Mazda CX-7

fowler3 · June 2006

As with all cars having short sloaping hoods stay back a car length at least. At traffic lights keep back far enough so you can see the entire car ahead of you including its rear wheels and a little extra road for good measure.

In your garage make a mini speedbump for your front wheels. I use a mark on the garage wall, to my left, which lines up with my outside rear view mirror. Then I know I have plenty of space ahead of the car to move about.

Have you seen the CX-7 commercials yet? There was one on CBS Friday evening.

fowler3

audia8q · June 2006

I wasn't thinking about MPG while driving it this weekend but I didn't notice the fuel consumption to be unusual or excessive. I usually drive a SUV of some sort anyway, so I never get great MPG...if anything it was a little better than the Tribute I was driving and alot better than the Navigator I had this winter.

I don't think the gas mileage will be a big issue for most buyers in this class..

jason330i · June 2006

"I don't think the gas mileage will be a big issue for most buyers in this class.."

i disagree. i think gas mileage + premium fuel is going to hurt sales. at least it did for me.

au1994 · June 2006

I think you're right, audia8q. The concerns around MPG are mostly a personal one as I am looking to replace a 4Runner that I get about 16 MPG. I'd be happy with the 18-19 EPA rating, but requiring premium fuel is not good to me. Already have a Volvo that requires premium, but luckily we're getting 23 in that.

au1994 · June 2006

Let me put on my politician hat and say that you are both right.

Those shoppers that are looking at a loaded up GT version are not going to be as off put about premium fuel and less than stellar MPG as someone like myself who is cross shopping the CX-7 with the Rav4, CR-V and Forester. These vehicles all have versions that are less optioned and can be had at a very nice price. In the case of the Forester and Rav4, there are 2 engine choices. While you can get a "de-contented" CX-7, there's still only one engine choice.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is another engine Mazda could fit in the CX-7 that would foot the bill. Can you imagine how anemic performance would be with a normally aspirated 4cyl if they can get "only" 7.9 0-60 times out of a 244 hp turbo 4?

fowler3 · June 2006

I find it hard to believe buyers who can afford a $30K car care about MPG and the cost of gas? Especially since they already own three vehicals.

And like most new cars, don't expect the best fuel economy until the CX-7 has at least 4,000 miles on it, 5K is better. Over the coarse of piling up those miles gas prices will be up and down many times. When they are up drive one of the other vehicales. The last time I had two cars, a new one and an older one, deciding which one to drive to work was easy -- the one that had gas in it.

If 20 cents or 30 cents a gallon more is a deal-breaker you are salivating at the wrong dealership.

fowler3

honaker · June 2006

Getting my Black Cherry Mica GT AWD w/Tech tomorrow evening. I can't wait! I've got a 100 mile drive back home in it, so should have some time to use the nav system and mp3 capabilities.

audia8q · June 2006

If 20 cents or 30 cents a gallon more is a deal-breaker you are salivating at the wrong dealership

I agree....if you put a pencil to the cost difference between unleaded and super were talking a couple hundred dollars a year for the avg driver. If that is a deal breaker the consumer needs to be looking at something else.

au1994 · June 2006

I can't 100% agree with that. If you are looking at 2 vehicles of similar size, price and capability, yet one gets better MPG on regular and one gets worse MPG on premium, it is a key factor in decision making. It's not a matter of shopping over ones head, its a matter of what factors are important in the vehicle.

ateixeira · June 2006

FWIW, in the Forester XT threads, there are plenty of people that drop the turbo from their shopping list when they find out premium is required.

It's not rational, sure, if you can afford to spend $3k on an upgrade engine, $150/year extra in gas won't hurt you. But that's how people think.

Maybe it's because you feel the pain at the pump every week. Monthly payments for the vehicle are usually paid automatically.

-juice

au1994 · June 2006

I think thats a good way to look at it: weekly pain vs monthly pain.

Plus, the reason someone is shopping that vehicle in the 1st place. If they are looking for the performance of the turbo motor, then its a correct statement, $150 a year is no biggie and would not influence anyone's decision.

