Stoodo

Apparently someone over on the CX-7 boards linked over here... Great first post for many!

If you guys are happy with the CX-7 enjoy.

AbovePrime.

Actually, I found this board using Google. This place isn't really linked anywhere in the CX-7 or MDX forums.

Psychobroker

GOOD, because it's LAME. Now some CX7 owners are adding "4WD" badges too...? What's next, a "2.3T" badge? That's just sad.

Great! I'm happy you love your car! Still just a matter of BIASED opinion, and my personally BIASED opinion is that *I* think the front of the CX7 looks like a goofy whale shark with a dumbass grin on its face. Oh, and those fender flares? Yeah, they looked like ass on the RX8 too. But hey, that's me

Let's list the other advantages the RDX has over the CX7:

- SH-AWD (standard, purpose built, and much more sophisticated than the unit the CX-7 borrows from the 6)
- Higher quality interior materials i.e. leather used, plastics, seat bolsters (not bias, just a fact)
- ELS DVD-Audio 5.1 Stereo System - truly unbelievable
- Steering wheel mounted paddle shifters
- STANDARD AUX jack with available Acura Music Link (uses Navi screen)
- Dual zone automatic climate control (not sure about the CX-7)
- Voice recognition & voice activated commands (audio, climate control and navigation)
- HandsFree bluetooth link (not available on the CX-7)
- Superior Navigation System
++ Satellite based
++ Destination Database (i.e. restaurants, gas stations, lodging, amusement, etc - all with addresses, phone numbers, etc)
++ Real time traffic updates
++ Zagat Reviews
++ Voice or dial operable WHILE driving (no need to stop; no other system like it)

I'm sure I am forgetting some, but hey, someone else might chime in.

Yeah, like the repulsive GT aligator strip?

Honestly, I was *close* to buying a GT/AWD if it weren't for that puke strip, oh, and the fact that I could get into an RDX w/ Tech for only $3,000 more. Hell, I'm sure the RDX made up that difference the second I drove it off the lot.

Who here mentioned "ego boosting" as a reason to buy the RDX over the CX7?

Psychobroker

KBB TRADE-IN Values for RDX w/ Tech vs. CX7 GT/AWD/Tech, 4500 miles, excellent condition:

RDX: $33,525 - might get $31k?

CX7: $27,125 - might get $25k?

Wow, that $3k purchase price difference (~invoice vs. ~invoice) just turned into a $6,000-$6,500 depreciation difference the minute they were driven off the lot.

But hey, you don't like the look of the RDX, so you get what you want. No one can blame you there.

Me? I'll keep my RDX

AbovePrime.

As for the price difference It really wasn't a factor in my decision.
Mazda One Up:
It does have keyless start/stop/entry/exit.. not sure about the RDX having this as an option.

EKNE

Zoom zoom vs wroom wroom.... It's just a matter of preference. ;-)

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Some interesting facts here. I was watching the June 2006 Best Motoring, and it was comparing some SUVs/CUVs in terms of handling and straightline performance. The vehicles being compared are CX7, Hummer H3, CRV, RX400H. 1/4mile wise, the RX400H is the fastest, second is CX7, and I believe H3 got 3rd place and CRV being last. However, they also set up an autocross thing and amazingly, the CRV got first place, beating the 2nd place CX7 by almost a second, 1:37.69 vs 1:38.5ish. For your reference, the newest 2007 G35 sport that was tested on that same autocross layout got 1:36. I could post some screenshots if you guys need proof. Anyways, I don't know about the RDX, as they didnt test it, but I think the RDX should be faster than the CRV right?

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

Oh btw, they tested both CX7 2WD and AWD, but both got 1:38, with the AWD version doing a bit better.

Also, in case you are wondering, Best Motoring's test drivers are all professional race car drivers with many years of real racing experience.

darth62

This is another example of a poster distorting facts to make his own purchase choice look better.

Consumer Reports tested the CX-7 and RDX head-to-head. The 60-0 brake tests showed the Mazda stoping 5 feet shorter than the Acura - hardly one car "murdering" the other. The CX-7 does seem to have better brakes, but the difference is modest and does not make up for the other performance issues. For example, CR found that the CX-7 did 0-60 in about 9.1 second and complained about the annoying turbo lag. The RDX did it in about 7.5 seconds with no minimal turbo lag.

johnny99

Both Consumer Reports and Motor Trend have done 3 car tests including the RDX and CX7. Both magazines rated the RDX first and the CX7 last in the group. The CX7 lags in both sportiness and utility. I'm not aware of any other head-to-head comparison reviews, but I'm sure there are others out there.

