If any mainstream brand can build an SUV that handles like a sports car, it’s Mazda. The Japanese automaker has a proven track record of developing vehicles with superior agility and dynamic appeal. Little wonder that ads for Mazda’s new CX-7 imply that it drives like a sports car, and that most junket-based reviews of the new “crossover” verify the claim. Well, I’ve driven the CX-7 and I’ve driven sports cars and the CX-7 is no sports car.
Looking at Mazda’s new crossover, you’d be forgiven for thinking otherwise. The CX-7 combines the MazdaSpeed6’s big-grilled nose, the RX-8’s protruding fenders, a laid-back windshield and a complete absence of straight lines. While the sporty-looking result distances the CX-7 from the mainstream of SUV design, the relentless surface effects deployed to disguise the machine’s fundamental portliness don’t meld into a coherent whole. More to the point, aerodynamics do not driving dynamics make.
The CX-7’s cabin comes closer to realizing the intended car-like gestalt. While a liberal application of hard, ungrained plastic risks placing passengers in econobox Hell, artful styling and metal-effect trim yield an intriguingly ultra-modern atmosphere (at least in the black interior). The Grand Touring model even adds a nifty strip of faux alligator hide down the center of each seat. The CX-7’s instrument cowl signals the machine’s sporting intent, while the heavily stylized dash does an admirable job of hiding the raked windscreen’s acres o’ dash effect.
Thanks to its relatively low driving position and prominent center console, the CX-7’s cockpit feels more athletically honed than the more open cabins of competing crossovers. (Some will simply find it tight.) But the CX-7’s front seats provide a clue that the model’s pistonhead proclivities may be less than advertised; the comfortable chairs don’t provide much lateral support. In back, there's about as much legroom as you'll find in the average midsize sedan, but shoulder room is a bit tight for three across. Buyers drawn to SUVs in search of elbow room won’t be happy. The CX-7’s 58-cube cargo bay is about 20 shy of the class average, but still sufficient for lifestyle schlepping or a weekend away.
The CX-7’s direct-injected, turbocharged DOHC four (borrowed from the MazdaSpeed6) stumps up 244 horses. While the output is generally sufficient for everyday progress, the powerplant fails to kick those fillies out of the stable with any alacrity. A firm press on the CX-7’s go pedal from a dead stop yields… nothing much. (Think boost lag combined with old school DOHC behavior; the 3,000 rpm torque peak is high for a turbo.) Buzz the four over 3500 rpm, where your ears definitely won’t mistake it for a six, and the CX-7 finally starts to get a move on. But even then the crossover’s two-ton curb weight and power-sapping, slow-reacting six-speed slushbox deny enthusiastic drivers sufficient thrust to justify opting into the new genre. The manual shift mode takes off some of the wait, but not enough.
In casual driving, the CX-7’s handling lives up to its billing. In gentle turns, body lean is well controlled. The steering is quick with a hint of tactile feedback. Unfortunately, tall 60-series sidewalls muffle communication from the contact patches and slow transitional responses, hobbling this sports car wannabe’s dynamic feedback. Shod the beast in lower profile tires and it might actually feel agile.
Press on and the whole fast driving thing falls apart. The crossover’s nose drifts wide, its steering feel goes AWOL and the chassis’ limited composure becomes apparent. The best vehicles seem to shrink and shed pounds when driven hard. The harder you push the CX-7, the heavier and clumsier it feels. But you won’t want to push it very hard, anyway, as the Goodyear Eagle RS-A’s on the outside front corner howl in protest at the slightest provocation. Ignore the complaining and you’ll find that there’s still plenty of grip available. But the noise! The noise! The noise! You’ll suffer less squealing at a children’s book reading.
Once calm is restored, the CX-7’s ride is moderately supple and quieter than that of other Mazdas. Credit those generous sidewalls. The CX-7’s softcore suspension tuning should make highway trips a breeze and back country roads with sweeping curves a joy. But caning the crossover around the tightly wound two-laners that feature prominently in the Japanese company’s ads? Forgeddaboutit.
