I wish mine were coming in that soon. We are starting to get a lot of phone calls and emails about the CX. It's not easy to tell potential customers they will have to wait for at least 1 more month before ours get here
huh... did anyone see one at the show? i was looking for it, but all i got to see was the totally boring run-of-the-mill CX9 and the complete opposite, the really cool looking and intriguing Kabura concept (am i getting that name right? i don't feel like looking it up right now).
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Got a call from my dealer. Said they have an invoice, and they're expecting about 4 wks for delivery. I checked the mazdausa site and I have a VIN, so that's a good sign, I guess.
Usually once there is a VIN assigned to a vehicle, or it in transit (on water or truck or at the port), you can look it up at Mazda's web site, and it will show as the specific dealer having the car.
Yes, it is very good news for you, if you see your car there.
Did we ever finish the discussions about the AWD system. It is going to be similar to the Speed6 as in the Haldex system of being a FWD with the capability to engage the rear when needed or is there going to be some split at all times.
I ask because I wanted to compare it to the Lexus RX330 and the New Acura RDX. I know that the Haldex system works well in the larger Volvos but how does it compare the the AWD in these other vehicles. Or is it even the same system.
I think we did, but, you can start it again. Mazda calls it "Active Torque-Split All-Wheel Drive"(Haldex), same as in the Mazdaspeed6. with up to 50% of torque to reach each rear wheel.
The new RDX uses the SH-AWD, which, from what I have read about in the Acura RL, is quite nice. More advanced then Mazda's.
The Lexus RX330 uses a full time AWD system that has a viscous coupling center differential, which Mazda does not have. Also, more advanced then Mazda's AWD system. I have driven the RX330, it's a very nice riding vehicle, and the 2007's have 270hp. Not bad.
I do not know the extent of how great the AWD system is in the Lexus, but, from what I have read, Acura's Super Handling All-Wheel Drive is quite good. Not as advanced as Subi's Symmetrical AWD, or Audi's Quattro.
I think the Lexus RX330 is a bit out of Mazda's range in terms of power, and refinement. Mazda can better compete with the RDX because of similar performance numbers, and the similarity of the drive train. The Acura will most likely be more refined, and add a bit more luxury and you have the "Acura" name, but, the Mazda will be less expensive.
If you want total detail on AWD system's, ask Juice....
They had one at NY, yesterday at least. It was open for us to crawl around, basically around the corner from the CX9 cut away that was up on that stand.
The exterior is stunning. It looks like a concept, "this can't be the real thing" is a natural reaction, but it is. Gorgeous. Muscular fenders, not too much chrome, just sharp and modern. Very clean. A+.
I wasn't as crazy about the interior space. Controls and materials were OK, but it just seemed a lot tighter than I expected. It's a lot smaller than the CX9. The rear seat is cozy and the cushions aren't high enough, so you sit with the knees up or splayed out a bit.
Maybe I was expecting the wrong thing, but it almost seems a tad smaller than the Tribute, not bigger. At least the space is less usefully shaped (not as boxy).
So that pushes me to look at the CX9, which looks similar outside (not as handsome, but close) but is much bigger inside.
I saw the RD-X as well and it didn't seem any bigger, to be fair.
I think I've seen you post on the Rav4 section as well? What did you think of the rear seat space compared to the Rav? My choice is between these two cars and since I haven't been able to get in the CX-7 yet, was hoping what your opinion is on it.
I posted this on another Mazda board, but realized it belongs here as well ...
I finally got a chance to climb around a CX-7 on Sunday – at the NY auto show. I thought I’d share some of my observations here.
