Though fuel prices have moderated, as long as the economy remains soft car buyers will be focusing on fuel economy, not horsepower. In response, manufacturers are rushing to offer at least the alternative of a less powerful, more efficient engine.
The Mazda CX-7, a compact SUV, is a case in point. When the CX-7 was introduced three years ago, only one engine was offered: a 244-horsepower turbocharged 2.3-liter four. A good fit for Mazda’s driver-oriented image, but fuel economy has been a weak spot.
For 2010 Mazda has refreshed the CX-7, and the turbo has been joined by a 161-horsepower non-turbo 2.5-liter four. The new engine is good for EPA ratings of 20 city and 28 highway, compared to 17 and 23 for the 2009 turbo. (For 2010 the turbo improves to 18/25.) The new base model weighs 300 pounds less, so acceleration should be similar to that of the non-turbo fours in the Honda CR-V (20/27) and Toyota RAV4 (22/28).
The base model 2010 Mazda CX-7 is a dog in comparison to the base model 2009 Honda CR-V and base model 2009 Toyota RAV4.
When it comes to power to weight ratios the CR-V has a 6% advantage over the CX-7 and the RAV4 has a 16% advantage.
Torque to weight ratios are a similar story, the CR-V has a 3% advantage over the CX-7 and the RAV4 has an 11% advantage.
The CX-7 is also 4% more expensive than the RAV4 and 5% more expensive than the CR-V.
The the CX-7 is the heaviest, the least powerful, the most expensive. Not to mention the dramatic body work which means it will probably look dated sooner, and appeal to fewer people making it harder to sell than either the CR-V or RAV4 in the future.
It’s only bright point in this comparison is it’s 4% highway milage advantage over the CR-V, (however it’s still 9% less efficient in the city than the RAV4).
It’s a bit of a false advantage anyways.
Say someone is comparing the CX-7 and the CR-V (perhaps the more efficient RAV4 doesn’t interest them) they might thinking that the 1mpg advantage is going to make a big difference and maybe even make up for their initial additional expense! Even the reduced resale value! Heck it might even add to it when gas goes up to $4/gal right?
Wrong.
Let’s be generous to the CX-7 and do a few calculations.
Let’s admit vehicles last a long time and use a futuristic price of gasoline, $3.40/gal
We’ll also assume that our prospective buyer drives 75% highway and 25% city just to maximize the advantage. That means the CX-7 gets 26mpg combined and the CR-V gets 25.25mpg combined, which we’ll round down to 25 just to give the CX-7 a little more advantage.
Then we can assume our buyer is a heavy driver, that’s one of the reasons they’re so interested in that highway number, they drive a lot, 17,500m a year.
That means the annual fuel cost for the CR-V will be $2,380, and the CX-7 will be $2,288, a savings of an amazing $92. That basically means it’s going to take 200,679 miles to make up the initial difference in the MSRP alone.
So unless someone is completely enamored with the looks of the 2010 Mazda CX-7 they should seriously look at at RAV4 or CR-V instead.
Must admit I ballparked these, but three-to-six percent (torque / power disadvantage vs. the CR-V) doesn’t strike me as substantial. My initial response on learning of this new engine was, “The base CX-7 is going to be unbearably slow.” Then I noticed the curb weight, and at 3,496 pounds it’s not far off that of competitors. Well, about 150 pounds heavier.
So while it won’t be the quickest, I do wonder if the feel on the road will be much different, vs. the CR-V at least. I do think that some people will find enough other advantages in the Mazda to prefer it to the others.