2009 Mazda CX-7 Review & Road Test
March 24, 2009 by Paul Maric
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.
Great handling; styling; features; reverse camera.
Fuel consumption; rear leg room.
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
Print it: 
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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…