Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Hyundai Santa Fe vs Toyota RAV4 vs Mazda CX-7 vs Ford Edge
This discussion has been closed.
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
"The Edge lacks a third row and weighs 4528 pounds, 300 more than the larger, three-row Ford Freestyle. On the plus side, handling dynamics are surprisingly sporty, and the new V-6 feels eager. But when it comes to five-seat unibody SUVs, the less-expensive Mazda CX-7 clobbers the Edge. The CX-7 is more than 600 pounds lighter, has better braking and skidpad numbers, accelerates nearly as fast despite a smaller engine, boasts better fuel economy, and possesses steering feel that embarrasses that of many sports cars. Looks like it’s Mazda that really has the edge."
So, CX-7 rules...AGAIN!
:P
Vince.
All-in-all, I'd still say the CX-7 rules.
Another area of confusion seems to be the transmission and AWD system. The CX-7 uses a Aisin Tranny and the Edge uses a Ford Transmission. The CX-7 AWD system is Mazdaspeed6 based and the front wheel driveline is mazda6...the Edge uses a driveline that is unique to the Edge. The CX-9 will share with the CX-7.
The CX-7 and the CX-9 were designed from the get go to be different vehicles. The CX-9 is not a stretched CX-7.
Better let the sales team know. The one I spoke to "...with 25 years experience" was emphatic about this point as I expressed concerns about the size of the rear hatch opening. "It's gonna be exactly the same, except longer", he said even though here at Edmunds they note that other dimensions other than length have increased as well. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Unless something else catches our eye in the meanwhile.
Maybe so, but if you compare pics side by side, there are remarkable similarities. You can tell the CX-7 and CX-9 share the same DNA. Even the interiors are similar.
Vince.
Mazda Mazda6
Mazda CX-7Mazda CX-9
Ford Fusion/Mercury Milan/Lincoln Zephyr (scratch that, MKZ)
Ford Edge/Lincoln MKX
All above, except the CX-7, use the same platform.
The CX-7, in my opinion,has the best styling, the best cornering, handling, by far the best braking, and real close on acceleration with the TOY. The price was in line, fully loaded except navigation for $28,350.00 and it sports the all important Xenon lights. Once you drive at night with Xenon, you will never go back to halogen. Only the Murano offered Xenon lights, besides Mazda.
After 1700 miles, still pleased with the vehicle, however, there are also issues, as always, with the Mazda as well. Back seat legroom is fairly tight, hauling space is decreased because of the sculpted rear end, gas mileage could always be better(last fill up, not to bad at 18.5mpg), and it does run on premium fuel.
" ...once you get past the stellar V6, The RAV4 is a bit ordinary and doesn't offer the same value as its competitors" A.Harwood DEC Motor Trend issue.
The RAV4 has bluetooth and ipod hookup. As to the Nav, my portabe Garmin does a great job with one feature that I like better then my LS430 Nav. Incidently, the latest Consumer Reports 2007 Buying Guide gives the RAV4 a higher rating then any other SUV, except for the Toyoto and Lexus hybrid Suvs.
I'm not saying the CX-7 doesn't have its faults because it obviously does (heavy, thirsty, premium fuel, less cargo room), but it handles very good and has a much nicer interior design/quality and exterior design IMHO. I suppose it all depends on what you need in a vehicle. I need 3 good rows so both of these are out. I don't consider the Rav4 to have a "good" 3rd row. I wouldn't even put my worst enemies back there.
Sure, eventually it'll need to be replaced but there's nothing out there right now that I fell in love with was compelling enough to make me get rid of a usable vehicle in great shape.
Thanks all for your input. Let's do this again after the Highlander is redesigned, the Edge and CX-9 have been around enough for feedback, Toyoter gets rid of the barn door (we hope), Murano gets a facelift and lastly maybe there's a great big surprise out there that we haven't seen yet.
Outlannder.......RAV4
Braking ft........ .... 128..............130
600ft slalom mph ... 62.7.............60.6
Lateral acceleration g 078..............0.75
MT figure 8 (sec) ....... 28.3.............28.6
07 Outlander is outselling RAV 4 and CRV in Japan 3:1 so far this year.
"..The automatic transmission is almost as smooth as the new CR-V's, while the engine provides considerably more power. The combination is far superior to the RAV4 despite the Toyota's higher horsepower figure, and the Outlander is a better highway companion overall.... the Outlander handles steeply banked highway onramps with superb control and minimal body lean, giving the driver a sense of confidence not found in many SUVs — compact, car-based or otherwise.The ride was also car-like. Bumps were softly muted and road noise was minimal...Available with an optional manual four-wheel-drive system, the Outlander is one of the more affordable four-wheel-drive SUVs on the market, ...Surprisingly, the new Outlander seems to outclass its competitors on just about every front, although the RAV4 does offer more power with its optional V-6 engine (269 horsepower)."
