2009 Mazda CX-7 Review & Road Test

Pros: Great handling; styling; features; reverse camera.

Cons: Fuel consumption; rear leg room.

By Paul Maric | March 24th, 2009

Add to shortlist

Price: $22,680 to $36,480

Our Rating:

Performance, Ride & Handling	3.5
Comfort and Interior	3.5
Quality & Design	4
Value & Features	4
Safety	5
Green	3

2009 Mazda CX-7 Review and Road Test

“An SUV which really lives up to its name”

Model Tested:

2009 Mazda CX-7 Luxury with reverse camera – six-speed automatic – $46,990 RRP

Options:

None fitted.

CarAdvice Rating: (4.25)

- by Paul Maric

Almost always a car company will display a concept vehicle at a motor show. More often than not, the concept will share design traits with the car they eventually plan on releasing.

But again, more often than not, the final production version of the concept will be totally toned down and generally won’t contain any of the extreme design features of the concept.

Mazda dared to be different though. In 2004 it released the MX Crossport concept, which received great praise during the 2005 Detroit Motor Show and when it saw reality as the CX- the production version was almost identical to the concept, aside from the realistic interior, a product of its final price tag.

This type of approach has paid dividends to Mazda in a big way. Having a swish looking car won’t help unless it drives well, so I stepped behind the wheel for the week to have a steer of Mazda’s classy SUV.

Our CX-7 test vehicle was finished in a neat white, ensuring it stood out from the crowd. Evident from first glance were the flowing lines that start at the bonnet and continue through to the car’s rear. Even though this car has been on the market for about three years now, it still has a striking presence.

Bulging side guards hint at the car’s sporty intentions, as do the chunky wheels and exposed exhausts.

Inside the cabin, it’s a similar story. Although the funky LCD screen and interior layout isn’t carried over from the concept (we could expect a $100,000+ price tag if they were!) the general connotations are the same.

Our test vehicle was fitted with a reversing camera, so it also featured an LCD screen, which controls the radio fascia and switches to a rearward facing camera when reverse is selected. Curiously, satellite navigation isn’t fitted as standard equipment and can’t be optioned, quite strange when you consider the screen is there, which is half the job done.

Rear leg and headroom isn’t too flash. With the driver’s seat in my regular position, quite far back more often than not, it’s hard for an adult to remain comfortable when seated behind. The design of the car somewhat inhibits the function. It’s not overly oppressive, but on the same token it’s also no LandCruiser.

This isn’t too much of an issue though when you consider the CX-7’s target demographic. CX-7 buyers have young families and are lifestyle oriented, so in that regard it does a fine job of hauling kids.

The standard Bose sound system offers plenty of punch. Fitted with nine speakers and pumping out 240W of power, there is ample bass and exceptional treble quality. A six-disc CD-changer tops things off with regards to the audio system.

The cabin has a roomy feel to it. The windscreen has a 66-degree rake, making the front of the dashboard feel like it’s very distant.

Boot room is average, and again, the design impinges on the function although 400-litres of capacity is on offer. Boot opening room is impressive though, allowing the loading and unloading of cargo with great ease.

Driving the CX-7 is a mixed bag. Turn the engine over and a humble silence engulfs the cabin. The 2.3-litre, turbocharged, four-cylinder engine produces 175kW and 350Nm, which sounds impressive, doesn’t it?

Well, that’s what I thought until I had a look at the spec sheet and drove the CX-7. It tips the scales at 1771kg and is controlled by an often-eager six-speed automatic gearbox. The claimed fuel efficiency figure of 11.5-litres/100km is also a farfetched expectation of the 69-litre fuel tank. It also doesn’t help that the minimum fuel requirement is 95RON.

The CX-7 definitely moves with intention when you flatten the throttle. Once it’s on boost, the 1.7-tonne SUV feels quite agile and can be thrown into corners with confidence. Line up a tight bend and the accurate and responsive steering of the sporty SUV comes into play. Sharp changes in direction don’t seem to faze the CX-7, likewise with hard braking.

Brakes are 296mm at the front and 302mm rear, which serve well to keep the CX-7 in check. Adequate brake feel and a fluid motion make it easy to drive at the limits. Body roll is well controlled, making it consistently above average, which again is surprising for an SUV.

Back in the city, the CX-7 makes for a pleasurable driving experience. The suspension is firm enough for a sporty ride, but soaks up bumps in the road with ease. There’s seldom a point during city driving when the suspension intrudes on passenger comfort.

