Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Mazda is not going to win a fuel economy contest, instead they're trying to appeal to a more enthusiast crowd that puts Fun as the top priority and is willing to sacrifice a bit of passenger space and fuel economy.
Amen! This reminds me of a poster who was putting down the Mazda3 in another thread a few months ago. He couldn't understand why anyone would pay more for a 3 than for other sub-compacts. His criteria when comparing the cars was the bottom-line purchase price and EPA MPG. Whatever bucket of bolts offered the cheapest purchase price and highest MPG was for him. Driving fun was not a consideration.
Cheers!
Mechanically, the CX-7 borrows bits from all across the Mazda product spectrum. Contrary to some reports, it is not based on the same platform as the soon-to-be-Oakville-built Ford Edge and Lincoln MK X, which are more closely related to Mazda's new Japan-only MPV minivan.
"Those three are more like siblings to each other, but cousins to the CX-7," said Kawasaki.
The front MacPherson strut suspension is similar though, while the rear is closer to that of the Mazda3 and Mazda5, although the lower mounting point for the rear dampers has been moved from the bottom of the upright to the top, to allow clearance for the rear drive shafts in the optional four-wheel drive system.
Specs are available. I can't find the newer page I saw with MPG ratings and the were 19/25mpg on 87 octane and performance has been revised higher to 265HP@6250 and 250lb-ft@4500. The Edge has out performed the Murano in the performance numbers in internal testing, so thats a good sign.
I don't think EPA numbers are to be used to determine mileage in daily driving, but are rather to be used to compare the fuel economy between similar vehicles (Camry vs. Accord) because the EPA repeats its fuel economy tests for all vehicles. That way you know which vehicle of the two has better economy if each were driven identically (theoretically anyway, because the tests are simulated).
Regards,
Deanie
Now that's just sad.
By that logic, the most boring car possible would win. Something light and slow and with the cheapest (worst) suspension they could think of. Maybe a cheap ol' twist beam with drum brakes. Sheesh.
I saw a top 10 list of economical cars, and they evaluated them to pick the most fun of those 10. Guess what? It was the Mazda3 i with the 2.0l engine.
Zoom zoom indeed.
-juice
-juice
Two words -- WEIGHT and BALANCE. The CX-7 is smaller than most SUVs which use V6s. A six in the CX-7 would be frontend heavy.
Drive the Mazda6 with the 2.3 engine and the V6 and you will feel the difference. The 2.3 won't have the zoom zoom the V6 has,but neither will it be as nose-heavy. The 2.3 makes a more balanced car. Also it makes a big difference in pricing which doesn't fit Mazda's marketing plan.
syadasti, if Mazda had used the V6 you would be here arguing why Mazda didn't make the CX-7 longer for more cargo space. With all the see-saw arguing it wouldn't take much to turn the CX-7 into a Navigator.
fowler3
Not hard to understand this guy. He's never owned anything other than a bucket of bolts and thinks they are just fine. I have heard many of these types say,"Best car I have ever owned." They don't know the difference and will never know it on test drives around the block. It's hard to zoom at 35mph.
fowler3
I don't think so. The Edge is larger than the CX7 yet only weighs 150 lbs more and is besting the performance of the Murano (another V6 competitor to the CX7) in testing. The RAV4 V6 is about the same size as the CX-7 and has more interior space and weighs about 250 lbs. less than the CX7 - Edmunds ranks the handling and braking as excellent in the limited trim which does not have sport suspension and 18" tire/wheels like the performance sport trim does. The Saturn Vue Redline V6 AWD is about the same weight as the RAV4 V6 AWD. So I don't think small cars with V6 3.5L have to be heavy or have bad handling.
Even if they are heavy as the Infiniti FX45 (600 lbs more than CX7!), balance can be achieved. The FX45 has faster acceleration and shorter braking than the CX7. Slalom isn't quite as fast, but the lighter FX35 (still 250 lbs heavier than the Edge even) is probably pretty closer in slalom performance compared to the CX7 (of course Infiniti platform is RWD layout based, so that helps a bit).