I'm not really an SUV person... never have been. Some of them actually down-right piss me off. But I want more luxury (current car is a Toyota Matrix) and a bit more get-up-and-go. Love the fuel economy of the Matrix, and while the car has been good, it's missing a lot of what I want.
Below is what I looked at and my impressions... I'm looking at the top trims of each.
Mazda CX-7
CX-7 was first (and Mom test-drove the 3 Hatchback) - Loved the handling and size. I didn't feel like I was in an SUV at all. Didn't feel overwhelmed by the size, but felt like I was in a car big enough to compete with others on the road (from a safety stand-point). I'm in love with the aesthetics of the car inside and out, so nothing but thumbs-up there. Cabin was noisier than I expected but quieter than the Matrix. Very roomy in all areas accept when you're getting in... I actually bumped my head on the door frame (but that could also be because I'm just used to the low stance of a car and I was too gung-ho in my step up into the CX-7).
Downsides: Fuel effeciency. Not the best in it's class and definitely a step down from what I currently drive, and it takes premium gas. Noise only because I expected it to be quieter. Tech package is VERY nice but lacks iPod support, live traffic reporting and blue tooth. No memory setting on power seats. Back seats could be a tad more comfortable.
Nissan Murano
Very plushy inside, and very quiet. The leather had a more luxury feel (rather than sporty). Aesthics were nice, but a bit weird how the whole thing looks jacked up in the back. Big inside. Seats have memory. Supports iPod.
Downsides: other than the perks above, I didn't like it. I felt like I was driving a HUGE truck. Handling was more luxury than sporty. Turning radius, I felt, wasn't so good. It had get-up-and-go, but not in the same fun way as the CX-7. Overall it's just bigger, and too big for me. I ruled it out almost right away.
Toyota Rav 4
I didn't even want to go look until I realized they changed the body this year. I did not test-drive after seeing it.
I did like the interior and the option for a third row of seats (though not something I really need). iPod support is standard. Navigation system is not available. Fuel efficiency is better than CX-7, even in the 6 cylinder. Takes regular gas not premium.
Aesthetically, on the outside, I just don't like it (it just screams SUV to me). I hate the tire on the back. Don't like the side-opening back door. Inside it's okay, but not half as nice as the CX-7.
Honda CR-V
This is the closest runner-up to the CX-7 so far. I test drove it tonight. I saw one on the road and wasn't all that impressed with it's looks, but decided to head to the dealership anyway. Seeing one "all done up" in the showroom in the dark blue it looked real nice.
Better gas mileage. Dealership will put in any nav system I want (for comparible price to an audio pro)... so I could get nav with live traffic, bluetooth and iPod support. Loved the top and bottom opening, dual glove box and all the other little storage compartments. Leather seats were nice, and back seats recline and slide forward and back. More cargo space, but the vehicle isn't bigger.
It road pretty nice, with decent handling. Cabin in quieter than the CX-7... or at least seemed so. Get-up-and-go was decent for a 4 cylinder without turbo, but nothing special. It wouldn't be as much fun to drive as the CX-7, but it would also get better fuel efficiency.
Downsides: No auto headlights. No power seats. No keyless entry. No auto climate control -- maybe silly, but things important to me and at least some of the reasons I'm even buying a new car. Exterior looks nice with all the right items added and in certain colors, but the interior is typical Honda... not that impressive. With the nav it looks better, but still the rest of the dash and doors look on-the-cheap. The fact they're willing to put in any head unit I want is a plus and makes it easy, but it also makes the car a magnet for theives (which has been a concern if I decided to go aftermarket with the CX-7).
In conclusion...
I decided today on the CX-7. It just LOOKS so much nicer than everything else, inside and out. It has more of those creature comforts I want and I'll live with iPod through FM for now. Estimated gas cost will be more, but only about $7 more per week than the Rav or CR-V and $12 more per week than what I drive now (guess I'll have to quit smoking!). The price is right for all the features I want and it's just the nicest looking one of the bunch (IMO).
Now, if we can only get those TOY, HYU, HON, MITS, and NIS owners to acknowledge that CX-7 RULES, then the world will definately be a better place! :P
This has been public service announcement by MAZDA. ZOOM-ZOOM!!!
Vince
Enjoy
>power seats. I became spoiled with Xenon lights
>and the MAzda has them!
It's funny because with each of them there were sacrifices. The Rav didn't offer navigation. The CR-V didn't offer power seats, auto headlights, keyless entry/ignition or climate control. The Murano seems a lot bigger and didn't handle as well (IMO). Lexus, Infinity, Acura -- too expensive so I didn't get any further as far as features.