Parking is now made easy with the aid of the reversing camera, which is of good quality and allows an almost 180-degree view of the space behind the car. Visibility out the rear is pretty limited otherwise though.

There are two models on offer in the CX-7 range. There’s the CX-7 and the CX-7 Luxury. Standard features fitted to the CX-7 include: air-conditioning; power mirrors; alloy wheels; trip computer; steering wheel audio controls; six-disc CD player; auto dimming rear vision mirror and power windows.

The CX-7 Luxury gets the following features in addition to the CX-7: dual zone climate control; electric sunroof; heated exterior mirrors; leather interior; Bose sound system; eight-way electric driver’s seat and heated front seats.

Safety features standard across the range include: ABS brakes with EBD and BA; Dynamic Stability Control (Mazda’s name for ESP); driver and front passenger airbags; front passenger side airbags and full length curtain airbags.

The CX-7 is priced at $41,140, while the CX-7 Luxury is priced at $46,990.

The Mazda CX-7 offers exceptional value for money. Although it won’t go off-road in any commendable fashion, and it has never been marketed as a car that will do so, it manages to excel in day-to-day city driving, along with spirited drives on your favourite roads.

It’s hard to fault the CX-7. Aside from the miserable fuel consumption, around 14.3-litres/100km on test, the CX-7 is a car that deserves to be high on any prospective purchaser’s list.

If you haven’t had the chance to do so yet, take one for a test drive. I’m sure you will be impressed.

CarAdvice Overall Rating:

How does it Drive:

How does it Look:

How does it Go:

Specifications:

Engine: 2261cc four-cylinder
Power: 175kW @ 5000rpm
Torque: 350Nm @ 2500rpm
Induction: Turbocharged
Transmission: Six-speed automatic
Differential/Driven Wheels: All-wheel-drive
Brakes: 296mm front/302mm rear
Top Speed: N/A
0-100km/h: 8.5-seconds
0-400m: N/A
CO2 Emissions: 273g/km
Fuel Consumption: 11.5-litres/100km (claimed)
Fuel Tank Capacity: 69-litres
Fuel Type: 98RON petrol
ANCAP Rating: Five-stars
Airbags: Six-airbags
Safety: ABS brakes with EBD and BA. DSC.
Spare Wheel: Spacesaver spare
Tow Capacity: 1600kg braked/750kg unbraked
Turning Circle: 11.4m
Warranty: Three-years/unlimited-km
Weight: 1771kg
Wheels: 18-inch alloys with 235/60R18 tyres

Reader reviews of the MAZDA CX-7

January 17th, 2012

By: Peter Randall

Rating:

The Mazda CX-7 Luxury Sports is very well appointed and sensational to drive. My only issue with the car is the... Read more

Write a review for the MAZDA CX-7

Do you own this car? Share your opinion and add your own review below.

Add a New Review

February 1st, 2012

By: Obie D

Rating:

Ive just bought the New CX7 Luxury Sports edition. Driving this car makes me feel as though I'm in a high class... Read more

ZoomZoom

Great Review CA. You guys should have waited for the facelift model to arrive though
Someones gonna be very happy about this review (frugal one)
Lukaas

My favouite medium sized SUV, Kluger falls under “BIG”.

Might eventually move up to this, but shame that like all other SUVs its taxing on the petrol/mileage department.
HAL

Yep, have always loved this car. Have done a bit of driving in one and it is has a very classy feel to it. The fuel consumption has always been a major let down, but then that engine sure does beg to be driven hard.

The other annoying thing is no MP3 compatibility with that great stereo – Paul, any idea why that is? I heard that it was because the standard reversing camera uses the ‘aux’ facility in the unit, do you know if this is right?

Otherwise, a brilliant car.
Sn001

I almost bought this car last year.

Excellent car to drive but I was always bit hesitant about those fuel figures. In my case when I test drove it the fuel light came on and when I told dealer (who was with me in the car) he told me to take it back immediately.

It is excellent car to drive but suffers from poor interior again.

Mazda also need to offer diesel option.
Lukaas

Just wait for the 2010 model… it comes with a more aggressively styled FR bumper.

Although I like the subtlety of the current bumper anyways.

It needs fatter wheels to make it look more prestige, but as mentioned before the styling is fantastic.
darren

I think the Facelift version coming out soon looks 10X Better, has the new Mazda3 front.

http://www.motorauthority.com/mazdas-2010-cx-7-facelift-debuts-at-the-canadian-auto-show.html
AussieCars

Holy crap! Thats a thirsty 4cyl engine! Who designs Mazdas engines? monkeys!?!?!

