Last post on Oct 06, 2009 at 7:23 AM
You are in the Mazda CX-7
What is this discussion about?
Mazda CX-7, Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, Car Comparisons, Car Buying, SUV
#10 of 47 Navigation, fuel, cargo area, performance
May 09, 2006 (6:56 pm)
I also considered the CX-7, but the cargo area is significantly smaller. Coupled with the split sliding second row seats, the cargo area meets my needs for a work vehicle far better than that of the CX-7.
The RAV4 uses regular fuel, adding to the savings over the CX-7.
The CX-7 does offer a factory navigation system, something Toyota does not yet offer. I'll bet that Toyota is being surprised by the number of people who want Limited V6 four wheel drive versions of the RAV4. Perhaps they will add a navigation system option when they see the demand for the fancer models. The dealers here (southern CA) are already adding Sirius radio for about $100 (totally integrated, not aftermarket). Of course, Toyota would probably prefer that people buy a Highlander or 4Runner for $10,000 more than a RAV4, so they may be slow to adjust to reality.
I owned a 1996 Chevrolet Impala SS, and it is interesting to note that the RAV4 V6 is faster to 60 MPH and seems to handle as very well, or even better, than the Impala.
#12 of 47 Re: Modifications [richml]
May 10, 2006 (7:18 pm)
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.
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.
#13 of 47 Re: Modifications [deanie]
Jun 28, 2006 (8:21 am)
If you are truly worried about safety and want to save some money, buy your teeanger a Volvo (98 or 99). A new car, insurance and that accident waiting to happen is not a good combination.
#14 of 47 Re: Modificatoins [deanie]
Jun 28, 2006 (1:59 pm)
I'm sorry, I have to chime in here.
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.
#15 of 47 Re: Modificatoins [nissmazlover]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Jun 28, 2006 (2:22 pm)
Well, everybody's kids are different and many are mature enough to "handle" a cool ride and I'm sure some have more money smarts or a stronger work ethics than their parents.
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!
#16 of 47 Test drove today (Copied from Test-Drive Thread)
Jul 21, 2006 (5:08 pm)
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.
#17 of 47 CX-7 Changed My Mind...
Aug 06, 2006 (7:57 am)
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.
#18 of 47 Not even in the same league
Aug 08, 2006 (11:40 pm)
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.