But, if you are looking at the utility 1st, then I go back to my argument above. All else being equal, MPG and premium fuel is a factor.

kyfdx · June 2006

.. I think the total fuel cost is a factor in almost everyone's buying decision.. So, I don't think it is just the factor of premium fuel... if the competing car gets lower mileage and uses premium fuel, it is a double whammy... no different from a vehicle that has higher insurance rates..

Maybe there is a price point where it ceases to matter.. but I sure don't think that is under $50K (at least not for me).

But, for some older buyers, premium fuel seems to be a hot button all by itself, regardless of income level..

regards,
kyfdx

audia8q · June 2006

I don't really disagree with anyone, I just don't get it. if the cost of operation was thousands more than I would understand....but assuming this is the vehicle I want a couple hundred bucks a year isnt changing my mind. I'm also a twin engine boat owner, so clearly I don't know anything about good gas mileage...If you want to hear some real whining, stop by the marina sunday while I'm filling up.

ateixeira · June 2006

B.O.A.T. = Bring On Another Thousand.

The CX7 does fall in to a price class where the consumer is still operating-cost sensitive, especially a base FWD model. Invoice is just $22 something.

Another thing - you pay off a car loan in 5 years, but keep paying for gas long after that if you keep it for many years. My Forester is 9 years old, for instance.

Over a 9 year period, a RAV4 running on regular and getting +2mpg better than a CX7 would definitely add up over time.

Though honestly, most people just freak out about gas prices. "20 cents more for premium, no way!"

-juice

afishionada · June 2006

Does anyone know what octane level is required? At some stations near here the premium is the middle grade - not the highest so there is only a 15 cent difference between regular and premium.

zoom49 · June 2006

Does anyone know what octane level is required?
Owners manual says 91 octane.
When we were considering the new RAV4 V6 vrs the CX-7 we figured that the Toyota's better fuel economy and non premium fuel was worth about $37.50 a month
$450.00 a year
$3,600 over our average 8 year life cycle.
That would buy a nice vacation or other must have's,
We just didn't want to drive what everybody else was driving.

fowler3 · June 2006

It's the amount of annual income spent on fuel vs income and the cost of the new car. I added up the annual cost for my first Mazda, a 1981 GLC hatchback vs the 2001 Protegé and its costs. The GLC cost approx. $6,250, the Protegé $15,350. In 1981 gas was $1.00 a gallon, sometimes lower. In 2001, gas was $2.50 a gallon, as the example. It worked out to 6% for the GLC and 6.2% for the Protegé. I had less income in 1981 than in 2001.

Compare the costs to a car you owned 15 or 20 years ago and see if the difference in percentage of income is higher or lower. Of course, you may have more expenses now and that is what is making the decision harder. What are you willing to give up?

Audia8q needs to learn the joy and excitement of fuel-free boating -- namely sailing. It's very much like flying. With power boating you eventually realize that filling a 50 gallon gas tank and going out plowing water for the day doesn't make much sense.

fowler3 · June 2006

The Protegé gets 23.5 miles per gallon, Mazda claims the CX-7 gets approxiately 23mpg combined mileage. For my annual mileage the difference between regular and premium is only $71.45 a year. It's the cost of the CX-7 that is the buggabear for me.

But other people drive more than I do.

dave90 · June 2006

Sorry, have to disagree in a big way with the phony $37.50 a month $450 a year number for the additional cost of premium gas.

On average premium gas costs $.20 to $.21. Assuming the CX-7 gets 20 or 21 miles to the gallon (lower than the EPA), this means it costs about 1 cent per mile more. People would have to drive 45,000 miles/year for this number to be accurate. I am sure some people drive that much, but it is far from average.

zoom49 · June 2006

have to disagree in a big way with the phony $37.50 a month $450 a year number for the additional cost of premium gas
I'm sorry if you misunderstood my statement. This cost was for the additional fuel for a CX-7 compaired to the more powerful RAV4. We agree with the +20 cent upgrade for the
premium fuel cost. Looks like in real world numbers that the CX-7 will average 2 MPG less that the RAV4. When you combine the 20 cent difference and the 64 gallons of extra gas at 14,000 miles per year you get my non phony numbers.

