Outlander vs CX-7 vs Tribeca

medellinrobmedellinrob Member Posts: 7
edited March 2014 in Mazda
I've been reading reviews. But I have not made my mind yet, and I've already test-drove them...
I think I'll buy the CX-7 but I'm still not sure, perhaps I'm in love with the looks... The Outlander is great too. And I also have in mind the Subaru Tribeca... (Is the Tribeca worth the extra money? I have the money, but I believe I do not get as much for each dollar). What would you recommend? Why?

Thanks in advance!
«13456

Comments

  • medellinrobmedellinrob Member Posts: 7
    Forgot to mention.
    I'm looking for a reliable SUV/CUV that has amenities, technology, luxury and handles really well. I want a quick response from the engines too.
    I do not mind if the third row is small, or if the handles make noises. Also I really do not mind if it doesn't handle ok in snow, since It never snows here.

    Regards,
    Rob

    Note: English is not my first language, I apologize for any mistakes in any way.
  • wjbushsrwjbushsr Member Posts: 135
    No scholars here... As long as there is spellcheck, we're all perfect! :P

    For the money I got a lot in the way of my CX-7; stability control; standard! Traction control; Standard! Zoom Zoom... priceless! :shades:

    There are more "refined" interiors on the market, but none do it as well as the CX-7 for the price. Plus I've had mine for an entire year, June 8th, and I still don't have any creaks or rattles from my panels or doors. The downside of the CX-7 is the tires that came with mine, at 24k miles I had to switch to another brand entirely. The Yokohamas are much better for this car than the Bridgestones that came with it. {IMHO} ;)

    Good luck and welcome to the forum! :shades:
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    The '08 Tribeca has a larger, torque-friendly 3.6 engine that's designed to run on regular fuel. The gas mileage is expected to match or better that of the old 3.0, which used premium gas.

    As to whether it's worth the extra money? You'll need to drive them all and then decide for yourself if the 'Beca is worth it. I think it is. I much prefer the full-time AWD that the Subie has over the on-demand systems of the CX7 and Outlander.

    One more point. In many ways the Tribeca is more of a competitor for the larger CX9, and not the smaller CX7.

    Bob
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    I believe, the Outlander would be the best CUV for you.

    Reliable? Outlander is listed by Consumer reports among most reliable SUVs, but CX-7 and Tribeca are not there:
    CR Best and Worst Why? May be, cose is build entirely in Japan and has warranty much better vs. Mazda. Also check out reliability and quality ratings by real owners here at Edmunds.com. Outlander owners are still more satisfied:
    Mazda CX-7 Consumer Rating 8.9
    Mitsubishi Outlander Consumer Rating 9.2
    Subaru B9 Tribeca Consumer Rating 8.8

    Amenities, technology? Outlander beats in this department most of the SUVs priced up to $40K. Just check this comparison, it's Outlander vs. RAV4, but CX and Tribeca would not do any better against Outlander: comaprison

    Handling? I believe Outlander and CX-7 have better handling over Subaru.

    Engine? Outlander's V6 has plenty of horse power (220 hp) for it's size, which is, for instance, more even then Mercedes ML320 SUV (215 hp), while it weights much less.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> I much prefer the full-time AWD that the Subie has over the on-demand systems of the CX7 and Outlander.

    As for AWD, Outlander does have the full-time "AWD Lock" mode, which could be switched back to "AWD Auto" mode for better fuel economy: it's great to have this choice and flexibility! Also Mitsubishi known as a great off-road brand, winning 12 Dakar rallies! Subaru could not make even one win.
  • rcpaxrcpax Member Posts: 580
    Agree. Outlander has best balance of power, handling, performance, technology (esp in terms of safety), smooth 6-speed a/t, decent fuel economy for its class (using unleaded), great 4WD system that allows for 2wd mode if you want it (and change it on the fly even at hiway speeds), great reliability coupled with great warranty, and it looks good too. If you're considering the Outlander, try to visit our little corner HERE. You'll see why owners are loving this CUV.

