Toyota RAV4 Forums banner

RAV4 V6 vs Mazda CX-7

33K views 62 replies 20 participants last post by  ED1013 
#1 ·
Has anyone looked at the new Mazda yet? It is more upscale in terms of options, but really close to the RAV4 V6 in size and power. It has less rear leg room and cargo volume, but better handling and wonderful broad turbo torque.

The laid back windshield is disturbing. I sat in the vehicle briefly and it was very reminiscent of the old GM mini-vans. I wonder about severe reflections off the flat dashboard. The interior is not very nice compared to the RAV4 Ltd, IMHO.

The rear hatch is nice, but the load floor is high and the access opening is cramped.

The engine compartment is very crowded with intercooler and turbo plumbing. It's a 2.3 liter I-4 but access for maintenance looks bad, esp compared to the Toyota engine compartments. I do my own work and this is a major factor for me.

Apparenty the target buyer is a 30 to 40 YO couple with no childern. With two rapidly growing kids this doesn't apply to me.

I haven't actually driven one yet, but was wondering if I can get some feedback.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/11148/road-test-review-2007-mazda-cx-7-awd-sport.html

Thanks.

John Davies
Spokane WA
 
See less See more
#2 ·
i think CX-7 looks good, but i don't like the spec..

here are some advantage of RAV4

RAV4 / CX-7
Performance:
engine: 269hp vs. 244hp
towing: 3500lbs vs. 2500lbs
weight: 3600lbs vs. 3900lbs
0-60mph: 6.3 vs. 7.9 (both from car and driver)
1/4mile: 14.9 @ 94mph vs. 16.1@87mph
Curb weight per horsepower: 13.6lb vs. 16.1 lb
Weight distribution, F/R: 57.4/42.6% vs. 58.7/41.3% (rav4 has better weight distribution)
Understeer: minimal vs moderate (from Car and driver testing)

Interior:
cargo, seats up/down: 36/73 cu ft vs. 30/59 cu ft
Rav4 has option for 3rd row seat which CX-7 doesn't

Fuel rating:
C/D-observed: 16 mpg vs 14mph
fuel grade: 87 vs 91

RAV4 comes with Full size spare tire, vs compact on CX-7

CX-7
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/11148/road-test-review-2007-mazda-cx-7-awd-sport-page3.html

Rav4 test
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/10394/toyota-rav4-limited-4wd-v-6-page3.html
 
#6 ·
well with the turbo premium fuel is needed or you will get knock and a dead engine due to the high probability of detonation from poop gas under pressure and heat. I have to run premium in my Syclone or the same thing but much worse. the computer will pull timing out but not enough or fast enough to save the engine.

you could get away with regular gas but you'd need to get methanol injection or something to that fact, even with Mazdas oh so snappy direct gas injection.
 
#7 ·
hooolala said:
i think CX-7 looks good, but i don't like the spec..

here are some advantage of RAV4

RAV4 / CX-7
Performance:
engine: 269hp vs. 244hp
towing: 3500lbs vs. 2500lbs
weight: 3600lbs vs. 3900lbs
0-60mph: 6.3 vs. 7.9 (both from car and driver)
1/4mile: 14.9 @ 94mph vs. 16.1@87mph
Curb weight per horsepower: 13.6lb vs. 16.1 lb
Weight distribution, F/R: 57.4/42.6% vs. 58.7/41.3% (RAV4 has better weight distribution)
Understeer: minimal vs moderate (from Car and driver testing)

Interior:
cargo, seats up/down: 36/73 cu ft vs. 30/59 cu ft
RAV4 has option for 3rd row seat which CX-7 doesn't

Fuel rating:
C/D-observed: 16 mpg vs 14mph
fuel grade: 87 vs 91

RAV4 comes with Full size spare tire, vs compact on CX-7

...
The CX-7 does look sleeker but the specs don't lie. Choosing the RAV4 V6 is a no-brainer. 8)
 
#8 ·
Specs aren't everything, however. I don't know about the US, but in Canada the CX-7 AWD is cheaper and better-equipped than the RAV4 Limited V6, and offers features that you can't get on the RAV4 at all, like navigation and HIDs. That alone will make people consider the Mazda, which is being positioned as more of an entry-level luxury SUV rather than a direct competitor to the RAV4.
 
G
#10 ·
"wonderful broad turbo torque" - sorry, but lol. Rav4's V6 will kick CX7's turbo arse any time it wishes to be kicked :).

There is nothing wonderful or powerful in 4cly turbo when compared to high output V6 engine.

Rav4 has significantly quicker and better, more expensive powertrain for same price...
 
#11 ·
spwolfx said:
"wonderful broad turbo torque" - sorry, but lol. RAV4's V6 will kick CX7's turbo arse any time it wishes to be kicked :).

There is nothing wonderful or powerful in 4cly turbo when compared to high output V6 engine.

RAV4 has significantly quicker and better, more expensive powertrain for same price...
Yes the RAV4 V6 is quicker for sure. The Mazda is a 2.3 liter engine after all. However, there is nothing like a high-boost turbo motor for grins. IMHO there is no comparison for really spirited driving.

WRX, Evo, Saab Aero, yeehaw!

But I am leaning toward the RAV4 V6 for daily use....

John Davies
Spokane WA
 
G
#13 ·
spwolfx said:
"wonderful broad turbo torque" - sorry, but lol. RAV4's V6 will kick CX7's turbo arse any time it wishes to be kicked :).

There is nothing wonderful or powerful in 4cly turbo when compared to high output V6 engine.

RAV4 has significantly quicker and better, more expensive powertrain for same price...
I hate turbo lag. Its the main reason I chose a V6 over a turbo 4. You have to rev the bejebus out of a single turbo 4 to get the same performance as you get with a high output V6.
 
#14 ·
The CX7 is supposed to have a turbo charger that is design to boost at a lower rpm, 2500 rpm I believe. According to many articles, it is slow off the line and from 0-60, it is more than half second slower than the RAV4 V6. That is still respectable numbers, but for a SUV that is suppose to have the soul of a sports car, it should do better.
 
#15 ·
I drove a WRX for almost 5 years prior to the purchase of the RAV. So, I think I can speak with some experience about turbos. The WRX gave you a kick in the pants at 3k rpm but below that it felt like a 2 liter 4 cyl engine ie - anemic. At least with a manual tranny you could spool the turbo up prior to launch. With an auto trans, small turbo engines just don't make sense IMHO. Also, I don't think that a small displacement turbo engine is a good match with an SUV type vehicle and you sure aren't going to do much towing with a turbo. So, a turbo SUV would not be my choice.

Now that I've gotten that off my chest, I have a friend who reminds me frequently that "some people don't like chocolate ice cream". Now that is just stupid in my opinion .. but it is true. If everybody liked and wanted the same thing it would be a boring world.
 
#16 ·
It all depends on the design of the engine. The '02-05 WRX's engine is a bit of an extreme example as it was well known for having oodles of lag - hence the upgrade to the 2.5 for 2006. In contrast, there are small turbos that have barely-detectable lag and work quite well, stick or auto/DSG. VW's 2.0T is the first that comes to mind.

Keep in mind the Acura RDX is also powered by a four-cylinder turbo. Clearly it's possible to design & tune a turbo as a passable sporty SUV engine.
 
#18 ·
Bought my daughter a 5 door Mazda 3 when they 1st came out almost 2 years ago. Very quick little car that gets great gas mileage. It has a 2.3. Is the CX-7 the same 2.3 engine but turbo charged?
The CX-7 is a sharp looking vehicle but I can't see why anyone would choose a car that gets worse gas mileage and uses premium fuel over the RAV4.
 
#20 ·
Well I did not look at the Mazda other than the Car and Driver data. It looks pretty spiffy! Performance is not that great compared to the RAV4. The .01 g better on handling could be as much tires as anything. The RAV4 could probably do the same with performance instead of truck tires. But the RAV4 is a higher CG vehicle so you have to make sure you don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy as the song goes...especially in quick turns at speed.

As far at the turbo motor is concerned I do not know about Mazda but I can tell you a wide torque band turbo motor ala Audi cna be very nice to drive overall. In the RAV4 V6 you will tend to shift down and hear the motor more in a modest accell. In the Audi you just accel in the present gear unless your trying to really take off.



But the RAV4 and the Mazda are really two different vehicles that seem to perform pretty well from the numbers. The RAV4 is more practical hauler. So it really depends on what you like. Just like ice cream!
 
#21 ·
hooolala said:
i think CX-7 looks good, but i don't like the spec..

here are some advantage of RAV4

RAV4 / CX-7
Performance:
engine: 269hp vs. 244hp
towing: 3500lbs vs. 2500lbs
weight: 3600lbs vs. 3900lbs
0-60mph: 6.3 vs. 7.9 (both from car and driver)
1/4mile: 14.9 @ 94mph vs. 16.1@87mph
Curb weight per horsepower: 13.6lb vs. 16.1 lb
Weight distribution, F/R: 57.4/42.6% vs. 58.7/41.3% (RAV4 has better weight distribution)
Understeer: minimal vs moderate (from Car and driver testing)

Interior:
cargo, seats up/down: 36/73 cu ft vs. 30/59 cu ft
RAV4 has option for 3rd row seat which CX-7 doesn't

Fuel rating:
C/D-observed: 16 mpg vs 14mph
fuel grade: 87 vs 91

RAV4 comes with Full size spare tire, vs compact on CX-7

CX-7
http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/11148/road-test-review-2007-mazda-cx-7-awd-sport-page3.html

RAV4 test
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtests/10394/toyota-RAV4-limited-4wd-v-6-page3.html
Looking at the numbers, My moneys on the RAV4 :wink:
 
#22 ·
The Mazda6 Grand Sport Wagon was a candidate in my search for a daily driver/ all purpose vehicle. However , typical of Mazda: an overachieving chassis mated to an underachieving engine. That Duratec V-6 with Mazda DOHC is just plain underpowered and obsolete.
 
#24 ·
I like turbos, I have one in my Golf. What I like is the fuel consumption with the power of a V6. However, with a heavy car like the CX-7 this advantage is gone. The engine has to work too hard to even match the mileage of the V6 in the RAV4. Also, the direct injection cars are normally good on gas. But it is also known that their mileage goes south under heavy demand (power). So, the CX-7 will be doomed regarding mileage.

Also, premium is 20 cents more here and the rule of thumb is a penalty of 2 MPG with current fuel prices. That will be an expensive car to drive!
 
#25 ·
I have to chime in now. Turbocharged vehicles are great to drive. I had a 1998 eclipse with AWD LSD rear end and that thing would fly. The smaller T25 turbo spooled up well, and provided good oomph low down. It ran out of steam at anything over 5000rpm. Mine was modified with a Big 16G turbo (same as EVO3 turbo in Europe) and had bigger fuel pump, 550cc injectors, front mount intercooler to replace to smaller InterWARMER as they became known as. I had a ported O2 housing and 3" inch all the way through Thermal research exhaust. So now I am roughly at 380HP and about 370 Ft Ib's of torque and can leave most sporty cars behind. It did 12.4 in the quarter at 109 ET on average. The bigger turbo and some minor mods can get around any lag that is experienced. I had on the fly air fuel adjustment capability using an APEXi airfuel ratio computer, and could get good MPG if I drove it right. I'd dial in more boost for track days, add racing fuel and could lean out the mixture until my EGT's went up a little, then I'd back off to a safe point, and then go and have fun. Driving on the 1/4 mile strip or at some amateur roadracing, and the car would only get about 9 to the gallon if you were really hard on it! On the way home though, you'd redial it for everyday driving and could easily get 28MPG on a long run. So my point it that this is the strength of a turbo'd motor that get's my vote. If I could turbo my RAV-4, I'd look into it! Huge power when you want it and civilized fuel economy when driving normally.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top