(First posted 1/30/2019) (Inspired by J.P. Cavanaugh’s series, “How Hard Can It Be To Make A Minivan”, here’s a new series about crossovers that for whatever reason weren’t as successful as they could have been.)
In isolation, the CX-7 may seem like a well-thought-out crossover from the Zoom-Zoom brand. Its styling was edgy and distinctive, it had a gutsy turbocharged four-cylinder engine, and it was just a smidge larger than compact SUVs like the Toyota RAV4. Put it up against its CX-5 successor, however, and you can see how Mazda missed the mark.
For starters, let’s look at those dimensions. Less than an inch separated the CX-7 from its successor in most interior dimensions and the same applied when comparing the CX-7 to the smaller Tribute (the CX-5 actually had more rear legroom than the CX-7). Perhaps to insulate the Tribute, Mazda had made the CX-7 bigger in external dimensions – it was a good 10 inches longer than most compact SUVs – but its extra size wasn’t really reflected in the cabin. Where the extra size was felt, however, was in curb weight – the CX-7 weighed a hefty 3900 pounds in all-wheel-drive guise, 200 pounds more than the later, lighter CX-5.
The CX-7’s extra weight plus the lingering Tribute arguably necessitated its powerful engine, a 2.3 turbo four. This engine was also used in the Mazdaspeed 3 and 6 (aka 3 and 6 MPS) although here it used an Aisin six-speed automatic. With 244 hp and 258 ft-lbs and a 0-60 time of around 7.5 seconds, the CX-7 was one of the most powerful crossovers in its class although it required a diet of premium fuel. Quite a bit of it, too: the CX-7 achieved a combined 19 mpg (18 with AWD), just one mpg off of the larger, three-row CX-9. For context, the other rocketship in this class – the Toyota RAV-4 V6 – achieved 21-22 mpg combined. So much for six-cylinder power but four-cylinder economy.
The RAV-4 V6 also put its power down more quickly and smoothly, the CX-7 suffering from some turbo lag. The Toyota also drank regular and proved to be more reliable. Owners report the CX-7 turbo often suffers from timing chain faults, oil leaks and turbocharger faults, the powertrain falling below Mazda’s usual high standards of reliability and durability. A RAV-4 was a safer choice.
Ah, but this is a crossover from the Zoom-Zoom brand. And true to its reputation, the CX-7 was quite a good steer for a crossover and certainly superior to a RAV-4. Mind you, the ride was a bit firmer than rivals and, as is common for Mazdas, it was a tad noisy. Nevertheless, the CX-7 had communicative steering, well-controlled body roll, and superior handling to almost everything in its class.
The CX-7’s rear suspension was borrowed from the Mazda5, while the front suspension was a wide-track version of the Mazda6’s that was also used in the third-generation Mazda MPV not sold outside of Asia. The optional all-wheel-drive system was borrowed from the Mazdaspeed6 albeit without its limited-slip differential. Other major parts of the CX-7, like the steering rack and floorpan, were unique.
Then there was the styling. With its wedgy profile and flared wheel arches, it looked more futuristic and sportier than its generally upright, SUV-reminiscent rivals. The interior was attractive, too, sharing a familial resemblance to the larger, unrelated CX-9.
In markets like the US and Australia, the CX-7 was priced directly against the RAV-4 V6. This made sense considering the cars’ comparable performance. But as the Tribute aged into irrelevance, Mazda realized they could broaden the CX-7’s appeal by offering a less powerful entry-level model. Coinciding with a facelift in 2010, a naturally-aspirated 2.5 four-cylinder was made available. It produced 161 hp and 161 ft-lbs and, unsurprisingly, felt rather sluggish given the weight of the car.
The availability of a cheaper entry-level model (in the US, $2k cheaper than the turbo) gave CX-7 sales a nice bump in North America. Sales doubled in Europe (albeit from a low base) not just because of the new 2.5 but also because the CX-7 now had an available diesel there, a 2.2 four producing 170 hp and a stout 295 ft-lbs. It was introduced to the Australian market but its lack of an auto option limited its appeal here.
