| EXWRX |
I managed to get into CX7 yesterday. My first impression was that this was a spitting image of the MO debadged. The CX7 has a more aerodynamic harder/ sleek look to it. The interior space is much smaller than the MO, however it makes up for it in the console and dash. Very well laid out.
The seating and leg room was much smaller alongside the storage capacity with the rear seates folded down Vs the MO.
What did impress me was the engine. It has alot more 'pep' to it and get up and go. It also has an enthusiastic throaty note upon pressing the gas pedal vs the MO, which you really don't hear much of anything.
The ride is much stiffer and tigher handling vs the MO. However it may prove to an uncomfortable vehicle on long distance drives.
The salesman told me that about two weeks ago, Mazda had invited some of the dealers to test drive the CX7, alongside the MO and Toyota Rav4 at a track.
The salesman had gone and his visual observation was that the other two vehicles vs the CX7 had a tremendous amount of body roll whilst driving through a slalom course at about 15- 20 mph. The wear/tear on the outside tires of the MO was signifcant at the end of the day vs the CX7. Now he did not inform me which model MO they had used for the test drives. |
|
|
| Gonzo |
| Sounds about right. The CX7 does have a tighter suspension.... lighter and smaller car. I like the looks too. |
|
|
| dmako |
| This competition is good, it'll make the next version of the Murano much better. Just in time for me to get a new one. |
|
|
| GripperDon |
| "The interior space is much smaller than the MO" that does not sound good, small really gets to you after a while. It's cozy and neat at first and then it just keep getting smaller and smaller. :eek: |
|
|
| hfelknor |
Small is good.
My wife is small.
Her hands are small (very important).
My other car is small.
The check you have to write for the Mazda is small (compared to the check for a Murano).
I like it.
Homer |
|
|
| goldmu |
I like the CX7 a lot as well. I would expect it though to have better fuel economy than the MO.
Well, according to mazda.ca and nissan.ca here is how they compare;
MO AWD:
L/100km(MPG )
(city)
12.1 (23)
(hwy)
8.9 (32)
CX7 AWD:
(city)
12.9 L/100 km
(hwy)
9.2 L/100 km
So, the CX7 takes more gas than the MO? :eek: |
|
|
| alfa_fencer |
| New guy here, Don't have a Murano yet, but hoping for one soon. :D But in comparing the CX-7 one of the eyebrow raising thoughts I had is the CX-7 weighs the same as the Murano (+/-70 lbs) yet it has a 4 cylinder turbo engine. Seems to me the thing would beat itself to death moving that much weight. But I have to admit the fully loaded price is attractive! |
|
|
| nissanlove |
| i just saw a cx-7 parked in the lot at costco today and coinsidentaly, it was parked right next to a murano. all i have to say is that it is really small, like puney sleek station wagon small, it's really short, i would be able to wash the roof without a step stool and i'm 6 feet( that's how i base car sizes haha) while in the mo i can't fully. it's pretty sleek, but the rear dosn't really appeal to me,it's got a boring butt while the murano's is more vuluptuous. guess i won't have to test drive one now. |
|
|
| HuskyFan |
quote:
Originally posted by nissanlove
all i have to say is that it is really small, like puney sleek station wagon small, it's really short, i would be able to wash the roof without a step stool .
Are you sure you saw the CX7 and not the MX3? The CX7 is only a few inches shorter than the Murano. |
|
|
| nissanlove |
| i'm absolutely positive, maybe it looked really short because of the lack of roof rails. but still, it was pretty darn small. i watched a review on it at edmunds.com last night and they said it's kinda slow and cramped for rear passengers, (they showed a pic of the rear seat and i really don't think 6 ft people could sit back there in comfort) it is a smaller suv. i think the cx-9 will be a bigger hit though. i'm personally still anxiously waiting for the buick enclave. |
|
|
| GripperDon |
| "The CX7 is only a few inches shorter than the Murano" :2: |
|
|
| Eric L. |
Lemme see if I can link this correctly.
http://blogs.edmunds.com/karl/Comments/275#cm
Karl Brauer at Edmunds.com had some interesting words comparing the CX7 to the Murano. He said "about the same" in terms of ride and handling - to me thats quite a compliment! |
|
|
| Sharlin |
Wait for the CX-9.
