Mazda CX7 vrs Nissan Rogue
 

My other car is a CX7 AWD that now has 55,000 miles. Last month it was hit from behind while I was on a business trip and I'll be flying out to pick it up next week. Its been a great car (it drives so good I can't call it an SUV) but it's beginning to get some wear & tear. Regrettably Mazda did take a few shortcuts with materials.

It is thirsty. If I keep it under 72 MPH it will get 23-24 MPG, but anything over 72 it goes on a fuel binge. I normally drive about 80 on the highway and that drops it to 18-19 MPG. West Texas running 90 drops to 15-16 MPG. (On the other hand my wife's Mazda 5 runs 90 at 26 MPG, 80 at 28 MPG, 70 at 29 MPG). I considered a 5 but at some of the minesites I need AWD.

Considered a Murano, and Nissan put some lessons learned from the CX7 on the new ones - the new Murano SE drives much better then the older ones did - except the brakes are still too touchy. Still overpriced and like the CX7, premuim fuel is needed. (Premium is a must on the CX7, unlike the RX8).

The Rogue drives very nice, still touchy on the brakes, The CVT is way cool. The 2.5 has a ton of torque wher the Mazda NA 4 is still rather weak. The CVT hunts down the best RPM match and holds it there. Bizarre yet smooth and surprisingly strong on acceleration. But the dealer didn't have an AWD version to try.

Might be considering the Rogue over the next month or two but I need to understand more about other owner experiences first.

Ehhh im not a big fan of the rogue or murano. Their new design isn't my cup of tea. But I'll agree that they are reliable. My Uncle has a Rogue and he enjoys driving it, but in my opinion their looks are so-so. WHy don't you look into the Mitsubishi SUVs such as the Outlander or Endeavor. I heard they are pretty decent.

I have to admit from a styling perspective the CX7 is hard to beat, but the styling lacked a bit in space utilization. The Rogue has a little better utilization, but not much.

I'll never buy a Mitsubishi product. I've worked with Mitsubishi engineers many years ago and came to a stark realization; they hire people with top GPA's with absolutley zero common sense. Look at any Mitsu vehicle with 80,000 miles and you'll understand.

Subaru makes a great product, but it's overpriced. The outlander drives like it was made for an old lady. HO motors are probably the best layout for a 4 or 6 and they win hands down there.

I was concerned with the CVT a few years ago, but I've seen Muranos with 150,000 miles without any trouble. It seems the majority of the CVT issues happen under warrantee.

the rogue is like a rav4.

I've rented a few RAV4's and they had the same Jeep-like lean-over on turns that the pre-2007 Honda CRV does. The FWD Rogue doesn't feel that way.

I used to own a murano. It was a great suv, but was pricey, but was great on gas( another benifit of the CVT ).......the rogue seems like a smaller version of the murano, but it does have a large blind spot for a small crossover. I will also agree that they did a disservice to the looks of the murano with the restyle. I like the looks of the cx7 but have never driven one. You have a lot of options in the small SUV department, don't be name biased, try them all and see what you like. I will just put this in there, there is a very very noticable difference in quality when you go from a Murano to say a equinox........but just my 2cents.

If I was going to go for a Nissan crossover I'd spring for an FX-35. I don't much care for the styling of the Rogue or the Murano.

One of my bros has a previous gen Murano AWD w/ CVT. Its a nice car, plenty of tq to tap, the AWD works well. When it rains he gets on it at turns, the suv behaves predictably.

rogue is ugly. you wanna make waffles with that grille?

The new Ex-35 came out too so I say get either the FX or if you wanna go smaller the EX.

BTW, I'm trying to keep the cost under $27K out the door, nicely optioned.

Both cars are complet shit. Why not consider the Honda CRV?

you base that on what???


beers :beer:

I base it on many things. They are both shit. In the least, can you agree that the CRV is superior?

i have spent a fair amount of time in the crv.. it does the job.. both the first and second version.. the one right now, meh.......

but the op has many good miles in the mazda. and the nissain is doing well in the reviews.. btw, would love to hear more about the op 7 comments.

so you base your comment on what????

beers :beer:

On many things. Both cars have received poor or average marks in mags. The CRV is better in virtually every category.

funny,

motorweek says different... :)

and the crv is no longer small.

imho all are good. there is no suck here.. preference..

beers :beer:

My father's CX-7 drives fine.