In 2011, Mazda sold 35,641 CX-7s in the US market. That was its second-highest number yet and it was several times higher than the Tribute which, by then, was posting absolutely abysmal sales numbers. Still, rivals like the Nissan Rogue were doing a lot better. The CX-7’s replacement, the aforementioned CX-5, would hew much more closely to its rivals in terms of powertrains, dimensions and pricing.
It paid off: European sales have seen a five-fold increase over the CX-7, while the CX-5 surpassed 100k annual sales a few years ago in the US and shows no sign of slowing down. In Australia, where Mazda outsells every other Japanese brand bar Toyota, the CX-5 has also stormed to the top of its segment; the CX-7 was often in the overall Top 20, the CX-5 is never out of the Top 10.
Mazda tried doing something a little different with the CX-7, giving it a racy engine and styling and trying to slot it between staider compact and mid-size SUVs. As they found, a direct replacement for the moribund Tribute would’ve been more successful. Mazda missed the mark with the CX-7 but, fortunately, they have recovered quite nicely with the CX-5.
Featured 2010-12 CX-7 photographed in Windsor, QLD, Australia in March 2018.
Related Reading:
Curbside Classic: 2010-19 Lincoln MKT: How Hard Can It Be To Make A Crossover? (Part 2)
Curbside Classic: 1993 Chevrolet Astro – How Hard Can It Be To Make A Minivan? (Part 1)
Curbside Classic: 1995 Ford Aerostar – How Hard Can It Be to Make a Minivan? (Part 2)
Curbside Classic: 1990 Oldsmobile Silhouette – How Hard Can It Be To Make a Minivan? (Part 3)
Curbside Classic: 1995 Honda Odyssey EX: How Hard Can It Be to Make a Minivan? (Part 4)
Curbside Capsule: 1998 Mercury Villager GS – How Hard Can It Be To Make A Minivan? (Part 5)
According to what I’ve heard from my buddy, who happens to work in a Mazda dealership, both these and, to a lesser extent, the CX-5 suffer from continuous problems with the durability of the rear suspension, which was derived from the much lighter Mazda 3 car without much modification or strengthening. There were serial warranty claims from the customers because of that issue. And the Mazda 5 minivan is the worst in this regard, according to him (very few were sold here, anyway). He doesn’t seem to like Mazda in general all that much, though…
Usual excellent analysis. Alternative title could be “The Neither Car, That Fell Down A Gap.”
An admission: I didn’t know the CX-5 replaced the CX-7. I thought they still sold it.
A couple of points from direct experience. One is that the CX-5 is simply cramped. I’m not so tall (6ft), but have my height in my legs, and I can’t get the seat back far enough for comfort. It also rides as if it has no wheel travel. Handles well, I suppose, but with the welded-up springs, it should. And the turbo diesel just sounds crude, albeit while working like a good ‘un.
As for the ‘7, it’s much more practical for room. Having driven the non-turbo, it is actually not terrible for performance (though it wilts fast under load and in heat) but to say it’s a tad noisy is being kind. The roar and intake gargle made me think the thing had a door open!
But in the current Mazda way, it handled beautifully, had classy-looking dash and a general feeling of expense (not entirely borne out by my neighbour’s little-niggles-prone ownership of it).
The CX-7 mayn’t be the ideal of how to make a crossover, but it does have one thing. It is by far the best looking of them all.
The diesel is a grenade waiting to go off, they are really bad for catastrophic failures, though most seem to fail within the warranty period so you get a free engine out of Japan and off you go again to trade it in.
Great idea for a series!
Given its relatively poor sales success that make examples relatively uncommon sights on the roads, the CX-7 has slipped my mind for a while. That being said, whenever I do see one I can’t help but stare at it for an extra moment.
I thought these were very attractive vehicles when they came out, and I think they still are. The design has held up relatively well and I still think it looks much better than any year of its CX-5 successor.
These were the crossovers for people who sought style and sporty driving dynamics, which are not generally qualities shoppers look for in CUVs.
On a related note, I recently read that the CX-5 outsold all other Mazdas combined in the U.S. last year.