Not only will it be larger but it will have a V6 as the standard engine. There was a preview in a recent Automobile magazine.
What I am waiting for is either a hybrid Murano (08?) or FX.
I love the look of the FX and Murano and would own a FX if it weren't for its crappy mileage. |
|
|
| Gonzo |
| The FX is rough... but man does it handle great. If I could afford it I would have gotten one. |
|
|
| bob1 |
quote:
Originally posted by hfelknor
Small is good.
My wife is small.
Her hands are small (very important).
Homer
Sorry I'm late catching up to this thread all I can say Homer is::jester: :jester: :p
Bob1 |
|
|
| Daytona |
Geeze Are we talking the same unit? The Mazda wasn't even close I. M. /Our opinion!!! The CX7 besides being nothing but a copy,wasn't close in quality, fit, & Bling! The leather and interior looked like it was a KIA's!!! or note even! They do great things with the tubo, those mazda folk, but 15 lbs of sh*t in a 8lb bag won't stay, for as long as a Mo eng. Got to run hi price fuel! and won't get the mpg!!! The tail lights and much more wasn,t ??? well a Murano!!! Not knowing how these are going to sell, the sales person wouldn't talk price at this point. Up till late last month we would have had to go to Orlando (50+miles on I-4) to even see one. We have shopped for the Mo since the wife saw one about 6 months ago. I never noticed them till she did! I guess i always thought they were Beemers or one of those, that Cisco or Dell stock holders of pre-yem 2000 (sold before the crash) owned!!!!! Mazda's aren't worth squat after you buy em! Have clones that carry the Ford edge name! The eng will be toast @ about 85k miles, weighs more but body panels are like tin foil, Etc Etc... :8: :28: :rolleyes: |
|
|
| Tyler_Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by alfa_fencer
New guy here, Don't have a Murano yet, but hoping for one soon. :D But in comparing the CX-7 one of the eyebrow raising thoughts I had is the CX-7 weighs the same as the Murano (+/-70 lbs) yet it has a 4 cylinder turbo engine. Seems to me the thing would beat itself to death moving that much weight. But I have to admit the fully loaded price is attractive!
Murano:
245 HP @ 5800 rpm
246 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm
CX-7:
244 @ 5000 rpm
258 @ 2500 rpm
Hmmm, 12 more torque, WAY lower in the RPM band, and it reportedly has within 99% of that torque available to 5000 rpm. Doesn't sound like it'll beat itself to death after all. :)
Murano:
Overall length: 187.6"
Overall width: 74"
Overall height: 67.3"
CX-7:
Overall length: 184"
Overall width: 73.7"
Overall height: 64.8" (without roof rails)
Doesn't sound that much smaller.
Murano:
Head room (front/rear): 40.7"/39.7"
Head room w/sunroof (front/rear): 39.2"/39.2"
Leg room (front/rear): 43.4"/36.1"
Hip room (front/rear): 56.2"/56.6"
Shoulder room (front/rear): 59.6"/59.1"
CX-7:
Head room (front/rear): 39.7"/39.3"
Head room w/sunroof (front/rear): 38.2"/38.6"
Leg room (front/rear): 41.7"/36.4"
Hip room (front/rear): 54.8"/53.0"
Shoulder room (front/rear): 58.0"/55.8"
So it's a bit smaller inside, although there is apparently MORE legroom in the back of CX-7. |
|
|
| Eric L. |
quote:
Originally posted by Tyler_Canada
Murano:
245 HP @ 5800 rpm
246 lb-ft @ 4400 rpm
CX-7:
244 @ 5000 rpm
258 @ 2500 rpm
Hmmm, 12 more torque, WAY lower in the RPM band, and it reportedly has within 99% of that torque available to 5000 rpm. Doesn't sound like it'll beat itself to death after all. :)
Murano:
Overall length: 187.6"
Overall width: 74"
Overall height: 67.3"
CX-7:
Overall length: 184"
Overall width: 73.7"
Overall height: 64.8" (without roof rails)
Doesn't sound that much smaller.