    And talking about the Dakar, the 07 Outlander is the direct descendant of the Pajero Evo 2+2 Concept. The same concept where the current Dakar champion Pajero MPR13 was derived from. From a glance you can see right away that the Pajero Evo MPR13 looks strikingly similar to the Outlander rather than the production Pajero/Montero. Yeah, 12 wins, 7 of those in a row, there's no mistaking about quality of engineering, technology, and reliability.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    http://www.mitsucars.com/MMNA/jsp/outlander/07/compare.do?loc=en-us

    Unfortunately the '08 Tribeca info wasn't available, so you see the '07 info here. Also, this is for top trim models, not base models.

    Keep in mind the "spec sheet war" is only part of the story. Bottom line is you need to drive each model you're considering. What you get via "seat-of-the-pants" is often far more telling.

    I would also drive each model several times, with several days inbetween, so as to let the experience set in. That also gives you the opportunity to check or re-check some features that you're unsure of. I would go to different dealers to do this, as that will also let you get a sense of what each dealer is like.

    Bob
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    Yep, check out this cool 2007 Dakar Rally video: Pajero Evo MPR13 in the desert:

    Dakar Rally video
  • wjbushsrwjbushsr Member Posts: 135
    Somehow I doubt that the outlander in the video is the same as a floor model ready to hit the streets.

    When you bring up these scenarios, keep the idea of apples to apples in mind.
  • rcpaxrcpax Member Posts: 580
    It's not an Outlander, It's a Super Production Category vehicle for the Dakar. It's a Pajero MPR13. No it's not your average vehicle you can buy from the dealership. And I think the video is just to get people not familiar with Mitsubishis and idea of Mitsu's involvement in motorsports, and was never meant to con people to believe that this is a road going version. The technology learned from rally though is transferred to production vehicle design, that's why the Outlander and the new Lancer handles so well.
  • nickelnickel Member Posts: 147
    I had in a a past life 2 Mitsus: 1 Galant and 1 Montero Sport (company cars, after the first one I'd never pay for a Mitsu). After a relatively short time, both started giving me troubles. My recommendations would be as it follows:
    a) If you want a sporty SUV, compare between the CX7 and a Subaru Outback XT (turbo).
    b) If you want a nicer interior, while a do it all engine, take the Tribeca. Nothing is better than a Subaru while it rains, or giving you the sense that you are capable of doing everything paying so little.
    c) If you really want a Mitsubishi, go to a dealership, and ask the salesman to find you a '06 Montero. They had some remaining in some dealerships around the country, and you can buy the flagship of the brand at a big, big discount (like a friend who paid $24.5k in a car whose suggested price was $34K. Remember that in the US a Mitsubishi has a resale value lower than the Chevys and Fords, and that's a lot to say.

    Con toda confianza, como latino te digo, vete con Subaru, Honda o Toyota, y no pierdas tu tiempo con otras marcas, a menos que estes haciendo un leasing. En ese caso, haz un lease del vehiculo que te de la gana, para lo cual yo lo haria de un Acura RDX, si tu nunca te sales de las cales para ir a los montes.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> http://www.mitsucars.com/MMNA/jsp/outlander/07/compare.do?loc=en-us Unfortunately the '08 Tribeca info wasn't available, so you see the '07 info here. Also, this is for top trim models, not base models.

    That site gives us only basic info. It does not mention other standard/optional cool features available on Outlander, and most of them are not available on Tribeca and CX-7:

    MP3 music server, paddle shifters, split liftgate, skid plates, 650 watt amplifier, FAST Key, keyless ignition, bluetooth, DVD palyer, Xenon, LED rear lights. You can get other dealer installed OEM options:
    Mitsu Catalog, such as parking sensors, rear view camera, multi-color HID lights, wood trim, etc.