First - a disclaimer: I’ve owned three Jeep Grand Cherokees over the last ten years and I continue to prefer a luxury SUV. But my current GC averages only around 12mpg, and gas is now back over $3.00, so I’m troubled getting another big gas guzzler truck. A crossover is definitely in the picture. Since our family has also owned a Miata in the past and currently also owns both a 6 and a 3, we’re big Mazda fans. I’m in my fifties – no youngster, and long done with any midlife crisis – and thus not necessarily in the CX-7’s target demographic, but the CX-7 has intrigued me since its initial announcement and I made a special trip in to the auto show to check it out and compare it to some of the other models I’ve been considering: Nissan Murano, Acura RDX, Mitsubishi Outlander and Ford Edge. I’ve road tested the Murano before (and loved the way it handles), but have not driven any of the other vehicles (they’re just not out yet). So, from my particular perspective, and from only being able to sit in it and climb around a bit, I’ve got some mixed feelings about this vehicle; some good, some bad:
Good stuff: Besides the CX7 being a beautiful looking vehicle, I found it has the most comfortable and most supportive driver’s seat of any of the aforementioned competitors, as well as the best seat position and dash layout (the Murano has the worst). The seating was nearly as roomy as the Grand Cherokee and I did not feel crowded with people in the passenger or back seats. My wife and I fit perfectly. Fortunately of all my criteria (outside of performance) seating comfort is most important, so the CX-7 wins. However, that was about it for the good stuff.
Bad stuff: Don’t know where to begin. Let’s start with something simple like weather stripping – it was merely tacked on around the doors, and kept falling off on people. Granted this was the auto show and vehicles get abused, but I could just imagine this happening to me after a few years of normal use. The cargo area seemed the smallest of all the aforementioned vehicles, as I had feared from the pictures I’d seen (the Murano was the largest). Of course the seats fold down for added cargo capacity, but not if the front seats are back too far, and definitely not if the seats are needed for passengers. And the rear seats don’t fold flat like other SUVs/CUVs. The cargo deck is reversible (carpet on one side, plastic on the other), which is a handy feature, but it’s cheaply made and flimsy. The cover beneath it, over the spare, is equally flimsy. I am concerned that there are no red lights on the doors to make them visible to oncoming traffic when opened (the Jeep and many other vehicles have this important safety feature). The map lights are like the 6 and 3 – they look like flashlight bulbs with cheap reflectors. Most other vehicles are nicer. A car of this caliber should have available a power seat with memory – and a power passenger seat. The CX-7 has neither. The competition does (except the RDX). Nor does it have a basic trip computer (miles left before empty, etc). The GPS Navigation system is touch screen rather than joystick controlled, and there are no steering wheel controls for it. This is not necessarily bad (Lexus does it this way), and many may think the touch screen is cool, but IMHO I think its hard to press the right spot on a touch screen in a moving vehicle – and I noticed that no matter how often the attendant cleaned it, the screen quickly filled with fingerprints.
All of this being said, I liked the CX-7 better than the competitors mentioned, although the RDX felt more solid (it had better for the additional money it costs). Of course, this is all without taking a test drive. If the CX-7 lives up to its handling expectations I can probably overlook the “bad stuff’. We’ll see.
Meanwhile, after looking at all of the competing new CUV vehicles we then went over to “Camp Jeep” and sat in the new Jeep Grand Cherokee. In my opinion it won in all departments hands down. I guess I’m a Jeep guy at heart. I just don’t know how to stomach burning all that Middle Eastern gasoline.
The RAV4 may make good use of the space it has, but there is no way it is close the CX-9 in size. The CX-9 is about a foot longer than the Pilot or MDX. In fact, the CX-7 is longer and wider than RAV4 and has a longer wheelbase. obviously the styling will reduce the interior space, but mostly the area above the beltline.
Funny, I see the numbers, and feel it should be bigger. That's just it, though. It did not feel big, not even mid-sized. It's a compact SUV, at least inside, useable space.
108.3" wheelbase should give you more room, I dunno. Form wins over function, I guess. The Tribeca has a shorter wheelbase but feels a lot airier.
The cargo cover is reversible, but you can only hang it up with the carpeted size up. I guess the plastic side it so that you can lay it on the cargo floor? We played with that and didn't really get why they did it that way.
Does anyone know whether an auxillary input of some kind is included with the CX-7? ie: for an IPOD. I really don't want to have to get an FM type system.
Can you imagine what it will be with a CX-7 Mazdaspeed version? Think if they shoehorned the 3.5 V6 into there and upped the power. My goodness folks, my goodness. I bought a Mazda6 in 2004 and have fallen in love with the Mazda brand. I am going to NY on Saturday to check this out. If it is as good as I hear, it is sold. I also have to check out the new Sante Fe though which is a very heavy hitter.
Edmunds tends to get lower mileage than the EPA estimates. I gather they don't drive their cars very gingerly. Pretty much all cars for them come out quite a bit lower than what the car might get in regular use from a more conservative driver.