Let’s face it: it doesn’t matter who makes an SUV or how they tune the chassis. A sports car is a low-slung, properly balanced vehicle with razor-sharp reflexes. SUVs are too high and too heavy to provide even a remotely similar driving experience. Mazda ought to know better. As the progenitors of the superb MX-5 and tightly focused RX-8, they should know that there’s only one sort of vehicle that drives like a sports car: a sports car.
[Michael Karesh operates www.truedelta.com, a vehicle reliability and price comparison website.]
Beautiful design.
Too bad Ford will ****up the CX-7’s image with their ugly ass clones. I already think less of the Mazda 6. Can’t they just leave Mazda alone?
Is there a discount for the models that survive offloading from the near capsized Cougar Ace off Alaska?
There are a couple of Mazda made Fords that appeal: That 4-door Lincoln sedan all-wheel drive is a winner … except as you note, the grill / front end looks weird = a copy of something G’ment Motors might dump on the clueless masses.
Ah, but the folks at Mazda don’t care whether their car handles like a sports car or is in any other way physically like a sports car.
They care whether their car is perceived by the buying public as a sports car. Because if a buyer thinks the car is perceived as a sports car, then s/he can buy it feeling that they’ve bought a practical vehicle, but will still get the ego gratification of owning a sports car (in other people’s eyes).
There are so many cars on the market which are not at all what they claim, but marketing makes others view them a certain way.
One of the great things about TTAC is that you poke through the marketing and tell it like it is. Mazda may not like it (nor Ford, nor GM :) but we do!
Zoom, zoom! … “perceived as a sports car” while I blow away that new Camaro trying to follow me through the curves on Calif. coast highway #1 … : > ))
Hmmm, the CX-7 seems to ask a question that I shouldn’t to ask about an automobile—— What is it? It’s not a sports car (no low end torque, so-so handling) and it’s not a SUV (although it weighs two tons – I guess the lack of interior space disqualifies it). Better yet – Why would I want one?
The turbo kicks in nicely when crossing the Great Divide … easily as much power as at sea level plus better milage. Higher altitude is “no problem found” with the turbo pumped 240+ hp 4 banger.
Mazda NEVER said the CX-7 is a sports car, but rather it possesses what is referred to in their advertising as “The Soul Of A Sports Car”. All this implies is that all the vehicles in the Mazda line caters to the driver, driver control, sharp handling, responsiveness, etc. In years gone by, Mazda tried to be all things to all people and sales suffered. Their cars were at the same time compared to Toyota and Hyundai, a sorry situation for them. Their niche is and except for those days, DRIVER’S cars.
Funny how Ford relies so heavily on Mazda engineering in their new line of cars. When Ford “allowed ” Mazda to sell a Explorer Sport as a Mazda Navaho, you’d be shocked at the low quality and problems this vehicle wrought on our longtime Mazda customers. Add to that the Ranger/B-Series trucks, the infamous ’94-’02 Mazda 626 4-cylinder automatic transmissions and you KNOW where the quality engineering lies.
Another Mazda with a turbo and a TMIC with NO HOOD SCOOP? How bad was the heat soak? And the CX-7 weighs 400 lbs. more than the already heat-soak-plagued Mazdaspeed6. Power must be totaly sapped whenever this thing is driven in warm weather. Why does Mazda refuse to put a hood scoop on their MS6, MS3 and now this one? It looks fine on the Forester XT.
Because the scoops are unnecessary. At the Master Tech Ride & Drive for the Mazdaspeed6, their position was that while the Subaru STi is the kid’s racer with all the scoop and spoiler effects, the Mazdaspeed 6 is the Dad’s stealth bomber.
As for how these vehicles run while hot, the engine changes to compliment the Direct Injection System have shown nothing but perfect driveability in our customer’s cars regardless of of ambient air temperatures.
I think the scoop on the Subie feeds the intercooler. Not sure if that’s better than Mazda’s design (more drag for sure) but it looks the part.
Usually the soul of a sports car lies within a sports car, but hey, who am I to question the zoom-zoominess of the ad’s underlying theme.
Ugly vehicle, that is for sure.
Are crossovers going to pollute the roads with styling like this one?
