Hmmm, when I read this article, I had many feelings for this new CX-7. First it told me it was inexpensive. That's good. I heard it'd be around $30,000. My eyes opened up a bit more when he said it was under $40k loaded. That's a really good deal. Then it started saying the rear seat is small, and the fuel economy. ~ 12.9/9.2 for the AWD model? I thought it was a turbocharged 2.3 litre 4 cylinder model with direct injection? Shouldn't it be more efficient? Especially with a 6-speed automatic transmission which, as the author said, has a nice tall sixth gear for cruising?
If the Murano's the direct competitor, it has it beat with a bigger, equally powerful engine (slightly less torque though) on a heavier vehicle all the while consuming less fuel (12.1/8.6). The RAV4 V6 with a larger engine, more power, slightly lighter and more rear space clocks in at (11.1/7.
. Shows you the benefits of CVTs.
The CX-7's tyres sidewall height is in between the RAV4 and the Murano. I think to notice though. The Murano has less rear legroom than the CX-7 but I found the Murano fairly roomy at the back. Perhaps the author's 6' 5" frame won't fit but the rest of us will? Or is the design of the rear seat and maybe the backs of the front seats that make the CX-7 less comfortable?