CR-V vs CX-7 Commercial

[cmdavis3rd]

Just curious if anyone else has seen the new CX-7 commercial in which the lady is trying to return the CR-V to the Honda dealership. Finally, Mazda is doing a good job comparing feature to feature and value for value.

I have a mixed reaction to comparing it to the CR-V since there is such a price difference. The value is there for what you pay but you can get into an entry CR-V for 20k where as the CX is 24k. I only compared the two fully loaded since that is what I bought, again, I feel the value was there for a 31k (or cheaper with the S-Plan) over the Honda.

I would like to see them go after the Murano (in my opinion soft floaty suspension, weak brakes, CVT only trans) or the Acura RDX.

Not trying to start a flame war based on opinion, just more interested in if anyone else has seen the commerical and had the same opinion on their ad campaigns. Ads are much better now than in years past.

 

[offset_98]

Honestly, the CX-7 is nice...but its no RDX and to a degree...no Murano either. The CX-7 is best left to dog it out with the CR-V, RAV4, Santa Fe, Outlook and upcoming Vue.

 

[mikey1981]

Honestly, the CX-7 is nice...but its no RDX and to a degree...no Murano either. The CX-7 is best left to dog it out with the CR-V, RAV4, Santa Fe, Outlook and upcoming Vue.

i disagree. its drives better than both, and isnt that a main reason why we buy our cars? luxury is luxury, but the interior of the murano is gross and the rdx has the lux but at the same time, the RDX still isnt.....a lexus (interior/quality wise)

the fact is, the cx-7's price makes it hard not to compare it to more costly suvs (nissan, acura) and cheaper honda's and toyotas where u get more bang for the buck with Mazda.

say what u want about the SH-AWD, the lux interior of the acura, the mazda drives better & looks better. yea u can get a crv for low 20's but that is a bargain basement not even full alloy rims - at 24k u cannot go feature for feature with the cx7 it wins in almost every category.

i have not seen the commercial, but sales figures will also say that the Mazda has been Acuras bully taking away sales. Almost every single person on this board and on other internet boards shoped the RDX directly with the Mazda, and then maybe the murano if they didnt like either product. To deny that the 7 hasnt been a major player in this new niche turbo small suv category is a little blind, lets face facts here: for MOST of us, when we shop a car, the bottom line is price, and when u shop an apple to an apple and one costs more than the other, its pretty hard not to save the money and buy almost the same thing and in some ways the cheaper apple is better. The acura to, i would say, a regular customer, just may not warrant the bigger price tag. Interiors are subjective to a point, and it just may be that the Acura doesnt have enough to make people jump up to the product.

i just do not buy the "the mazda is no acura" theory. I know some members on this board say the mazda is no acura, all im saying is besides the interior, WHY NOT?

 

[Shaz]

eah, I've seen the commercial and I'm proud to be an owner. The CRV doesn't stand a chance with the CX7. The CRV's front grill irks me...it's like a Cheshire cat grin/smile. I almost considered the Murano and a friend mentioned the CX7 and I didn;t look back.

 

[Killer]

i disagree. its drives better than both, and isnt that a main reason why we buy our cars? luxury is luxury, but the interior of the murano is gross and the rdx has the lux but at the same time, the RDX still isnt.....a lexus (interior/quality wise)

the fact is, the cx-7's price makes it hard not to compare it to more costly suvs (nissan, acura) and cheaper honda's and toyotas where u get more bang for the buck with Mazda.

say what u want about the SH-AWD, the lux interior of the acura, the mazda drives better & looks better. yea u can get a crv for low 20's but that is a bargain basement not even full alloy rims - at 24k u cannot go feature for feature with the cx7 it wins in almost every category.

i have not seen the commercial, but sales figures will also say that the Mazda has been Acuras bully taking away sales. Almost every single person on this board and on other internet boards shoped the RDX directly with the Mazda, and then maybe the murano if they didnt like either product. To deny that the 7 hasnt been a major player in this new niche turbo small suv category is a little blind, lets face facts here: for MOST of us, when we shop a car, the bottom line is price, and when u shop an apple to an apple and one costs more than the other, its pretty hard not to save the money and buy almost the same thing and in some ways the cheaper apple is better. The acura to, i would say, a regular customer, just may not warrant the bigger price tag. Interiors are subjective to a point, and it just may be that the Acura doesnt have enough to make people jump up to the product.

i just do not buy the "the mazda is no acura" theory. I know some members on this board say the mazda is no acura, all im saying is besides the interior, WHY NOT?

Honda/Acura resale value, long term cost of ownership, initial quality is still rated much better than mazda. Sorry...that's just the way it is.