Test drove one with the wife. She loved it, I hated it. I guess Mazda knows who is buying their cars. I could feel my testosterone slipping away with every click of the odometer… I had to jump over to the Hummer dealer to recharge.
Using hood scoops is mainly for looks, unless you really want to get every last drop of power out of the engine, because cooling the hot (and I mean several hundred degrees hot) compressed air between the time it leaves the compressor and enters the engine with air that’s maybe 100 degrees cooler or not does not make that big of a difference
augury, then you know absolutely nothing about turbocharged engines. Heat-soak is a well-documented phenomena with turbo-charged cars. My old 2002 Audi S4 was a dog on a hot, Southern California summer day after 10 minutes of driving. However, on a nice winter day (which would be only 50 degrees cooler), but car was a rocket on wheels. While the turbo-charger gets incredibly hot, the charged air does not stay in contact with it for very long. The cooler winter air helped two fold: first, it entered the intake at a lower temperature and second, it helped to cool the air passing through the two side mounted intercoolers.
The purpose beind the hood scoop on the Subarus is to provide fresh, cool air to its Top Mounted Intercooler (TMIC). It has nothing to do with providing fresh air to the engine.
On Audiworld.com we had a measure of performance for our cars: FATS – For the Advancement of the S. It was a measure of our approximately 60 to 90 mph run, as recorded by our ODB II-esque cables hooked up to our laptops. I would shave nearly 0.5 seconds off my time between summer and winter; repeated summer runs would heat-soak my intercoolers and I would gain over a second.
What about the FX35? Is that more “sporty”? Yes I know that the FX35 is not a sports car. Purists will argue that even the Z350 and the G35’s are not sports cars, since they share parts with the heavier FX and thus become unnecessarily bulky. I am just wondering how “sporty” is enough.
Cannot help thinking TTAC authors are mostly idiots by now. One guy wants a sports car out of the Camry LE and another wants a sports out the CX-7.
There is nothing good or bad about a car until you compare it to another car (like the benchmark 330). The Mazda is a SUV (or crossover) after all. It seats 5 comfortably and can carry more cargos than your average 330 or Miata. In that sense, the CX-7 is indeed a good handling SUV. It’s certainly better than a Ford Escape or a Toyota RAV4. If you want to compare it to a Miata, then you are certainly stupid.
ktm, comparing summer and winter runs or heat soaked intercoolers is not quite what I was I was talking about, those things make a big difference because in winter the intake air is much cooler which makes a big difference in how hot the compressed air behind the turbo will get
if the intercooler gets too warm to work effectively, it also makes an even bigger difference, actually Ford had that system that used the a/c to create a reservoir of chilled water, which then could be used for better performance by dumping it into the intercooler during a speed run
my initial point still stands though, all else being equal, comparing an intercooler taking in fresh air vs from the engine compartment does not make a big difference in engine power, it will help keep the intercooler at a lower temperature for a bit longer though, so you will get the full performance for a bit longer, but not more
Yes, um, well, there’s a little thing called center of gravity, and the higher it is the worse the handling. Inescapable law of physics. An SUV will never handle like a sports car.
As for the engine, Mazda didn’t quite make the mark. The same engine may be great in the Mazdaspeed6, but there are only so many things you can do with a 4-cylinder. Providing the great gobs of torque necessary to accelerate an SUV from a standing start just isn’t one of them.
Falling short on its powertrain seems to be a common FoMoCo problem these days.
The Five Hundred was a great idea, it was timed right, and could have been a worthy successor to the Taurus, except for its weak V6 and funky CVT–and its narcoleptic styling, another Ford weakness.
The Lincoln Zephyr is another example. Otherwise a decent stab at an entry-level luxury car, it is handcuffed by an inadequate powertrain. Will a new engine and name be enough to save this product? Maybe. But its chances for success would have been much greater had Ford gotten it right the first time.
What exactly is the point of this vehicle? It’s not that sporty, it’s useless as an SUV, and it’s smaller inside than the 6 wagon.
Ryan: Good point. Its one question we need to ask about all of these crossovers.
A far better burner in this class would be the Mazdaspeed6 drivetrain in the Mazda6 hatch or station wagon.
