Last post on Oct 07, 2010 at 5:27 AM
You are in the Mazda CX-7
What is this discussion about?
Mazda CX-7, Car Buying, SUV
#10 of 33 Re: Mazda CX-7 2010 Model [maavalous]
Dec 05, 2009 (7:51 pm)
Wanted to put in my 2 cents...
I also have about 1k miles on my CX-7 Sport (bought in early Nov) and I love it. Like everyone else said, the interior styling looks very luxury. With all other features (MPG, price) considered, I was also looking at the Nissan Rogue, but the Mazda interior won hands down.
The avg and current mpg display is excellent. For my budget I couldn't afford anything more than the Sport trim, but the Sport still has basic luxuries like bluetooth, leather wrapped steering wheel/shift knob, and the previously mentioned mpg/maintenance displays. I also LOVE the Cargo Area Rear Seatback Release Levers (as they call them on the Mazda website). Instead of having to open the passenger doors and release the seats on the top you just open the trunk and pull the lever. So convenient! Didn't spring for the AWD, but from the previous poster it sounds like the AWDs have problems?
It's a great crossover, and Zoom-Zoom indeed!
#11 of 33 Re: Mazda CX-7 2010 Model [maavalous]
Dec 13, 2009 (5:48 pm)
...please explain why you think that the AWD is not that good in the CX&?.....you seem to to really like the CX7 in general except when it comes to AWD..I will be very interested in knowing your reasoning since I am not decided yet if I will get a CX& or 9 but AWD...thanks...
#12 of 33 Re: Mazda CX-7 2010 Model [svofan2]
Dec 14, 2009 (2:45 am)
The AWD is fine, he and one other person had some issues but I have AWD with no problems and this is the same for most others with AWD.
Dec 21, 2009 (11:33 pm)
Just got a 2010 CX-7 i SV, which is the base model. Would've gotten the Sport, but after comparing the features, decided it wasn't worth the difference in price.
One thing that surprised me the most is the engine. On the paper it seems slow, and almost 20HP less than Toyota RAV4, but in real life, this thing doesn't feel slow at all. I dont' have any issues taking off from stop, or passing cars on highway at all. I traded in 2000 Passat V6 for this cuv, and this cuv feels just as powerful, and just as planted on the road as my Passat did. It handles like it's on rails.
Another thing is, the interior is sooo much better than 09 model...
#14 of 33 Mileage on the 2010 CX-7 with 2.5L
Feb 08, 2010 (7:57 pm)
Any feedback of current drivers of the 2010 CX-7 with the 2.5L engine would be helpful. I love the car, but am concerned that the mileage estimates are for driving like a granny on a Sunday morning. I noticed that the instant mileage meter was around 24 with cruise set at 75mph. Looked down and the tach read just under 3000rpm. That seems like the little four-banger is working pretty hard to keep the car going that fast. Lowered my speed by 5mph and gained 2mpg. Can any one else give feedback on this? What instant mileage are you getting at what speed and at what rpm? Thanks!
#15 of 33 Re: Mileage on the 2010 CX-7 with 2.5L [howd2010]
Feb 09, 2010 (9:32 am)
With DFI you'd be seeing something more in the range of 30mpg at 75MPH.
#16 of 33 Re: Mileage on the 2010 CX-7 with 2.5L [wwest]
Feb 09, 2010 (10:03 am)
That may be true, but here's what you do get (on the "i" version):
Engine type: 2.5-liter DOHC 16-valve 4-cylinder with VVT
Horsepower: 161 hp 6000 rpm
Torque (lb-ft): 161 lb-ft 3500 rpm
Redline: 6500 rpm
Displacement (cc): 2488
Bore x stroke (mm): 89 x 100
Compression ratio: 9.7:1
Fuel system: Electronically-controlled multi-port fuel injection
Recommended fuel: Regular unleaded
Valvetrain: 4 valves per cylinder with variable intake valve timing (VVT)
Engine block: Aluminum-alloy
Cylinder head: Aluminum-alloy
Fuel Economy: Front-wheel drive (city/hwy) 20/28
The 2.3L has "Direct-Injection Spark Ignition (DISI)" and I'm not sure if that is Mazda's version of DFI. However, the turbo kills the MPG on the "s" version.
So, if it's not offered...
In the end, it is the "i" version that I am interested in getting drivers feedback.
#17 of 33 2010 2.4l turbo mpg higher than 2009?
Feb 16, 2010 (7:56 am)
I was looking at a 2009 GT FWD used CX-7. The owner kept the window sticker and it showed a mpg rating of 17/23. While the 2010 2.4l turbo fwd rating is 18/25. Curious as to why the difference?
#18 of 33 Re: 2010 2.4l turbo mpg higher than 2009? [ddmtb]
Feb 17, 2010 (10:51 am)
The severe detuning/derating of the 2009 and earlier 2.3L turbo engines provided a LOT of room for improvement. All they had to do was reduce the rate at which boost began to rise, keep the turbo wastegate open a bit longer into the "POWER" throttle region.
With a fairly simple modification to the engine, techniques(***) already in modern day use, the 2.3L turbo engine could easily reach, and probably exceed (30MPG..??), the hwy FE of the NA 2.5L.
*** The latest Toyota HSD (Hybrid Synergy Drive) version uses a multi-mode engine technique, Otto mode, 13:1 compression ratio, for light engine loading, hwy cruising, and transitions into Atkinson cycle mode, 10:1 compression ratio, for POWER/Boost throttle openings.
#19 of 33 Re: Mileage on the 2010 CX-7 with 2.5L [howd2010]
Feb 18, 2010 (10:00 am)
Driving a 2007 CX-7 turbo AWD w/ 55,000 miles. Requires premium fuel. Currently getting about 20 mpg in city driving. Best ever received on the road about 24 mpg. Mix of city/hwy. about 22 mpg. Running about 2400 RPM at 75 mph. Engine does not seem to work hard even at 90 mph. Considering this is a 4,000 lb vehicle w/ AWD, can't really complain about the performance/fuel mileage. w/turbo. Been a good vehicle, besides maintenance, only needed a battery/new tires at this point.
Only real complaints would be the interior plastics-(sounds like the 2010 has some needed upgrades) and a little more legroom in back would be nice.
Change oil about 3,000 miles--transmission fluid/transfer case every 20,000. Remember, most motorists don't understand that fluids need to be changed BEFORE they get real dirty. Preventative maintenance is quite inexpensive compared to the alternative.
Would be interesting to compare performance of the naturally aspirated 2010 model compared to the turbo. Has anyone driven both?