Nice looking car but I prefer the CX9`s backlights. CX7`s backlights at night look great but from a distance in daylight it looks like one of those cheap looking aftemarket lens clear jobbies the P plater brigade seem obsessed with these days.

Also the car looks alot bigger than what it is, not a bad thing just something I have observed.
t39

My testdrive impressions of CX7:
- no rear air vents
- hard dashboard plastics
- aircon always at least on medium: interior gets lots of heat via large windscreen
- high tyre noise levels on freeways
- egnine can not get enough revs for boost until auto dropping down a gear or two.
NotTheStig

My problem – apart from some turbo lag, was being able to clearly see the instruments and dash displays – my polarised sunglasses seemed to have issues !

The fuel economy was another reason I didn’t buy one as well as the inability to get one in non-metallic white.

It was all against me so I didn’t proceed…
Baji

Good Review Paul. All i can say is W0ot!! Now Frugal one finally has that CX7 review he’s been waiting for for so long!
FRUGAL-ONE

FINALLY,,,,,

THANKS!

Cheers

F-0
Tim

By the way CarAdvice, why did you post the second picture? Its a modified model and you cant buy one with no door handles or those wheels. Put a pic of a standard car thanks.
HAL

^ ha Tim, read the paragraph above that picture mate. It will explain why the picture was included.
phillip

I cannot work out why you would buy this over a Mazda 6 wagon, which looks and goes much better on less fuel.
Cupid Stunt

Reasonable review, but id 4.25 steering wheels a bit much.

That rear bench looks shapeless and uncomfortable. It would be much better with a diesel donk slotted in. How about Mazdas 2.2 from the Mazda 6.

Mazda have sold about 2 of these in the UK, not a good seller, disount of Au$10K are available now.
Andrew M

someone call BM,
the “Y” spokes are on the loose again
Tim

Oops my bad HAL! Would look incredibly hot on those wheels though aye!
Tim

LOL wait, they have a screen…but no sat nav? Riiiighttt mazda, just like no sunroof in the top spec Mazda 6 Diesel!
Bavarian Missile (.)(.)

hahaaha funny boy ,no they aren’t honeycomb enough to be a BMW knock off.

I like this but prefer the CX-9 …………..
Al Juraj

It’s probably the thinking man’s X3 (better looking as well). It handles nicely for a 4×4 and is classy in every angle. A diesel option for this and the CX-9 would be great for economy. Unfortunately, Mazda’s turbo and rotary engines are notorious for fuel.
Damian

The CX7 is a set of bigger five spoke wheels away from looking mean.
fishman

That is horrendous fuel economy in this day and age – what planet are Mazda engineers living on?

This car seems to offer no advantages over the Nissan Dualis in terms of size & functionality other than a very thirsty engine, and costs an extra $10k…
HAL

^ I can think of a few things that the CX7 offers over the Dualis, Fishman…..style, interior design & quality, power, class, towing capacity, oodles more torque and of course size, as it is most certainly bigger in every aspect.
HAL

^ Tim, agree 100%. Those wheels would look fantastic on the CX-7.
fishman

bigger in every aspect? externally maybe, but boot size is the same in both – 400ltr – and as the review says this is tight for space in the rear. not sure where that extra space is going?

sure it has a bigger engine, so if you want to tow a caravan then get this – somehow though I doubt many will be used for this purpose.

I don’t see that this has more interior class than the ti dualis – they both offer the usual high specs inc leather seats , climate control, heated seats, soft touch plastics etc.

agree about the styling though, this has nice lines. just needs to go on a diet to cut that horrendous fuel economy…
dlunn64

Test drive one! we did and bought a second Ford Territory instead.
Too rough a ride, At the time no reverse camera and not practical enough for the young family.

for those criticising Mazda for not offering the sunroof in the 6 diesel hatch – this is a good thing as the sunroof lowers the headroom too much for me to even sit in.
Pity they don’t offer the 6 speed auto out of the cx-7 in the diesel otherwise they would sell a lot more.
Baji

The CX7 is a great vehicle. It excels in what mazda intended for it – Power, Handling, Looks, style. However personally i think there are few too many compromises to be made (A problem with most mazda’s)- For all the sporty and responsive handling, the trade off is a firmer ride. For the very sleek stylish exterior, there is the compromise of less interior room. But if you can overlook the shortcomings, it will always put a smile on your face.
Bret

HAL Says:
March 25th, 2009 at 10:14 am
“I can think of a few things that the CX7 offers …..towing capacity….”

