CR-V vs CX-7 Commercial

mikey1981 said:

its all about value and bang for buck - now if mazda could only make a commercial that doesnt make me want to shut the tv off, the zoom zoom and the lame song need to go, quick.

Click to expand...

1killercls said:

again..it is called perception of value. Which is a very personal thing.

Click to expand...

cmdavis3rd said:

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.
.

Click to expand...

mikey1981 said:

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?

Click to expand...

Mazda3 said:

I hear what you're saying. I was just stating that the perception of value of the Mazda product line is higher in some countries than others. Mazda is still not regarded as high as Acura, but the gap here has closed considerably over the last 5 years.

Click to expand...

Psychobroker said:

Not gonna win that fight when the base RDX is selling for ~$30k and RDX w/ Tech are going for ~$33k.

You'll have a better shot against that slushbox of CUV - the Murano.

Click to expand...

Psychobroker said:

Have you even driven the RDX? At least sat inside one?

The only reason why CX-7 and RDX owners were cross-shopping the two were because of their relatively close price ranges for a fully-loaded CX-7 GT w/ AWD vs. the RDX.

The comparisons truly cease after that.

I drove the CX-7 several times, put it through its pases on sharp turns, acceleration, etc, just to make sure I wasn't making a mistake on the RDX. 4,000 miles into it, I'm very, very happy with the Acura, which - in my opinion - simply delivers the most value between the two.

Yep, I'm happy with my decision.

Click to expand...

cliff0529 said:

To be fair, you're comparing the MSRP of the Mazda to the (assumed) negotiated price of the Acura. We got our CX7 Sport w/ Tech Package for just under $24k OTD. We don't have the leather or some of the other features that the GT has, but we actually prefer the cloth seats. It gets to hot here in the south, the leather sticks to you during the summer and it really doesn't get cold enough here in the winter to make not having the heated seats a deal breaker.

So I'd say that value wise, the CX7 wins. If you want the prestige of owning an Acura or a Lexus and the plush interior then more power to you. Thats your choice and no one can knock you for it. I just don't see how anyone can claim that the RDX is a better value than the CX7 when in real world situations it costs about $6-7k more OTD.

Click to expand...

I guess what I'm trying to say, is that having bluetooth, trip computer, Ipod jack and slightly nicer interior appointments doesn't make up the $7k difference, some of that is being paid for the Acura name. Which like I said, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Heck, I've got an Italian motorcycle that stacks up pretty evenly to a Japanese bike that costs 25-30% less. I know I can't argue the value point. I don't think you'll ever be able to argue that a "luxury brand," such as Acura, Lexus, Infiniti, Ducati (motorcycle), etc. is a better value than a more common brand.

Click to expand...

Mazda3 said:

I think your figures are just a little off.

The RDX w/tech pkg is $7000 more than my CX-7 GT AWD in Canada. The "selling" prices are the same spread. There are no big discounts or rebates on either of these in Canada. On top of that the lease rate is 2% higher on the Acura and the resudual value is 2% lower, you heard right the residual value is lower on the Acura.

Anyway the end result is that the 4yr lease on the Acura is about $210/mo more.

Sorry, but anyway you slice it there's no where near $200 a month more value in the RDX.

Click to expand...

Mazda3 said:

It does seem the spread is closer in the US than Canada. I assume you paid cash? How do the lease programs compare? Like I said in Canada anyway the payment difference is huge on a lease. Acura is very arrogant with their lease programs.

I have the feeling the actual selling price of the CX-7 will come down in the US in the near future which will make the gap more like the canadian gap.

Click to expand...

Mazda3 said:

I think your figures are just a little off.

The RDX w/tech pkg is $7000 more than my CX-7 GT AWD in Canada. The "selling" prices are the same spread. There are no big discounts or rebates on either of these in Canada. On top of that the lease rate is 2% higher on the Acura and the resudual value is 2% lower, you heard right the residual value is lower on the Acura.

Anyway the end result is that the 4yr lease on the Acura is about $210/mo more.

Sorry, but anyway you slice it there's no where near $200 a month more value in the RDX.

Click to expand...

koala said:

I agree with you on the value... there was no way an RDX was worth the extra money, even though it's a better vehicle.

To top it off they wouldn't discount the RDX much, where-as my CX-7 was discounted quite well... so the spread became much larger.

Click to expand...

Psychobroker said:

Actually, that's the price regardless of purchase vs. lease. I ended up leasing because it made more fiscal sense to me. The money factor I got was .00141, which is the equivalent of a 3.38% APR, and a residual value of 53% on a 15k mile/year 3-year lease. Not bad IMHO

Acura/Honda's "Superpreferred" (>790 FICO) money factor is now .00108, or comperably a 2.59% APR. Pretty good, if you ask me.

Click to expand...

Mazda3 said:

The Acura has a 6.9% lease rate here with a 42% residual on a 4yr 24km/yr lease. The CX-7 is 4.9% with a 44% rsidual on a 25km/year lease which really amplifies the price difference.

Click to expand...

1killercls said:

These are touchy threads...no? (rofl2)

Click to expand...