    Outlander easily wins the "specs war".
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    The Mitsubishis you drove were different animals. These were essentially Chrysler vehicles with Mitsubishi label. These cars were built in Illinois and they had Chrysler powertrain and parts made by Detroit suppliers. Thanks God, Mitsubishi divorced Chrysler in 2005. Chrysler certainly heavily damaged Mitsubishis reputation in US, which in fact affected the resale values of Chrysler-build Mitsubishis. But now, the things have changed. The Outlander now is built entirely in Japan by exclusively Mitsubishi. As a result, we get one of the most reliable vehicles on the market, certainly more reliable then Tribeca. This is the hard data:
    Consumer Reports 2006 ratings:
    2006 Outlander: top 5 in class
    2006 Tribeca: average

    Edmunds.com owner rating:
    2007 Outlander: 9.2
    2007 Tribeca: 8.8

    Yahoo Autos owner rating:
    2007 Outlander: 4.5
    2007 Tribeca: 4.0

    Different sources, and very consistent results in favor of Outlander. So if you want a reliable SUV, get the Outlander. Not only it has better reliability, but it also has better warranty and roadside assistance.

    As for sportiness, the Outlander beats Tribeca in both handling tests by Edmunds.com: Slalom: 63.9-mph vs. 62.1-mph. Skid pad test: Outlander wins again: 8.0g vs. 7.8g.

    “Nothing is better than a Subaru while it rains” - this is very bold statement. Do you have any hard data to support this statement? Any independent tests or rally results? Mitsubishi on the other hand does have a great record in extreme weather/road conditions. Last year Mitsubishi won 1st place (7th year in a row) and 2nd place in 2007 Dakar Rally, while Subaru did not even made the top 10.
  • rshollandrsholland Member Posts: 19,788
    They have an 2007 Outlander as one of their long-term test vehicles. Lots of opinions and comments, mostly of which are quite positive. A very informative read.

    http://blogs.edmunds.com/roadtests/category/[email protected]@

    2008 Tribeca, also a good writeup, clearly showing how the '08 has improved upon the '06 – '07 models.

    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/FullTests/articleId=121001

    2007 CX-7 being compared with the RAV4 and Santa Fe.

    http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/Comparos/articleId=116618

    Bob
  • medellinrobmedellinrob Member Posts: 7
    "One more point. In many ways the Tribeca is more of a competitor for the larger CX9, and not the smaller CX7. "

    Thanks bob and every one else.
    I know the CX-9 is more alike to a Tribeca than a CX-7 is.
    Thing is I like smaller vehicles and I was thinking in a CX-7 and an outlander, but if I were to pay a bit more, it would not be for a CX-9 I would go for the subaru. I don't like the idea of having an expensier car that looks just like it's little brother (Ok I know they are really different, but still they are similar).

    When I drove the outlander I believe i avaraged 25 mph going only once or twice above 50 mph which is really low to get to know a vehicle, so I'm going to another test drive this week.
    At the CX-7, in the other hand, I think I avaraged 35 mph and sped up to 65 or so. I'll also test it again.

    Thanks to all.
  • xgbtxgbt Member Posts: 28
    I was very interested in the Outlander when it first came out. I am looking for a compact SUV and the Outlander is right sized and looks good on the paper. So I spent a lot of time sitting in it and then test drove it.

    I later had an extended test drive of the CX-7. After that, I wouldn't look back to the Outlander any more despite its lower price and my frugality.

    The CX-7 is not only more powerful, but also much more refined. It rides beter, the seats are more comfortable, and the finishing is way better. In a word, it has the luxurious feel that puts it a par (or many) above the Outlander and more than justifies the price difference.

    Try them out yourself and see if you agree.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    I have. So have tried hundreds of other owners, who posted their ratings on MSN and Edmunds.com. This is not "on paper" – these are real owners. Outlander wins over CX-7 with a decent gap on both sites:
    MSN: 9.5 vs. 9
    Edmunds: 9.2 vs. 8.8