You got me drooling with the thought of the CX-7 Mazdaspeed. The new Ford 3.5L engine was designed so it could easily be turbocharged.. Oh man. Maybe throw some direct injection in there too (which the new 3.5L was designed to have). That engine with Mazda driving dynamics is something to look forward to.
Thanks for passing on that very timely LA Times review. Although it may seem like a less-than-glowing review, it's actually quite favorable when you consider that Dan Neil, the reviewer, is probably the most principled but severely critical reviewer out there ... the car companies hate him. So this item (along with today's even more enthusiastic road-test by Edmunds) makes me rather optimistic that the CX-7 is a winner.
My Sacramento, CA dealer indicates the CXs have been in Pt. Hueneme, CA for about a month. The dealership also indicates their first delvery is expected next week.
Right, russ_49, people probably waste $2.50 a week and don't realize it or don't care. Buy some new product at the supermarket that turns out to be garbage, for instance. That dessert you had the last time you dined out cost more.
I am seeing it tomorrow. I will bring you all back pictures and thoughts on it. It seems so good but then again, I don't like to judge before I have seen it in person.
According to Edmunds.com, the true cost to own (not just fuel costs) for a mid-upper 27K variant of either works out to $.53/mi for the regular using RAV4 V6 and $.56/mi for the premium using CX-7 4cyl Turbo DI.
It cost 5% more per mi over the life of the vehicle or about $450 a year more assuming you drive 15000 miles a year. Thats not a lot of money...
I read the review. I would say it's positive. Obviously the RAV4 will beat the CX-7 in 0-60, it has 25 more horsepower, and the CX-7 is nearly 4000lbs. But, cornering, and the slalom, the CX-7 won.
The CX-7 should sell well, all depends upon how Mazda markets it, and if they put a nice lease on it as well. (they have one now, but, no one has the car!)
I was at the movies to watch "Scary Movie 4" last night, and I saw a commercial for Mazda, displaying all of their sporty vehicles (MS6, RX-8, MX-5, and CX-7) It was a good commercial. When the CX-7 came up, everyone in the theater was "oooo"ing and "aahhhh"ing.
We just found out our first CX-7 will get here on May 18th, a little earlier then expected, which is good news.
Hello my friends. I just returned from the NY Auto Show. Let me say some quick comments. Seeing things in person is much better than in pictures. Let's take my favorite new car.... the Nissan Altima. In person it is styling at its finest. When I saw the pictures, I thought Nissan had made a big mistake.
Now on to the CX-7. That SUV is absolutely lovely in person. I have several pictures from all types of angles. I compare it to the 300C. It is a hit even before it hits the market. It's either that or the Altima for my next vehicle. They had two, a sky blue and the common red one. Both looked very nice. U had had concerns about whether it would love girly in person like the Murano. It looks like it is moving while it is standing still, it looks fast like a sports car. Zoom zoom at it's finest baby.
Also, a surprise. I walked up the the CX-7 and thought it was the CX-9. The CX-7 is actually very long and has a lot of room. I am 6 foot even and the first thing I do is sit in the back of cars because I drive my mother around a lot and she likes to sit in the back like I am a professional chaffuer. I fit great with the front seat pushed back. Now get this. In the front, I didn't even have to put the front seat all the way back. The interior is very very upscale. They might as well be a company owned by VW and Audi.
I wish I had thought about going to the NY Show. My dealer said it will be mid-May before they see one. What did you think of the seats? I like a sporty firm seat and have ruled out some wagons (Subaru/Volvo) because the seats are too unsupportive and won't adjust to where I feel comfortable. I am trying to decide whether to hold out another few weeks to try the CX7. Do you know if it is like the seats in any of the other Mazdas?
I can not say that I have a fair comparison. I was taking a lot in so I did not focus on any one thing. It reminded me of an Infiniti G35 the way the seat, armrest, and steering wheel was set up. The seats seemed very supportive. It was basically a sports sedan on the inside.
That's encouraging. I guess I'll hold out until I can see one in person - hopefully in 3 weeks. I'm looking at wagons and this is the only SUV/cross over that seems interesting to me. Of course, I am looking at more than just the seat, but many of the wagons just don't have a seat that I want to stay in for long. Thanks for the reply!
