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 What would you improve?
131 messages, Last post on Aug 23, 2008 at 8:24 AM
You are in the Mazda CX-7 Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
Replying to: johnny__rf (Dec 20, 2006 4:42 am) Vince. |
|
|
Replying to: carlitos92 (Dec 20, 2006 5:27 am) Carlitos brings up a good point. That's the problem with trying to pigeon-hole vehicles into nice and tidy categories. What is the exact standard for defining a car? A sports car? A truck? SUV? CUV? Station Wagon? A lot of SUVs are based on truck platforms, but then, a lot of SUVs are also based on car platforms. For the CX-7, it has some qualities of a sports car, a SUV, a station wagon. I know, let's define a new category that fits the CX-7. "SPUVAGON" SPorts car, SUV, Station Wagon. I can imagine how difficult it was for the sanctioning board for the North American International Auto Show to define it's categories. It's all a moot point, really. Just glad to see that the CX-7 is amongst the finalists. Vince.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: vbbuilt (Dec 20, 2006 7:13 am)  In all seriousness, Texas does not issue "Truck" plates for the CX-7 (like they do for pickups, etc.), so at least one government agency is in agreement with us. |
|
|
|
|
I recently test drove the CX-7 Grand Touring AWD with the Technology Package. The local dealer allowed me to have this car for a weekend. The overall impression was quite positive, but we ended up leasing BMW X3. Besides the ridiculously high monthly payments that were higher than those of BMW's, there were several deal breakers: - Lack of the trip computer: come on Mazda, it is very important to know miles to empty on the long trip. - Highway gas mileage: driving almost 200 mi along a flat highway stretch with only two passengers (one child) and no cargo load I was able to get only 19 mpg. This is compared to 25 mpg for the 3.0L BMW X3. - Heated seats were a joke. On the cold morning (32F) it took almost 15 min for the seats to get mildly warm. - The navigation system is mediocre even when it is compared to a portable units, such as my Pioneer AVIC-S1. Matroskin
|
|
Following threads on the Mazda Forum while still here in New Zealand  , I noticed a reference to a computer update which talks about modifying some of the transmission problems that were talked about. Also taking care of some other minor details as well. So....... why not give your dealer a call about this. NMK cx-7 GT AWD w/Nav. Darth Vader Grey |
|
|
Replying to: matrsoskin (Dec 25, 2006 12:00 pm) "Highway gas mileage" -- You can't judge any car accurately until it's been broken in. Both of these cars are rated almostly identical according to the EPA so I'd expect in the real world them to get similar. I've heard of people getting 24-27 mpg on the highway with the Mazda. "Heated seats were a joke" -- not sure what you experienced but mine heat up VERY quickly. Much less than 15 minutes! "The navigation system is mediocre even when it is compared to a portable units, such as my Pioneer AVIC-S1" -- stick with the portable then, on either car, if you already have one. Why spend money on a tech package if you don't need it. I've also been pleasantly surprized with the nav system in the Mazda. As for price, I don't know what kind of deal YOU got, but comparably equipped I ended up at $43K for the BMW. I got my CX-7 fully loaded for less than $30K. Only option I didn't get was AWD (I took FWD with traction control). AWD would have been $1250 more, which would have kept me at about $31K. I also hope you know that predicted reliability for the X3 is consider "Fair" (one up from "Poor") and owner satisfaction is rated as "Good" (two down from "Excellent"). While buying a car new to the market it risky, I find it riskier to buy one that only rates as "Fair" in the reliability department, especially for that price.