As far as the 7 goes...

Mazda bent the rules of physics when they designed this one. I beleive Mazda could give lessons to Porsche on suspension design. The roll center sits higher then a car, yet it has better stability then most cars. The AWD version is nearly as well balanced as the the 8 is, at least from the feel in the left chair. The ride is good, not too harsh as one would expect from the stability. The turbo is very responsive at low RPM - from idle to 1600 there is some lag but you almost never notice. From 1800 up it feels like a small V8.

The tranny works well for an automatic but a little slow to react in manual mode - you need to anticipate double downshifts and time them just right or you'll hear little clangs - not exactly a soothing sound.

AWD is a typical Japanese full time system and it still has too much front bias. It has very much the same feel of a 350Z in terms of understeer with a little softer shocks, at least at lower speeds. Above about 45 MPH you can feel the taller height and definately the FWD bias.

Brakes are very good, and a good driver can instantly find threshold braking up to about 70 MPH. Above 70 and the fade factor comes on pretty strong, it is after all a heavy vehicle.

In the snow & ice with the DSC off it's easy to pitch around below about 30 MPH. At about 30 the Full Time AWD leans more on looking for the front tires to spin before latching up the rears so its a little harder to drift - but still very possible - just feels a little clumsy.

Like most Japanese cars the legroom is a bit tight widthwise. Long trips you would like some padding to rest your knees on.

It has road noise. Less then many others including the Pacifica and CRV but I would rather they add the extra 10 Lbs for sound dampening.

Not enough rear seat room. Put 2 adults in the back and chances are 6-footers in the front will need to scooch forward a couple clicks. I think the designers were really trying to put the driver dead center and compromised the cabin room by doing so.

It is a Mazda, so with time a few rattles and squeaks developed.

I had a couple of small things go bad, nothing major, all under warrantee. Shock valving went soft at about 40,000 miles and at 45,000 I had a new set installed. They weren't bad enough that 98% of the folks would change them, I'm just a bit picky about those things.

It is drinking more oil these days. About a quart every 2000 miles - the same as my 8 with 32,000 miles. Suspicious the intake valve seals are seeing a little wear.

If you put 89 octane in it will knock. When traveling through highlands I always fill at lower elevations to get 93 octane. Premo gas is too expensive as often as I have to fill the tank.

The DSC should qualify for huge insurance discounts. Twice this thing has saved my ass on slick roads. Once when a dear ran acoss the road - I was running at 80 on a dark two lane road in the wet. The second time when a tractor trailer slid over into my lane on some black ice.

I've actually been thinking about getting a CX7. Either (gasp) selling the 8, or selling the wife's VW. Of course, I'm concerned that I'll really miss the 8 if I let it go, but I'm getting more and more reasons to need the extra space.

When I had a CX7 from the dealer when the 8 was in for the recall I was VERY impressed with the composure and handling, but somewhat unimpressed by the engine. It also did quite well off road. I'm thinking that a reflash could improve on the current turbo lag, and I do like to tunability a factory turbo offers in case I get bored with it.

kartweb,

Anything to look out for if I'm looking at a used CX7?

Good comparison, I was in this same dillema a few months back when we were looking for a new SUV for my fiance'. It boiled down the the CX7 and the Murano. We ended up with The Murano, simply because it was a bit more roomy than the CX7, and did not have the gas mileage woes like the CX7 did. Plus we got a pretty decent deal on the Murano.

To me, i personally loved how the CX7 drove, it handled very well and the Turbo presense is defiantely there. The Murano i find to be a litle more upscale, the interior build is better than the CX7 IMHO, plus the engine in the Murano is bullet proof with proven track records.

But i love the styling of the CX7 its very zoom zoomish and kept nicely along the lines of the rest of the mazda fleet.

I have no experience with the Rogue, so i cant comment there.

I was told by the Mazda dealer that the new CX-7 can now run on reg-87-oct gas now.......has any one checked this out?

Yes , You can run 87 in the 2008 CX-7 .

Great that will help out a few dollars every fill-up. You will probably loose a little power.