Ask the Car People.SM


Mazda CX-7 v Toyota RAV4 v Honda CR-V

47 messages,  Last post on Oct 06, 2009 at 8:23 AM

You are in the Honda CR-V Forum.

What is this discussion about? Mazda CX-7, Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, Car Comparisons, Car Buying, SUV

Messages Page 1 of 5

#1 of 47 CX-7 v. RAV4 by Sylvia

Mar 23, 2006 (4:50 pm)

compare

#2 of 47 RAV4 V6 vs. CX-7 by Sporin

Jan 09, 2006 (2:30 pm)

I think the RAV4 V6 Sport and the CX-7 are most definitely competitors. Similar size, price, power and space. However, they go about things differently with the CX-7 being (mostly likely) the sportier ride and with the turbo-4, certainly aimed more at enthusiasts then socccermoms. The RAV4's big V6 will most likely have better towing numbers.
 
However, the performance numbers on the V6 RAV4 are pretty darn impressive. I'd bet that in measured performance testing, these two will be neck and neck.
 
I'm taking a wait-and-see approach at the moment. I'd liek to rreplce my Protege5 sometime this summer or fall.

#3 of 47 CX-7 Vs. Toyota RAV4 by aviboy97

Jan 11, 2006 (11:21 am)

Does anyone have accurate pricing on the new 2006 Toyota RAV4?
 
What I got from Toyota's web site:
 
RAV4 Base...$20,300
RAV4 Sport..$21,875
RAV4 Lim....$22,555
 
It seems to be thousands less....but I'm still looking to see if the equipment is similar. Usually Toyota's are very expensive once they come nicley equiped. i.e Toyota 4-runner

#4 of 47 Re: CX-7 Vs. Toyota RAV4 [aviboy97] by autumnwood

Jan 12, 2006 (5:04 am)

Replying to: aviboy97 (Jan 11, 2006 11:21 am)
You get nothing for that price on RAV4. No side airbags, no curtain airbags, no keyless entry/start, crap Toyota stereo. You definitely need to add a few grands on top of that for a decent car.

#5 of 47 CX-7 vs RAV4 V6 by Sporin

Jan 12, 2006 (7:34 am)

Replying to: autumnwood (Jan 12, 2006 5:04 am)
A mid-level, V6 RAV 4 with plenty of options is going to run around $26k. Those numbers posted above are for the 4cyl. Version.
 
I actually think that similarly equipped, the CX-7 and RAV4 V6 will be very similarly priced.
 
I plan to look at both.

#6 of 47 Modificatoins by istadclark

Apr 16, 2006 (9:00 am)

Does anyone know if the basic cd player in the CX-7
also includes an MP3 jack?
 
Does anyone know if the CX-7 engine can be detuned
somewhat to reduce horsepower and increase gas mileage
for a first-time teen driver?
 
Thanks.
 
Dan Clark

#7 of 47 Re: Modificatoins [istadclark] by lilarry

Apr 18, 2006 (10:46 pm)

Replying to: istadclark (Apr 16, 2006 9:00 am)
The CX-7 does not seem appropriate for a first time teen driver. IMHO the best new car for a new teen driver would be the Mazda 3i (2.0 liter) with ABS/airbag package and AT. Volvo inspired (if not designed) safety cage and full complement of airbags. It's cool, quick, fun, practical, economical and quite affordable.

#8 of 47 Re: Modificatoins [lilarry] by deanie

May 08, 2006 (11:11 pm)

Replying to: lilarry (Apr 18, 2006 10:46 pm)
Hi All:
"What car to get for the kid" is a question I've discussed at length with my wife, friends, relatives and associates. The comment universally offered is one that is nice, safe, but is either a "hand-me-down", or a small car, or an otherwise "lesser" car than that of the parents.
 
While this at first seems logical, it is actually quite illogical, thoughtless and even selfish. Most parents think that their children should not have cars nicer or more expensive than theirs. But who's more likely to get into an accident?, parent or child? Child, obviously.
 
That having been said, my first concern is the safety of my child which overrides any premise of buying them a small Mazda 3 (as nice as it is), or an older car lacking safety features. When I buy or contribute to buying a car for my child, you'd better believe it will be midsize or larger, it'll be new or nearly new with excellent braking, handling, and all the safety features available that day that I/we can afford.
 
If one can afford to buy their child either a 3 or a CX-7, which one makes more sense once the priorities are rearranged? Teaching a child about money and working for what one has are things a child should learn long before they're old enough to have a car, so the arguement that buying or subsidizing a relatively expensive car for child spoils them, is a weak one - especially if it places such teachings above their own safety.
 
Consider this. Like most parents, I value my children far more than I do myself. The CX-7 will provide comparable or better handling, and with nearly a thousand more pounds of steel, airbags and VSC between the driver and outside world, and the CX-7 will be (should be - we'll see when it's tested) a lot safer in a crash.
 
Remember, the highway safety geeks agree that higher vehicle weight is the number one factor in determining safety in a crash. Happily, if not miraculously, despite the extra weight, the CX-7 has shorter braking distances from 60mph than the 3 or almost any other car on the road today (read all the current articles out there - it's true).
 
Think about it. I know there are other factors not discussed, but gas mileage, resale value, etc are non-issues when weighed against safety. Theoretically, if a parent has a fixed $$$ amount to spend, get a larger, slightly used but heavier and safer midsize car than the new compact/subcompact or 7 year-old "hand me down".
 
There's probably lots more to say, but that what forums are for aren't they? So go ahead and say. let's talk.
 
Regards,
Deanie

#9 of 47 Re: Modifications [deanie] by richml

May 09, 2006 (10:29 am)

Replying to: deanie (May 08, 2006 11:11 pm)
I agree with much of what you say. We live in a town next to a very wealthy community. The parents there seem to have no problem spending lots of money on their children's cars (it is unbelievable to see what these kids are driving), but style and performance seem to be what they are buying, not safety.
 
One quibble with your comments is when you state that the CX-7 will provide comparable or better handling than the Mazda3. I love the CX-7, but I wonder how you define "handling?" Edmunds rates the handling of the 3 as Excellent, and it scored 69.0 in the slalom test. I can assure you, it handles curves like it is riding on rails.
 
I can appreciate the "bulk is better" view once a crash occurs, but I don't think any SUV (I've owned three) handles as well as the 3 or many other cars.

#10 of 47 Navigation, fuel, cargo area, performance by fsmmcsi

May 09, 2006 (7:56 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.

Messages Page 1 of 5

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement