation system is mediocre even when it is compared to a portable units, such as my Pioneer AVIC-S1.
Matroskin
So....... why not give your dealer a call about this.
NMK
cx-7 GT AWD w/Nav. Darth Vader Grey
"Highway gas mileage" -- You can't judge any car accurately until it's been broken in. Both of these cars are rated almostly identical according to the EPA so I'd expect in the real world them to get similar. I've heard of people getting 24-27 mpg on the highway with the Mazda.
"Heated seats were a joke" -- not sure what you experienced but mine heat up VERY quickly. Much less than 15 minutes!
"The navigation system is mediocre even when it is compared to a portable units, such as my Pioneer AVIC-S1" -- stick with the portable then, on either car, if you already have one. Why spend money on a tech package if you don't need it. I've also been pleasantly surprized with the nav system in the Mazda.
As for price, I don't know what kind of deal YOU got, but comparably equipped I ended up at $43K for the BMW. I got my CX-7 fully loaded for less than $30K. Only option I didn't get was AWD (I took FWD with traction control). AWD would have been $1250 more, which would have kept me at about $31K.
I also hope you know that predicted reliability for the X3 is consider "Fair" (one up from "Poor") and owner satisfaction is rated as "Good" (two down from "Excellent"). While buying a car new to the market it risky, I find it riskier to buy one that only rates as "Fair" in the reliability department, especially for that price.
Like everything about the vehicle, except maybe could have more legroom for the rear passengers. Yes, of course, I wish it did 30 MPG , but for a nearly 4000 lb. vehicle w/ AWD, 18 in town is probably about average for the class of vehicle.
The Cx-7 had the best handling, braking , cornering of everything I test drove and so far, besides the replacement gas cap, no problems to report.
"You've really got to be kidding. I know some people have certain needs they prefer, and I can understand wanting a trip computer, but what you're expressing a need for is what a gas gauge is for". -- Obviously, you do not much of a long traveling. Let me ask you, you have less than a quarter of tank gas left: how far do you think you could go? Should you stop now and get 92 octane grade, the highest that you could get from Thornton's, or you would rather drove another 30-40 miles to get 93 Premium from Shell?
That brings us to the Navigation System: "...stick with the portable then, on either car, if you already have one. Why spend money on a tech package if you don't need it. I've also been pleasantly surprised with the nav system in the Mazda ". -- I would assume, you do not use your navi system very often. If you did, than you would know a difference between portable and in-car navigation systems. First and more obvious, the screen size: the bigger screen in in-car systems allows you to see much info at higher resolution along your planned route, such as gas different gas stations that I have mentioned above. Second, the size of a memory chip or a hard drive (30 Gb in the new Mitsubishi Outlander)will be a major determinant of how elaborate and useful will your navigation system: the bigger, the more POIs, the better. Another advantage of having in-car navigation system is its location. In some states, it is illegal to drive a vehicle with the windshield mounted devices. Not to mention that some people could get to curious and take your system with them.
"As for price, I don't know what kind of deal YOU got, but comparably equipped I ended up at $43K for the BMW. I got my CX-7 fully loaded for less than $30K. Only option I didn't get was AWD (I took FWD with traction control). AWD would have been $1250 more, which would have kept me at about $31K ". -- Please read my original post: I was referring to the difference in the lease monthly payments, not the price of two cars. Basically, when you lease a car, you pay only for what you have used: therefore, the higher residual values, the lower you monthly payments will be.
"Highway gas mileage" -- You can't judge any car accurately until it's been broken in. Both of these cars are rated almostly identical according to the EPA so I'd expect in the real world them to get similar. I've heard of people getting 24-27 mpg on the highway with the Mazda." -- When i was comparing CX-7 and X3, I was comparing apples to apples, to cars(trucks) with 200-300 miles on them. Following your own logic, X3 should be even more fuel efficient, as compared to CX-7 as it breaks in.
"I also hope you know that predicted reliability for the X3 is consider "Fair" (one up from "Poor") and owner satisfaction is rated as "Good" (two down from "Excellent"). While buying a car new to the market it risky, I find it riskier to buy one that only rates as "Fair" in the reliability department, especially for that price". --I am not sure what reliability ratings your are talking about. Look at JD Power's and see for yourself. X3 is rated above average in all the categories.
Finally, I was making my comments regarding potential CX-7 improvements in a hope that the above obvious weaknesses in the overall nice car will be addressed in the not so near future. It is a shame that Mazda overlooked them. That is how I understand the scope of this forum. It is not about "my car is better than yours".
Therefore, relax and enjoy your ride. You made your choice and I made mine. There is nothing wrong with that.