Look I was one of the first here to purchase a CX-7 so I
was able to overcome these numbers.

aviboy97 · June 2006

If you want to hear some real whining, stop by the marina sunday while I'm filling up.

I bet you my whining will top yours when you see what I have to pay for aviation fuel. 100 octane low lead fuel is outrageous.

I happen to agree that the couple hundred dollars extra in fuel/year is worth the driving experience advantage over the competition.

ateixeira · June 2006

Over time it does add up. I don't drive 14k miles/year but still.

Any how, the bottom line is it's more important to enjoy the vehicle. If you find the RAV4 dull (if), then it doesn't make sense to pick that based on saving a few bucks on fuel.

Conversely, if you enjoy the CX7's handling, it's probably worth paying more to be happy in the long run. I'd rather spend more on gas vs. being unsatisfied with a $26,000 purchase.

If you like them both equally, then the savings are compelling.

-juice

aviboy97 · June 2006

I would say a similar analogy would be a Honda S2000 Vs. Mazda MX-5. There is a couple thousand in price difference, but, the S2000 is much faster. If you like the performance of a S2000 over the MX-5, the extra $$$ is worth it.

Just a different example of how dollars and cents comes into play in cars often shopped against each other.

rockytee · June 2006

Today I had the time to visit the Mazda dealer in my area and look at the CX-7. I wasn't able to test drive it because they were quite busy. I took a peak from the bottom and tried to see how the rear bumper was put together.
I might be wrong but I couldn't see anything solid that would serve as some protection. There was just a thin plate hanging far from the plastic bumper and when I pushed my knee against the bumper, the whole thing gives.
At least on the Mazda5, there is a solid piece(3" thick) mounted inside the upper edge of the bumper (5"-6" high)
I wonder if anybody has noticed the same?

fowler3 · June 2006

I have wondered what is behind the rear facias on cars which would give protection. The other day I saw a Mazda Protegé with half the rear facia broken off -- there was only a piece of white plastic across the rear of the car, looks something like molded framework which supports other plastic products, think Rubbermade stools. No real bumper was visible. In other words they do not have a steel bar welded to the frame, there is no frame. That was a surprise considering I drive a Protegé.

fowler3

varmint · June 2006

Bumpers, especially rear ones, are not really designed to protect the vehicle. Most of the time, they're just a plastic skin over a chunk of styrofoam. In fact, you're lucky if you get the styrofoam.

Instead, the design of the car is engineered to "give" when struck by another vehicle. The idea is to sacrifice the paint job to save the lives of the occupants... and save a few bucks in the process.

I think you'll find this is not different with any other cars on the market. For example, both the RDX and new CR-V come with a disposable panel on the rear hatch. They knew the hatch would get damaged and designed it to be easy and cheap to replace.

ateixeira · June 2006

Interesting, but not all cars are like that.

Subarus have an aluminum beam running across the rear. If you've seen any cutaways it's hard to miss.

They've done well in IIHS bumper basher tests, keeping damage down to a minimum, as well as crash tests, so besides extra weight and cost I don't see a trade-off.

-juice

tomekk · June 2006

Car and Driver reported 14MPG for the AWD CX-7 Sport tested. This does look like a problem, I think there was also another road test reporting very poor mileage, but can't recall where it was published.

My wife's 4WD Honda Pilot gets 18-19MPG in town, on regular. I'm very interested in real world MPG numbers for the CX-7.

