Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
SUVs Mazda CX-7 Mazda CX-7 vs. Nissan Murano
208 messages, Last post on Dec 26, 2008 at 8:05 AM
You are in the Mazda CX-7 Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: hpgator (May 02, 2007 7:58 am) I love it when people guarantee something without posting the basis for it. Nevertheless, in a way you are right.  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.
|
|
|
Replying to: mike1111 (May 02, 2007 6:57 am) 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. 
|
|
|
Replying to: carlitos92 (May 02, 2007 11:22 am) 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").
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: hpgator (May 03, 2007 4:41 am) 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.
|
|
|
Replying to: carlitos92 (May 03, 2007 5:54 am) 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. |
|
I've seen the Murano timed as low as 7.5 to 7.7.I've seen the CX-7 timed in that area as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: mike1111 (May 03, 2007 11:42 am) 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...  )
|
|
|
Replying to: carlitos92 (May 03, 2007 2:21 pm)
|
|
|
Replying to: maltb (May 03, 2007 3:27 pm) Actually, it's 9.8 meters/second2 - but you knew that.  tidester, host SUVs and Smart Shopper
|
|
|
Replying to: tidester (May 03, 2007 6:53 pm) Perhaps he meant linear speed?
|
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Mazda CX-7 Mazda CX-7 vs. Nissan Murano
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Mazda CX-7
2010 Nissan Murano
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
