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
If the CX-7 had a V6 option then I think it would be comparable, but you can't really compare a smooth CVT to a quick turbo. As someone has already said, the comparisson for the Mazda is more so the Rav4 V6, not the Murano. IMO the Murano competes with the CX-9 more than anything.
Oh, and to whomever was saying that people drive the Mazda more... That's pretty silly. The Mazda gets around 4-5 mpg less in real world tests (consumer reports said it got 12 mpg in the city whereas Murano was around 16) and REQUIRES premium fuel -- something the Murano does not.
Your fuel costs will be higher as will your repairs/maintenance. Now, like I said, a side-by-side of the CX-9 with the Murano would make more sense.
The Murano and CX-7 are more like grapes and grapples, not apples and oranges. Their styling is remarkably similar. In fact, I gave a ride to a friend this weekend in my CX-7 and he immediately asked "Is this a Murano?" LOL.
So, my friend, trying to compare the CX-7 to the RAV4 just won't work... they are so dis-similar, that the comparison doesnt make sense. That's why you have the CX-7 vs Murano thread. I'm sure both of us agree that both the Murano and CX-7 far outclass the RAV4, don't you think?
:P
Vince.
Ya they also said it does 0-60 in 9.5 seconds, how about reading about true mileage on Edmunds? How about the fact it gets same or better with a more aggressive style of driving? Being younger, if I own both the Murano would be parked!
They are not in the same class, nor is the Rav IMO, much closer to the RDX and X3.
"Your fuel costs will be higher as will your repairs/maintenance."
Does $200/Yr (given they both get simillar mileage) makes it difficult for you to budget for a $25+K vehicle? Who said you have more maintenance to do? Was it CR again?
As someone already said in the post above yours, sss, the murano is a cruiser. It's not meant to be a slalom champion or speed racer. It can handle it's own (0-60 in 8 seconds isn't terrible for a mid-size SUV with decent gas mileage), but it was meant for better ride comfort and quietness.
Don't get me wrong -- I loved the CX-7 for what it was. However, it's just not a comparable thing to the Murano. Like I said, the CX-9 is more the size and style comparisson (V6 engines, weight, dimensions, interior, etc.).
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/suvs/112_0703_crossover_suv_comparison/
Who would I beleive, someone trying to step on the car to get performance numbers, or normal folks that drive it?(Even though all CX buyers step on it!!) Check Murano MPG forum please, like a few others have mentioned, they are THE SAME. MT mentioned Murano requires premium!
As for V6 vs I4, I have an A4 1.8T, I get 20-22 in town , my friend with the 2.8 gets 17-19!!Mine is a 2001 his is a 2002. Sorry but that's how you should look at it, not the WRX/Evo configuration.
Yes we agree they are not the same class, but don't agree regarding depreciation, maintenance, MPG,fuel cost,repair cost. :P
As for the gas mileage, I've seen people say most get 19-20 mpg in "mixed" driving, and around 15-16mpg in straight city driving. For a car with a more powerful V6 to have the same if not slightly better numbers than a 4cyl turbo should tell you something. Like I said, I've had both, and turbo's are fun but most people that are smart will tell you a V6 is where it's at. Maybe I've grown out of my teenage years (I'm in my 20s) but a turbo 4-banger just doesn't satisfy like the rumbling of a V6 with serious torque on tap.
And in respose to the article... I would hope the Murano is a "hot rod" when compared to a Toyota Highlander, Hyundai Santa Fe, and a Ford Edge :P.
Now, in today's market, you may be right...it might be more prudent to compare the Murano with the 9. But in the near future, when the new re-designed Murano hits the market, then a new thread can be started. Can the new Murano be compared, then, with the CX-9? Stay tuned!
Vince.
How so? The CX-9 has superior interior room, 3rd row seating, more powerful engine, only 87 octane required, more luxury features. All this at almost the same price range. I guess they do have that in common.
Mazda lists the Murano as a direct competitor. They did this with full knowledge of the CX-9 coming a year later.
Vince.
I never had a problem comparing apples and oranges for that matter.
Now before you all jump my sorry [non-permissible content removed] I think both the CX-7 and CX-9 are beautifully styled vehicles and yes, Mazda does have a lot to offer.
Murano is also a beautiful vehicle.. I think, though (and I've said it before) that a comparison between it and the CX-7 is a bit silly as they are (other than great looks) completely different vehicles. I will say the same for the CX-9.
