Unhappy with my CX-7
Thread Starter
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Unhappy with my CX-7
I have about 1700 miles on my CX-7 and am very unhappy with it. First, at 400 miles I had to take 2 hours out of my workday because the check engine light went on. Dealer fixed it while I waited and I was told that a PCV hose was loose. I asked how their QC check possibly miss something so simple. Still waiting for an acceptable answer on that one. I specifically asked them to check the gas cap as I read that the need to be replaced on some of the earlier builds (mine was built in August 06). So, guess what, at about 1000 miles the check engine light came on again. This time I lost about 4 hours of my time and guess what the problem was? It was a bad gas cap. What a shock. So, I bought this car based on the reputation that Japanese cars have for reliability and I verified that the car was made in Japan (Hiroshima). So far, my conclusion is that the labor was outsourced, from Detroit.
Next, we have gas mileage. My first two tanks were about 17 mpg in mostly city driving and while that does not equal the sticker city mileage estimate of 19, I was fine with it. The next two tanks, including the ones with the problems were 13 mpg and 15 mpg and I chalked that up to the service issues. After the gas cap was replaced, I got 22 1/2 mpg in mostly freeway driving and I started falling in love with the car, but the last tank was a dealbreaker. I got 12 mpg, on premium fuel, in mostly city driving and I only floored the thing once. I don't have that much of an issue with the premium fuel requirement, but I do challenge the claim that dropping from 91 octane to 89 octane will ruin the car. The truth is that every media automotive expert suggests that with today's engine management systems, all cars can run on all grades of fuel with no harm to the motors and while performance and mileage may suffer, that is the bottom line. So, I just feel that the Mazda design is inferior.
Last comment about quality is that they include a removeable container in the center console that does not stay in place. It fits in the front driver side corner, settling on the edge of the box with a short stem that protrudes into a slot to hold it in place. It simply does not work. The stem is too short and the slot is too shallow and the damn thing falls out constantly.
Bottom line is that I am getting rid of this thing and buying a Honda Fit.
Next, we have gas mileage. My first two tanks were about 17 mpg in mostly city driving and while that does not equal the sticker city mileage estimate of 19, I was fine with it. The next two tanks, including the ones with the problems were 13 mpg and 15 mpg and I chalked that up to the service issues. After the gas cap was replaced, I got 22 1/2 mpg in mostly freeway driving and I started falling in love with the car, but the last tank was a dealbreaker. I got 12 mpg, on premium fuel, in mostly city driving and I only floored the thing once. I don't have that much of an issue with the premium fuel requirement, but I do challenge the claim that dropping from 91 octane to 89 octane will ruin the car. The truth is that every media automotive expert suggests that with today's engine management systems, all cars can run on all grades of fuel with no harm to the motors and while performance and mileage may suffer, that is the bottom line. So, I just feel that the Mazda design is inferior.
Last comment about quality is that they include a removeable container in the center console that does not stay in place. It fits in the front driver side corner, settling on the edge of the box with a short stem that protrudes into a slot to hold it in place. It simply does not work. The stem is too short and the slot is too shallow and the damn thing falls out constantly.
Bottom line is that I am getting rid of this thing and buying a Honda Fit.
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Unhappy with my CX-7
Sorry to hear of your problems.
I have not had any of the problems you listed with mine in 10,000 miles.
My dealer replaced the gas cap even without my asking or ever putting the old one on wrong. The CEL comes on if gas cap is not tightly sealed (by you). Otherwiwse it works fine as mine never came on. Others who are not careful to insure gas cap is on had problems. I am sure both problems were your gas cap not a PCV hose. Sounds like a dealer problem more than a QA problem.
When I drive I get 22 on highway and 19 in town. But if you boost the engine as my wife likes to do, you mileage will go down. I have had a wifes worse driving of 16 mpg in town. But never 12mpg.
I would agree that they allowed cars out before the lower door seals were fixed, gas cap was not proofed against operator errors and ECU and TCU not programmed to better satisfy US customers demands.
For me the lack of 24 mpg is the only gripe I have with mine currently.
Sorry to hear of your problems ..
Best of luck with another car...
I have not had any of the problems you listed with mine in 10,000 miles.
My dealer replaced the gas cap even without my asking or ever putting the old one on wrong. The CEL comes on if gas cap is not tightly sealed (by you). Otherwiwse it works fine as mine never came on. Others who are not careful to insure gas cap is on had problems. I am sure both problems were your gas cap not a PCV hose. Sounds like a dealer problem more than a QA problem.
When I drive I get 22 on highway and 19 in town. But if you boost the engine as my wife likes to do, you mileage will go down. I have had a wifes worse driving of 16 mpg in town. But never 12mpg.
