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
I went through my first car wash and the rear wiper got stripped off by the dryer vents. I went through a full service wash and was watching the car go through. They had put a plastic sleeve on the wiper arm - apparently to protect it from the brushes, but the sleeve ended up flapping in the wind of the dryer. Next thing, the whole wiper arm flopped right down. When I looked at it, the aluminum teeth on the mount had been stripped down. I could tighten it down again and it works, but now it happens every time through the wash. The manager offered to replace the wiper arm, but I don't see any point if it's just going to happen again. Seems like the Mazda engineers need to take the car through a wash once or twice to make sure it can get through without damage.
|
|
|
Replying to: rex10 (Dec 27, 2006 11:59 am) You might want to avoid taking your new CX-7 through tunnel car washes that employ those brushes. You'll end up with nasty swirl marks. Better to go through those brushless car washes and then use a soft terry cloth to dry the car. A bit more work, but it saves the finish. Vince. |
|
|
I can't complain about my mileage...we're consistently getting 21-22 in city/hwy mixed to and from work. Things I would have liked improved upon: Vanity Mirror Telescopic Wheel Pwr Pass. Seat Better heated seats - My acuras are much better IMO. Multi-funtion computer: Trip/MPG/Avg. Speed/Etc. I'm sure there is more but with that said, I realize this isn't my Acura its a Mazda and its perfectly suitable for what we need...and my wife really likes it. 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: cxrabbit (Dec 26, 2006 7:56 pm) I double checked this forum title: still reads Mazda CX-7- what would you improve? not the CX-7 cheerleading contest. No car is perfect and there is always a room for an improvement: so, deal with it. Please find below JD Powers links that rates 2007 X3 model as "among the best", and 2005 X3 model as "above average". Like you said, I am just correcting your misrepresentations. http://www.jdpower.com/autos/car-comparison/compare.aspx http://www.jdpower.com/autos/used-car-ratings As to the trip computer, it appears that Mazda is listening and this convenient feature will be available soon. It is all about convenience, not a necessity. Certainly, one could finally develop a good guess through trial and error, or make a habit to fill up a tank when it is half full, no matter what. But for the most people having a trip computer would me more convenient. Something like to have power windows and power locks. It is not a problem to roll your windows or lock your car manually, but it is more convenient if they are automatic. If you had a choice, would you opt for the automatic or stick with the manual ones? Now, let us get to the four cylinder turbo vs normally aspirated six cylinder. As a rule of thumb, at the equal power and torque, four cylinder engine should be more fuel efficient. CX-7 is not alone, new Honda RDX also has not up to the par gas mileage. On the other hand, the VW/Audi 2.0L turbo is an exemplary. I am glad that your are happy with Mazda navigation system. Again, it is a matter of a personal choice. That it is why there are so many different navi systems around. Cheers, Matroskin
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: matrsoskin (Dec 27, 2006 5:16 pm) Sure. Problem is you are going to run across people who disagree with what constitutes an "improvement." There are some who think the styling of the RDX would be an "improvement" to the CX-7. I don't. Likewise, you've stated your case about the trip computer, and there are at least a few of us that find it silly. Personally, if it adds $100 to the cost of the car, and/or adds buttons to my dash, I don't want it. At some point, when adding on options and improvements, you have to draw the line, or else you've morphed your "dream CX-7" into something else. Like a Murano. Yuck. "On the other hand, the VW/Audi 2.0L turbo is an exemplary." The VW/Audi 2.0T is an exemplary... example of an engine that doesn't put out 240 horsepower, that's what. Nor is it asked to cart around the same weight and vehicle form factor as the Mazda or Acura I4s. There may be some truth to a 4 being more efficient than a 6 because of less internal friction, etc., but you're going to have to find a better apples-to-apples comparison than the 2.0T. But anyway, back to the cheerleading contest... 
|
|
|
Replying to: matrsoskin (Dec 27, 2006 5:16 pm) I already linked to JD's info on the 2007 BMW X3. Don't just look at the first page. Look at the page with all the JD Power ratings: http://www.jdpower.com/autos/BMW/X3/2007 and this backs up exactly what I said.    You can't just pick the "overview" page and claim it rates the best. Like I said, in manufacturing, according to JD, it did good. But in design it did bad. And according to consumer reports, bad. |
|
| Something well worth considering these days is where the money goes. With Ford's 33% holding of Mazda, a significant portion of Mazda profits comes back to USA. | |
|
|
|
Replying to: cxrabbit (Dec 27, 2006 5:41 pm) Surely, I can use the "overview" rating as a summary (overall) vehicle quality rating. That is what the overview rating is for. The overall rating could be braked down into subcategories, such as manufacturing and design quality. There is also a significant difference between the manufacturing quality and the design quality. The former reflects as how mechanical parts are produced put together at the manufacturing plant, as well as how the whole unit performs in the vehicle. The latter tells you how well this unit had been designed. When you see the highest manufacturing rating combined with not so good of the design one, it might indicate mostly some inconvenient feature of the given unit, not its reliability. The good example of the latter could be the transmission shifter in the previous generation of Honda C-RV. The lever was protruding from a dashboard and mostly female drivers had thought it was a very awkward shifter placement because they often grabbed it by a blouse or blazer sleeves while trying to adjust radio controls. Was there a major transmission reliability problem? Not at all. In my original post I have cited the reasons for not purchasing CX-7. I have not provided the reasons for choosing BMW X3 instead (except better lease offers and In think that Mazda also needs to address it in order to attract more buyers), because it was beyond the scope of this forum. You keep on switching a discussion from the CX-7 drawbacks to the BMW reliability ratings. My advice: stick to the topic of this forum or go to the CX-7 vs X3 comparison one. Cheers, Matroskin |
|
| Not sure I understand the low 19/24 mpg-epa rating. My last three vehicles achieved or exceeded the epa rating so I presume the CX7 will do the same for me. I think that Toyotas V6 3.5L-263hp-30 mpg highway is outstanding. The RAV4 V6 is about the same size and weight as the CX7 so why the big difference in mileage and the CX7 requires 91 Octane fuel. I wish the CX7 had the Toyota V6. That way we could have the sportyness of the CX7 and the preformance (read 0-60 in 6.2s) and very good gas mileage. Ed | |
|
|
|
Replying to: matrsoskin (Dec 28, 2006 3:51 pm)
|
|
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