I own a Murano and will forever be biased but I will not forget my Mazda days.. especially those free loaners!!!
No jumping here! Just asking how the Murano compared to the CX-9.
All three are great vehicles, all offering something different. However, this is where we all come to disagree with each other :P
I frequently tow my bikes to the dessert, use the roof racks for home depot stops and flip the back seats down (effortlessly) for my side work. Monday through Friday, the CX-7's sporty attributes make my 15 mile commute a joy to drive. When I hit 60, in 24 years, I'll likely be up for something more cushy.
The murano takes 87 octane. It does not require premium.
CX-9 has a more powerful engine, yes, but all that gets you is less efficient fuel mileage and a half-second faster on the 0-60 speed. I guess if you like that, go ahead.
Btw, a fully loaded CX-9 is more expensive than a loaded Murano SL (FWD w/ touring and navigation).
I love it when people guarantee something without posting the basis for it. Nevertheless, in a way you are right. :P
Rear seat (2nd row) stats in inches, from mfr websites:
Headroom: Murano 39.2, CX-9 39.0
Legroom: Murano 36.1, CX-9 39.8
Hiproom: Murano 56.6, CX-9 56.0
Shoulder room: Murano 59.1, CX-9 58.7
And before the Nissan-lovers feel slighted and start to rebut, let me just ask - which do you think you'll notice more in the back seat: the 0.6 inches of hiproom, or the 3.7 inches of legroom?
Sure, people come in a variety of shapes and sizes, and don't always find comfort in the same ways - but by the numbers, your assumptions about the design intent for the vehicles are bunk.
styling and interior too dull. We liked the new Rav-4 V6 as it had good interior room but didn't like the rear tire and dash. Murano had nice interior (except dash)and we liked the handling and ride, but it had a small rear seat and the
transmission was horrible. The CX-7 had the best combo of excellent handling, good fuel economy (we get 18 city 23 hwy)with our FWD. Interior room is great except behind the rear seat, and the styling both inside and out is the leader in this price segment. We love to Zoom Zoom and are both well over the hill in age. :shades:
I'm surprised to see Mazda has more legroom, but to me the seats didn't feel as supportive under my legs. To each their own, carlitos, but I'd like to know if you've actually ever driven, sat in, or ridden in the back seat of a Murano? I have. In fact, I've done that in the CX-7 as well just so I could get that feel for it. The car is different from a CX-7, but it seems the Napoleon complexes around here want the small car to be equivalently compared.
Do you care to tell me why reviews like Consumer Reports say one of the drawbacks of the CX-7 is "rear seat comfort" while one of the excellent ratings for the Murano is the same thing? They show rear seat legroom as 28" on CX-7 while 29" on Murano (they say "rear fore-aft room").
I'm not knocking the Murano, or even saying that one is better than the other for everybody. Quite the opposite: like I alluded to in my post, what you or I find "comfortable," someone else may not. Even two people 6'1" like me might have different inseams. My point was if you're going to make bold claims, you ought to do the research on the numbers and not just personal experience.
The Murano may be bigger than the CX-7 in many, if not all respects, but I still think they are cross-shopped and can be compared. And yes, I have sat in and driven a Murano. The styling and CVT were the biggest turnoffs for me, but aside from that, I did not prioritize the extra room or towing capacity very high on my list. As we've said, to each his own.
Speaking of research, who was on here saying the CX-7 was faster than the Murano? According to most speed tests, the CX-7 isn't even close. It's a full second behind the murano at least in the 0-60 tests alone....
According to CR... Murano 0-60 is 8.0 seconds and CX-7 is 9.1 seconds. In other tests the CX-7 is as high as 10 seconds! Pretty sad for a turbo.
C/D is supposed to compensate for ambient temperature etc. during their tests, but who can tell what the range of production tolerances on engines is... I'll concede that the Murano appears to be faster on paper in this case, but I'll throw in that a difference that small really doesn't matter in the real world.
(I'll also throw in that the turbo engines will gain a LOT more performance in cold weather than an NA V-6 will... )
Actually, it's 9.8 meters/second2 - but you knew that.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Perhaps he meant linear speed?
The CX-9 has superior 2nd row leg room over the Murano. Also, it is apparent that you have never sat in a CX-9. I am 6'-3", and I can fit in the third row with relative ease.