 

[Killer]

eah, I've seen the commercial and I'm proud to be an owner. The CRV doesn't stand a chance with the CX7. The CRV's front grill irks me...it's like a Cheshire cat grin/smile. I almost considered the Murano and a friend mentioned the CX7 and I didn;t look back.

apples/oranges.

 

[wesmonster]

Extra spicy please...

I think comparing a CX-7 to the RDX or the Murano is based on what type consumer you're aiming at. We like the practicality of a crossover but wanted a 'sporty' car, something fun to drive. Test driving the CR-V was closer to a Toyota Highlander, solid, well built, but not something you'd want to drive fast down a twisty road. I think if you compared feature-for-feature you'd be surprised at what the CX-7 comes standard with. One of the features my wife wanted in our new car was a V-6, she was shocked to find out that after buying our CX-7 it was a turbo four! The Murano V-6 motor was nice but the CVT tranny doesn't give you any sense of 'speed', and the ride was the worst thing we test drove (except for an FJ Cruiser). Choppy, soft, disconnected, like the rear spring rates didn't match the front. And the Mazda was one of the most inexpensive cars we looked at. Zoom zoom zoom indeed!

 

[HeavyH20]

Well, when I was considering vehicles, it was between the Murano and the CX-7. I never even considered the CR-V. As for quality, recent defect reports indicate the Mazda is on par with Honda.

http://mazdanews.com/node/view/414

 

[mikey1981]

Honda/Acura resale value, long term cost of ownership, initial quality is still rated much better than mazda. Sorry...that's just the way it is.

what u said is true, but has nothing to do with the vehicle itself but more to do with the branding.

 

[Killer]

The branding is all about the car. Honda has a LONG HISTORY of making top notch long lasting high quality autos. It has EVERYTHING to do with the "Vehicle Itself".

Brand names do not make quality...the car makes the brand name.
I own both...Mazda and an Acura. Both great cars. But history drives resale and market.

 

[HeavyH20]

Yes, and personal experience which, in my case, means avoiding Honda like the plague. Every one of the Honda's I have been exposed to through ownership by acquaintance has had some rather serious problems develop on Honda vehicles. Of course, that was only 11, so that is by no means a huge sampling.

But, Mazda is certainly never had the image of prestige brand based on quality or reputation. They are moving to change that with some of the newer vehicle releases aimed at the enthusiast. This in turn, enhances the brand. They have been making some good strides in the past few years.

 

[mikey1981]

The branding is all about the car. Honda has a LONG HISTORY of making top notch long lasting high quality autos. It has EVERYTHING to do with the "Vehicle Itself".

Brand names do not make quality...the car makes the brand name.
I own both...Mazda and an Acura. Both great cars. But history drives resale and market.

ok, again, ill reiterate my argument, i understand what it is you are saying, what im saying is vehicle vs vehicle, im not talking resale value, or longevity, im talking CX-7 VS RDX suv vs suv here; ride, performance, std features, etc etc, which in my understanding, when most vehicles go head to head in auto mags, reliability and resale is taken into consideration, but does not make one vehicle BETTER than another when they are driven head to head. Which i guess to the reg person, when they see Toyota they associate the same values, resale, will last forever etc but Edmunds ranked the MAzda #1 over the long standing, solid value history of the Rav4.

Your argument seems to be, since its an Acura - the car will have higher resale and less problems, thus, the RDX is better than the CX-7. Which, if you were estimating which car was a better value to the consumer in the long run, maybe the Acura would be a better choice if that is ur prime goal when buying a car, but, thats not what i am talking about here.

I came out and said the 7 drives better, and at the bottom line is cheaper and almost the same product at the point of sale as the Acura, which is why i think the 7 in some ways is a better alternative to the Acura. And, if you are leasing, resale, longevity and etc (if ur plan is to only lease) dont play into the argument at all. What you are left with is price vs price and what ur money gets you.

i too, have owned 12 Honda/Acuras since 1997, and so have numerous people in my family.

 

[Killer]

Perception man...perception.

 

[lisevolution]

This is my deal with this argument... The CX-7 appears to be a better deal on paper when compared to the RDX but for a technology freak like myself it gets much more complicated.

I actually didn't think the interior in the Acura was any better than the Mazda. I liked the seating position and location of everything better in the CX7 than the RDX. I felt like I was sitting in a truck with Acura where the mazda made me feel like I was driving my gf's 6.

Now as far as the tech goes, there are certain unforgivable issues I'm having with the CX7... no bluetooth which is minor, install a parrot kit for under $400 and you have that feature, but the killer for me is no I-Pod adapter for the tech package and then to not have MP3 cd ability is just crazy. The acura comes with both of these standard and has the option for the Acura link I-pod adapter so you can control via steering wheel/radio controls.