The hatch in particular is one heck of a shlepper with the seats down and partition removed, while with the seats up its a nice, dignified sedan.
A Mazdaspeed6 hatch would be the best of both world: a stealth speed car and a stealth cargo hauler.
If you want a Mazda6 wagon with some power it’s called a Legacy GT wagon. Subaru has been making fast capable wagons for a few years now, I am on my 2nd WRX wagon, and while it’s not got the interior space of the bigger Legacy or Outback, it’s certainly sporty.
And air/air intercoolers do work. At a local shop with a dyno they’ve documented the power increase due to intercooler temperature.
Regarding What exactly is the point of this vehicle? It’s not that sporty, it’s useless as an SUV, and it’s smaller inside than the 6 wagon.
Most SUV buyers do not really need to use their SUV for offroad or heavy duty work. Their bought SUVs because of the ride height and image (discussed by another article here). Thus, the CX-7 is exactly that: an SUV that’s not so SUV, but with a good exterior design.
My daily driver is a Mazdaspeed6, and I have driven the CX7 a few times now. It is no dog and you do NOT have to get the rpms up to 3500 for anything to happen. 0-60 is well under 8 sec. and torque peaks at 2500rpms on this vehicle. The turbo was specifically detuned to avoid lag compared to my car’s setup. It handles very well, is incredibly rigid compared to the tribute, and is all around, a pretty nice vehicle, although a bit spendy with options. MY main beef with it is the lack of towing ability and the pricing of option packages.
And although the CX7, like the speed6, has no hood scoop, air is taken in at the front grill, through a housing on the underside of the hood, and directly into the intercooler. For those of us who find the scoop ugly, it matters. As far as heatsoak, unless you are drag racing or dyno’ing these vehicles, it just isn’t an issue (Ive never experienced it in 17K miles to date). Its been one of the hottest summer’s on record up here with 100 degree days and I assure you, my car runs just fine in these conditions.
I guess Im a bit mystified by the site recently as I type and look out the window at my other vehicle, a Mazda Tribute. It gets 23mpg, handles snow better than anything Ive driven (including a subaru), pulls a 3500# trailer, but its an SUV so I guess I just bought it for the image and not the fact that it makes alot of sense, or can do things my car simply cannot.
If the CX7 could pull a trailer, Id own it today because its superior in just about every way to the tribute. Mazda committed the crime of improving thier offering in this niche market but lets not let that fact get in the way of this joy-filled hatchet session, so carry on!
The point of this and all other crossovers is … vanity. The reality of having a family often dictates a 6-seat vehicle or more. Not so long ago, Accord, Camry, et. al. were considered compact sedans, and there were bigger rwd sedans that could fit 6 adults plus luggage.
Then GM downsized and Ford didn’t modernize. People stopped buying an inferior product, and big sedans became uncool. Now the only large sedans (aside from the 1970s-era Crown Vic, average driver a cop, cabbie or octogenarian) are luxury cars. Also, people got more paranoid about safety, so they don’t squeeze 4-5 kids in the back seat of a full-size sedan, a routine childhood experience I miraculously survived.
What these families really need are minivans, but minivans aren’t cool. One solution–a really dumb one, if you ask me–is an SUV.
Another is to take a minivan or station wagon and disguise it an SUV–add some ride height and/or a hood, and market the hell out of it. Hey presto–it’s not a station wagon or a minivan, it’s a crossover!
I’m a wagon man I drive an A4 avant and so does my father. I Grew up with wagons from a young age. Cool or not Wagons just make sense. Crossovers look like a wagon that got raped by a Jeep, it doesn’t quite work for me. The obsession with riding high up off the ground is silly and a high center of gravity does nothing for stability. A crossover is nothing more than a jacked up station wagon.
The list of vehicles in my past.
Subaru wagon ’84
Toyota Camry wagon ’87
saab 900 (hatchback sedan) ’94 & ’95
Audi A4 avants ’98 & ’01
qfrog, then what do you call the Audi Allroad or Subaru Outback? They are both cross-overs of a type, just slightly smaller.