Yes, the CX-9 has more power and is designed to run on regular ONLY. No recommendation of 91, sans Murano.
Btw, a fully loaded CX-9 is more expensive than a loaded Murano SL (FWD w/ touring and navigation).
Um, a loaded Murano SE w/nav, moon roof, leather, memory seating, heated mirrors, etc. and AWD is $38,700. A loaded CX-9 GT with nav, AWD, similarly equipped is $38,730, and you get the 3rd row, more HP. With the CX-9, you get more for the money.
I could go into extreme detail of both of these vehicle, but, you are better off going to mazdausa.com and nissanusa.com and see for yourself.
Once again, if you want the 3rd row, go for it. The Murano obviously isn't catered to people with small children that could use the front row because I guarantee YOU never will nor will any full sized adult or teenager. Haven't you seen the CX-9 commercials? That is a "family of 4" car which is why I said murano is more for "adults only". Do you really want to go back and read what I wrote first? I highly doubt you sat back there "with ease" -- probably uncomfortable for any length of time, but I highly doubt you fit back there like it was a couch. Oh, and yes, I have sat in a CX-9. I like it, but for nearly $38,000 (I get a fully loaded SL murano w/navi for $33,000) I think I can go elsewhere.
I've never owned either car so I'm not a homer for mazda or Nissan, but apparently if you so much as say anything counter to Mazda's being the best all time the homers will come out in full force.
Define what trim of CX-9 are you talking about? Sport? Touring? Grand Touring? Since you said "fully loaded CX-9", I assume you meant Grand Touring. Since that is the top trim, I compared that to a fully loaded top of the line Murano, SE not SL, for an accurate comparison.
Now, lest compare apples to apples, shall we? A "fully loaded Murano SL" as you say, which is the mid trim leval. We will compare that the the loaded mid trim of the CX-9, which is the Touring. A Murano SL w/ leather, DSC (added as option), Nav, sunroof and XM radio (comes with the Nav system) has an MSRP of $37,550. A CX-9 Touring with leather, DCS and RSC (std.), moon roof and Bose Audio system, Nav, and Sirius Radio (added as option to make comparo fair) has an MSRP of $36,637. Both vehicles are FWD, not AWD.
I have taken a 30 minute drive in the rear seat of the CX-9, and I was ok. I did fit back there with ease, I am in them every day. Would I sit back there for a long road trip, or extended period of time? No, but it was designed for teens and children to be back their, not adults. The 2nd row and front seat are designed with tremendous comfort for the adult passengers. I know the Murano was designed for adults, that why I originally stated that the two do not compare. I believe this is how the convo started. The Murano competes with the CX-7, and the CX-9 is in a different class. That has been my point from the beginning. You confirmed that by stating "The Murano obviously isn't catered to people with small children..." That is the primary target of the CX-9, families with children.
I've never owned either car so I'm not a homer for mazda or Nissan, but apparently if you so much as say anything counter to Mazda's being the best all time the homers will come out in full force.
I would disagree with that. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. There are pro's and con's with every vehicle that every mfg makes. If you look in every thread Edmunds has to offer that compares vehicles against one another, you will see everyone seems to agree to disagree.
Don't assume that I am bashing the Murano, because I am not. The Murano is a great vehicle, and sales have been fantastic. It just does not compare to the CX-9.
thats weird, I have the CX-9 on a road course with many twists and turns at high speeds, and the stability control never kicked in. It takes total loss of driver control before it kicks in.
Vince.
Isn't that like being only a little pregnant
In my mind unless some power is always going there...it's not continually active.
Vince.
Once the wheels start to break, which is considered "losing control", DSC kicks in, regaining drive position, and keeping the driver in control...
You're going to encounter this problem no matter which vehicle you're driving. Large vehicles, such as the larger SUVs, pickups, and vans, when parked next to you, in adjacent parking slots, will block your view. It's like having a wall on either side of you. I always have to back out (creep out) very carefully, to the point where I can clearly see in both directions, then I can back out a bit more quickly, with confidence, that I'm not going to hit anything. Drivers of the Murano, CX-7, CX-9, RDX, Outlander, Tribeca and other sleeker, squatter vehicles will naturally be at a disadvantage when parked next to taller Escalades, Suburbans and similar vehicles.
Vince.
--Unless you have a standard rear view camera like on a Murano
Vince