Cheers,
Matroskin
As someone who DOES do a lot of long traveling, I agree with cxrabbit. Once you get in tune with what your Mazda's range is, you don't need a trip computer. You just need more time with the car. For example, I put 2500 miles on my CX-7 in less than two weeks. Sure, I gave the "how far have I got to go" issue some thought, but never really had to WORRY about it, because even my short experience in the car told me what range I had left. And this was in Mexico and West Texas, where running out of gas would have been a much larger problem than what octane I got. Speaking of octane, my preference on a road trip has ALWAYS been lowest-cost, not highest octane. Your CX-7 really only needs 91 octane, so why worry about 92 vs. 93 when it's all going to be used up in a non-stop highway jaunt?
Anyway, enjoy your ride.
BTW, I believe in Australia the trip computer is already working on the CX-7. No doubt it will definitely be in the 2008 CX-7, and I wouldn't doubt it if it'll be available to be "turned on" through a software update on the 2007 in the near future. If you look at the instrument cluster on the upper dash, above the clock, you can see in the LCD darkness the character set is already there for it.
I also have been using nav systems for a long time. I came from doing it on a laptop, which is MUCH more detailed and bigger than portables or OEM. I know all the pro's and cons to each system. But you were the one comparing the CX-7's to a portable that was "better"... I merely stated, then stick with what you're already using. Yes, lots of POIs are useful, and the more the better, but NO system is perfect when it comes to that. Coming from a very comprehensive and expensive laptop nav system, I'm very happy with the CX-7 nav so far.
As for price - to each his/her own. I hate to lease. But the BMW is significantly more expensive.
MPG - you weren't comparing apples to apples. You were comparing two engines not yet broken in, one being a turbo, the other being a 6 cylinder. Check around for REAL world results from people driving both AFTER the break-in period. They are getting very similar results. Like I said, it's been reported right here in these forums some people on the highway are getting 23, 24, I've even seen 27mpg. Also, on a turbo, it's going to depend how you drive it.
Uh... I don't know what you're looking at on JD Powers, but the appeal was "better than most" and initial quality was rated "the rest" (the lowest possible score).
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/BMW/X3/2007
Also, in the list it got high scores for MANUFACTURING but very low for DESIGN. It's not the prince you paint it to be.
and ps. Consumer Reports represents it as below average to buy as a used car, and it's used car verdict is "poor". Obviously, that's for older models, the 2006 seemed to do particularly bad in this area, which is probably why the 2007's predicted reliability is not so good.
but, hey, I know you love your new BMW. You're right, we both made our choices. I wasn't criticizing yours, but correcting your misrepresentations.
You might want to avoid taking your new CX-7 through tunnel car washes that employ those brushes. You'll end up with nasty swirl marks.
Better to go through those brushless car washes and then use a soft terry cloth to dry the car. A bit more work, but it saves the finish.
Vince.
Things I would have liked improved upon:
Vanity Mirror
Telescopic Wheel
Pwr Pass. Seat
Better heated seats - My acuras are much better IMO.
Multi-funtion computer: Trip/MPG/Avg. Speed/Etc.
I'm sure there is more but with that said, I realize this isn't my Acura its a Mazda and its perfectly suitable for what we need...and my wife really likes it.
I double checked this forum title: still reads Mazda CX-7- what would you improve? not the CX-7 cheerleading contest. No car is perfect and there is always a room for an improvement: so, deal with it.
Please find below JD Powers links that rates 2007 X3 model as "among the best", and 2005 X3 model as "above average". Like you said, I am just correcting your misrepresentations.
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/car-comparison/compare.aspx
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/used-car-ratings
As to the trip computer, it appears that Mazda is listening and this convenient feature will be available soon. It is all about convenience, not a necessity. Certainly, one could finally develop a good guess through trial and error, or make a habit to fill up a tank when it is half full, no matter what. But for the most people having a trip computer would me more convenient. Something like to have power windows and power locks. It is not a problem to roll your windows or lock your car manually, but it is more convenient if they are automatic. If you had a choice, would you opt for the automatic or stick with the manual ones?
Now, let us get to the four cylinder turbo vs normally aspirated six cylinder. As a rule of thumb, at the equal power and torque, four cylinder engine should be more fuel efficient. CX-7 is not alone, new Honda RDX also has not up to the par gas mileage. On the other hand, the VW/Audi 2.0L turbo is an exemplary.
I am glad that your are happy with Mazda navigation system. Again, it is a matter of a personal choice. That it is why there are so many different navi systems around.
Cheers,
Matroskin
Sure. Problem is you are going to run across people who disagree with what constitutes an "improvement." There are some who think the styling of the RDX would be an "improvement" to the CX-7. I don't. Likewise, you've stated your case about the trip computer, and there are at least a few of us that find it silly. Personally, if it adds $100 to the cost of the car, and/or adds buttons to my dash, I don't want it. At some point, when adding on options and improvements, you have to draw the line, or else you've morphed your "dream CX-7" into something else. Like a Murano. Yuck.