ZOOM ZOOM
The Car & Driver test results for the CX-7 with four wheel drive and the RAV4 Limited V6 with four wheel drive suggest that they will be very similar, but only good long test drives in both (or multiple short drives at different dealers)will show which is best for each person:
RAV4: 0-60 6.3; 70 to 0 180'; 300' skid pad 0.83g, noise at 70MPH 68 dBA
CX-7: 0-60 7.9; 70 to 0 179'; 300' skid pad 0.84g, noise at 70MPH 67 dBA
PF Flyer
Host
Automotive News & Views, Wagons, & Hybrid Vehicles
The Mazda Club Chat is on tonight. The chat room opens at 8:45PM ET Hope to see YOU there! Check out the schedule
The Saturn Vue Redline is fast, but the steering is vague and that kills the sportiness. You can't feel where you're going to it doesn't encourage you to drive fast.
Also, how much body roll is there, how well controlled are the body motions? You can get high skidpad numbers but do it in a sloppy manner.
-juice
We had such a busy Memorial Day weekend, I have so much work to do, it may be a while before I actually get to drive it!
-juice
Body roll was slight, there was less then I expected. I had to keep reminding myself I was in an SUV, not a sports car The driver position is super comfortable. You really feel like you are in a sports car. Interior fit and finnish is very nice. We do not have any with the technology package, and the standard center console is quite nice.
It would be very easy to take the family on a long road trip, this is very very comfortable vehicle.
This vehicle is smaller then I thought. The front seats have plenty of room, the rear is not as roomy. However, I am 6'3", and I fit in the rear OK.
-juice
To be honest, the only thing I did not like was the CX-7 absence of power under 2,500 RPM's when the throttle is pushed to the floor. It kind of reminded me of the Subaru Legacy GT with the auto tranny.
Besides that, the car is all there. It should sell well.
Car and Driver obtained a rather poor 7.9 second zero to sixty test result for the CX-7, and they are not known for babying test vehicles, so all of this again suggests that Ford should have put the new 3.5 V6 in the CX-7, and should now offer it as an upgrade option.
Sat in (but did not drive) a CX-7 Sport (cloth seats). Impressed with the attractiveness of the car's exterior shape in the flesh. Disappointed with the interior cheapness of plastics used on dash and doors - gave the car a downmarket feel that does no justice to a car with such a decent powertrain and beautiful styling.
Visually, the dash is a letdown and the doors do not close with that solid "thunk" befitting a car of the CX-7's perceived stature. Way too narrow for three people (comfy for two). Modest but not-bad cargo capacity.
Immediately following the CX-7 "sit in", I went to Infinity and drove an FX35 AWD, and found the car to be worth every penny of the difference between it and the CX-7. An absolutely stunning vehicle in every way (except fuel economy).
Without having driven the CX-7, or having seen it in the GT trim I'd want, I can neither provide an accurate review (just first impressions), nor can I make a final choice (FX35, Honda Odyssey, CX-7 GT - yes, I'm cross shopping the Odyssey) in my shopping.
Right now the FX and Odyssey are ahead (in that order), but there are no crash numbers on CX-7 from NHTSB or more importantly, from IIHS, making this a more questionable choice for a family (until I see crash numbers). Also, the first few thousand cars are prone to be slightly more problematic/have more build quality problems than those made later, so even if I chose the CX-7, I'll wait a few months.
I so wanted this car to be up to the fit/finish/appearance of Rav4/Honda/etc, but I did not get that impression from the sample I saw.
Comments anyone?
Regards,
Deanie
I own a 3s sedan and have never believed that I was getting a car that was going to be the fastest in it's class. The Civic Si, Dodge Neon SRT-4, Chevy Cobalt SS and others are faster 0-60 but most do not handle as well in the twisties.
Look at all the comparisons that involve the RX8. They all say that it is underpowered at low RPM but the rev range is so large that it is exilerating to drive and that nothing handles anywhere close to as good as it does (in its relative price range).
Just a couple of my thoughts on your comments. My argument would be if they really wanted it to be a Zoom-Zoom vehicle they need to add a stick as an option. That way people could do the rev to slip clutch take off.
I would have to disagree. The 2.3 DISI Turbo has plenty of kick, just not below 2,500 RPM's. Every other driving dynamic of the vehicle is superb.
Mazda wanted this vehicle to be their own. Having the Duratec35 would not achieve that goal.