722ish

Since thursday, ive had an RDX with no navigation as a loaner while my TL sits in the shop. Yesterday, i went to a mazda dealer intent on driving a cx-7 just to compare, because i had read this thread. If anyone wants me to be detailed, just let me know. The interior and exterior build quality goes to the RDX hands down. The materials and the finish in the CX7 is not as good, period. The exterior came in some really exciting, exotic colors, cool really. Did not use the headlights at night, but did discover the CX-7 has the adjustable headlight leveling. Very cool option, but again, i didnt see it at work. Steering, and handling feel are both good, especially for the type of vehicle, but i would say the RDX feels more racy, and more luxurious at the same time. If the RDX got some shorter, stiffer sidewall tires, it would be a good deal better. The cx7 is hard to say, i cant bash it at all, because i simply do not have the time to compare the two in the fashion i have been driving the RDX. Braking, im washed on this one, its not fair to judge when all i got on a test drive was a little bit of action, but to comment on the RDX, i wish it had bigger binders. It seems like initial bite is good, but from higher speeds it would help with maybe a little larger rotor.

Overall, both have obvious highs and lows. I liked getting in and out of the cx7s back seat a lot more than the rdx, and the cargo area seems a bit bigger. It also looks a bit more aggresive to some due to the rake of the windshield, and overall body lines.

I would say for pricing and options from there, buy the CX-7. It looks as though it will come in well cheap enough to become a good deal. If the price concerns you and you are looking for one of these vehicles, i would vote for the cx7.

If however, you are looking for the more expensive, exclusive of them, the RDX is for you. From magazine tests, its quicker, more nimble and brakes better. I would do it based on already having used the electronics in a few of acura's models. The seem fairly used friendly, and very straightforward. If you are looking for the tech stuff, again, go with the RDX.

It is a fair fight though, based on the pricing of the cx7, but the premium cx7 still doesnt exhibit the same interior quality as the RDX.


If anyone would like me to elaborate, please let me know

Take care
Mark

AbovePrime.

First off, CR has some of the most biased testing anyone can find, the 9.1sec testing is obviously WRONG, while the RDX's test numbers seem to be off too(faster than 7.5). The brake feel, stopping power and Very small signs of brake fade all are better on the CX-7. Period. Also on the note of the turbo lag, that has been addressed in a PCM re-flash from Mazda. So If you want to compare these two cars with the "facts" get a better source.

AbovePrime.

From Edmunds-RDX
Braking Rating (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor or Very Poor): Average
Braking: Firm pedal and no hunting for traction. ABS is smooth and consistent throughout the stop. Straight and assured from first run to the last run, which happened to prove the best stop from 60 mph.
30 - 0 (ft): 30
60 - 0 (ft): 127
CX-7-
Braking Rating (Excellent, Good, Average, Poor or Very Poor): Excellent
Braking: Wow! Nice brakes! Pedal effort and firmness are just right -- unlike RAV4, which is waaay too hard at full ABS.
30 - 0 (ft): 29.2
60 - 0 (ft): 112.9

AbovePrime.

I do agree with you on most points, Its just that the styling had me steering away from the RDX. The cost of the car is not a issue for me. And the interior tech, as well as materials are better in the RDX, some of the controls took some time to decipher, Nothing serious.

darth62

Unmitigated nonsense. CR does excellent tests and their reports are the most unbiased in the industry. Unlike Edmunds, Motor Trend, etc, CR takes ZERO advertising and doesn't accept test cars from the manufacturer. And, given that they did not give especially high ratings to EITHER the CX-7 or RDX, I fail to see where all this "bias" is that you are talking about. You just lost whatever credibility you once had.

Here is what I suggest: We all ignore Consumer Reports and other objective sources, and simply take the word of this CX-7 owner that his car is faster, stops better, etc.

CR's numbers:
RDX
0-60 7.4
braking (from 60 mph) 133 feet
Avoidance manuvers (basically a test of handling at high speeds) 53.5 mph

CX-7
0-60 9.1
braking (from 60 mph) 128 feet
Avoidance manuvers: 51.0 mph

Not only did the RDX totally kick the snot out of the CX-7, family cars like the Altima (which was tested the very next issue) also put up much better numbers. In fact, the 4-cyl automatic Honda Accord did 0-60 in a faster time than the CX-7 and did better in handling tests as well.

So much for your "sporty" CX-7. It doesn't even preform as well as a common family sedan, and in virtually every objective indicator it lags badly behind the RDX and X3. What you've basically got is a vehicle with tepid acceleration, lots of turbo lag, a cheap interior, good but not great handling, and excellent brakes. You must be very proud of your purchase choice!

AbovePrime.

HAHAHAHA, WHY are you comparing a lighter smaller CAR with a CUV? WHY? Have you even test driven a CX-7? Something tells me you have not. PLUS I NEVER EVER SAID IT WAS FASTER, EVER. It does brake better, and thats a fact. CR is VERY BIASED to their OWN tastes. And those test numbers are transparently inaccurate believe it or not.

darth62

So, what you are suggesting is that somehow CR likes every other car company better than Mazda and so they present inaccurate 0-60 times simply to make your own particular vehicle look bad. And, of course, CR's numbers are "transparently" inaccurate because they don't make your own car look good. What a totally ridiculous, nonsensical argument. Just laughable, really.

And, yeah, the Mazda brakes better BY FIVE FREAKING FEET. Its a negligable performance difference, particular given that the Mazda gets the snot totally kicked out of it in virtually every other category. In fact, that difference could easily be wiped away with more aggressive tires.

