Toyota RAV4 Forums banner

1 - 3 of 3 Posts
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Edmunds full test of Mazda CX-7

Seems ideal for me in every way except the mpg (observed 2.4 mpg worst and requires premium), initial acceleration (tested .6 seconds slower than their test RAV4 V6), and cargo space.

Despite being heavier it kills the RAV4 V6 in the slalom, braking, style and features.

Because of all this, the CX-7 countertrounces the RAV4, posting a slalom time of 64.3 mph, way ahead of the Toyota's 61.3-mph effort. On the back roads, this shows itself as the ability to carry more speed through turns, and the poise to allow you to hammer the throttle down harder on corner exits. Zoom-zoom, indeed.

60-0 braking CX7 - 113 ft
60-0 braking RAV4 V6 - 120 ft
Simliarly equipped to the RAV4 V6, the Mazda CX-7 only cost $250 more according to Edmunds.

Conclusion - ZOOM ZOOM.

I've test driven the RAV4 but now I should be able to test drive a CX-7 soon.

I think I may be getting a CX-7 :D

The really good news is that all of the performance and safety stuff -- the 2.3-liter turbo engine, six-speed automatic tranny, P235/60R18 tires, alloy wheels, six airbags, ABS brakes, stability control and cruise control -- is standard on even the lowest-priced front-wheel-drive base model, called Sport, which you can get into for $24,310.

...

So if you have a fun-to-drive car in your driveway and you want a fun-to-drive SUV to park next to it, the 2007 Mazda CX-7 is for you.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
1,561 Posts
Ptftthhhhffft... Edmunds apparently only knows how to coddle a RAV4, because Car and Driver pushed theirs 0-60 in 6.3 seconds, nearly a full second quicker than their weak 7.1.

And before you go saying that I'm bashing the CX-7 and going all lovey-dovey with my RAV4 again, you should pay attention and read what I've wrote in the past. When I first found out about the CX-7 and RDX months ago, they were higher up on the pegboard for a new car purchase, if only for the amenities they offer (DVD navigation, backup camera, manumatic or paddle shifter) that the RAV4 doesn't. I was seriously debating the end of a 10 year love affair with the RAV4.

One of the main reasons I don't prefer either anymore is that they both went the turbo-4 route, and I'm really tired of 4-cylinder performance (or lack thereof) at highway speeds and traversing inclines. Not to mention the huge loss of power when you're running the AC. A turbo isn't going to solve any of those worries and is very much more prone to mechanical troubles in the long run.

They don't get any better mileage than the RAV4 and they both have brand-spanking-new untested powertrains. Whether it's just the engine, transmission, or both, it's still more then I care to take from a new model year Mazda and even an Acura.

The Acura got dashed off immediately, just after the concept was shown off because I believe its base MSRP will arrive above the RAV's 30k high water mark.

The Mazda is a bit too much like a car for my tastes... Really just a tall station wagon, with the long windshield and low swooping angles of the hoodline and tail -- plus, like I said, it's new. Mazda has not achieved the quality levels that entertain the thought of a care-free first-model-year purchase.

Edmunds may claim that there is a small difference in pricing, but I'd like to see how that will work out in the real world, where port- and dealer-installed options will abound with no mercy and any kind of high demand for their crossover will drive up prices due to market speculation and dealer greed. Already, I can push an AWD Grand Touring to $33,415 with all the options I would want -- granted that's with DVD navigation and rear view camera, but that's $5k more than my RAV and those two options should be less than half the difference.
 
S

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
karrock said:
One of the main reasons I don't prefer either anymore is that they both went the turbo-4 route, and I'm really tired of 4-cylinder performance (or lack thereof) at highway speeds and traversing inclines. Not to mention the huge loss of power when you're running the AC. A turbo isn't going to solve any of those worries and is very much more prone to mechanical troubles in the long run.
It will only be in issue for initial acceleration due the extra weight and/or turbo lag. This why a suped up WRX/evo can beat a supercar once it gets going...

Newer turbo engines are much more reliable and most manufacturers are offering them again.

They don't get any better mileage than the RAV4 and they both have brand-spanking-new untested powertrains. Whether it's just the engine, transmission, or both, it's still more then I care to take from a new model year Mazda and even an Acura.
The 2.3 DISI was proven in the Mazdaspeed6 for a few years now. It launched to the public in the Mazdaspeed Atenza in Japan Fall 2005. Its a ward auto engine winner.

The Mazda is a bit too much like a car for my tastes... Really just a tall station wagon, with the long windshield and low swooping angles of the hoodline and tail -- plus, like I said, it's new. Mazda has not achieved the quality levels that entertain the thought of a care-free first-model-year purchase.
The RAV4 is just a tall matrix...

Japanese made Mazda's have great quality levels, its the US mazda ones that have issues. The CX-7 is made in Japan.

Overall, nice cognitive dissonance on your part :lol:

The braking perfomance is nearly as good as their Miata. The slalom speed is 1 mph slower than a WRX. Car and driver always has inflated performance numbers (also car and driver had 16 mpg for the RAV4 - they obvious abuse their test cars unlike a normal driver would) - take a look at other cars tested elsewhere. Besides that they were tested at the same track by the same people - its a fair comparison and the slower initial response is expected due to the weight and use of turbo which has to spool up.

I'm going to get a CX-7, I'm sure its a better vehicle overall and it certainly isn't as boring as a Toyota.

The review embargo just lifted yesterday, so there aren't too many out there. Here is another quote for you:

canadiandriver.com said:
Driving the CX-7 is quite similar to the Murano - which places it worlds ahead of its price competitors; the RAV4 and the CR-V.
 
1 - 3 of 3 Posts
Top