Ryan nailed it. What is the point with any of these beasts, regardless of what they are called. Car and Driver pointed out that the BMW 3-Series wagon was both roomier and a better drive than the X3. But of course the 3-Series wagon and every other wagon lacks that poseur, faux-manly, I can cross the Rubicon look.
People, all you are buying is an overwrought, overweight and underthought Station Wagon!
Sorry for not replying to any of these comments sooner. I’ve been out of town at a theater festival.
The ads, website, and brochure of this vehicle generally have “sports car” all over them. Clearly Mazda wants people to think the CX-7 provides the benefits of a sports car in an SUV body.
I don’t care what the specs of the engine are, I use the seat of my pants to determine when power truly kicks in. It and the on-paper torque peak don’t always coincide.
As for hitting sixty in well under eight…no. Car and Driver got it there in 7.9. But I happen to be a big fan of their 5-60 “street start” test, as it doesn’t allow any of the tricks that threaten the longevity of the drivetrain and that generally won’t be practiced on public streets. In this test, the CX-7 goes from 5-60 in 8.6. The seat of my pants has no problem with that number.
In my review of the MazdaSpeed6 elsewhere (http://www99.epinions.com/content_220141031044) I wish they offered that powertrain in a 6 other than a sedan with non-folding rear seats. If they offered it in a hatch or wagon with less anonymous styling than the existing cars, it could well be a winner. The existing hatch looks hardly different than the sedan. And this from a company that gave us the Protege5 I currently drive. Most people find the Protege5 more attractive and distinctive than the sedan that spawned it. How often does that happen with a wagon? Squeeze an occassional use third row into the package and I’d be sold.
And, no, I doubt the CX-9 will be the answer, either. Though it will likely be a better fit for its particular mission than the CX-7 is.
Just a couple points Karesh since you are refuting my claims:
You did, in fact write “from a dead stop” so changing the parameters of your claim is clearly questionable. Furthermore regarding the P5, I have to ask since you spoke of doubt – and since the P5 is considered sporty, have you out-accelerated any CX7s recently in that P5? Your claim the the CX7 isnt a sports car is as arcane as crying foul over seeing the actual ending of the movie “The Neverending Story” (Simpsons reference intended).
Moving right along, the mazdaspeed6 was originally presented (in concept form) in Paris 04 as a hatch but this body style was ditched as it could not reasonably deliver the body rigidity that was needed. Its nice to wish, but that wont make it so even if the hatch and sedan do LOOK similar.
Continuing on, the rear seats of the Speed6 do, in fact, fold down. It is just not advertised as such. And yes, there are two crossmembers that do NOT completely reduce the utility of this feature. For all the wishing going on, common stationwagons just do not sell that well, mazda6 included. This is a business that needs to sell vehicles at a profit, not UNICEF, or a marketing experiment…and the CX7 is selling nicely.
Now, admittedly this is a small detail; The Protege5 was BASED on the protege ES sedan but was popular not ONLY due to its offering in wagon form, but its exterior styling was dramatically different than the normal protege sedans and actually shared parts with the MP3 protege (a mazdaspeed product). That vehicle was in far more demand than the P5 ever was. I know, as I bought one of the first wave of Protege5s to come over to the US as they were built in Japan. You hold up the P5 as an achievement to show what Mazda CAN do, but in reality its success can be traced to vehicles not at all dissimilar to the MP3 and Speed6 and even the like of the CX7.
Lastly, its dubious at best to rely on your posterior dyno that have so much faith in on a site like TTAC. C/D figures are among the slowest tested times for this vehicle and since you cite this article in particular, you may also have noticed that this very same article makes the claims “acted as if it were a sports car ” and “suprising low end wallop” regarding the CX7. Look, the P5 FEELS fast but isnt. The CX7 may FEEL slow (to you)…but it isnt. If you wanna talk feelings, try Oprah, this is TTAC.
There is no manufacturer that I have seen that has been able to combine and SUV/CUV and a sports car. They are inherently different and it just can’t be done. Now you can combine sports and wagon it just won’t look like a sports car. The JDM Lancer Evolution is proof of that (man I’d love to have had the chance to own one of those).