If you go to CarSpace (just click over and you automatically get a page) you can upload your photos into your own photo album there and then link to it.
i'm a former mazda employee and got to drive the CX-7 GT about 3 wks ago.
as far as acceleration is concerned...the CX-7 is quick, but did not feel explosive. it didn't push me back in the seat when i mashed on the gas pedal.
the transmission was extremely smooth and responsive. upshifts are seamless. mash on the pedal and downshifts are instantaneous. literally no shift shock.
as far as handling is concerned...since it was pouring rain the day i got to drive it, i wasn't able to rail around turns, but based on the driving i did, handling is typical mazda fare. good feedback and feel in the steering wheel. exhibited no body roll in my driving. braking was excellent. in fact brakes were so sensitive and braking power was so awesome that even in the pouring rain, it took me awhile to get used to how much pressure i needed to apply to get the car to stop smoothly. ride quality was very firm and sporty feeling; no bobbing, no floating; not like any other SUV i've driven.
in terms of interior finish...i did drive a fully loaded CX-7, but the interior finish still surprised me cuz it was more like that of a luxury vehicle brand vs that of a CR-V, RAV4 or any other non-luxury SUV. i'm 6' tall and i had tons of headroom even with the front seat adjusted way up + moonroof. drivers seat was very comfortable. loved the feel of the steering wheel. rear seat was fairly comfortable to me. my wife's '04 CR-V seemed to have more available rear legroom since the rear seats slide in the CR-V.
overall, i was very impressed w/ the quality and driving dynamics, but a little disappointed w/ engine power. although i knew the CX-7 was nearly 2 tons, i expected the 244 hp to motivate it with more punch. it was perfectly acceptable, but less exhilarating that i had hoped for. compared to most cars (not just SUVs or CUVs), the CX-7 definitely drove more like a sports car.
after reading the Edmunds review, i think it is spot on.
I think it's acceleration is decent at 7.7 sec 0-60. They had to leave something for the Mazdaspeed folks to do. I think for the general public, the CX-7 will be the X5 of this category. I think your base line X5 is probably 0-60 in that range. I think for those of us that want more speed, the Mazdaspeed version that burns to 60 at 6 second and some change, will do the trick.
Comments
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
James
Yes, it is very good news for you, if you see your car there.
I ask because I wanted to compare it to the Lexus RX330 and the New Acura RDX. I know that the Haldex system works well in the larger Volvos but how does it compare the the AWD in these other vehicles. Or is it even the same system.
Modock
The new RDX uses the SH-AWD, which, from what I have read about in the Acura RL, is quite nice. More advanced then Mazda's.
The Lexus RX330 uses a full time AWD system that has a viscous coupling center differential, which Mazda does not have. Also, more advanced then Mazda's AWD system.
I have driven the RX330, it's a very nice riding vehicle, and the 2007's have 270hp. Not bad.
I do not know the extent of how great the AWD system is in the Lexus, but, from what I have read, Acura's Super Handling All-Wheel Drive is quite good. Not as advanced as Subi's Symmetrical AWD, or Audi's Quattro.
I think the Lexus RX330 is a bit out of Mazda's range in terms of power, and refinement. Mazda can better compete with the RDX because of similar performance numbers, and the similarity of the drive train. The Acura will most likely be more refined, and add a bit more luxury and you have the "Acura" name, but, the Mazda will be less expensive.
If you want total detail on AWD system's, ask Juice....
The exterior is stunning. It looks like a concept, "this can't be the real thing" is a natural reaction, but it is. Gorgeous. Muscular fenders, not too much chrome, just sharp and modern. Very clean. A+.
I wasn't as crazy about the interior space. Controls and materials were OK, but it just seemed a lot tighter than I expected. It's a lot smaller than the CX9. The rear seat is cozy and the cushions aren't high enough, so you sit with the knees up or splayed out a bit.
Maybe I was expecting the wrong thing, but it almost seems a tad smaller than the Tribute, not bigger. At least the space is less usefully shaped (not as boxy).
So that pushes me to look at the CX9, which looks similar outside (not as handsome, but close) but is much bigger inside.
I saw the RD-X as well and it didn't seem any bigger, to be fair.
-juice
I think I've seen you post on the Rav4 section as well? What did you think of the rear seat space compared to the Rav? My choice is between these two cars and since I haven't been able to get in the CX-7 yet, was hoping what your opinion is on it.