And, your "lighter smaller car" bit is not a very compelling argument either. In fact, both the RDX and BMW X3 put up much better numbers than vehicles like the Accord and Altima. It was only the CX-7 that couldn't compete.

AbovePrime.

Seriously dude, that is not the reason why I said those numbers were inaccurate, I said that because they ARE. Whats Funny is that you keep comparing Vehicles in different classes, "HEY THE NEW MAZDA SPEED3 can SMOKE YOUR RDX!!"- totally not comparable nor does the RDX have the ability to compare to the MS3. But whatever you are just a little too set in your ways to think clearly.

darth62

Consumer Reports is about a billion more times more trustworthy than you. So, to be blunt (and I'm not trying to be disrespectful here), I really couldn't care less whether or not you believe the published statistics. You'll have to forgive me if I trust a very reliable source like CR more than poster on a chatboard who is trying to convince us that his vehicle is faster than it actually is.

I'll buy the idea that comparisons across classes are not meaningful. But, that still doesn't explain why the CX-7 got smoked by the RDX and X3 (Which ARE the same kind of vehicle) in head to head comparisons. The CX-7 simply doesn't compete well in it's own class. It doesn't handle or accelerate as well as the competition, its interior quality is not even in the same class. And, despite your claims to the contrary, it doesn't even brake better. Its inferior on every single dimension, and on some dimensions (such as accelerate and interior) the difference is not close.

AbovePrime.

You're not even worth debating with, you contradict yourself and you seem to be pretty loyal to CR, which isnt a bad thing but you should ALWAYS get more opinons, and maybe test drive this CUV BEFORE making making claims about its tepid acceleration(that it doesn't have).

Stoodo

Calling someone dude in a thread is like waving the white flag. Keep up the entertainment though.

iforyou

iTrader: (1)

In terms of handling, if CRV is > than CX7 GT AWD/2WD, and RDX is > than CRV, then I think it's pretty obvious that RDX is > than CX7....

722ish

Fair enough, and if i mentioned styling, it was my own fault. I think styling is impossible for anyone to judge. Some people bought fieros and azteks, and those are some of the most hated cars out there.

I should have stuck to the basics, and body fitment/construction quality, that would/should have been more subjective.

Also, i should correct my statement in saying the RDX braking is better, according to some following posts i was misinformed.

I did really like the adjustible headlights however, seems very cool, in a 94 euro supra kind of way. I am aware of the STi/EVO and MS6 having the same controls, i just had to throw in a mid 90's toyota punch!

take care
Mark

mbjude

Mazda vs. Acura? really no comparison.

darth62

I love how your crticize me for "contradicting myself" when I concede a good point that you made (i.e., comparisons across vehicle classes are relatively meaningless) but also dismiss my opinions as stubborn when I'm unwilling to see your perspective. Catch-22 at its finest.

Anyway, as per CR, yeah I'm impressed by their work. But, that might be beside the point. Your claim that CR somehow fakes bad 0-60 times for the CX-7 because of a "bias" against Mazda is freaking laughable. If CR had confirmed your one-sided view of the Mazda, you'd probably be here right now telling us about the wonderful job that CR does.

A more reasonable approach is to ask why CR and Edmunds got such different results. Edmunds, MSN, and a few other trustworthy sources get a 0-60 times for the CX-7 that is a little under 8 seconds. CR gets about 9 secs. I suspect that CR's testing method (which is basically timing the car from dead start) magnifies the true Achilles heal of the the CX-7's performance - turbo lag.

And, fyi, you might go back and actually read the thread. I got into this discussion after a Mazda dealer let me take the CX-7 out for an extended road test by myself. I was not impressed. I though the turbo lag made the car nearly undrivable around town. I certainly did not do hard cornering, 0-60 tests, or anything like that though. So, I'm not sure that test driving a car gives as much information as you seem to be suggesting. But, either way, dismissing any poster who doesn't agree with your biased take on the CX-7 as not having done a test drive is a weak stance.

A final point: Much of your comments in this thread are about styling. Purely subjective. I don't blame you for preferring the looks of the CX-7 but I don't happen to agree. As a driver who owns neither vehicle (and hasn't decided which way to go yet) I like the way both vehicles looks quite a bit and I notice both (in a favorable way) when I see them on the road.

AbovePrime.

Thats why I said you contradicted yourself.

AbovePrime.

As much as you like to claim that CR's numbers are accurate, they aren't. I never said that the CX-7 RAN the 0-60 in 5.0flat, and since they don't like Mazda, they gave it a 9 second time, Its just the times that they recorded are inaccurate. Never EVER liked CR, NEVER EVER WILL, even if they made the CX-7 one of their best picks, I still wouldn't like them, I disagree with the way they test vehicles. And the bias that CR has is more personal to the testers tastes, Not against Mazda.

Stoodo

Purely out of spite. That must be it.

darth62

Weak. In one post I said a negligable difference that could easily be erased by just changing the tires and in the other post I said there wasn't any real difference. And, you call that a contradiction.

Talk about reaching for it.....

And, like I said, you can claim that CR is biased, inaccurate as much as you want. You are just being ridiculous and everybody here knows it.

I think you've demonstrated that you have zero objectivity and no credibility whatsoever.