"On the other hand, the VW/Audi 2.0L turbo is an exemplary."
The VW/Audi 2.0T is an exemplary... example of an engine that doesn't put out 240 horsepower, that's what. Nor is it asked to cart around the same weight and vehicle form factor as the Mazda or Acura I4s. There may be some truth to a 4 being more efficient than a 6 because of less internal friction, etc., but you're going to have to find a better apples-to-apples comparison than the 2.0T.
But anyway, back to the cheerleading contest... :P
I already linked to JD's info on the 2007 BMW X3.
Don't just look at the first page. Look at the page with all the JD Power ratings:
http://www.jdpower.com/autos/BMW/X3/2007
and this backs up exactly what I said.
You can't just pick the "overview" page and claim it rates the best. Like I said, in manufacturing, according to JD, it did good. But in design it did bad. And according to consumer reports, bad.
Surely, I can use the "overview" rating as a summary (overall) vehicle quality rating. That is what the overview rating is for. The overall rating could be braked down into subcategories, such as manufacturing and design quality.
There is also a significant difference between the manufacturing quality and the design quality. The former reflects as how mechanical parts are produced put together at the manufacturing plant, as well as how the whole unit performs in the vehicle. The latter tells you how well this unit had been designed. When you see the highest manufacturing rating combined with not so good of the design one, it might indicate mostly some inconvenient feature of the given unit, not its reliability. The good example of the latter could be the transmission shifter in the previous generation of Honda C-RV. The lever was protruding from a dashboard and mostly female drivers had thought it was a very awkward shifter placement because they often grabbed it by a blouse or blazer sleeves while trying to adjust radio controls. Was there a major transmission reliability problem? Not at all.
In my original post I have cited the reasons for not purchasing CX-7. I have not provided the reasons for choosing BMW X3 instead (except better lease offers and In think that Mazda also needs to address it in order to attract more buyers), because it was beyond the scope of this forum. You keep on switching a discussion from the CX-7 drawbacks to the BMW reliability ratings. My advice: stick to the topic of this forum or go to the CX-7 vs X3 comparison one.
Cheers,
Matroskin
What part of the country do you live in? Weather is really the biggest and maybe only factor that I can see for choosing the AWD. Even the FWD would do fine on dirt roads, unless it rains a lot and they turn to muck.
As for reliability, I can clearly see the BMW has some issues, according to both JD Powers and Consumer Reports ratings. If you cannot, your ignorance is bliss and more power to ya. Sometimes it's better that way from a "why I spent X dollar more for this car vs. that one".
Good luck with your new car (not being sarcastic). We should ALL enjoy our new cars.
Yup, just a screenshot plus graphics program. Nothing fancy
Thanks!
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=118989?tid=edmun- ds.il.home.photopanel..2.*
Please find above a link to the recent Edmunds 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander full-test article. It states that Mitsu V6 has averaged 18.6 mpg, Toyota RAV4 V6-19.3 mpg, and Mazda CX-7 only 16.6 mpg.
It supports my notion, as well as erhayes on this forum, that CX-7 gas mileage is not up to par.
Cheers
BTW, did you hear, Business Week votes the CX-7 one of the best products for 2006?
http://images.businessweek.com/ss/06/12/1207_bestproducts/source/4.htm
BTW, I didn't hear the BMW mentioned in your list
Happy New Year!
Speedometer Calibration at lower speeds
iPod Integration
Rear Vents for heater & AC
Lighted Vanity Mirrors
Passenger Seat Automatic Controls
Center Storage Compartment - ditch it. (an open space there would be leg room for the middle person in the back and a spot for purses).
Even with all that, when it comes to driving & handling & zoom-zoom, it rocks!! :shades:
But here's a few things I'd change if I could:
- Change the horn beep when you arm the alarm. I really don't need to wake the neighbors when I arm late at night. A nice pleasant beep would do.
- Someone mentioned a trip computer and MPG readout. I'd like that too and it's curious because if you look closely at the LED panel on top of the dash, there are clearly lights for that very thing.
- Fix the CD shuffle-mode nonsense.
- Manual transmission.
- Rear seat air vents.
That's all I can think of right now.
I did purchase and install a ScanGauge II to help with this. Five minutes to install, and now I have miles-to-empty, miles-on-this-tank, MPG instant/current trip/day/tank readouts, and a bunch of other function (like reading CEL codes and resetting them if you choose).
But it would be nice to have some of this function included. Along with MP3-device integration, bluetooth, lighted mirrors, and power passenger seat.
cabin noise is high, car needs major improvement in that area specially at low speeds.
radio & HVAC system in car, Mazda guys you have way too many buttons.
make it nice and simple.
the back seat is a bit cramp. base audio system sucks, bose system is mediocre and not worth the money.
improve the gas mileage, currently there are other SUV that have better mileage.