Interestingly, the RX-8 gets 14-16MPG (with the Wankel engine) when driven in a spirited way - much less than the EPA estimates.

willock · June 2006

What you discovered about the cx7 rear bumper may prove to be the same game that many manufacturer's (but not all) have played from time to time to the customer's great disadvantage. I don't know about Canadian bumper requirements but US laws in the late 70's & early 80's required first 2.5MPH and later 5MPH and later still back to 2.5MPH minimum impact speeds into either the front or rear bumper without damage. At the time the manufacturer's (especially the big 3) howled that A. this would be hard to do and B that it would add about 18 pounds to the weight of the car thereby lowering gas mileage. Both of these claims were, of course, ridiculous. The reason the auto manufacturers resisted strong bumper standards was because this would lower sales of crash parts for cars involved in minor parking lot accidents. Everyone in the auto business knows that replacement crash parts (e.g. hoods, fenders, trunk lids, etc.) are breathtakingly profitable to the manufacturer because it has no pricing competition for these parts. You can buy batteries or brake pads etc. from many vendors at competitive prices but almost no one except the manufacturer is going to make a front fender for your vehicle. Only the manufacturer has the body dies to stamp out these replacement parts cheaply and the wholesale markup to the dealers are astronomical ($20 worth of steel for a hood that costs the dealer hundreds of dollars). Insurance companies pushed for bumper standards so insurance premium costs could be lower but Congress, with heavy lobbying by some manufacturers, compromised and exempted truck like vehicles from any bumper standards. When, for example, the initial Toyota RAV4 came out there was no actual rear bumper because this SUV was labled a truck. Crash tests into a pole in a parking lot at less than 5 MPH caused $5500 worth of damages (rear hatch, roof, floor pan) when it could have cost zero with 5MPH bumpers. Lots of profitable parts sales for Toyota paid for by the insurance company but really by all of us through higher insurance premiums. Some companies (like Subaru) have not cheated and offered strong bumpers even on their SUV's which they are not legally required to do. It is disappointing if Mazda is now going to play this legal (but unethical) game with the cx7 which otherwise seems to be such an excellant vehicle. Please note that nowhere in any written material or on any website does Mazda claim what crash speed standard the cx7 bumpers will meet. If they do meet the minimum 2.5 MPH government standards than they should publically clear this up immediately with an unambiguous written statement.

la4mead · June 2006

Mazda and other manufacturers may think the lack of true 5 MPH bumpers is not a consideration for buyers, however it is one reason I did not buy a RAV4 back in the 90's (cheaply built car) and I stand by that decision. I spent more on a car that did have true 5 MPH bumpers since I believe the added strength at the initial point of impact helps prevent unwanted insurance claims and expense as Willock explained so well. I also believe it helps form a safer car in general. I think the CX7 is too expensive a car to have left out this important feature.

I've been rear-ended three times since I purchased my current car, the RX300. At the time I had to commute in early traffic that would go from 70 MPH to a dead stop and back again, with frequent occurrences of rear-end collisions all around. The first time the 18 year old guy looking down (at his phone?) instead of at stopped traffic who hit me, totalled his Altima into the back of my RX; I held the brake pedal down to avoid being pushed into the car in front of me but it took 8 pulses from the strong ABS and my oversize tires to bring my car to a halt after he hit me with such force.

My car had a tiny tear in the bumper cover, and the styrafoam absorber was replaced. No other damage. Inspected by the my body shop and by two Lexus dealers to make sure. Total bill to fix my car including everything $360. His Altima used every crumple zone in the front, the engine tilted to stop the impact, and everything bent to the firewall. Another time I was rear-ended by a pickup; no damage to my car at all.

Bumpers built to withstand 5 MPH impact are getting harder to find because manufacturers don't think it's a selling feature, and they would rather sell parts for frequent repairs or have the consumer want to replace their old "wreck" sooner. I will continue to look for cars that have a more substantial frame in the bumper, because I know for the number of years I live with the car, the likelihood of the bumper being used for protecting the car from damage is pretty high. :sick:

I believe Consumer Reports still tests for damage at 5 MPH regardless of the lack of bumper protection, don't they? Is this information also available from NHTSA? I hope they keep it up.

rinarm · June 2006

I just checked my new GT AWD. Your correct there is a plate hanging down at the point where the bumper facsia stops. The plate has fixed fasteners which probably are used for the towing add on. However, in back of the plate there is a box section which runs from the body frame horns on either side of the vehicle. I can't vouch for how substantial the box section is, but there is a reinforced member in back of the fascia and impact foam. Four months ago, my Tribute was rear ended by a RAV 4, the fascia along with the tow mounting was replaced. I was able to continue after the collision, the RAV 4 had to be towed.

billvack · June 2006

I got my CX-7 GT AWD on Thursday. Filled it up yesterday.
260 miles on the car 13.7 gallons, so I am looking at miles per gallon - 18.9 MPG. This was half city half Highway. I would expect it to get a bit better as the car gets broken in.

varmint · June 2006

I believe C&D includes all fuel used during their testing with the vehicle. So that number will include all the 0-60 runs at the drag strip. This is not uncommon for magazine tests.