While subjective, I didn't like the way the Hyundai looked, nor the Mitsubishi -- but it's seems from an interior feature standpoint the Mitsubishi might actually win.
... and from handling standpoint (second best behind CX7), warranty (same as Santa Fe), price standpoint, and is the only one here with selectable 2WD/4WD or 6 speed tranny with paddle shifters. Hyundai is a very strong entry here too with a bit nicer interior and softer ride.
Happy Thanksgiving Everyone.
I just looked at the Tribeca interior...very, very stylish. Much nicer than the CX-7. Unfortunately, the Tribeca exterior is just flat-out ugly (IMHO)
So, I'd wish for a Tribeca type interior, plush leather seating with Nav, including real-time traffic, satellite radio, moonroof, iPOD, bluetooth, advanced keyless entry, remote start. Dual environmental controls, air vents for the rear.
Combined with the CX-7 exterior, 6 cylinder, turbo, getting 30 MPG and oh, costing no more than $35K.
Now, if I could only come up with a few investors....
Vince.
3.0L VGT V6 diesel with 240hp & 350 ft. lb. averaging 26mpg in combined driving. It also seats 7 with bluetooth and nav said to be available when it debuts. I don't know what other options it is going to have in the US or what it will cost yet.
http://www.megaauto.com/contents/view.php3?menu_id=97&id=35987&cur_page=1
Happy T-day, everybody.
-c92
On a more realistic note, I suppose it would be an SUV with all the neat "techie" features that the Outlander has, with the handling of a CX-7, an engine on par with the RAV4, and perhaps, the exterior of a Santa Fe.
Dude, you aren't gaining friends here pal. And taking personal slams at those who don't share your opinions, yes they are opinions, won't gain a single case to your cause. I would take offense from your last comment as a recent hyundai owner myself, but I'm too damn estatic driving my new luxury compact SUV, having people mistake it as a lexus and picking up my new 42" Plasma screen TV with all the money I saved.
good luck with your glass-housed Edge (huh, that aint a saftey hazard....)
There are plenty of NA V6 engines hovering around 3.5L that make a LOT more power than the Ford V6, and they are sold every day in mainstream cars. In fact, I say the Ford is not a good comparison to a turbo engine, or even a modern-day true Japanese NA V6 if you want to justify stresses. Call it either low-tech or a lowball market strategy (the Ford leaves plenty of room for power upgrades) but turbo engines are no less reliable.
Yes, there are caveats to a turbo engine where you can ask for trouble... run hard and then shut the engine off immediately before the turbo bearings can cool - or run the cheapest Wal-Mart oil you can find in it and drag race regularly. In other words, just because drop-clutching your 350Z at every stoplight kills the clutch prematurely doesn't mean it was designed "overstressed" to begin with.
So, for every Ralph Nader out there that remembers old 70's GM turbos that imploded, there is another semi-geezer (like me) that has a 100,000-mile turbo engine that has been driven HARD with no signs of trouble.
You have nothing to worry about if you buy a modern-day Japanese turbo and treat it with a smidgen of common sense.
I hope you're right. (I don't think you are.) The future may be to put both a supercharger and a turbo on an engine, like VW has done recently (sold in Europe now), and they can get near-diesel efficiencies. So, the CX-7's engine is certainly progressive. CX-7 people should consider using RedLine polyol ester motor oil, since its the same base stock used on jet engine turbomachinery bearings, and could at least help bearings survive. Valves have nothing to save them, however.
It might be wise to invest in a good blow off valve to release pressure though. Most manufacturers don't include them because most people don't want to make it sound like their car just farted, but they do certainly serve a purpose.
You might also look at the fact that both Acura and BMW have introduced turbo engines in the US this year... neither of those companies wants their image tarnished. I don't know about what those manufacturers ask for with regards to oil, but I assume it's normal garden-variety.
The VW twincharger setup is really neat and something to watch but is a LOT of moving parts for my taste. As far as stresses, I would think it ends up boosting the little 1.4l motor just as much as any OEM turbo installation.
Arumage, remember now that with direct injection, some of these turbo engines are actually running with higher compression than some of their NA counterparts... :surprise:
-c92
The CX-7/Mazdaspeed6 have one, you just don't hear it. It's the round black plastic thing with a hose comming out the side of it, located on the right front side of the intercooler. You do not hear a noise, because it is in "recirculation" mode.
When you hear the "psssht" noise, it is aftermarket, usually vented to atmosphere. That is the pressure release. One downside to a blow off valve that vents to atmosphere is that with pressure loss, it takes a split second more for the turbo to spool, in some cases.