What Works:
Handles, steers and brakes very well; interior cockpit layout and finish; styling draws stares (the good kind).

What Needs Work:
Doesn't play MP3s, easily out-dragged by a V6 RAV4, premium fuel plus so-so fuel economy.

Bottom Line:
Plenty of room, adequate vroom, and yes, there is zoom-zoom.

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=109915


Otherwise, handles and brakes great! Exactly what I was saying about RDX as well. 4cly Turbo in SUV is not an good choice. They mention 3,000-5,000rpm sweet spot, with turbo lag before and loss of power after (which is how many 4cly turbos, if not all, are configured due to emissions and EPA mpg). And besides having less power it also returns less mpg.

And I dont get it not playing mp3's. Its 2006, and its all new model.

 

Looks great from front, pretty weird at back, and interior is nice and sporty, if a bit too sparse.

 

I see your point, but what is the problem the reviewer had about the engine? He states it seemed a tad overburdened for the weight of the car, but yet it out did the V6 powered Murano to 60 by 0.2 seonds and by nearaly half a second in the 1/4 mile? Obviously that tells me the engine sounded like it could be overburdend as reviews of the Mazda turbo engine have stated it is noiser and raspier than comparable V6's that are smoother and quieter, but the over all data seems to proove that the engine was more than adeqaute and in fact performed better than the V6.

I've also read other reviews stating that the peak torque is availble at about 2500 RPM and it retains 99% of that torque band up to 5K RPM. That is a very broad torque curve. Other reviewers also mentioned little to no turbo lag. Different reviewers get different results I guess.

 

huh? It is slower than Rav4, while getting worse mpg while requireing Premium... what is the problem with it? :-).
Exactly that... its engine is weak point...

I dont think anyone else reviewed it before, this is the first real test. Everything else is just an PR.
Usually factory turbos dont spool full until 3,000 rpm because of the emissions and mpg figures.

 

No the 4000 lb curb weight is its weak point vs the RAV4, but you keep trying to spin that as it being the engine when it's not. There are other reasons for turbos not always spooling until 3000 rpm too even when peak torque is listed at less than that, but I'll have to get into that later assuming nobody else does.

 

So in this thread you blame the engine for poorer performance than a RAV4 with a 4000 lb SUV. But in the RDX thread you say it's the 4000 lbs and not a nearly identical 4-cylinder turbo engine. Make up your mind.

https://www.clublexus.com/forums/sho...9&postcount=37

 

??? Didn't the article say it was 0.2 seconds faster than the 3.5l V6 Murano and beat it to the 1/4 mile by 0.4 seconds?

I agree, the RAV4 is fast. I never said it wan't. In fact, when the times of the RAV4 fisrt came out I paised it and said that was very impresive. You can search that topic if you don't believe me. This debate sort of got side tracked with comparing each SUV to the RAV4. The topic is still really about the performance of a turbo 4 in the SUV. As it appears, while not as good as the performnace in the V6 RAV4, it is very much as good if not better than the performance of the I6 X3, the old 3.3 V6 in the RX330, the 3.5 VQ in the Murano, and pretty much every other V6 small SUV out there. This Mazda just prooved it. I have never said the RDX would be faster in stock form than the V6 RAV4, but I did say it will be comparble and maybe better in performance than other V6 models and that will more than likey turn out true given the above and the fact that Acura claims it will out accelerate the BMW X3. If that turns out true it also means it out performs the V6 Murano and old RX330 and possible the FX35 as well. I would think the question now asked is why is a I4 turbocharged engine able to perform as well as those V6 models despite the very disappointing 4000 lbs weight?

I will give you the fact that the V6 RAV4 does own all in acceleration performance though. No question there. That still doesn't disproove the fact that even the slightly weaker Mazda CX-7 is out performing the other V6 SUVs (Except the RAV4). Isn't that impressive to you? Or are you saying all those other V6 SUVs also were very underpowered especially being a V6? I can agree with that if that is what you mean.

Let's face it. The performance out of these I4 turbo engines is a marvel considering just one year ago before the Toyota 3.5V6 made its way into the RAV4, RS350 and such their performance is on par or better than the 2005 3.2-3.5L V6s in the market.