    In terms of ride, interior and seat comfort neither has advantage. The CX-7 is a good car, but the Outlander is just so much better. It looks more stylish vs. odd-looking CX-7. Its V6 is smoother; and speaking of power it can tow more, it has better fuel economy and runs on regular gasoline. Outlander has more of internal space and it’s equipped better with latest gadgets. Outlander is more reliable (Consumer Reports 2006), has better warranty and comes with 5y. free roadside assisstance.
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    "Odd-looking" is in the eye of the beholder... and "to each his own." So, far be it from me to stop someone from getting an Outlander if they're looking for an ugly vehicle to tow with and can't afford premium gas. :P
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    Exterior design is a matter of taste, but the fact is that CX-7 exterior design scores consistently much lower by its owners on Edmunds.com and MSN.com ratings vs. Outlander. And while CX-7 owners are not exactly thrilled by Mazda styling, non-owners may consider it odd looking, or even, like you've said, "ugly" :-)

    As for premium gas, I can afford it, but I don't always buy things, just for the reason of affordability. This Mazda, just does not deserve the premium gas.
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    "but the fact is that CX-7 exterior design scores consistently much lower by its owners on Edmunds.com and MSN.com vs. Outlander."

    Not knowing you, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you understand what you're trying to say - but I don't. I don't have any sympathy for an idiot who would buy a vehicle and then rate it low on design - unless that person is Stevie Wonder. Makes you "wonder" if they were blind when they test-drove the car. ;)

    So, yes, there are those with an axe to grind who have rated the CX-7 in the dumps, even in areas where they should have had full knowledge going in - but generally, CX-7 owners rate "design" in the 9's and 10's, as it should be. I would assume Mitsu owners do the same, which is fine. I don't know of any formal venue where owners of one car were asked to rate another make on design or anything else. Those who get the CX-7, get it. Those who don't, don't. Same for the Outlander.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    At this price range it’s not always easy to get a perfect car, and some trade offs are not unusual. So, I imagine, for some CX-7 buyers (you call them "idiots") styling could be a secondary factor, and as a result, an average Mazda owner gives it a good exterior design rating, but still not as high as Outlander owner rates the Outlander styling.

    The Outlander was rated higher overall in other categories as well, so I guess, the Outlander owners made less trade-offs and less compromises at the time of the purchase. Also, the owner satisfaction ratings reflect a few hundred miles of real world ownership, not just a test drive impression.

    While CX-7 is a great car, on my opinion and based on ratings, the Outlander is just a better balanced car: sophisticated exterior styling, plenty power, sporty handling, latest gadgets, longest warranty, good build quality/reliability, fuel economy, quality leather seats, efficient use of interior space, and value.
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    Respectfully disagree, but that's okay. One man's "sophisticated" is another man's "goofy Asian bling."

    For the record, I call them "idiots" not because their choosing process is different than mine (it undoubtedly is, because styling is never a secondary factor for me), but rather because we all know that the styling doesn't change over time, whether a few hundred miles, or longer. I suspect the people who rate the CX-7 poorly in "design" might actually be referring to engineering. Other than the gas cap, I've had no engineering problems on my car.

    Another possibility is that they're unhappy about something else (gas mileage, etc.) and are taking it out on the CX-7 in all categories as a result. Which is why I look at the Edmund's and MSN buyer reviews, but wouldn't make a decision too heavily based on them.

    -c92
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Member Posts: 498
    "fact is that CX-7 exterior design scores consistently much lower by its owners on Edmunds.com"

    Chelentano, that is a very strange statement. I've been a member of these forums for over a year now and have owned a CX-7 since June 06. When someone buys a car, one of the major factors in the buying decision is appeal.

    Basically, you're saying that some owners of CX-7, now say they don't like the styling when compared to other vehicles? Where did you get that "fact"? Like I said, I've been a member of these forums for quite a while and review them, weekly. I can't find a single instance where an owner of a CX-7 now regrets buying it, because of styling.

    The ball's in your court to prove your point. Since I can't find anything to support your statement, would you mind pointing us to what you're referring to? If you can't do that, then perhaps you need to retract your statement. You make a statement like that, you have to be able to stand by it and defend it, with proof.

    BTW, the Outlander is a stylish vehicle too and I'm sure you're enthralled with it! That's super! The intent of my earlier statements don't question your tastes, but rather, the curious notion that owners of cars suddenly change their tastes in style and design, two key factors in buying decisions. For me, style and design are gut decisions. Either I instantly like a style or I don't. For me to all of sudden realize that, "Yuck, the CX-7 styling is not so hot" just is a foreign concept.

    Thanks, Vince.
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> you're saying that some owners of CX-7, now say they don't like the styling when compared to other vehicles?

    Please don't twist my words. I've never said that.

    I've said "CX-7 exterior design scores consistently much lower by its owners on Edmunds.com ... vs. Outlander" [owner ratings].

    I've also said "an average Mazda [CX-7] owner gives it a good exterior design rating, but still not as high as Outlander owner rates the Outlander styling."

    I made a reference to the owner ratings at Edmunds.com. If you look at the ratings consumer reviews CX-7 owners give it an average rating of some 8.5 or so points for Exterior Design. Outlander owners, on the other hand, give the Outlander an average rating of over 9.5 points for Exterior Design. So, based on these ratings, I could say, "an average Mazda owner gives it a good exterior design rating, but still not as high as Outlander owner rates the Outlander styling."

    Any other questions?
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Member Posts: 498
    Didn't twist your words, my friend, only call it, as I see it.

    Vince.
  • sssfegysssfegy Member Posts: 132
    "It looks more stylish vs. odd-looking CX-7"
    You call the Cx odd? How about unique?Different?Stylish?!
    If style is high on your list, would you chose a car that looks unique, or would you chose a car that's 1/3 Xterra, 1/3 Rav4, 1/3 Santa(that's Hyundai)! All in one package take your pick! Sorry to pick on ya but one of the major advantages of the Cx is styling! Did you check playboy in december? :P
    Also the owners of both vehicles are very different, one looks for the perfect car that provides:
    1-Handling(safety&fun) 2-Looks 3-Reliability vs:
    1-Value 2-Size 3-Warranty 4-Gadgets 5-Value
    So its Mazda's luck to get the above, and they are both loving it!
    Regarding your C.R, the MX5 got the best in class in J.D (I.Q.)for 2 years in a row, and C.R gives it a poor rating? :confuse:
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> "It looks more stylish vs. odd-looking CX-7"
    You call the Cx odd? How about unique? Different? Stylish?!


    Unique and different? Sure. Stylish? Not for my taste and not for the taste of majority CX-7 owners, who could not rate it very high for the exterior design on Edmunds.com. If CX-7 owners are not thrilled with CX-7 styling, imagine, what the non-owners think about CX-7 looks. I would say the CX-9 is stylish, but the CX-7 is unproportional, squished and odd looking.


    >> Did you check playboy in december?

    I would care less, what the Playboy says about cars, since they get paid for car advertising.
    .

    >> Also the owners of both vehicles are very different, one looks for the perfect car that provides:
    1-Handling(safety&fun) 2-Looks 3-Reliability vs:
    1-Value 2-Size 3-Warranty 4-Gadgets 5-Value


    1-Handling(safety&fun)? Actually the Outlander excels in handling. It ties BMW X3 in handling/slalom test (MotorTrend Dec 2006) and it comes with sport tuned suspension and paddle shifters for that “fun” driving.
    2-Looks? Your word against hundreds on Edmunds.com and MSN: Outlander has higher ratings for its looks.
    3-Reliability? Your word against hard data: the Outlander has higher owner satisfaction ratings on Edmunds.com and on MSN.com. The Outlander has also higher CR reliability rating. It made the top 5 most reliable small SUVs list (out of 20), while CX-7 did not: CR Best and Worst ...and actually no other Mazda was mentioned among the best.

    .

    >> Regarding your C.R, the MX5 got the best in class in J.D (I.Q.) for 2 years in a row, and C.R gives it a poor rating?

    I've never said about CR "poor rating". It's an average rating for CX-7.