The CX7's seats cushions were a bit low and too short. The RAV4's slide back, I believe.
If you're shopping for space, the Toy will win easy. It's probably closer to the CX9's size than the CX7.
I did like the wide seats, it's definitely more upscale than the RAV4. You get a stripe of alligator-like leather, a fun touch.
-juice
I finally got a chance to climb around a CX-7 on Sunday – at the NY auto show. I thought I’d share some of my observations here.
First - a disclaimer: I’ve owned three Jeep Grand Cherokees over the last ten years and I continue to prefer a luxury SUV. But my current GC averages only around 12mpg, and gas is now back over $3.00, so I’m troubled getting another big gas guzzler truck. A crossover is definitely in the picture. Since our family has also owned a Miata in the past and currently also owns both a 6 and a 3, we’re big Mazda fans. I’m in my fifties – no youngster, and long done with any midlife crisis – and thus not necessarily in the CX-7’s target demographic, but the CX-7 has intrigued me since its initial announcement and I made a special trip in to the auto show to check it out and compare it to some of the other models I’ve been considering: Nissan Murano, Acura RDX, Mitsubishi Outlander and Ford Edge. I’ve road tested the Murano before (and loved the way it handles), but have not driven any of the other vehicles (they’re just not out yet). So, from my particular perspective, and from only being able to sit in it and climb around a bit, I’ve got some mixed feelings about this vehicle; some good, some bad:
Good stuff: Besides the CX7 being a beautiful looking vehicle, I found it has the most comfortable and most supportive driver’s seat of any of the aforementioned competitors, as well as the best seat position and dash layout (the Murano has the worst). The seating was nearly as roomy as the Grand Cherokee and I did not feel crowded with people in the passenger or back seats. My wife and I fit perfectly. Fortunately of all my criteria (outside of performance) seating comfort is most important, so the CX-7 wins. However, that was about it for the good stuff.
Bad stuff: Don’t know where to begin. Let’s start with something simple like weather stripping – it was merely tacked on around the doors, and kept falling off on people. Granted this was the auto show and vehicles get abused, but I could just imagine this happening to me after a few years of normal use. The cargo area seemed the smallest of all the aforementioned vehicles, as I had feared from the pictures I’d seen (the Murano was the largest). Of course the seats fold down for added cargo capacity, but not if the front seats are back too far, and definitely not if the seats are needed for passengers. And the rear seats don’t fold flat like other SUVs/CUVs. The cargo deck is reversible (carpet on one side, plastic on the other), which is a handy feature, but it’s cheaply made and flimsy. The cover beneath it, over the spare, is equally flimsy. I am concerned that there are no red lights on the doors to make them visible to oncoming traffic when opened (the Jeep and many other vehicles have this important safety feature). The map lights are like the 6 and 3 – they look like flashlight bulbs with cheap reflectors. Most other vehicles are nicer. A car of this caliber should have available a power seat with memory – and a power passenger seat. The CX-7 has neither. The competition does (except the RDX). Nor does it have a basic trip computer (miles left before empty, etc). The GPS Navigation system is touch screen rather than joystick controlled, and there are no steering wheel controls for it. This is not necessarily bad (Lexus does it this way), and many may think the touch screen is cool, but IMHO I think its hard to press the right spot on a touch screen in a moving vehicle – and I noticed that no matter how often the attendant cleaned it, the screen quickly filled with fingerprints.
All of this being said, I liked the CX-7 better than the competitors mentioned, although the RDX felt more solid (it had better for the additional money it costs). Of course, this is all without taking a test drive. If the CX-7 lives up to its handling expectations I can probably overlook the “bad stuff’. We’ll see.
Meanwhile, after looking at all of the competing new CUV vehicles we then went over to “Camp Jeep” and sat in the new Jeep Grand Cherokee. In my opinion it won in all departments hands down. I guess I’m a Jeep guy at heart. I just don’t know how to stomach burning all that Middle Eastern gasoline.