Murano:
Head room (front/rear): 40.7"/39.7"
Head room w/sunroof (front/rear): 39.2"/39.2"
Leg room (front/rear): 43.4"/36.1"
Hip room (front/rear): 56.2"/56.6"
Shoulder room (front/rear): 59.6"/59.1"
CX-7:
Head room (front/rear): 39.7"/39.3"
Head room w/sunroof (front/rear): 38.2"/38.6"
Leg room (front/rear): 41.7"/36.4"
Hip room (front/rear): 54.8"/53.0"
Shoulder room (front/rear): 58.0"/55.8"
So it's a bit smaller inside, although there is apparently MORE legroom in the back of CX-7.
I think the rear legroom figure is a little misleading because another measurement that affects rear legroom is the height of the seat. The higher the seat is off the floor, the less legroom you need. I find the back seat of the Murano to be supremely comfortable, even after having sat in vehicles with supposedly more legroom (like a Toyota Avalon). |
|
|
| Tyler_Canada |
That's very true. I prefer higher seats too.
Oh and I forgot trunk space, the CX-7 is definately smaller in this one:
Murano:
32.6 cubic feet
CX-7:
29.9 cubic feet
All in all, the size is pretty close. I wouldn't say it's a LOT smaller. |
|
|
| droo |
The larger back seat leg room in the CX comes at the expense of smaller front seat leg room. Losing 1.7" from the front to gain 0.3" in the back doesn't seem like a great tradeoff. Total leg room is less than the MO.
IIRC, cargo room with rear seats down is the biggest size difference, with the MO being significantly larger. Agreed that the rest of the specs are very close, closer than I had remembered.
Haven't sat in a CX, I wonder if it feels tighter inside. Sometimes an inch or two difference here and there can feel like a lot, but then sometimes it's not that noticeable.
If the CX had been available at the time, I definitely would have considered it along with the MO. I like the looks, and with max torque at 2500 rpm, I'd imagine it's pretty fun to drive. |
|
|
| Ctx |
quote:
Originally posted by droo
Haven't sat in a CX, I wonder if it feels tighter inside. Sometimes an inch or two difference here and there can feel like a lot, but then sometimes it's not that noticeable.
If the CX had been available at the time, I definitely would have considered it along with the MO. I like the looks, and with max torque at 2500 rpm, I'd imagine it's pretty fun to drive.
The Mo definitely has a more luxurious back seat. Much higher seating position (think this was mentioned before). As well the back seats in the CX-7 look cheap (IMHO). No third headrest and the seats themselves look kind of hard although they aren’t uncomfortable. I will say it does feel small when sitting inside vs. the Mo.
Other items one won’t find with the CX-7 as compared to the Mo are the information screen with the ability to “set yer beeps”, mileage/ trip info, etc. One has to go to the dealership to turn off/on the Auto Lock feature. It doesn’t have memory settings (seat/mirror/pedal) for the drivers seat and no power passenger seat available. No rear AC vents. Roof rails aren’t available (from what I can see). No dual climate control.
Back up cam not standard like it is on SL/SE but is avail w/ high $ package.
Edit: CX-7 only has Sirrius as the SAT option. No XM. |
|
|
| Tyler_Canada |
quote:
Originally posted by Ctx
Other items one won’t find with the CX-7 as compared to the Mo are the information screen with the ability to “set yer beeps”, mileage/ trip info, etc. One has to go to the dealership to turn off/on the Auto Lock feature. It doesn’t have memory settings (seat/mirror/pedal) for the drivers seat and no power passenger seat available. No rear AC vents. Roof rails aren’t available (from what I can see). No dual climate control.
I believe the memory settings, power passenger seat and rear AC vents are all listed standard on the GT model. The AC vents should be standard on all models, but may be only the floor type (under the front seats) that you can't see. |
|
|
| Ctx |
quote:
Originally posted by Tyler_Canada
I believe the memory settings, power passenger seat and rear AC vents are all listed standard on the GT model. The AC vents should be standard on all models, but may be only the floor type (under the front seats) that you can't see.
No. No mem settings as well as pedal/mirror settings. No vents to the back seat either. Go drive one. (no disrespect intended!!).