    And as that Playboy, JD Power is paid by advertisers: today, for instance, I saw General Motors and Carmax banners there. But in any case we are NOT talking about MX5 Miata here. However if you do, should I mention, that Mitsubishi Pajero won the Dakar Rally 7 years in a row, 12 times total? It beats Porshes, Toyotas, Rovers, Hammers, BMWs, MB. Even the German team in 2001 had to pick Mitsubishi to win the Rally. Dakar is arguably the toughest racing event in the world. What a great handling, sportiness and reliability demonstrated by Mitsubishi brand! Mazda, on the other hand, has suffered a couple of miserable fiascos (such as 97th place) and gave up the Rally.
  • css1css1 Member Posts: 247
    There is a lot of effort debating 2nd and 3rd place in this comparison thread.
  • eric102eric102 Member Posts: 122
    Good one :)
  • css1css1 Member Posts: 247
    Thanks
  • sssfegysssfegy Member Posts: 132
    You repeat yourself, and all your points have been countered.
    The happy Suby familly 1 question:
    Why did they redisgn the front end of it already? Do you want to be seen in one still? I'm sure you don't mind it because you're not trading it. :P
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    "Stylish? Not for my taste and not for the taste of majority CX-7 owners, who could not rate it very high for the exterior design on Edmunds.com. If CX-7 owners are not thrilled with CX-7 styling, imagine, what the non-owners think about CX-7 looks."

    Enough, already. You keep saying this, and at least two of us have told you it doesn't make any sense. Read this carefully, and you may come away educated:

    1. First of all, the 9.2 Outlander rating on Edmunds is not only for styling; it's the average of all the posted consumer ratings for all areas. Likewise, the 8.9 for the CX-7 is for ALL areas of ALL consumer ratings that have been posted for that vehicle. What this means is that these numbers in themselves really don't provide any data for you to make ridiculous statements about how owners feel about styling.

    2. Saying an 8.9 rating means "owners are not thrilled" is illogical, and at the very least a wild generalization based on a few negative posts. Not only do the numbers speak for themselves, comparing an 8.9 against a 9.2 is really splitting hairs. In school terms, an 8.9 out of 10 would be a "B+." A 9.2 is an "A-." I can't remember the last time I bragged about something like my A- grade over a friend's B+. Elementary school?


    "I would care less, what the Playboy says about cars, since they get paid for car advertising."

    P.S. Edmunds, MSN, Car and Driver, Motor Trend, and Road&Track ALL get paid for car advertising. Check the banners to the sides and top of this page. Do the banners say "Mitsubishi" when you log in? They say "Mazda" here. :P
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> the 9.2 Outlander rating on Edmunds is not only for styling; it's the average of all the posted consumer ratings for all areas. Likewise, the 8.9 for the CX-7 is for ALL areas of ALL consumer ratings that have been posted for that vehicle.

    I am not talking about "ALL areas" ratings, I am specifically talking about ratings for the "exterior design". If you scan through the individual ratings just even on the first couple of pages, you can see that an average CX-7 owner gives it a good exterior design rating, but still not as high as Outlander owner rates the Outlander styling, which is on average 9.5 or 10.

    And I am not "splitting hair". When consumer pays this kind of money for his car and then doest not give it the best rating, I can NOT say he is thrilled. Can you? In any case, in that post the "Sssfegy" is trying to present “looks” as CX-7 advantage over the Outlander and I am just responding by pointing to the hard facts, that it's actually the other way around.
    .
    .

    >> Edmunds, MSN, Car and Driver, Motor Trend, and Road&Track ALL get paid for car advertising. Check the banners to the sides and top of this page. Do the banners say "Mitsubishi" when you log in? They say "Mazda" here.

    Nope. It says "Mitsubishi"! Banners do change on these sites every month, everyday and on every page. For instance, if you are visiting this thread from Mazda forum, you see Mazda advertising. When you are visiting it form Mitsu forum, you see Mitsu advertising. You did not know about it? It’s an “elementary school” stuff.
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    Even though I could make a good point, I'm going to refrain from posting all the negative comments in the Outlander reviews; you can go look them up yourself. The fact is still that "scanning" CX-7 reviews is leading you to make incorrect generalizations. And as for splitting hairs when you're paying "this kind of money," even a $300,000 Ferrari has a pretty crummy navigation system... There's no such thing as a perfect car for everyone, and anyone who rates the Outlander all 10's probably hasn't spent enough time with one. But enough about that...