I own a 2007 crv-lx and It gives me 21 miles a gallon on every day driving.
did you install it?
how much?
Other things I would change would obviously be mp3 integration, manually adjustable heated seats, and I am also having the problem with very long heat/cool times with the heater and the A/C. This morning it was 5 F up here in Green Bay, and although I warmed my car for 15 mins before I left, the heat did not really kick in for a good 7-10 mins AFTER I started driving. The A/C is the same, and really never gets ice cold.I have the GT AWD loaded except the Technology package, and as this is my first brand new vehicle, I am extremely pleased with the performance, but the construction of the inside components and the heater/AC really disappoints me. Seems cheap for a vehicle like this.
(1) Slightly higher, (lower numerically) gear ratios for 4th thru 6th gears, particularly for 6th. Perhaps half of my mileage is on interstates, (daughter 800 miles away). The engine turns at about 2,600 rpm at 75 mph. Would prefer something closer to 2000, as in the GM crossovers with their 3.6 V6 and 6 speed. Would lower noise levels at speed, and improve highway mileage. Trade off for the CX-7 Turbo, (to keep the engine rpm in the optimum power range), would be the necessity to downshift a little more frequently on steep grades and in passing maneuvers. I would be more than willing to accept that.
(2) Memory positions on driver seat, and power functions for the passenger seat.
Should be standard on GT, and in option package on Touring model. Not even a consideration on my MX-5 where I am the driver over 90% of the time. But a consideration in the CX-7 where my wife and I share the driving duties. I am sure the demographics of the CX-7 would show that most are in two driver homes.
(3) Lighted vanity mirrors- so far my wife's only complaint.
(4) A one hour dealer course in operating the Technology System. I am partially kidding here; but I am still learning the system, and consult the owner's manual all the time. But then, like my MX-5, I am sure that I am in an age group "slightly" higher than the norm for the CX-7, ( 63 next month ). My 25 year old son was dancing across the screens in less than 10 minutes.
(5) Lighted glove compartment; again for my interstate trips. Lights over rear view mirror are too distracting at night. I do like the blue indirect light over the dash and console.
(6) Regular gas. Zoom Zoom not withstanding. As gas prices climb over $3.00 a gallon, this is a major consideration. If the local Saturn dealer hadn't been so greedy, ($1,900 higher on comparably equipped Vue Redline), I would have been driving another vehicle.
1-engine management computer (similar to what Honda has on their cars) this is nice because it provides info to the driver reagrding fuel consumption, avg-miles, oil life and it even lets the driver know if the car requires maintenance) Mazda engineers could have added that at no greater cost.
2-sound dampening all over, the car is noisy, I live in NYC and the roads in Manhattan are full of pot holes and the road noise transfers itself right into the cabin. Such is the lack of dampening material that even when you have the windows closed and I listen to the AM-radio news, people within 15 feet of my car can hear the radio.(Oh did I mentioned my windows were closed!)
3-back seat is cramp for adult passengers, ok for kids. The car could have had more leg room in the back but the odd shape and layout of the back decreases rear passanger.
4-Windshiled washer noozles could spray more fluid not just at the lower part of the windshield, the way the system disperses the windshield washer fluid is not effective. Surprizing it is even worst in the back. If Honda can get it right in their cars, why not Mazda. I dont think I am asking for too much!
5-MAZDA ENGINEERS DO YOU LOOK AT THE COMPETITION?????
If Honda and Nissan get it right, why are you guys not getting the basics correct?
The car lacks ergonomics when compared to a car like a Honda CRV. True the CX-7 has more ZOOM power, but the cabin comforts are just not there. Trust me I know what I am talking about because I have been driving Hondas since 1996. The competition has evolved and so should you.
1. trip computer---> i ordered scangauge for $160 !! -.-
2. crazy horn when I arm the alarm..: just gentle beep sound would do it
3. glove compartment should have Light: come on it's BASIC for every car
lighted mirror also
4. sunglass compartment: don't understand there's room for it but why not installed them in factory?
Is there any body who tried to install overhead sunglass compartment from any other model like cx-9 or any other make? I'd like to insall it right away.....
5. more rooms for small stuff : double console cover or small compartments on the dash board or under the air control panel
============
6. better quality ipod or other type of mp3 audio connector
7. heated seat for sports model
8. dimming & turn signal side mirrors
all in all, I like this car in general especially "lexus like" (back side) exterior design but I think I would consider other makes for my mext car
Db @ Idle: 40.9
Db @ Full Throttle: 74.4
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 69.5
Rogue
Db @ Idle: 42.4
Db @ Full Throttle: 81
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 70.8
McCR-V
Db @ Idle: 40.7
Db @ Full Throttle: 72.5
Db @ 70 mph Cruise: 67.1
Ok so it's not the quietest at 70MPH but seriously it's in your head.