The issue I have with the Mazda CX-7 is that even if they don’t come right out and say it the impression is that it performs similarly to a sports car and it doesn’t. I’d doubt, although I haven’t checked the numbers that it would out corner or out accelerate a Nissan Murano SE or Subaru Tribeca let alone a Forester XT or Legacy GT wagon. Is the CX-7 a bad car or design no, it’s much better than the boxes we have had and it offers some unique styling, just don’t try to pass it off as a sports car “soul of†or otherwise.
What exactly is the point of this vehicle? It’s not that sporty, it’s useless as an SUV, and it’s smaller inside than the 6 wagon.
Not to mention more expensive and less fuel efficient than the 6 wagon.
CX-7 buyers are paying a few grand more (real world pricing) for a jacked up Mazda6 wagon.
The CX-7 is slow and may look sporty, but really isn’t. I think they are aiming at the Murano, B9 Tribeca, and Ford Edge. These cars are really not sporty at all, though are a big improvement over a conventional SUV.
I think the Infiniti FX really started the sporty CUV segment in 2002/2003 and those are truly the benchmark in terms of sport crossovers. They feel sporty and actually push you back in your seat off the line. They also have no ability for offroading.
The FX35 does 0-60 in 7.5 seconds the FX45 does it in 6.2 seconds and that is accompanied with a loud exhaust note. They sound like a sports cars, especially the V8 FX45. These other CUVs (CX7 Murano Tribeca) are very tame in comparison.
With the sport package, they out grip the BMW X3 and even a “base” BMW M3 coupe with a skidpad rating of 0.89Gs with the 2006 models being reported from AMCI to generate 0.92G. Of course, in real world driving, the vehicle weight transfer really cuts into cornering performance.
The only problem is that the FXs cost about 15-30 grand more than the CX-7.
I think the audience that Mazda is aiming for will probably like their product. It’s sporty looking, but really quite tame and has a relatively low price.
I was looking for a vehicle with more load capacity than a large sedan and a sporting nature. I agree that an SUV can only be so-so in the sporting department – simple physics.
Voila… Volvo V70R – a good sized wagon, AWD if that is important to you, a great interior and seats, and 300 HP. I have found my vehicle. I think too many people ignore wagons despite their practicality and the possibility of lots more fun than an SUV. It may superficially resemble your Dad’s car when you were a kid and bouncing around in the third seat facing the traffic behind you. I know it does for me, but I can hardly wait until mine is broken in and the traffic behind me, is far behind me.
My wife says the Volvo is not sexy, but nothing I looked at was remotely sexy – ok the Dodge Magnum, but the interior was ugly and cheap. In my book, a great body (and engine) is not enough.
Swedish Ford for me.
socsndaisy,
I hardly changed the parameters of my claim. A 5-60 test is more lenient than a 0-60 test, with the major exception that you cannot brake torque the engine up to 5,000 rpm. The way 0-60 tests are conducted is not representative of how vehicles are driven on public roads.
If the rear seat on the MazdaSpeed6 folds, that’s big news to me. I’ve looked in the trunks of at least two, and the seats very clearly did not fold. Was there a running change that I’m not aware of?
Where do you get your sales figures for the P5 and MP3? My sense is that far more P5s have been sold, but if you have numbers that prove otherwise I’d love to see them.
Finally, sports cars do not have to be fast in a straight line. The classic sports cars of the 1950s and 1960s were quite slow by today’s standards, and in many cases even by the standards of the time.
They do have to have nimble handling. The P5 has the nimble handling part down. The CX-7 does not.
Glad you responded.
I made an issue since you wrote “from a dead stop”.
Secondly, I can assure you my rear seats do, in fact, fold down. Head to a Mazdaspeed Dealer and ask a trained individual to demonstrate.
Thirdly, sales figures will not be needed here unless you can find a P5 that was purchased for more than five grand over sticker. I bought my P5 in June of 2002 and had an insider at FoMoCo fleet logisitics track the car from Hiroshima so I did indeed buy the second shipment to hit US shores. While the P5 was a somewhat poplular car, it created nowhere NEAR the demand that the MP3 protege did. Take a good long look at an MP3 and you will see the inspiration for the P5 in short order. The wagon really had little to do with the P5’s success compared to the styling borrowed from this special edition (radically improved over the base car). Im sure you will admit that it really isnt approaching a big time cargo hauler but is a very fun car to drive, albeit underpowered.