    The comment about the banners changing was a joke. The more important fact was that all these sites get paid to advertise cars... so by your own exclusion of Playboy, maybe you should take all these press reviews and consumer ratings with a grain of salt, eh?
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    >> maybe you should take all these press reviews and consumer ratings with a grain of salt, eh?

    Press reviews, yes with a grain of salt, but not the consumer ratings. Consumers usually don't get paychecks from automotive companies. It's the other way around. Consumer pays for the car expecting a good product, and if consumer is happy or unhappy, I will listen. I prefer to learn about cars from consumer reviews and form message boards like this one.

    I would not care much about press reviews written by "experts". Not only these “experts” often paid by advertising dollars, but they write opinions after just a brief test drive of a brand new car, delivered to them by manufacturer.

    Consumer Reports though is the only company I know, who advertises its objectivity and freedom from bias. CR claims they do not print outside advertising or permit the commercial use of its reviews for selling products. They also claim that all tested products are purchased at retail. CR is valuable for its reliability data, not so much for expert reviews.
  • carlitos92carlitos92 Member Posts: 458
    The "unbiased consumers" who post here also have different priorities, different standards, and different hot buttons. You have no way of knowing how much like you they are, or what consititutes "a good product" to them compared to what consititutes "a good product" to you.

    Also, there is no guarantee that what you are reading is actually honest. There is no proof of ownership required to post a review. I've seen overzealous fanboys post a review saying "XXXX is really a great car" before the thing is even available for sale!

    If you're stuck on consumer ratings, the only reliable way to compare two vehicles is the overall score, like I suggested before. "Scanning" doesn't cut it. So again, out of the cross section of customers who have posted on Edmunds, the Outlander is rated 0.3 points higher than the CX-7. Congratulations. But to me, it seems owners of both are pretty darn happy, with styling or anything else.
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Member Posts: 498
    I agree 100% with what carlitos is saying. Judging a car's style is purely a subjective exercise and trying to make it into an objective one, with quantifiable measurements, just can't happen.

    In fact Mr. Chelentano, I'm beginning to wonder what your agenda is, here. You've made your point countless times, so give it a rest. You're 100% entitled to the car that you like and everyone else has the same entitlement. Trying to push the envelope here, in these forums, over and over again, is simply tiresome. There are no winners here, only opinions.

    Of course, judging by your previous posts, I strongly suspect you're going to continue your raves and rants. Please do so, but for the rest of us, we'll simply move on.

    Catch ya later, Dude, and peace. Vince. :shades:
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    The last think I need from you, “Dude” is your advice. Did not your mom teach you, that it’s rude to give people advice on what they should “give”, when they didn’t ask for the advice? Why don’t you use your own advice: “give it a rest” and “move on”. When you don’t have any real arguments left, don’t start personal attacks. You have on this forum 3 times more postings, “Dude”, and "you've made your point countless times, so give it a rest.”
  • chelentanochelentano Member Posts: 634
    Well, you can look for excuses why CX-7 ratings are consistently lower on MSN, Edmunds and CR, and you can say that difference is insignificant, not much else you can say, I guess. But if you would have such hard data in favor of your car, I am sure you would point to it. In any case the CX-7 is a great car and I am glad you got your money's worth.
  • steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    We are cross-shopping in here, not cross-sniping.
  • maximafanmaximafan Member Posts: 592
    Now, granted I don't drive either of these vehicles, but I definitely think the CX-7 is the looker over the Outlander. The front end of the Outlander is fine, but the back end looks like it's cut off. I think pictures do the Outlander more justice than seeing it in person.
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Member Posts: 498
    :)
  • toomanyfumestoomanyfumes S.E. Wisconsin Member Posts: 1,019
    I recently bought an Outlander, and I think they're both good looking vehicles. I personally think the Outlander looks better, but from some angles it looks too tall and narrow. I like the wide look of the CX-7, but the fenders bulge a little too much.
    2012 Mustang Premium, 2013 Lincoln MKX Elite, 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander.
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Member Posts: 498
    Wow, I just watched a commercial on TV for the new Tribeca and was awe-struck by the changes! The 2007 left me flat - that front-end just was the pits. I had even read some news feeds commenting along the same lines.