Sorry, but the towing capacity is pathetic. It’s no more than the average 4cyl small/med car.
HAL

Bret, how about you go and read my comment again – and in it’s entirety this time too. It was a comparison of the CX7 to the Dualis. I never said the towing capacity of the CX7 was anything to write home about.

But I will clarify, just for you – Braked capacity of the CX7 – 1600kg, Dualis – 1400kg (1200kg for the Ti).

Now, I’m a little rusty on my counting skills, but to me that says the CX7 gas a larger towing capacity than the Dualis, not by much, but larger nonetheless.
Bret

HAL,
I know what you wrote, and it’s relativity to the Dualis, I was talking in absolute terms. And in anyones terms 1600kg is poor for a vehicle of this type/size.

And in regards to the Dualis towing, I didn’t know hairdressers towed anything??
PROJET – L

What a waste.
It was said above “It excels in what mazda intended for it – Power, Handling, Looks, style.” Hang on isn’t it an SUV? Doesn’t the U stand for utility?
They went more for Sport than Utility it seems.
Why don’t you just buy a sports car then.
Hell a Commodore SV6 Sportwagon is better at being a rapid, good handling carry all than this irrelevant nonsense.
Bret

HAL,
BTW I wasn’t actually having a go at you, just the poor towing ability of a growing number of these things. Maybe I shouldn’t have quoted you.
HAL

no worries Bret. Maybe I should just chill out a bit too.
Tomas79

Not another softroader!!
Jack of many trades, master at none!
Falcodore

The facelifted version will be getting the 2.5 petrol without the AWD system for better fuel economy.

Mazda have also said they are looking at the 2.2 diesel for this car. I think its just a matter of getting a suitable auto box to handle the torque etc.
Wheelnut

Tomas79 Says: “jack of ALL trades; master of none.”

Aaahhh which car isas the best selling car in Oz ATM?
Bavarian Missile (.)(.)

Manufacturers worked out a long time ago that people dont buy SUVs to take off road,so why not make them as quiet and comfortable as possible yet still have a little of the 4×4 appeal.

If you want a serious off-roader or towing vehicle you buy a Landrover or Landcruiser,simple as that !
Tomas79

Wheelnut Says:
“Aaahhh which car isas the best selling car in Oz ATM?”

Don’t know, don’t care!1 Please explain the relevance to my comment?
Cupid Stunt

Oh Grouchy79 is back.
PROJET – L

‘Manufacturers worked out a long time ago that people dont buy SUVs to take off road,so why not make them as quiet and comfortable as possible yet still have a little of the 4×4 appeal.

If you want a serious off-roader or towing vehicle you buy a Landrover or Landcruiser,simple as that ! ”

But this thing is not even a practical car. What I was getting at was it has no load carrying / people moving qualities, as well as having fuel economy of an XB falcon. No question that this would be a suicidal machine to take off road.
What purpose does it serve. According to Mazda they breed into their cars a little bit of sports car.
How can you have a sports car that sits so high? Without a punishing ride.
I just worked out what the model name stands for CX7 = Compromised eXperiment number 7.
Rocco

Hi Everyone,

Today I was seriously considering a CX-7 over a Kluger.

I looks and offerings for the price compared to the Kluger.

Though the specs list mentions 11L/100KM….I spoke to an owner otday whom commented that his son was driving a kluger and he had his CX-7.

on the trip the kluger ran out of fuel before he did on the same route.

i was initially after a ford territory but heard fuel was bad….is the CX-7 that bad with fuel?

as i mentioned before if you go classic you get 18″ 6 stack and sports lights

kluger for that money wont give any of those items
Bret

Rocco,
I hired a Kluger and Territory to do a comparison between each over almost 2 weeks for each, same area, same driving patterns/loads.
The Kluger returned 11.9 l/100km
The Territory returned 11.0 l/100km

Personally, I thought the Territory was a very “livable” day to day vehicle, whereas the Kluger, whilst good, suffered from unresponsive handling (and underster) and very poor visability. In addition I personally could never really find a comfortable driving position.

CX7 doesn’t have the towing capability for my needs so that’s not an option.
Hope that helps a bit.
Rocco

Thanks for the reply……I one reply back

HHHHHEEELLLPPPP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I took the CX-7 out this morning for a test drive.

I like the car.

I love the looks, features, feel etc.

It would work well in my business.

One issue…….the damned fuel efficiency.

Even the dealer was honest enough to mention that around town they are hungry for fuel but on the highway they’re not too bad. I spoke to some owners of CX-7′s and they mentioned that on highways it was acceptable but were shocked around town. Is the fuel really that bad?

I currently drive a Commodore VT Wagon 2000.

It needs to go soon and this is why I am in the market for a new car………I nearly signed for the CX-7 this morning after the test drive until I plucked the fuel question out to the sales guys.

All confused now…..need advice from possibly an owner.

Cheers

Rocco
Rocco

Is the Territory and Kluger worse on fuel then the CX-7?

My driving is mainly around town stopping and starting and a clients shop to do work for them.

I dont stop and start in a day like a TNT courier for example. I am in I.T. so when a customer calls I go out to them.

The only time we hit out to go away on a long trip would only be holidays.

Cheers

Roc
Frontman

Rocco, teh vehicle you are buying is for Business? If yes then you will get a fair slice of your outgoing’s back. If no them woryy a bit about the fuel consumption. However whatever vehicle you buy, you are going to have to live with for around 4 years. I can safely say that with the current trends no vehicle out there is going to retain any worhtwhile resale value, (hint make the residual small if you have to have one). So my advise would be if you like the drive of the CX7 and it fits your lifestyle, and ticks the majority of boxes, then buy it! (ps I’m biased and prefer the Territory BTW). As for the 2>3 litre increase in consumption over the Commodore (if that in real life) well do one more job a week and you have covered it, even if fuel hits $2:00 / litre. Too much importance is put on saving $2.00 every 100k’s or to most people $10.00 per week. Buy the car YOU WANT!!!!!!!!!
Bret

Rocco, Some sound advice from Frontman. It has to be something that you are happy to drive on a daily basis.

If running costs are you primary concern, get a Falcon BF111 wagon on gas. Cheap & functional, but not really very “with it”.

Personally, top of my list currently is a Territory, 6 speed, with aftermarket gas conversion, but waiting to see what happens along the lines of diesel first.
Erica

So how many km’s per tank are people getting with their CX-7′s?

400, 500 or 550km’s per tank.

Eri
Jonathan

Im only getting around 350 km out of a tank around town, on the open road I can get into the mid 500s. About the smae as my RX8! However is such a comfortable car to be in, takes all the stress out of city driving.
CX-9 Driver

Would be interested to know what the “almost bought one of those” drivers ended up with, Daewoo Captivas Maybe??? Both the CX-7&9′s are no worse than other petrol SUV’s and 4X4′S and are better looking, better built and have great Mazda resale value to boot. A person would buy a CX-7 over a Mazda 6 wagon for towing and the sure footedness and safety of AWD.
ByeByeMazda

It’s a nice vehicle but there are other nice vehicles out there that do NOT drink fuel like this CX-7.I would have never bought it had I known that the fuel consumption is 15+L/100Km. That is way MORE than 30% higher than ADVERTISED claim. Many people are getting 17L/100km !!!! It’s pure marketing mambo jambo. Oh yea, I certainly don’t drive it in a way that would use up excess petrol either. If fuel consumption is important to you then don’t even go near this one… honest, and i am not a sales guy.
http://www.fishprint.com.au Allrounder

ok guys, after a general consensus:
$50k to spend, do I go for the;
Tiguan, the CRX luxury, the MY10 Forester XT Premium, or the Mazda CX7 luxury?
it’s a minefield, please help?
have there been any comparisons done on all these cars in one hit?

Hung Low

Murano ST or Forester XT gets my vote!

Shaun H

Advice to All rounder go Tiguan diesel auto. Brisvegas to Mackay on one tank (1096kms) Around town 6.7l/100km Mine is a manual Gearbox is a dog hence go auto route with off road option fitted if possible.

I have had mine for just on a year and has generated much interest with the locals as VW are rare here in Mackay. Often mistaken for a Q5 at first glance
Gilly

I am surprised that there has only been one comment on the terrible ride of the CX7! it is jittery and bumpy. The engine is only good in its midrange, gutless and laggy at low revs, loud, flat and thrashy at high revs.
It does have design, handling and quality going for it though. After testing current offerings I had settled for the 09 Nissan Murano, it is a class above the competition in the same price bracket. Smooth,refined and slick engine/box, good on fuel, great comfy ride and excellent fit and finish.

