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 Outlander vs CX-7 vs Tribeca
263 messages, Last post on Sep 19, 2007 at 7:05 AM
You are in the Mazda CX-7 Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & tidester
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Sep 18, 2007 8:28 am) Right, there was no 2006 Saturn Outlook, which makes these ratings "odd", as you say yoursef,  . >> It's a bit optimistic to assume those will change dramatically, especially when the off-lease Outlanders hitting the used car market will be priced based on those residuals. Market demand in 2008-2012 for a particular car will define used car pricing, not some "odd" 2006 ratings.
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Sep 18, 2007 8:57 am)  If your Outlander is totalled tomorrow, the insurance payout will be much smaller than it would be for a similarly priced (when new) RAV4. It's true right now. We don't have to wait until 2012. That may change if most Outlander owners are as happy as you seem to be.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Sep 18, 2007 7:24 am) I would not argue the resale value argument, which obviously is favorable to the RAV4 (in absolute value), but again, it shouldn't be a factor in the car magazines comparisons. The magazines should compare the actual cars, based on the “on-hand” data not market speculations, personal preference or other subjective factors. These types of assessments belong to the buyer. When I was shopping, I looked at the resale value projections and the purchase price on the Canadian market for the CRV, RAV4 and Outlander. I have to mention that the Canadian market is significantly different from the US market. The conclusion was that I would have had to pay in excess of $5,000 more for a RAV4 or a CRV to get the features I wanted in my car (some still not available at this price difference). I did not’t think that in 5+ years the higher resale value of the RAV4 or CRV would cover the initial purchase price difference. The truth is that the CRV wasn't really a contender due to the lack of a V6 option (aside from its ugly exterior and minivan dashboard - this is a personal opinion), but I still had it in my comparison, just to give me a full perspective. FYI: My evaluation also included the SantaFe and the CX7. I love the CX-7 (I have one in my diecast models collection ), but the engine was the major deal breaker for the type of vehicle I was looking for.
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Sep 18, 2007 9:36 am) If you judge by the owners’ posts on various Outlander forums, I think it's safe to say that over 90% of the Outlander owners are indeed happy with their cars so far. There were very few minor problems with the car for its first year in North America and Mitsubishi was very quick in addressing them. What's not to be happy about? Of course, it's still too early to rate its long-term reliability, but so far so good. Fingers crossed. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Sep 18, 2007 9:36 am) I would consider an event as gambling, when I have one chance for unfortunate event out of two, or in some cases out of 100 or so. The possibility of my car being totaled is based on very large assumption of yours and would not qualify as gambling. I mean do you consider driving as gambling? If your car would be totaled, quite likely you would not even know about it, or at least your would not care about a difference in your car "insurance payout". Fight for you life will be the only a fixation on your mind
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Sep 18, 2007 10:22 am) Any how, I agree that a purchase choice should be made primarily on the merits of a test drive, and a personal evaluation. Never mind what the reviews say. After all, do you recall Time magazine's review of Titanic? They called it "Dead in the Water". 
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Sep 17, 2007 1:31 pm) Transmission gearing also has a say in how many MPG's you get. Toyota has figured out a happy median between performance and just cruising. Most Toyota drivers do not drive as aggressive as say a Mazda buyer, so, Toyota can focus more on economy, rather then performance their main priority. Mazda is notorious for having higher gearing at higher speed which effects it's highway MPG's. The benefit is your engine is ready to push, which fits the "zoom-zoom" way of building a car. My Mazda6 2.3L is turning almost 3,500 rpm's at 70 mph and I get 30mpg's. If the engine was turning 3,000 rpm's at that speed, I bet you I would get 32-34 mpg's. |
|
|
|
|
Replying to: ateixeira (Sep 18, 2007 12:26 pm) "I think there is a world market for about 5 computers" - Thomas Watson (Chairman of IBM), 1943 640k ought to be enough for everyone" - Bill Gates on computer memory, 1981 ...and finally about cars: "With over 50 foreign cars already on sale here, the Japanese auto industry isn't like to carve out a big slice of the US market" - Business Week, 1968
|
|
|
Replying to: chelentano (Sep 18, 2007 1:34 pm) Critics will be critics. Often I feel they want to be seen as fiercely independent so they'll be overly critical of a car. A good example is Jeremy Clarkson, he's hyper-critical in an attempt to be funny, but some times it just comes off as mean. |
|
You are here:
Forums
SUVs Mazda CX-7 Outlander vs CX-7 vs Tribeca
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Mazda CX-7
2010 Mitsubishi Outlander
2007 Subaru B9 Tribeca
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