I think the closest competitor to the CX7 that no-one has mentioned is the new Outlander from Mitsubishi. Anyone on here drive one? I did and came away very, very impressed. V6 so no premium needed, paddle shifters, handles well, comfortable, supportive leather seats, auto leveling xenon lights, led tails, 18" wheels and an available albeit tiny 3rd row seat. Now in terms of tech, hard drive based navigation, 30 gig of memory for Music storage, DVD audio and video playback ability, Rockford fosgate stereo with sub woofer in rear stealth box, bluetooth and ipod integration. The car literally has everything and it undercuts the CX7 by a significant amount. I was quoted $29K pre-tax fully loaded. The biggest issue with the outlander is the re-sale and reliability issue, but it does come with a better warranty than the mazda and the power delivery is smooth where my experience with the CX7 was a little lag in the system, not as bad as my MSP but noticeable. Just my .02 though.

I'm having a very difficult time deciding which way to go. If the CX7 had the bluetooth and ipod it would be a simple decision, but it doesn't and who knows if/when an Ipod integration will happen for the tech package. I was literally hours from buying an 04 FX35 w/nav on Friday and then pulled out because the dealer got shady and started adding $1200 cost for the satelite radio he said it had when I was negotiating the purchase price up front. Now I'm torn about if the RDX is worth the extra 5K over the CX7 and then if the CX7 is worth the extra 5K over the outlander!

 

[mikey1981]

good luck, i too shopped the rdx against the 7, spending fridays n sat's driving them head to head back n forth. I liked the 7's dash, it was simple and i liked the piano black finish of the GT. on test drives, the SHAWD was minor in my decision, add to that i most likely wouldnt even push the truck that far to where the SHAWD would be advantagous vs the MAzda AWD system. it came down to what drove better, what I would like to get into everyday, looks of the vehicle. Yes the Mazda didnt have BT or an iPod jack, but in the end, there are ways around those issues. I had a smile on my face after driving the 7 a few times, the Acura was just too bland in mostly every respect.

 

[Mazda3]

Honda/Acura resale value, long term cost of ownership, initial quality is still rated much better than mazda. Sorry...that's just the way it is.

Depends what counrty we're talking about.

 

[lisevolution]

good luck, i too shopped the rdx against the 7, spending fridays n sat's driving them head to head back n forth. I liked the 7's dash, it was simple and i liked the piano black finish of the GT. on test drives, the SHAWD was minor in my decision, add to that i most likely wouldnt even push the truck that far to where the SHAWD would be advantagous vs the MAzda AWD system. it came down to what drove better, what I would like to get into everyday, looks of the vehicle. Yes the Mazda didnt have BT or an iPod jack, but in the end, there are ways around those issues. I had a smile on my face after driving the 7 a few times, the Acura was just too bland in mostly every respect.

That's kind of how I'm feeling about the Acura. I think the biggest thing is the I-pod and having to use an RF adaptor to get it to work...Overall the RDX is just a tad bit bland to me. On the flip side, in the fall we'll be seeing the EX25/35 from Infiniti the Q5 from Audi, a new Highlander from Toyota etc. I know I'll love the curves and shape of the EX as the pictures I've seen are just plain sexy, takes the existing FX to the next level. Appearance wise the CX7 has the RDX by a mile. The acura is just plain, and as I said, the interior was just plain bland. Yes the blue dash is nice and the leather is a tad bit nicer but not really that much nicer

 

[vbbuilt01]

then to not have MP3 cd ability is just crazy.

Very good comments, but I have a teeny, tiny disagreement. Both the standard OEM head unit and the upgraded Nav unit in the technology package play MP3 CDs. (yes)

Vince.

 

[mikey1981]

That's kind of how I'm feeling about the Acura. I think the biggest thing is the I-pod and having to use an RF adaptor to get it to work...Overall the RDX is just a tad bit bland to me. On the flip side, in the fall we'll be seeing the EX25/35 from Infiniti the Q5 from Audi, a new Highlander from Toyota etc. I know I'll love the curves and shape of the EX as the pictures I've seen are just plain sexy, takes the existing FX to the next level. Appearance wise the CX7 has the RDX by a mile. The acura is just plain, and as I said, the interior was just plain bland. Yes the blue dash is nice and the leather is a tad bit nicer but not really that much nicer

good luck in the hunt....seems like our thoughts were the same regarding the Acura

 

[lisevolution]

The fact that it does play MP3 cds makes it much more intriguing now that I know that. Just goes to show how little the sales people actually know about the products they sell! I work in people sales, being a recruiter and I make sure I know every possible tidbit of info about my candidates because otherwise I lose deals and $$$ which my pocket doesn't like nor my clients!

My biggest thing with the CX-7 is that I'm jumpy... I may just decide to lease it instead of finance it because I have a feeling at the end of 3 years I'll want something different! Also leasing it will most likely allow me to keep my MSP a tad bit longer so I can continue with the performance itch