Yup, it now accounts for over half of Mazda’s US sales.
On a related note, Motor Trend just did an excellent compact crossover mega test:
https://www.motortrend.com/cars/honda/cr-v/2019/compact-suv-big-test-chevrolet-equinox-honda-cr-v-hyundai-tucson-jeep-cherokee-mazda-cx-5-nissan-rogue-subaru-forester-and-toyota-rav4/
The CX-5 isn’t the most practical car in its class but it’s one of the more interesting.
I look forward to this series.
For about a minute and a half in 2011 Mrs JPC was keen on crossovers. I recall looking at one of these because a brother had a CX-9 that I found attractive. In base trim these came off as exceedingly cheap. I also recall reading that these had some mechanical issues (though I no longer remember what). Anyhow I found the car disappointing after really wanting to like it.
Had both a Tribute and CX-7 in my company fleet, each new and driven by the boss’s daughter in secession. She picked both out and they were disappointing. The Tribute was as big a pos as it’s brother Escapes I had at the same time. Coil packs galore and exhaust manifold catalytic converters failed at 75k miles. The turbo CX was a looker and a hoot to drive for 6 months till it conked out with numerous no start, emissions and other nagging issues that Mazda could not fix permanently. Neighbor loves his CX-5 though, 100k trouble free miles and going strong.
Great article William. I like the 80s/90s style retro wheels. Though they look huge in this application.
I was under the impression that (like the Tribute) the CX-7 was a Ford underneath. If that’s the case, and savvy buyers are aware of it, it can keep them away.
Not the 7, but the first-gen CX-9 used the Ford/Mazda CD3 platform.
Ex JDM Mazda6 diesels are appearing here in small numbers, I have zero interest in suburban utility vehicles but the diesel sedan was worth a look sadly no manuals on offer anywhere so that deleted them from my shopping list. Mazdas do handle reasonably well but seem noisy to drive and ride in.
Hmm, you learn something new every day. I had thought (like Evan R) that both the CX-7 and CX-9 (which I own) were based on a Ford platform – the one used for the Edge. The 7 and 9 seem way too similar to have been cost-effectively built on different platforms.
For what it’s worth, our CX-9 has 107k and is still going strong.
I saw one of these just yesterday or the day before and they are good looking. However, I remember Car&Driver pointing out in a road test that they were a bit underwhelming when it came to acceleration versus fuel economy. And I have always preferred cubic inches over turbocharging so this kind of fell off my radar.
Living in flat as a billiard table Florida I suppose the non-turbo version could ALMOST work for me. But if I was going to buy something like this I think I would have to look at a V6 RAV4….better fuel mileage, faster, and not quite as fragile(?).
My former employers had some of these back in the day. I had Mazda6 wagons (an ’05 and an ’08) but rode in a couple of colleagues’ CX7s and compared with either Mazda6, the CX7 was a disappointment. Ride and handling was fine (from the passenger seat), and they looked good, but space efficiency was poor and the cabin trim didn’t look or feel as nice as either Mazda6. Overall the CX7 wasn’t bad but it didn’t gel with the rest of Mazda’s line-up at the time and always felt like a bit of an orphan to me.
From a dealer’s perspective, CX7 to be avoided like the plague, V6 Rav4 too. I won’t keep a CX9 either, it’s gone as soon as it arrives, let someone else deal with it!
My dealer is continually nagging me for my 2010 RAV4 V6. He says they’re gone from his lot in a flash. But I’m not giving mine up! I love it.
I’ve heard absolutely catastrophic tales of unreliability for the 2.3L “DISI” Turbo engine in these. Worse than the MS3 or MS6, but maybe buyers of small SUV’s are just less forgiving of mechanical issues than people that buy hot-rod small cars. It seems like these turbo CX-7 are to be avoided like the plague.
Fast forward to 2025; I have 2 co-workers who have nearly twin silver last-year CX-7 models. Both are the non-turbos, so that would point to the lack of engine trouble, but neither have been impressive with quality build or overall reliability. This was a miss for Mazda, but they made up for it with the CX-5.