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 v Toyota RAV4 v Honda CR-V
47 messages, Last post on Oct 06, 2009 at 7:23 AM
You are in the Mazda CX-7 Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
Replying to: richml (May 09, 2006 9:29 am) Your're right, I was going from memory and didn't check the 3's stats. The 3 handily outslaloms the CX-7, but the 1000lbs of steel, better braking #'s and VSC make the CX-7 a safer overall choice than a 3. CX-7 aside, the 3 is a great car and though a few years old, still rests at or near the top of the heap of the compact/subcompact world. With the upcoming Mazaspeed 3 arriving with the same (similar) engine as that in the Speed6 and CX-7, that'll be a car to watch. Thanks for your reply! If I talk to my wife or even my friends about cars for more than a sentence or two, their eyes glaze over. I'm glad this place exists. Regards, Deanie P.S. I just got out of an 05 Avalon (that's another story) and the constraints of family require a compromise. I want a G35 (way too narrow - only seats two in the rear), but now I'm considering a CX-7, 07 Avalon Touring, or a Honda Odyssey. I'll be able to discuss these choices further when I've driven a CX-7. I'm in Montgomery County, Maryland, and they aren't expected in until the end of May.
|
|
|
Replying to: deanie (May 10, 2006 7:18 pm) |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: deanie (May 08, 2006 10:11 pm) Do you really think that you CAN'T spoil a teenager? If so, you are sorely mistaken. Teaching children about values and hard work goes way beyond 16 or 17 years old, which is the approx. age they are able to drive. Also, there is an exhaustive list of passenger cars that are safer than SUV's. Just because SUV's are bigger doesn't necessarily mean they are safer. Plus, the best way to survive an accident is to avoid one all together. By my experience, I have noticed that a car's handling and a driver's reflexes are the most important factors in accident avoidance. Having that in mind, the Mazda 3, can handle circles around the CX-7 and thereby increase accident avoidance (and keep a child humbler). Perhaps the CX-7 handles great, but it handles great "FOR AN SUV". The Mazda 3 handles great period. Keep that in mind. In addition, there are many safe, inexpensive cars on the road - and many used cars STILL have great safety features. Children at 17 years old are still children. If they have mommy or daddy buy them a "hot/cool ride" they are most likely going to become cocky, which leads them to be careless, and will think of themselves as superior to others, even if they deny it - it's only human nature, especially when coupled with immaturity. I agree with the other poster, too, that many parents with money buy their children hooked up cars, but not because of safety reasons - And it IS unbelievable to see what some spoiled children are driving these days with no regard for hard work or economical values! Would you also think that them having the latest and best cell phone w/camera/mp3 player/gps navigator is also a safety feature as opposed to getting them a basic cell phone? You probably would. Even if I HAD the money, I would NOT buy my children cars. If they need to use a car SO bad, they can borrow mine. I would make sure MINE is the nicest, safest car I can possibly afford and I would, as I do, keep it properly maintained in order to ensure its safe working order. If, by some chance, they can't borrow the car, then they can take a bus, a train, hitch a ride with a friend, or I will take them. No big deal. When they're older, they can start working and saving up to buy their own wheels, and when they have enough dough to do so, I will surprise them with monetary assistance toward their purchase. THIS would teach them good economical values and make them see that Daddy ISN'T cheap and does want to help out, NOT outright buying them a brand new, just came out, hot/cool ride like a hooked up Mazda CX-7 when they're only teenagers, under the premise of providing safety. Please. Just my two cents. 
|
|
|
Replying to: nissmazlover (Jun 28, 2006 1:59 pm) It's probably better to talk about the features of the various cars and SUVs out there instead of generalizing about teens and whether someone is spoiling their kid. Check out Insuring teenage drivers for the cost of insurance angle. That's always an eye opener! Steve, Host |
|
|
I copy my writing from Test-Drive Thread because it had my comparison with RAV4. ----------------------------------------------------------- In fact, my brother test drove CX-7, and I was sitting in the back seat with my roommate. Earlier, we test drove Suzuki Grand Vitara and Ford Escape, but I found out that CX-7 belongs to a totally different class. It felt more like Lexus sedan than an affordable SUV. Very quite, couldn't even notice the engine was on! Good acceleration, good handling, decent interior space and finish! Right after test-driving CX-7, we went to Toyota dealer to try RAV4 V6. It had more power (because it was V6? or because it was lighter?), but it was just an SUV with good power. RAV4 had some noise at low gear for quick step on gas, which is normal and also acceptable for an SUV, but CX-7 was better at quiet speeding. A pleasantly quiet zoom zoom! RAV4 lacked the feel of refined vehicle that CX-7 appealed to me with. The exterior and interior of RAV4 was just okay, but far behind Mazda. So, CX-7 beat RAV4 in and out. Cloth seats of CX-7 felt a lot better than RAV4's. I am a big fan of leather seat, but cloth material of CX-7 seemed good enough. RAV4 has more power, better MPG, but today's overall winner was CX-7. To grade 1-10, Suzuki Grand Vitara 5, Ford Escape 7, Toyota RAV4 8, and CX-7 9. To allow myself a little exaggeration, I felt that buying CX-7 will save $10K because it seemed more like one of the SUVs with $10K higher sticker price. |
|
|
|
|
I had built my RAV4 on the internet dozens of times, had test driven one, and was getting ready to buy a Limited V6 4WD when the CX-7 started getting advertised. I remembered seeing the CX-7 at the local auto show in April, but you could not touch it or sit in it then. The only other vehicle I was considering was an Acura RDX, but as pictures and specs started to surface, I got more and more turned off by it. The RDX's price was the last straw. My "dream version" RAV4 was optioned out to about $31K. I have since picked up my GT AWD CX-7 (just plain fell in love with its looks) and it was also optioned out to about $31K MSRP. I won't argue about the "intangibles" like how much more sporty the CX-7 may or may not be, but having shopped both, here's my quick summary: CX-7: no third-row seat, slower than a V6 RAV4, delayed DVD availability. RAV4: no HIDs, less sophisticated interior, lower-quality radio, less styling "pizazz," generally more "trucky" in seating position and feel. Okay, so maybe it really DOES come down to intangibles  - IMHO the CX-7 just feels like a Lexus compared to the RAV4, without a significant price premium. Bottom line: to me, the CX-7 is like an RX-8 on stilts,the RAV4 is like a Corolla on stilts. Your choice.
|
|
|
The RAV and CX were my two top picks on paper with a few other straggerlers. Just sitting in the RAV almost nocked it off the list and the drive didn't help its cause. Couldn't get the seat/steering anything approaching comfortable and the overall fit an finish seemed a little cheap and clunky. As soon as I sat in the CX, I knew my search was over. Had my electric blue GT AWD for a week and a half and put over 1000 miles on it. I am a person who believes driving should be fun and this car delivers! The turbo has such great kick and I am amazed at the versatility of the six speed tranny. This car has done everything I have asked of it and not even broken a sweat. Inside is spacious, comfortable and well positioned. Feels like European Luxary at a distinctly none Euro price.
|
|
|
Replying to: jesster (Aug 08, 2006 11:40 pm) Toyota Rav4 V6 Limited: My impressions after test drive: Pro: Good look to it, more of a rugged look than the Mazda. Pretty good interior if you get the leather and Limited version. Great performance. The V6 really has some oomph to it for this class of vehicle and it's smooth and refined. Good handling to it as well as solid braking. I like the one touch rear seat folding, nice utility inside in general. Bluetooth, heated seats, power seats etc are all available. Cons: It's a bit noisy in the cabin, you dont get the smooth feel that you find in the larger SUV/CUVs. I find the noise level to be closer to the Infiniti G35 we own as opposed to a Mazda CX-9 or Volvo XC-90 which we test drove. Understanding that the bigger CUV will be more apt to be quiet and smooth, still this vehicle isnt the smoothest in the smaller class but it's certainly not harsh. That said, performance is closer to the G-35 as well so it's a trade off. Dont love the hinge rear door but it's not that bad to deal with for me. Interior is not great even with all the upgrades, could definitely be improved. What the experts say: Edmunds: Editors give it an 8.0 rating for 2008. They rate it a "top pick for a small SUV" and laud it's V6 engine and 3rd row seat availability. They dont like the "budget" interior and note the driver seat may be a problem for tall drivers. Consumer Reports: They love this SUV. It got an 83 rating for the V6, which is the highest in the class by far. Recommended status. 80% in owner satisfaction and excellent in reliability. Going solely by CR, this SUV the clear top pick of the three based on score. Mazda CX-7: My impressions after test drive: Pro: Sexy look, nice interior. Good performance i.e. acceleration, braking, handling. Drives like a car which is good. Coming from an Infiniti G-35 it's not as drastic a performance and feel difference as I'd expected, I dont feel like I'm driving a huge ungainly vehicle. I like the one touch rear seat folding mechanism. Ample space. I like that it has DVD Nav available. Cool features like Bluetooth and smartkey available. Cons: Kind of noisy in cabin, a bit too much of a sports car ride. Driving the CX-9 compared to this is a much smoother, quiet ride, which we preferred so it makes you notice the noise more in the 7. Again I realize the larger CUV will be smoother in general, but it's a consideration. What the experts say: Edmunds: Ranks this car as Honorable Mention for 2007 SUV under 35k They note it is fun to drive and sporty. Call it "sylish" say it is "eye-catching" and "solid built quality" Editor rating is 7.9 overall and they call the ride "on the firm side" but not "overly harsh", wind and road noise they term average. On the down side they note the mediocre fuel mileage and premium fuel requirement. The premium is now only "recommended" according to the dealer for 2008 models. Consumer Reports: They give it a score of 62. Feel it is "much worse than average" in terms of reliability, and show it in the low to mid 50's in terms of owner satisfaction percentage. So CR is not particularly fond of this vehicle although they do say its handling is 'agile and secure', the midrange power is 'ample' and interior is 'well put together'. Honda CR-V My impressions after seeing one. No test drive yet: Pro: The CR-V had the "nicest" interior. While I'd say the CX-7 is the coolest of the 3 and most sporty looking inside, the CR-V is the most "luxurious" of the 3. Which is not to say it's a luxury car, but it's nice inside. I like the rear door that swings up instead of out. Has all the amenities like DVD NAV, bluetooth, heated seats, power everything etc. Con: Styling looks closer to a mini-van than any of the others to my eye, but if you really trick it out it's pretty nice looking. Dont like how the rear seats fold up, Honda should take a queue from Mazda or Toyota on this. Edmunds: Loves the CR-V, calling it "A winner" and an "extremely well-rounded runabout that should be high on your test-drive list". Editor rating in 2007 was a 9.0 which is high by virtue of Comfort, Function and Design/Build Quality and only average in terms of Dynamics. This matches my impression as well. Consumer Reports: They rate it a 74 and rank it "near the top of the small-SUV category". CR echos Edmunds in the nice interior, smooth ride commentary. They give it much better than average reliability and it scored 76% in owner satisfaction. Conclusions so far: Mazda CX-7 is the sports car of the 3, sexy and stylish. Fun to drive and nice to look at. It has a nice interior and good amenities with plenty of power and good cargo room. On the down side it needs premium gas to get the most zoom-zoom, consumer reports rates it very low comparatively and shows poor reliability predictions. Not to mention MPG is the worst of the 3. Sacrificing practicality for performance. Right now CR reports are making me skittish of choosing this one. Honda CR-V is the small family SUV. It's nice inside, should be a smooth ride, has plenty of space and things like cup holders and storage bins. It's not a mini-van but it's not a sport vehicle either. Both Edmunds and Consumer Reports rate it at the top of the pack and it's the best selling small SUV in the US. Resale will undoubtedly be high. On the down side it's sort of "meh" looking to me unless fully blown out, and even then I like the Rav or CX-7 styling better. Again, dont like the rear seat folding mechanism much, but not a biggie. Toyota Rav4 V6 seems to be the
|
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Mazda CX-7 Mazda CX-7 v Toyota RAV4 v Honda CR-V
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Mazda CX-7
2011 Toyota RAV4
2010 Honda CR-V
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