Nithian South Africa

You have no idea what you are talking about, the ride is safe, smooth and equal to a Murano. The Nissan does feel empty (tested one) but the CX7 is uncomparable.

Hung Low

“Feels empty”? WTF? The CX7 has one of the stiffest rides out there, definitely not comfort biased for an Suv!

Michael

Yes i have a CX-7 , having owned the car for 2 years now and with 60,000 km traveled it returns constantly 10.9 l/100km traveling between Canberra and Sydney. Around town i use 13.5l/100km BUT the trick is if you use the turbo expect V8 fuel consumption figures. Drive it on the cruise control and the figures are realistic. And yes i do give it some curry from time to time.
Apart from that i would buy another
Garry

I have a 2001 MPV 2.4L 7-seater, it has done over 170,000 km’s and has been the best car I have owned, serviced regularly no problems at all. Very versatile with seats able to be taken out when required. Went away last weekend with 4 people with golf clubs and buggies + bags – no trouble. Getting around 10L/100km. All this talk about the fuel being used by CX7′s is a bit disappointing. Can anyone advise what would be a good vehicle to purchase thinking of buying a caravan up to 18ft – been looking at the Eco Tourer’s – I realise I would have to buy something with 6cyl. capacity.
By the sound of complaints from customers, Mazda should have stuck with the MPV range for fuel economy and versatility alone.
Jenso

The fuel consumption on these things cannot be overplayed, they are quite shocking. Great car but we are averaging 17.3L/100km at the moment, weve had the CX7 for two years. I recently rented a Ford Territory and if I had my time over, i would of bought a Territory instead of the Mazda. the Ford handles as well, steers better, is faster, roomier and can tow more, plus uses about 20-30% less fuel.

Nithian South Africa

Yes I agree the consumption is shocking – tried driving using auto cruise often but this did not help much. The best consumption was 479km on a full tank.
Wish there could be something that Mazda could do to improve the consumption.

Robert

Nithian.. Can’t agree about the consumption..I’ve kept detailed records for 18 months and get 11.8 l/100klm overall and 10.9 on trips…the Computer currently shows 12 as being the overall figure so I/m pretty close..34000klm on the clock and still going well

Mikica

Jenso has surely got it right. Fuel consumption in the city is truly terrible and there seems to be no solution to make it any better. On short city cycles it does not get any better than 17L/100km, with my typical average being 18.0 (yes, eighteen). On the road, it is in the 10-11L/100km. If you can live with these numbers and understand it is costing you probably $500-$1000 a year in extra fuel costs, you’ll be perfectly happy with the CX-7. You can drive it with confidence as it will not let you down, be it on highway or on winding roads. It is easy to keep the engine revving – just use the stick in manual mode and the performance in the 3000rpm+ range is just plain fantastic.

Would I buy it again…? Hmmm, maybe… but if it was a high performance diesel, my answer would be a YES!
Jack

I can support those Territory fuel figures Jenso – 10.5 Highway and 11.5 combined; 13.5 towing 1500kg van, which is quite remarkable but achieved empirically by my measuring.

It’s interesting that many of the buyers in this class cross-shop imports only, the Territory is the all-round best package.

I’ve been checking the reviews of imported mid size and SUV’s for a family member, and no one seems to comment on the harder ride, uncomfortable rear seating, and smaller, more stressed motors producing less torque and thus chewing more fuel. Sometimes, cubic capacity actually DOES save money and the environment – I reckon over about 1600kg…
MAX ROBERTSON

my 2008 cx7 has an engine noise from idle to 2000rpm ( like a rattle ) has anyone found this

Hung Low

They have a common issue of breaking engine mounts, so get them checked out MAX!

Andy

I have had the new diesel CX7 for the past month and have to say I love it – more than enough power and heaps of torque! Average consumption of about 7.5-8.4L per 100km stop/start driving around town depending on how heavy my foot is which I think is a good figure for a car of its size. Yet to take it on a long trip so look forward to seeing those averages drop………
Anita

I have a Cx7 standard and it feels like it has no guts and its noisey to travel in.i wish my husdand would have got a Ford Territory.
Will

I bought a sports luxury a month ago, I am getting around 13L/100km so far, not too bad for a awd.

The ride is harsh, the seats don’t have enough bolster to hold the passenger, a lot of rattles mainly coming from the dash.

The BMW X1 is much much better and I almost bought one, sigh……