Give credit to where credit is due. It is amazing that a little I4 engine can propel a 400 lbs SUV to 60 in about 7.5 seconds. That is only about 0.2 seconds slower than the 270 HP 3.5L V6 in the new RX350. Seriously, can you gind no good points in an engine that can do that?

One llast thing. You never asnwered why you agree with the writer about the part that the ungine felt overburdened, yet still produced better performance numbers than the VQ V6? How can it be weak and overburndened if it performs better?

 

spwolf - you mentioned before than nav is offered on the new Rav4 there in Europe. It isn't here, so maybe there's other aspects of the Rav4 interiors that are different on either side of the Atlantic. As you know I've been very critical of the Rav4 interior here in the U.S. And once again, it is not even in the same league as this Mazda interior.

 

CK6Speed, I see your point, problem is that rav4 does have that V6 that goes faster and gets better mpg, for the same price. I am comparing it to Rav4, as its main competition and best selling SUV in the sector (and overall? is any other suv selling as well?).

Which is probably why there it is hard to get Rav4, few months after introduction, and Toyota is selling more than 15,000 per month, which is double of old Rav4.

Also, Ford Edge is going to have an V6 option, with some 250hp. It would be interesting to find it out if it is better option for the same car.

 

right, I am saying problem is in application of the engine, not the engine itself which we really know nothing about. It can be the best 4cly engine in the whole world. But when you put it into the SUV that weights 4,000 lbs, it is not an good application of that engine.

Which is why it gets poor mpg, poor emissions and worse performance than its main competition. Now, it is "great" that 4cly is doing 0-60 in 7.7 sec, problem is that it is priced the same as V6 Rav4, which is faster, more economical and gets better emissions. Additionally, endurance of V6 should be quite better than 4cly turbo.

What it ends up being is that you will buy Mazda CX-7 despite its powertrain, and not because of it. Again, its brother Edge will have V6, so it will be interesting to see how they compare!

 

could be true - we have lots of stuff USA doesnt (nicer looking radio, 5th gen navi with bluetooth and backup camera, auto lights/wipers/dimmer, smart key, etc). It could also be that our interior is slightly darker as well, we have black on black interior.

did you sit in limited leather or? Our feels half a step below quality of RX (for instance, it has equal leather), where before it was 2 generations behind.

Also, a lot of people on US rav4 forums are estatic about their rav4's, and are pretty happy about interior quality. It could be personal taste I guess, not everyone has to like the same car, thank god :-).

I personally did not know what to think of mine from the pics until I got it. It drives like crazy, very competent drive, well beyond what you would expect in any suv - which is probably why C&D was excited about it, and getting those guys excited about Toyota is something. Once I get used to the diesel noise, it will be perfect :-).

 

I wonder why Toyota didn't release all that stuff here - I don't get it.

No - dealer didn't have leather.

Well anyone who bought one hopefully likes it!

Oh, you have diesel - interesting. Not available here either.

U.S. interior as shown on Toyota's web site. I think it's fugly.

 

This is ours, w/o nav. Leather and slightly darker materials help it. But pics dont do it justice, its pretty impressive inside. Old Rav4 4.2 was like sitting on donkey. There is crazy amount of ppl on rav4world.com. 4.3 has had more posts about it in 1 month of sales, than 4.2 in 6 years. Toyota is sold out.

Diesel is nice. More power than 152hp petrol version, gets minimum of 35 MPG in the city, with 40 MPG average being pretty normal. Highway, around 45mpg at 70-80mph. I will probably chip it, give it more common rail boost.

But the noise - during low speeds - after 30 mph it goes fine.......... We dont get V6 either. I would glad pay for bigger fuel bill, but resale would be awful. Most ppl buy diesel because of the resale these days.

 

We all seem to get worked up a bit about this Cute Utes don't we

I think its a very nice SUV for the money and should continue Mazdas sales roll

 

You're refusing to analyze the engines properly, and as a result are coming to erroneous technical conclusions. Put the turbo-4 in the 3600 lb RAV4, and the V6 in the 4000 lb CX-7 and you could bash the V6 for having poorer mileage, performance, and whatever you want and claim the V6 is a poor application in the CX-7 and that they should have used a superior turbo-4 like they did in the RAV4 instead.