'11 GMC Sierra 1500; '98 Alfa 156 2.0TS; '08 Maser QP; '67 Coronet R/T; '13 Fiat 500c; '20 S90 T6; '22 MB Sprinter 2500 4x4 diesel; '97 Suzuki R Wagon; '96 Opel Astra; '11 Mini Cooper S
Ours as well....they are more like a book, rather then a brochure
RAV4
Length 181.1" (with spare tire)
Width 71.5"
Wheelbase 104.7"
Height 66.3"
CX-7
Length 184.1"
Width 73.7"
Wheelbase 108.3"
Height 64.8"
CX-9
Length 199.6"
Width 76.2"
Wheelbase 113.2"
Height 68.3"
The RAV4 may make good use of the space it has, but there is no way it is close the CX-9 in size. The CX-9 is about a foot longer than the Pilot or MDX. In fact, the CX-7 is longer and wider than RAV4 and has a longer wheelbase. obviously the styling will reduce the interior space, but mostly the area above the beltline.
Acura RDX
Length 180.7"
Width 73.6"
Wheelbase 104.3"
Height 65.2"
Possibly the smallest of the bunch.
108.3" wheelbase should give you more room, I dunno. Form wins over function, I guess. The Tribeca has a shorter wheelbase but feels a lot airier.
The cargo cover is reversible, but you can only hang it up with the carpeted size up. I guess the plastic side it so that you can lay it on the cargo floor? We played with that and didn't really get why they did it that way.
-juice
http://cars.about.com/b/a/216763.htm
but no, I haven't seen a roadtest either (other than the Canadian ones that came out a month ago).
Otherwise the vehicle looks fantastic.
BTW, from the Edmunds.com review, the gas mileage they got was 16.6 MPG!!!! Not very economical at all! :surprise:
Fowler3
It cost 5% more per mi over the life of the vehicle or about $450 a year more assuming you drive 15000 miles a year. Thats not a lot of money...
The CX-7 should sell well, all depends upon how Mazda markets it, and if they put a nice lease on it as well. (they have one now, but, no one has the car!)
I was at the movies to watch "Scary Movie 4" last night, and I saw a commercial for Mazda, displaying all of their sporty vehicles (MS6, RX-8, MX-5, and CX-7) It was a good commercial. When the CX-7 came up, everyone in the theater was "oooo"ing and "aahhhh"ing.
We just found out our first CX-7 will get here on May 18th, a little earlier then expected, which is good news.
Now on to the CX-7. That SUV is absolutely lovely in person. I have several pictures from all types of angles. I compare it to the 300C. It is a hit even before it hits the market. It's either that or the Altima for my next vehicle. They had two, a sky blue and the common red one. Both looked very nice. U had had concerns about whether it would love girly in person like the Murano. It looks like it is moving while it is standing still, it looks fast like a sports car. Zoom zoom at it's finest baby.
Thanks for the reply!
This shows the proportions of the CX-7 real well.
as far as acceleration is concerned...the CX-7 is quick, but did not feel explosive. it didn't push me back in the seat when i mashed on the gas pedal.
the transmission was extremely smooth and responsive. upshifts are seamless. mash on the pedal and downshifts are instantaneous. literally no shift shock.
as far as handling is concerned...since it was pouring rain the day i got to drive it, i wasn't able to rail around turns, but based on the driving i did, handling is typical mazda fare. good feedback and feel in the steering wheel. exhibited no body roll in my driving. braking was excellent. in fact brakes were so sensitive and braking power was so awesome that even in the pouring rain, it took me awhile to get used to how much pressure i needed to apply to get the car to stop smoothly. ride quality was very firm and sporty feeling; no bobbing, no floating; not like any other SUV i've driven.
in terms of interior finish...i did drive a fully loaded CX-7, but the interior finish still surprised me cuz it was more like that of a luxury vehicle brand vs that of a CR-V, RAV4 or any other non-luxury SUV. i'm 6' tall and i had tons of headroom even with the front seat adjusted way up + moonroof. drivers seat was very comfortable. loved the feel of the steering wheel. rear seat was fairly comfortable to me. my wife's '04 CR-V seemed to have more available rear legroom since the rear seats slide in the CR-V.
overall, i was very impressed w/ the quality and driving dynamics, but a little disappointed w/ engine power. although i knew the CX-7 was nearly 2 tons, i expected the 244 hp to motivate it with more punch. it was perfectly acceptable, but less exhilarating that i had hoped for. compared to most cars (not just SUVs or CUVs), the CX-7 definitely drove more like a sports car.
after reading the Edmunds review, i think it is spot on.
-juice