Believe it or not, Mazda does have a say in what they manufacture. Ford does not tell them what steps to take, and when to take them all the time.
Very well put. :shades:
-juice
When I close the doors, I seem to hear a very satisfying "thunk". Maybe our ears are different. :confuse:
Anyhow, I will be checking out the CX-7 when it rolls into town.. and hopefully no regrets.
Looks = Mazda
Handling = Mazda
Ride = Mazda
Transmission = Mazda
Interior Room = RAV4
Tires = Mazda
Fuel Economy = Toyota
Interior Style = Mazda
Acceleration = Toyota
Noise level = tie
Seating = Mazda
Uniqueness = Mazda
Warranty = Mazda
Reliability = Toyota
Fit & Finish = Mazda
Purchase = Mazda
The CX-7's problem is its weight, which adversely affects acceleration. Still, it is commendable that it handles better than almost all the cars in its price range and class.
I never commented on the build quality of the CX-7. Of course RAV4 uses lots of plastic as do almost all cars under $50K. I said the CX-7 uses sub-par plastics on the interior (compared to similar vehicles) but that had nothing to do with the build quality. In fact, the build quality is actually very good - it's screwed together quite well.
Today I drove a GT w/nav (not programmed yet so I couldn't test it or the rear view camera). Well-built. Tight with no rattles/undue noise/vibrations. Doors, however, felt a little light and sounded it when shut - a concern from a crash safety standpoint? (maybe. maybe not).
Yes, turbo lag is present. Car has no power until approx 2500 RPM, but then surges forward from 3000 onward (It'll take a few days to get used to that "rubber band" effect and acclimate to a style that allows for smooth and seamless acceleration.
Jaunts up to the 4000+ range were routinely neccessary to get the car accelerating ahead of the pace of anxious urban traffic, but once up to speed the 6-speed trans does a great job of keeping the revs low - should do better than the rated 24 mpg on hwy if kept below 65mph. Engine sounds much nicer (fairly well muted too) than "coarse" or "rough" I've read in the auto mags. But all those revs will keep fuel economy mediocre.
Leather seats are comfortable and motors whir with a muted sound and a precise feel. Sized just right for a family of four (but not five). Visibilty better than expected. This is basically a station wagon that's just a few inches higher up and is the perfect height for easy ingres/egress.
The car I drove had the Goodyear RS-As on it but the car hadn't been prepped and after the drive I was told the tire pressures were 40-60 lbs per tire (affecting handling), so I'll reserve judgement there, but preliminarily, it handled very well - better than a Murano SE, Subaru Legacy GT, but not as well as an Infinity FX35 (obviously a much pricier car). Brakes were strong.
Bose stereo not used b/c nav system wasn't operational. A/C pretty good. Neat feature - the small triangular window ahead of the side mirrors gives extra visibility in tight quarters. Wind noise acceptably low.
I'll report more when I drive it again after one gets prepped properly.
Regards,
Deanie
I posted my choices earlier and revised them. Murano is great - love the look, feel, quality, strong brakes, spacious, three across seating in back, great build quality and reliability - but it's crash numbers were not as high as I'd like. I'm looking for 5* in all categories - Murano has some 4's, and it's unneccesarily tall adversely affecting its handlling.
I looked at the Murano SE but you have to get a mandatory $4000+ option pkg to get the stability control, bringing it too close to FX35 in price to ignore. Despite less cargo room and two inches less interior back seat width, FX35 is only a few thousand more, has better handling, braking, crash numbers ("good" fom IIHS is outstanding), higher end materials, build quality, features, power, warranty, truly sublime sport seats, etc.
In all the Murano is an excellent vehicle but for me, it's overpriced when equipped with stability control - a vital option if safety is a factor.
See my post on GT test drive. My opinion of the CX-7 is now much higher than my 1st impression suggested. But the rear seat may be too small for my need to seat 3 across in the back. Murano did it with ease, the FX35 does it with a slightly tighter fit, but it may be sardines in the back of a CX-7. And, no, I wouldn't want a CX-9 - I just couldn't pay good money for a Ford V6.
Regards,
Deanie
I think the plastics used are much better then what is seen in other vehicles.
I happen to agree with your last comment about the little triangle windows. They gave me a little smirk when I looked out them while driving.
Anyhow, the Mazda dealership called me today to announce that the CX-7s were in. I had to go down to take a look. . Awesome looking car from the outside. As users have indicated before I did find it smallish on the inside. Did not have opportunity to drive as I was pretty honest with the salesman about my new Murano (but always loved Mazda). I think the CX-7 is going to do great in the market and Deanie, I think you will be happy in which ever vehicle you end up in. Good luck in the hunt. It's the best part!
I'd say I would take a CX-7 over the Acura. Similar power, similar size, similar amenities, and much much cheaper. And did I mention for some reason the RDX reminds me of a goat. The CX-7 is much better looking.
What is being said about the CX-7 is strangely formiliar to what is being observed about the RDX. Here is what the review said about the acceleration:
"The engine seems to have been tuned to be torque-friendly down low but still somewhat "revvy" like other Acura engines. Power comes on strong after about 2,000 and stays there until the 6,800 rpm redline."
And here is what was said about the turbo four vs a V6:
"For the Honda faithful, this must come across as a dramatic shock. Acura's engineers say they went this route because new technologies became available that made a turbo four a better design choice than a normally aspirated V6."
-driver
The troubling thing about buying a CX-7 (from my standpoint) is that there may not be crash test numbers available within the next month or two - when we plan to buy. And if two kid seats and a small adult (my wife) can't fit in the rear seat, it's a no-go anway. But until wifey goes to the dealer w/kids and kid seats, we won't even know that much.
Yes, Muranos are selling at or below invoice, but from what I've read, Infinity FX's sell at or slightly above invoice, so their relative closeness in price remains. The hunt you referred to is the best part of the buying process. Trying them all out is kinda like dating again . I'm thoroughly enjoying it.
CX-7 will do great in the market. It's a smart car - station wagon space/utility, handling, awd, beauty, overall quality, probable above average reliabilty and decent fuel economy for its weight, all for a very competitive price. The salesman, though, pointed out that the CX-7's are all going to be sold at MSRP. That won't last. Enjoy the Murano - it'll last forever, and its CVT is something else.
Regards,
Deanie
In term of safety, the CX-7 is targeted to achieve 5 star ratings for driver and passenger in NCAP frontal crash test, as well as a 5 star rating in the NCAP side crash test. The vehicle comes standard with front, side, and side-curtain airbags, seat-belt pretensioners, and load limiters.
Advanced safety features include a brake-pedal assembly designed to prevent intrusion in a frontal collision, a rollover sensor for the side-curtain airbags, and a "neck-impact-absorbing" front seat designed to reduce neck injuries.
Sounds safe for me
Sat in one at lunch today, but did not drive as it was raining cats and dogs, and the front end is virtually invisible from the drivers seat. Maybe its not an issue, but I'd hate to mangle that pretty schnozz the first time I pulled into a garage.
Great looking car though. This one was on the floor finished in copper red and sand leather. Seats were comfy, plenty of room with the seats down especially. Really like the instrument panel. Was 28 and change on the sticker. Did not even discuss price as its not realistic for me to be purchasing right now. Salesman said they got 3 on Monday and have not sold one yet.
2021 Jeep Wrangler Sahara 4xe Granite Crystal over Saddle
2024 Audi Q5 Premium Plus Daytona Gray over Beige
2017 BMW X1 Jet Black over Mocha
In 1988, working as free-lance designer for an ad agency, I designed a brochure for a company making the kits dealers bought ($39.95) for applying "paint sealant". In a demo of the kit for step-by-step photos the company rep admitted that it does nothing for the paint except make it shinny for a couple weeks. Most of it evaporates.
It's BACK at some dealers! Watch for it and do not get scammed. Report it to your state's attorney general. Bad dealer's think it is time to make money off a new generation. If they say you have to take it, go elsewhere.
fowler3
At first, the it's tough to judge where the nose is, but, you get the hang of it after a couple of drives.
Yes it is impossible to see any of the front end (view stops at windshield) Tied a tennis ball to the garage cieling to contact top of windshield to assist in parking.
Overall visability is excellent while driving. Small front mini windows are actually useable (no blind spots). It only takes a few drives to get comfortable with where the front bumper is.