 2009 Mazda CX-7 GT. Click image to enlarge |
|
Related articles on CanadianDriver
Manufacturer’s web site
|
Join CanadianDriver’s Facebook group
Follow CanadianDriver on TwitterReview and photos by Greg Wilson
Find this vehicle in CanadianDriver’s Classified Ads
Photo Gallery:
2009 Mazda CX-7
North Vancouver, British Columbia – A crossover that wishes it could be a sports car, the 2009 Mazda CX-7 GT combines car-like performance and SUV-like utility in a very handsome and distinctive package. The CX-7’s aerodynamic nose and rounded tail, sleek profile, wide stance, bulging fender flares, dual exhausts, and meaty 18-inch radials make other crossovers look positively boxy.
Under the CX-7’s sleek sheetmetal is a turbocharged 244-hp four-cylinder engine borrowed from the Mazdaspeed3, a six-speed manumatic transmission, unit-body design, fully independent suspension, and available all-wheel drive. The CX-7 drives like a performance sedan – yet has the room to take the family and their gear on a weekend camping trip – and more significantly, with its available all-wheel drive and high ground clearance – a weekend skiing trip.
The CX-7’s closest competitors are the turbocharged Acura RDX, the turbocharged VW Tiguan, and the turbocharged Subaru Forester 2.5XT; and maybe the Toyota RAV4 V6. But the CX-7’s unique appearance means that it won’t be mistaken for any other crossover – except perhaps the Mazda CX-9.
 2009 Mazda CX-7 GT. Click image to enlarge |
When it was introduced in Spring 2006, the CX-7 was a trendsetter, not only for its racy styling. Its Mazdaspeed-sourced direct-injection, turbocharged 2.3-litre four-cylinder engine, producing 244 horsepower at 5000 r.p.m., preceded direct injection turbos like those now being trumpeted by BMW, VW and Ford.
And its six-speed automatic transmission with sequential manual shifting capability was, and is, a cut above many competitors’ transmissions, particularly the boring, one-speed continuously variable transmissions available in some SUVs.
Almost three years after its introduction, the CX-7’s swoopy but sophisticated design still looks fresh, at least to these eyes.
| next >> View full article on one page
|
at 9:39 am
The 2010 model will come with a 2.5 litre 4 at about 175 HP for those who would like better mileage.
at 10:07 am
This is a great looking car inside and out, with brilliant driving dynamics. But I’m not sure this turbo 4 makes a lot of sense in a vehicle like this. While the RAV4 is dull to drive (and IMO awkward looking), it’s optional V6 is quicker, more fuel efficient, and I believe has a higher towing capacity than the CX-7.
I have read 3 or 4 other road tests of this car that peg accleration in the 7.5 – 7.8 seconds range to 100kph, not the 8.7 as reported by AJAC.
at 5:27 pm
Better get an 09 while they’re still available. Mazda uglyfied it for ‘10.
at 7:03 pm
40 grand for a Mazda? Am I just way out of line when I think that’s outlandish to pay?
Its just, if I wanted something sporty that could haul the family around for 40 grand, I would look more towards the new Taurus SHO or something like the Volvo S80… That’s just me though.
at 7:51 pm
I agree with CDF; a turbo 4 that’s less fuel efficient and slower than the V6 RAV4 doesn’t make sense.
at 10:53 pm
“…particularly the boring, one-speed continuously variable transmissions available in some SUVs…”
What a comical statement that is – how can a “one-speed” transmission be continuously variable? And oh, some people don’t like their head slamming against the head rest as a result of the antediluvian “shifts” from an inefficient conventional transmission. Sir, your definition of “sporty” is flawed – I am sorry you ruined what could have been a great article on a good xover contender.
at 2:30 pm
Albert, I wonder what you’re doing on an auto website if you don’t know what a CVT is by now. CVT’s are unquestionably more boring, than manual or shiftable automatic transmissions. If you don’t believe Greg, go drive one. As far as your ‘heads slamming against the head rest’ comment, I think you or the people you’re driving with are not used to manual transmissions, as I have yet to drive in a vehicle with an automatic transmission that produces this effect.
Nice artice Greg.
at 3:19 pm
Chris, why not pay $40k for a Mazda? They do make good cars and definitely not worst then a Ford considering they share a lot of their platforms and engines. And I doubt you can get a new Volvo S80 for $40k. You can barely get a new S40 at that price.
I agreed though with the other posters that a turbo SUV just seems odd.
at 5:07 am
NOT worth it. I really looked hard at buying this vehicle. I compared it to the Acura RDX. I bought the RDX. If you go into the fine print of the Mazda offer, things that are standard on the RDX are EXTRA on the CX7. My RDX cost me 40,900 on the road tax in. Acura has unbelievable rebates and customer loyalty program.
at 11:48 pm
Roger, I wasn’t really trying to bash Mazda’s, though it probably did sound like it, I was just saying, when I think of Mazda, I think Miatas, RX-7’s and 8’s… I wasn’t saying they couldn’t build cars. I dunno, I also just don’t like the idea of crossover.
Also, check the Volvo website, an S80 baseline price is $39,600 and next up base price is about 40k. The V8 model is the only one to break 50k.
at 6:30 am
Nice looking vehicle, but at close to $40K and premium fuel to take advantage of the money you are spending on the engine, I think I’ll stick with my Mazda 5.
at 1:18 am
Chris: Considering this is a Canadian website and prices in the article of the CX7 are in Canadian, I looked at the Volvo Canada website and starting price of a Volvo S80 is $49,995 CDN for the 3.2 6cyl version… Logical no?
at 11:30 pm
Perhaps, haha
:]