As well with your test drive, check the backup cam and mileage meter. Check your ability to change functions. Go haul something. Get a boat. :) |
|
|
| Tyler_Canada |
Ok, I re-read the Mazda (Canada) website, and I was wrong about the seat/mirror memory and the power passenger seat, not sure where I got that idea.
The website shows "rear heater ducts" on both models.
I don't care about the maintenance reminders, I turn them off in the Murano anyway. |
|
|
| Daytona |
Come on folk! Are we even discussing this? The Mazda isn't even in the running!Though all they had to do is copy the Nissan like Yamaha did OMC and refine it! Mazda/Ford still dropped the ball !!! Just a step above the G.M. product I.M.O. Did this all get started from the Porche Cayenne??
 |
|
|
| alfa_fencer |
quote:
Originally posted by Tyler_Canada
That's very true. I prefer higher seats too.
Oh and I forgot trunk space, the CX-7 is definately smaller in this one:
Murano:
32.6 cubic feet
CX-7:
29.9 cubic feet
All in all, the size is pretty close. I wouldn't say it's a LOT smaller.
OK, here is something I think is telling:
Murano Cargo:
Back Seat up: 32.6 CuFt
Back Seat dn: 81.6 CuFt
CX-7 Cargo
Back Seat up: 29.9 CuFt
Back Seat dn: 58.6 CuFt
This is important to me because we have two greyhounds and they are very tall and long!
(Do you think dealers would mind if we tried loading our dogs in a brand new Murano to see if they fit?:2: )
I think gaining .3 inches of leg room in the back seat by losing 1.7 inches in the front seat AND losing 2.7 CuFt of cargo space is pretty substantial.
As far as my comment earlier on "beating itself to death" I guess I'm still a little skeptic of turbochargers. |
|
|
| Tyler_Canada |
| Here's one I like: you can replace the head unit without losing your climate controls :) |
|
|
| minimal |
I was driving an Acura TL before I developed the need to have a vehicle with more cargo space. When I found out both the new Acura and Mazda SUVs would have 4 cylinder engines I opted for the Murano and didn't look back. The interior space with the seats down is cavernous. I am an artist and steel sculptor and I have no problem carrying 5 foot tall paintigs and full size oxygen and acetylene tanks.
Fabulous vehicle, although the mileage estimates in the brochrue are bull****. |
|
|
| frig |
| I drove both and am leaning toward the CX7. However I saw on the msn auto site, that one of the professional testers said that Mazda is requiring high test fuel. This kind of negates the idea of a 4 cyl saving on gas. |
|
|
| Tyler_Canada |
| Given that the CX-7 is turbo, with a bit more power than the Murano, expect the mileage to be about the same (and not quite what the sticker says, unless you drive VERY gently). |
|
|
| dmako |
quote:
Originally posted by frig
I drove both and am leaning toward the CX7. However I saw on the msn auto site, that one of the professional testers said that Mazda is requiring high test fuel. This kind of negates the idea of a 4 cyl saving on gas.
Welcome to turboed engines. |
|
|
| hfelknor |
Get ready for more turbos.
Smaller engines, tricked out, will be the norm in the future.
But, all is not lost. Turbos have come a long way since my 84 Lancer.
So far in fact, that BMW says they are going that route. with future models. They say they cannot get more reliable non blown power, with existing technology, from the engines they have now, and they don't believe larger engines are the way to go in their mainstream cars. (They will still offer V8s in their High priced models)
In general, here is NO reason why a turbo model HAS to have high test gas.
Other than they are trying to extract the maximum GO from a small engine.
But there is no reason why a Turbo engine cannot be an adaptive engine IMO.
I think the CX is a very desireable, smaller and cheaper CUV. And it might be fun to really come off the line again........ ;)
Homer |
|
|
| Kris |
Recently I drove MB C180 Kompressor – 1.8 , 4 cylinder engine with turbo. I have to say I preferred 2.2 l diesel but the turbo wasn’t bad. The car pulled quite strongly even at 160 kph. Even at 220 pkh there was still something left. And honestly there was not feeling of turbo. The engine felt quite strong from the let go. And that is what I miss in the Murano.
Given today’s technology, materials and manufacturing I think there is nothing wrong with the turbo. Just get over the initial shock that 4 cylinder is “bad”. |
|
|
|