|
|
|
Replying to: cxrabbit (Dec 25, 2006 9:21 pm) Like everything about the vehicle, except maybe could have more legroom for the rear passengers. Yes, of course, I wish it did 30 MPG , but for a nearly 4000 lb. vehicle w/ AWD, 18 in town is probably about average for the class of vehicle. The Cx-7 had the best handling, braking , cornering of everything I test drove and so far, besides the replacement gas cap, no problems to report. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: cxrabbit (Dec 25, 2006 9:21 pm) "You've really got to be kidding. I know some people have certain needs they prefer, and I can understand wanting a trip computer, but what you're expressing a need for is what a gas gauge is for". -- Obviously, you do not much of a long traveling. Let me ask you, you have less than a quarter of tank gas left: how far do you think you could go? Should you stop now and get 92 octane grade, the highest that you could get from Thornton's, or you would rather drove another 30-40 miles to get 93 Premium from Shell? That brings us to the Navigation System: "...stick with the portable then, on either car, if you already have one. Why spend money on a tech package if you don't need it. I've also been pleasantly surprised with the nav system in the Mazda ". -- I would assume, you do not use your navi system very often. If you did, than you would know a difference between portable and in-car navigation systems. First and more obvious, the screen size: the bigger screen in in-car systems allows you to see much info at higher resolution along your planned route, such as gas different gas stations that I have mentioned above. Second, the size of a memory chip or a hard drive (30 Gb in the new Mitsubishi Outlander)will be a major determinant of how elaborate and useful will your navigation system: the bigger, the more POIs, the better. Another advantage of having in-car navigation system is its location. In some states, it is illegal to drive a vehicle with the windshield mounted devices. Not to mention that some people could get to curious and take your system with them. "As for price, I don't know what kind of deal YOU got, but comparably equipped I ended up at $43K for the BMW. I got my CX-7 fully loaded for less than $30K. Only option I didn't get was AWD (I took FWD with traction control). AWD would have been $1250 more, which would have kept me at about $31K ". -- Please read my original post: I was referring to the difference in the lease monthly payments, not the price of two cars. Basically, when you lease a car, you pay only for what you have used: therefore, the higher residual values, the lower you monthly payments will be. "Highway gas mileage" -- You can't judge any car accurately until it's been broken in. Both of these cars are rated almostly identical according to the EPA so I'd expect in the real world them to get similar. I've heard of people getting 24-27 mpg on the highway with the Mazda." -- When i was comparing CX-7 and X3, I was comparing apples to apples, to cars(trucks) with 200-300 miles on them. Following your own logic, X3 should be even more fuel efficient, as compared to CX-7 as it breaks in. "I also hope you know that predicted reliability for the X3 is consider "Fair" (one up from "Poor") and owner satisfaction is rated as "Good" (two down from "Excellent"). While buying a car new to the market it risky, I find it riskier to buy one that only rates as "Fair" in the reliability department, especially for that price". --I am not sure what reliability ratings your are talking about. Look at JD Power's and see for yourself. X3 is rated above average in all the categories. Finally, I was making my comments regarding potential CX-7 improvements in a hope that the above obvious weaknesses in the overall nice car will be addressed in the not so near future. It is a shame that Mazda overlooked them. That is how I understand the scope of this forum. It is not about "my car is better than yours". Therefore, relax and enjoy your ride. You made your choice and I made mine. There is nothing wrong with that. Cheers, Matroskin |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: matrsoskin (Dec 26, 2006 6:14 pm) As someone who DOES do a lot of long traveling, I agree with cxrabbit. Once you get in tune with what your Mazda's range is, you don't need a trip computer. You just need more time with the car. For example, I put 2500 miles on my CX-7 in less than two weeks. Sure, I gave the "how far have I got to go" issue some thought, but never really had to WORRY about it, because even my short experience in the car told me what range I had left. And this was in Mexico and West Texas, where running out of gas would have been a much larger problem than what octane I got. Speaking of octane, my preference on a road trip has ALWAYS been lowest-cost, not highest octane. Your CX-7 really only needs 91 octane, so why worry about 92 vs. 93 when it's all going to be used up in a non-stop highway jaunt? Anyway, enjoy your ride. |
|
|
Replying to: matrsoskin (Dec 26, 2006 6:14 pm) BTW, I believe in Australia the trip computer is already working on the CX-7. No doubt it will definitely be in the 2008 CX-7, and I wouldn't doubt it if it'll be available to be "turned on" through a software update on the 2007 in the near future. If you look at the instrument cluster on the upper dash, above the clock, you can see in the LCD darkness the character set is already there for it. I also have been using nav systems for a long time. I came from doing it on a laptop, which is MUCH more detailed and bigger than portables or OEM. I know all the pro's and cons to each system. But you were the one comparing the CX-7's to a portable that was "better"... I merely stated, then stick with what you're already using. Yes, lots of POIs are useful, and the more the better, but NO system is perfect when it comes to that. Coming from a very comprehensive and expensive laptop nav system, I'm very happy with the CX-7 nav so far. As for price - to each his/her own. I hate to lease. But the BMW is significantly more expensive. MPG - you weren't comparing apples to apples. You were comparing two engines not yet broken in, one being a turbo, the other being a 6 cylinder. Check around for REAL world results from people driving both AFTER the break-in period. They are getting very similar results. Like I said, it's been reported right here in these forums some people on the highway are getting 23, 24, I've even seen 27mpg. Also, on a turbo, it's going to depend how you drive it. Uh... I don't know what you're looking at on JD Powers, but the appeal was "better than most" and initial quality was rated "the rest" (the lowest possible score). http://www.jdpower.com/autos/BMW/X3/2007 Also, in the list it got high scores for MANUFACTURING but very low for DESIGN. It's not the prince you paint it to be. and ps. Consumer Reports represents it as below average to buy as a used car, and it's used car verdict is "poor". Obviously, that's for older models, the 2006 seemed to do particularly bad in this area, which is probably why the 2007's predicted reliability is not so good. but, hey, I know you love your new BMW. You're right, we both made our choices. I wasn't criticizing yours, but correcting your misrepresentations.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Mazda CX-7 Mazda CX-7 What would you improve?
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Mazda CX-7
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
