2009 New York Auto Show: 2010 Mazda CX-7

Wow, that is a major change. They should just replace the 2.3T with the revised 3.0 Duratec V6.

The 'smiling' front end totally kills this CUV.

The 'smiling' front end totally kills this CUV.

Wow, yet another design from Mazda Helen Keller Memorial Design School For the Blind.

The prior corp nose used on the 3 and CX-7 were tastefull understated designs. Were I in the market for a car this current wide mouth atrocity would takes Mazda off my list.

YIKES again!

The 2.5 should be a bargain, though, because the 2.3T starts at, what, $24k? Dollar for dollar, a $22k CX-7 would kick CR-V/RAV4/Forester butt.

Ya styling wise the CX-7 is still hard to beat in this compact crossover class ($20k-$32k loaded V6).
Forester with its tougher look perhaps.

On the other hand, CR-V totally pwns the CX-7 in interior functionality. Cubbies everywhere, on the dash, on the airbag, on the center console, on all doors, on the trunk shelf, on the on and on and on.

The Honda CR-V is thoroughly thought out engineering excellence. Honda's even blinder though. But cubbies everywhere! OMG perfect family crossover!

er maybe not on the airbag.

Let's think about this. As installed in the CX-7, the 2.5l is down 10 hp (6%) and 10 lb-ft (6%) compared to the Tribute, is hooked to a 5-speed auto instead of a 6-speed, and unless they've removed the rear seat, spare tire, A/C, and all the insulation in addition to the turbo plumbing, the CX-7 is more than 350 lb (11%) heavier. It's hard to see how this base CX-7 isn't going to be a slug (and I'm not one of those people who thinks you need to go 0-60 in <7, or even 10 sec--Edmunds' just tested the Escape 2.5l FWD at 9.8) that may get barely better fuel economy than the 2.3l turbo to compensate.

I agree with orangutan; the new 3.0l V6 is down 35 lb-ft of torque compared to the 2.3l turbo but produces similar power (and doesn't require premium fuel to produce max power and torque), and with a 6-speed auto might get the same or better fuel economy as an overtaxed 2.5l.

V6's will never be in the CX-7's engine bay. Throws off the Handling balance.

The CX-7 will start around 20K too.

If I wanted handling, I probably wouldn't buy a high-riding vehicle that weighs nearly 2 tons, even if it's more capable than most of its ilk. In fact, I didn't. But if you tell me that a V6 won't fit in the engine bay, I'll believe it.

Still, I don't know who the base 4 is intended for--it's hard to find a FWD CX-7 at all at a dealer, and it's hard to believe making it much slower will increase its appeal, unless the mileage is a lot higher than I suspect it will be.

It doesn't fit, and it won't be inside of it even if they tried to shoe horn it.

Believe it or not Handling is a top priority for the CX-7 and it handles extremely well for what it is. It's not supposed to be a BMW 3-Series in the handling department, it's supposed to be the best handling crossover in it's price class. Although it's abilitys are high stock, narrow, tall tires and poor grip are the limits on a stock CX-7. They're capable of much more grip.

FWD/AWD depends on the area. Around here FWD is all they sell mostly. People that moaned about MPG won't care about how much slower it is. Just like all of the people buying the Mazda5.

It's amazing that the C-RV is still so good after, what, it's 4th year on the market?

The normal asp. is going to be pokey...just like the Mazda5. The lower bumper styling is hideous. Yet, I guess it's distinctive.

bc1960,
"it's hard to find a FWD CX-7 at all at a dealer"

Completely Region dependent.
You must live up north, where all CX-7s are AWD.

Down south, all CX-7s are FWD. There are no AWD CX-7s for sale down south in Texas or neighboring states.

I bet the CX-7 will do like a 0-60 in 10.5 seconds, since a CR-V does about 9.8 seconds with a 200 lb better hp-lb ratio.

Yet, it must be done.
17/23 mpg + 93 octane recommended tuning don't sell that many cars. Turbos are for ricer boyz.
The general American public are like, "ew, turbo. Is that for the short asian kids?"

You know, I greatly prefer 5-speed over 6 speed.
I got this extra gear (5th gear) that I hate. It can't accelerate, and yet it's not the best cruising gear. What is it good for?
I hate 5th gear in a 6-speed. And if it's a manual shift auto, you gotta shift twice to get past that useless gear, up or down. 6-speed is such a hassle.

Death to the 6!

It's 91+ recommended and the CX-7 still won't sell that well because it's a niche CUV.

The car gets more power and runs even smoother on 93.
It runs acceptable on 89.
Runs like crap on 87. Changing to the fastlane on the highway is borderline dangerous on 87.

Nobody builds a car in a mainstream category hoping it's just a niche car. They hope it sells as well as the CR-V and the Rav4.
"I hope our car sits on the lot longer!"

btw the 2009 2.3-liter turbo starts at $18k right now at certain locations *wink* *wink* due to our beloved economy.

Great deal and good enough to ignore the gas mileage of 19 mpg average. Like hybrids, gas prices will never amount to the discount you're getting.

It can't sell as well as the CR-V, they don't have the capacity. The Mazda3 COULD have outsold the Civic in Canada but they couldn't pump them out fast enough. I could see what you're saying if they we're making as many and not selling them but they aren't.

The first - as far back as they go - Mazda design that I find truly hideous.

"I bet the CX-7 will do like a 0-60 in 10.5 seconds, since a CR-V does about 9.8 seconds with a 200 lb better hp-lb ratio.

Yet, it must be done.
17/23 mpg + 93 octane recommended tuning don't sell that many cars. Turbos are for ricer boyz.
The general American public are like, "ew, turbo. Is that for the short asian kids?""

thats why the general american public do not get the great cars that are everywhere else.... because they are not very smart

The CX-7 needs a V-6 for the US market...and I suspect the lack thereof has more to do it with its kinship to the Japanese spec MPV and the desire not to compete with the CX-9 than any lack of space in the engine bay...the 3.0L is derived from the 2.5L V-6 first seen in the Contour/Mystique and retains the same external dimensions (and the 3.5L/3.7L was designed to go in anything the 3.0L does as a drop-in...to the point of retaining the same dimensions).

I was never a fan of the nose on the current cx-7 so I think this is a step in the right direction. The new mazda3 may be all smiles but I really don't see it as much in this application.

I would love to see the new 2.5 with awd and a clutch pedal - I don't really care how much slower it would be but it would be nice to have the extra drive wheels when old man winter shows up.

And I have to agree with you, liljonson.

I hate the public. The public is stupid. That's why we don't have diesels. That's why we don't have sporty wagons (besides the imports). That's why we can't shift our own gears.

It almost makes me wish I lived in Europe. Almost.