    But the new 2008 is stunning! The front-end is totally changed. Very sleek and I LOVE the interior, that cockpit! I've also read some nice reviews. Performance and handling seem to be really good!

    Too bad I'm not in the market for a new car! I still love my CX-7, but that Tribeca certainly is giving me a new perspective! :P

    Vince.
  • toomanyfumestoomanyfumes S.E. Wisconsin Member Posts: 1,019
    I've seen the new Tribeca, and it is sharp. Someone near me has a new Hyundai Veracruz, also a cool looking vehicle. Those are a little bigger than the Outlander-CX-7 Tribeca though, aren't they?

    Lots of exciting choices in the compact SUV market.
    2012 Mustang Premium, 2013 Lincoln MKX Elite, 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander.
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Member Posts: 498
    Agreed, except I can't understand why the Hyundai line doesn't offer Navigation. For me, I gotta have my NAV. I noticed the Tribeca has it and the CX-7 too. Most of the other SUV brands have 'em too. Just seems odd that Hyundai hasn't followed suit.

    Vince.
  • dodo2dodo2 Member Posts: 496
    I remember reading that Hyundai will introduce the Navi on some of the 2008 models starting this fall, including the Veracruz.
    Tribeca looks much better than before, but still not too much character IMO. The front looks too Chrysler (Pacifica) and the rear and other body lines seem Korean to me (Hyundai?). But overall I think it is nice CUV and with the engine upgrades it will be a good contender in the mid-size segment. I don't see it a direct competitor for the Outlander or CX-7 by any means.
    Although I'm an Outlander owner and really love it, I think the CX-7 is a great looking vehicle and a great performer. I like Mazda very much (I own a Mazda3) and I looked at the CX-7 as soon as it came out, but the engine and versatility didn't fit the bill. The price is quite high in Canada too. If I were to buy the SUV for it's performance and looks, the CX-7 would be my choice.
    Also, I would buy the CX-7 over the Acura RDX at any time. I believe the RDX is its closest competitor despite the premium/near luxury badge. A fully loaded CX-7 has all the attributes the RDX has, plus more.
    The only true import competitors for the Outlander are the CRV and the RAV4 and this is what Mitsu had in mind as well when they developed the Outlander; any other comparison is quite pointless IMO.
  • astegmanastegman Member Posts: 171
    I always trust your posts, Vince, so I just took a quick look online at the 2008 Tribeca - it's gorgeous.

    When I was looking for a new car last year, I was initially very interested in the Tribeca. My husband has a Forester, and it's been an outstanding car - I definitely would have had no reservations about owning a Subaru. However, when I first saw the Tribeca, I was extremely put off by its looks. Repulsed is actually a pretty good description! I hated that front grill and I didn't like the looks from the rear, either.

    But wow, the 2008 looks fantastic!! Really attractive, at least from my computer screen.

    I'm impressed. Congrats to Subaru. Hmmm...my fully-loaded CX7 is a year old and in great shape...wonder what kind of deal I could swing!!! Is that nuts or what?
    - Andrea.
    Edited to add: yes, it does offer a leather interior! I just requested a brochure. I think I'm having a mid-life crisis!
  • vbbuiltvbbuilt Member Posts: 498
    I don't have enough assets to go out and buy a new toy :shades: I'm afraid the trade-in value would be less than what I owe on the CX-7, so I'll hang on to it for a while.

    I'm thinking that I'm might upgrade to new 20" rims/tires and a custom paint job. The front end is starting to get pitted from the constant barrage of little pebbles and other debris from the freeways. :cry:

    Take care, Vince.
  • toomanyfumestoomanyfumes S.E. Wisconsin Member Posts: 1,019
    Ain't that a bummer? I've had my Outlander a month, and there's already 4 small stone chips on the windshield and one on the front end.
    2012 Mustang Premium, 2013 Lincoln MKX Elite, 2007 Mitsubishi Outlander.
This discussion has been closed.