Nobody claimed a sports car had to be fast, but it doesnt hurt. IF you really want the straight skinny on roadholding do a comparo between the P5 and the CX7 skidpad figures. Might just suprise you.
Not yet convinced? Now go hunting for slalom speeds (heck, go ahead and toss in the world renowned MX5 or WRX here to make it even more challenging!) If you arent a believer yet, we will likely never agree. The P5 is a great car, but this CX7 deserves more credit that is given above. Surely you can admit that this vehicle is at least competent compared to these sports cars. After all it beats them at their own reindeer games.
Hope Ive given you something to think about here.
You had me thinking I was getting sloppy, since I’ve checked out a couple of MazdaSpeed6s in the past and noted in my review that the seat did not fold.
Hunting around I found this:
http://www.msprotege.com/forum/showthread.php?t=123617142
Seems I’m not losing it after all. Is this how yours folds? Or did Mazda later actually make it possible to fold the seat without taking the car apart?
Skidpad numbers mean little. Want better numbers, buy sticky tires. This won’t help transient handling one bit.
Slalom means a bit more. Even then, cars with lower numbers can be more fun to drive. I’ll take fun to drive over the best numbers any time.
As I note in my review, the CX-7 keeps sticking well after the tires start screaming. No idea why the tires squeal so early–other cars with Eagle RS-As don’t have this problem.
It’s easy to take a good sedan and create an ugly wagon off of it. Yes, the P5 has the front fascia and side skirts off the MP3, but not the Racing Hart wheels. And the nicely done posterior is what really makes the car. Contrast it with the failed Lancer SportBack.
The MP3 was a limited production car. The P5 was not. This makes a big difference in terms of buzz. But selling so many wagons isn’t easy these days.
Update on the tires:
Someone who bought a BMW with Eagle RS-As has informed me that they squealed with little provocation when new, but that this issue went away after 500 miles. The same could be true with the CX-7.
Another example of a fine Manto Hee Hee from the Japanese Design Studios. Looks like the RX-350 Frog.
” … Skidpad numbers mean little. Want better numbers, buy sticky tires. This won’t help transient handling one bit. …”
Same, same with tire noise, my only complaint about my CX-7.
11,000+ miles since )ctober, ’06 … a Denver trip, a Las Vegas trip, two to LA from the bay Area. One of the nicest highway cars I’ve even owned. Except for a little road noise, very little stability differences between 60 and 90 … but telling that to a mustang owner just results in sneers, until he gets blown away on the curves by a CX-7 (been there, done that several times, ‘vetts too :>)
All I know is that compared to the CRV the CX-7 is more comfortable, drives better, and feels like it isn’t powered by kittens. It makes the CRV look very very bad, and the mileage isn’t much worse.
It may not be a sports car, but it is a helluva small SUV or CUV or whatever.javascript:document.getElementById(‘commentform’).submit();
I own a CX-7, my wife and I bought it over a compromise, I wanted a fast car and she wanted an SUV. We took the middle ground. Even thought I wanted the smaller “sports” car I love the cargo room. The CX-7 has plenty of torque at 2500-3000 rpm’s, it lags for a second (0-2500 rpms) and then boom. In full auto mode the car tries to shift to 5th gear at 40 MPH so it can appear a little sluggish. Keeping the CX-7 in the right gear is the key to all the joy I have with this car, 3rd gear and any speed above 35 the CX-7s power is very apparent. The little lag in the power from a stop I think has a lot to do with being automatic and not a true manual. I put a CAI in it and that helped a lot. There are other aftermarket parts for it. I know a couple of people that have it running 0-60 in 6 seconds with simple bolt on up grades. The handling is great for a car its size and weight. I think the review about the CX-7 should have been titled “the truth about cars’ advertisement”. . I also own a Eagle Talon TSi with plenty of power, so I think I can give a fair opinion. Maybe the CX-7 isn’t a sports car, but it is a sporty crossover.