2007 Mazda CX-7

Last Updated:

That’s all we have so far, the 1st official picture.
And it looks great, about as good as last year’s concept.

The engine for the US will be a 2.3Liter Turbo with 244hp. The combined MPG is expected to be 23.
FWD or AWD and it seats 5.

Conversation 18 comments

  1. i like it, it looks like a concept car, but the engine i dont get, a turbo 4 in a midsize suv, sounds a bit rediculous maybe in a sedan, or a compact suv even, but they should have went with a traditional v6, v4 combination

  2. The 2.3 produces most of the torque at 2500rpm.
    So it might work, and it is basically a car, not a truck.
    And most people will drive it as such.
    I think it’s a good way for Mazda to be different.

    The CX 9 is coming later, with a more traditional V6.
    Maybe the new Ford 3.5 Liter.

  3. Mazda continues to amaze me.

    Is there really the Ford company behind it? That’s hard to see…

    Great work…and probably amazing engine too.

  4. Subaru should have done the same thing with Tribeca, use a turbo 4 instead of the 6. It might have given it a little more kick.

  5. I still hear it is based on the same fram as the Ford Edge, so it’s not that small.
    But it looks much more athletic than the Ford.
    So I’d guess like the Highlander, or close. Or maybe more like the new, bigger, RAV4.

    I’ll see it at the LA Auto show press days, so I;ll report on it as soon as it is shown to the press.
    I am also thinking of posting videos of the major LA Show unveilings.

    Get your Quicktime ready…

  6. The CX-7 will be availble in a six speed automatic. Cargo space is nearly 30 cubic feet with the rear seat in place and should double when you fold the rear seat. Mazda has said that the driver’s side instrument panel will be a unique “double roof” structure. It is expected to bow at the NAIAS in Detroit in January and the Los Angeles Auto Show and it will arrive next spring as a 2007 model. The torque for the turbo is at 258 pound feets.

  7. I love the look. It’s far more conventionally appealing than my Murano with its Cheshire grin. But a turbo 4? The Nissan 3.5L VQ 6-cyl gets better milage, more hp, and more torque.

  8. “Cargo space is nearly 30 cubic feet with the rear seat in place and should double when you fold the rear seat.”
    Are you sure about that? That sounds small. My old Volvo wagon has 40 cubic feet with the rear seat up, 75 cubic feet with the seat down.

    “But a turbo 4? The Nissan 3.5L VQ 6-cyl gets better milage, more hp, and more torque.”
    I don’t think they could fit a V6 under that hood. Plus with a turbo you can bet somebody will up the boost.

  9. I like the looks of this vehicle. A couple of nagging questions:

    1. 4cyl turbo? why not a small 6?

    2. Pricing – how competitive will it be?

    3. How much standard equipment will be offered at the base price?

    Unless this vehicle can compete on all those fronts it will be a tall order for Mazda to drive the number of sales needed in what is becoming a crowded field.


  10. so, how long ’til some of the mazda kiddies stuff that engine in the new miata(sorry, mx-5)???

    bigger turbo, injectors, exhuast…

    creamin in my pants already!

    i can’t wait:)

  11. Why does everybody want a V6? Thats so boring. There is so many of everything out there with a V6. Get a Murano or RAV4 if you want a V6.

  12. To Justin’s point above, I personally would be leery of having a turbo engine (versus a naturally-aspirated V6) due to increased complexity and higher repair costs. I know turbo 4s are supposed to be more fuel-efficient but many of them require premium fuel, which negates the advantage.

  13. My Saab 900T has 271,000 miles on the original turbo and the valve cover has yet to be removed from the engine block. Apprehension regarding turbo life expectancy is totally unfounded.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *