Nissan Murano Forum banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
13 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,077 Posts
Sounds about right. The CX7 does have a tighter suspension.... lighter and smaller car. I like the looks too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
828 Posts
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.
 

·
Mr. 3 K, 3/3/5. 5K,10/5/7
Joined
·
4,994 Posts
Oh OH!

"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:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,257 Posts
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
42 Posts
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:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
470 Posts
nissanlove said:
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,339 Posts
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.
 

·
Mr. 3 K, 3/3/5. 5K,10/5/7
Joined
·
4,994 Posts
That translates into a loss of a lot of fun.

"The CX7 is only a few inches shorter than the Murano" :2:
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,368 Posts
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!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
80 Posts
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.
 

·
Mr. 3 K, 3/3/5. 5K,10/5/7
Joined
·
4,994 Posts
IMO the FX's Ride Rough

:(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,077 Posts
The FX is rough... but man does it handle great. If I could afford it I would have gotten one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,477 Posts
hfelknor said:
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
21 Posts
CX7 vs MO!!!

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:
 

·
SHIFT_FASTER
Joined
·
1,422 Posts
alfa_fencer said:
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.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
8,368 Posts
Tyler_Canada said:


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).
 

·
SHIFT_FASTER
Joined
·
1,422 Posts
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.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top