Dan Neil got 24 mpg on his short drive a few months back. So, how you drive the vehicle will make a big difference in how efficient it will be.

Figure EPA estimates are accurate if you normally drive like a little old lady. Subtract 1 mpg for every trip you figure you'll be out enjoying the turbo.

fowler3 · June 2006

The local dealer has a white CX-7 GT in stock and white is not its best color. It really kills the styling, the fender humps are totally lost. It would be easy for this CX-7 to go unnoticed in traffic. With the almost white leather trim it's a washout visually. What added to the shock of the white was the extra cost for the paint -- $200. Walking around it I hoped the taillamps would offer something, but no, those too were bland -- LEDs don't show unless they are On. MSRP $30,755.

What kept grabbing my attention nearby were two Mazda3s, a five door and the sedan version in Copper Red. I couldn't take my eyes off of them and that says a lot for that color -- it's outstanding. I can see why Mazda has limited Copper Red to the CX-7 for 2007.

If I were buying yesterday it would not have been the CX-7.

billvack · June 2006

I have the Copper Red CX-7 GT AWD w/tech package. The car is beautiful. I have had people come up to me at gas stations, parking lot, almost anywhere I go. They just say it is remarkable looking. They love the color and the styling. I guess that's because they are far and few between right now.
I almost wanted the Black cherry - until I saw it. It is way to dark for my likes. The book shows a lighter Black Cherry, but the dealers have the paint chip and it is dark.

aviboy97 · June 2006

Copper Red is not really a limited color, however, they have run out for now. Keep in mind, this color is also used on the 2006 Shinka RX-8, Mazda3, and MX-5.

I think if you see the CX-7 in any of the darker colors, or silver, you will change your tune on how it looks. With the Copper Red, the tail lights are really nice. Same goes for the black as well.

fowler3 · June 2006

aviboy97: On the Mazda3 forum they have listed the colors for 2007 and Copper Red Mica is not on the list. There are three other reds though.

I didn't mean to imply that I don't like the CX-7, I DO. It's that the styling is lost on the white versions because there is no contrast in lighting.

About mica paint: Mazda's "mica" paint is not metallic in the general meaning of that term. Buyers should not run their cars through car wash places using brushes or felt straps. The mica powder is not in the paint, it is in the clear coat and brushes can remove clear coat finishes. Other car companies call mica -- "pearl", same kind of finish. Always hand-wash and don't use an abrasive (cleaner) wax.

To confirm this lift the hatch and look at the paint on the underside. You should not see mica powder. For more information on maintenance check the other Mazda forums on Edmunds.com under Miantenance and Care.

fowler3 · June 2006

I've never liked red or white cars, but I think Copper Red Mica is the best color Mazda has had in a long time. It's rich without being too bright (think ordinary, think Dodge), it enhances the sheet metal instead of killing it the way white does. Look at the CX-7 on the left sidebar -- it shines.

Dark reds are coming into favor in other products as well, it's the "next big thing". Coffee makers in dark red sell out fast. Sofas in similar dark shades of red are big sellers.

jbuswell · June 2006

I saw a white CX-7 at the dealer when I picked up my CX-7. I got it in Liquid Platinum Metallic. The Platinum looks silver, until you park it next to a silver car, then it just looks awesome. I had it parked next to my trade (silver mazda 6s) and you could really see the difference. The Icy Blue looks pretty nice as well, the dealer had a CX-7 in that colour in the showroom. The copper red (on the RX-8) looked awesome. I didn't try to find a CX-7 in Copper Red Mica because we already have another red SUV and my wife didn't want two cars with the same colour

The white CX-7 was ok, but I agree with you, it does lose some of its visual appeal in white. That however didn't seem to stop the dealers from selling them though, all 3 dealers in Cincinnati that I asked about CX-7s and stock all had sold the white models they had in inventory.

aviboy97 · June 2006

aviboy97: On the Mazda3 forum they have listed the colors for 2007 and Copper Red Mica is not on the list. There are three other reds though.

I am aware of that, however, the CX-7 is the only 2007 model currently in production using Copper Red Mica. However, the upcomming CX-9 will be using it as well. The Mazda3, MX-5 and RX-8 Shinka are all 2006 models that use Copper Red Mica. Mazda has run out of Copper Red Mica for the time being. They were producing the 2006 Mazda3, RX-8 Shinka, and MX-5 the same time they were building the 2007 CX-7. That's all I was saying.

I've placed my first couple of 2007 allocations for Mazda3's, and I am aware of the new colors for 2007. NO Copper Red is a dissapointment to me!!

honaker · June 2006

The mica powder is not in the paint, it is in the clear coat and brushes can remove clear coat finishes. Other car companies call mica -- "pearl", same kind of finish. Always hand-wash and don't use an abrasive (cleaner) wax.

To confirm this lift the hatch and look at the paint on the underside.

I tried checking mine today at lunch, black cherry mica. It's definitely sparkly on the body part of the lift gate. I'm not sure about the lift part of the lift gate, though, as I couldn't get the sun to shine up and hit that part.

The black cherry mica is so dark that if it's shaded, it just looks black, but when it's lit, you can see it's a sparkly dark purple.

billvack · June 2006

Now that we have a few owners out there, and the cars are brilliant with mica powder and clear coat, what cleaners and/or polishes would you use. I don't think going to a car wash is a smart idea. I see Meguiars has some products for clear coat.
Do you think a paint protector is a good idea?

vbbuilt · June 2006

I've put on order the Copper Mica Red AWD Grand Touring w/Tech package for delivery in late June.

Aviboy97,understand your caution against car washes, but I live in a condo complex where car washing is prohibited. Hand washing is not an option. So, what's a guy to do? Any ideas? :confuse:

Vince

ambull · June 2006

Your car wash problem is easily solved. Don't you have do-it-yourself car wash places where you spray the car and dry it yourself?

billvack · June 2006

Someone also told me about mr clean auto dry pro. They said they loved it and it did a great job. Any comments ?

vbbuilt · June 2006

My concern with those DIY carwashes is that they don't work well if the car is extremely dirty - those high-powered spray nozzles may remove light soil, but don't do anything for salt-spray accumulated during winter or splashed-on mud while driving around city streets. The only way to get off that type of grime is either hand-wash or go through a tunnel wash that has rotating brushes.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but "mr clean auto dry pro" has to be attached to a garden hose, correct? If so, that won't solve my problem, as the condo community has no external water spigots...car washing isn't allowed here.

So, back to my original question...how do I clean my new car without destroying the finish?

Vince.

billvack · June 2006

From what I can see - yes the Mr Clean does use a garden hose...
Have any friends ???

vbbuilt · June 2006

Friends, yes, but not the kind that I would impose myself upon, time and time again.

Regards, Vince.

driverdm · June 2006

The good old fashion way. I have owned a marron, black, and now a white car that I kept in great shape through the good old fashion bucket, sponge, and car wash solution. I did make the upgrade to the sponge that was rougher on one side, and softer on the other.

I'd give it two coats of Meguires liquid car wax to start off and then re-apply every four months or so (note that I would not wax during the winter). Before winter give it another two coats and leave it till spring,

driverdm · June 2006

Dang, I am disappointed to hear that the white doesn't do the car justice. I love my white Mazda6. I bought a white car after owning a black one. The black one was the whirl mark (very very tiny small scratches) king. I hated not being able to take it to a normal car wash. The white may have tiny scratches from the numerous times it has been through the brushes at the car wash but they aren't visible to the naked eye. I was eyeing a Red Copper or Electric Blue CX-7 anyway.

Mazda CX-7

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles

Your Privacy