I would agree that they allowed cars out before the lower door seals were fixed, gas cap was not proofed against operator errors and ECU and TCU not programmed to better satisfy US customers demands.
For me the lack of 24 mpg is the only gripe I have with mine currently.
Sorry to hear of your problems ..
Best of luck with another car...
Thread Starter
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
RE: Unhappy with my CX-7
First of all, do your research and you will see that the problem with the gas caps on the earlier builds was that the gas cap was defective, not the users. If I can find that on the internet, don't you think that Mazda knows about it? This involved thousands of cars and no recall was issued.So, if anyone is considering a CX-7 they should check the build date and even better, have the dealer assure them that the vehichle has the corrected gas cap.
Second comment about the Honda Fit is absolutely correct. I did choose the wrong car. I thought it was the right car when I bought it. FYI the Fit is amazing. The CX-7 has 58 cubic feet of cargo space and that tiny Fit has 42 cubic feet, which I did not realize at the time. I am better with a car like the Fit because it has enough cargo space for my business and performing needs, plus it gets over 30 mpg in the city. Sure, its 0-60 time of 8.8 seconds is way slower than the CX-7, but if you add the extra time spent gassing up the Mazda to the aggregate 0-60 runs during the time you operate the cars, the Honda comes out way ahead.
Second comment about the Honda Fit is absolutely correct. I did choose the wrong car. I thought it was the right car when I bought it. FYI the Fit is amazing. The CX-7 has 58 cubic feet of cargo space and that tiny Fit has 42 cubic feet, which I did not realize at the time. I am better with a car like the Fit because it has enough cargo space for my business and performing needs, plus it gets over 30 mpg in the city. Sure, its 0-60 time of 8.8 seconds is way slower than the CX-7, but if you add the extra time spent gassing up the Mazda to the aggregate 0-60 runs during the time you operate the cars, the Honda comes out way ahead.
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Unhappy with my CX-7
ORIGINAL: powerharp
First of all, do your research and you will see that the problem with the gas caps on the earlier builds was that the gas cap was defective, not the users. If I can find that on the internet, don't you think that Mazda knows about it? This involved thousands of cars and no recall was issued.So, if anyone is considering a CX-7 they should check the build date and even better, have the dealer assure them that the vehichle has the corrected gas cap.
Second comment about the Honda Fit is absolutely correct. I did choose the wrong car. I thought it was the right car when I bought it. FYI the Fit is amazing. The CX-7 has 58 cubic feet of cargo space and that tiny Fit has 42 cubic feet, which I did not realize at the time. I am better with a car like the Fit because it has enough cargo space for my business and performing needs, plus it gets over 30 mpg in the city. Sure, its 0-60 time of 8.8 seconds is way slower than the CX-7, but if you add the extra time spent gassing up the Mazda to the aggregate 0-60 runs during the time you operate the cars, the Honda comes out way ahead.
First of all, do your research and you will see that the problem with the gas caps on the earlier builds was that the gas cap was defective, not the users. If I can find that on the internet, don't you think that Mazda knows about it? This involved thousands of cars and no recall was issued.So, if anyone is considering a CX-7 they should check the build date and even better, have the dealer assure them that the vehichle has the corrected gas cap.
Second comment about the Honda Fit is absolutely correct. I did choose the wrong car. I thought it was the right car when I bought it. FYI the Fit is amazing. The CX-7 has 58 cubic feet of cargo space and that tiny Fit has 42 cubic feet, which I did not realize at the time. I am better with a car like the Fit because it has enough cargo space for my business and performing needs, plus it gets over 30 mpg in the city. Sure, its 0-60 time of 8.8 seconds is way slower than the CX-7, but if you add the extra time spent gassing up the Mazda to the aggregate 0-60 runs during the time you operate the cars, the Honda comes out way ahead.
Mine had the orginal cap on it. The new one is a new color hence real easy to check. The design caused the CEL to trip if the cap was not tightly screwed down (hence you the user). Even a little loose will cause the CEL to come on. I had the "defective cap" but as I always put it on right I never had any CEL lights coming on in 3,000 miles when the dealer replaced it while doing my door seal TSB as a preventative measure without a request to do so from me. Many like me had no problems but it was not tolerent of operator errors. While one would agree it should be more tolerant of users, calling it defective is an overstatement. if it leaked gas, or broke I would call it defective. Not when it just does not allow you to poorly attach it to the car.
The little holder in the console in will stay put if placed in there correctly. Again 10,000 miles and mine never just falls out. I you did not like it there just take it out. Again, they could have made the channel deeper to again make it more tolerant of users banging it.
I think the wrong car comment is that if you wanted 30mpg and a smaller, non sporty car you did not do your homework in buying a CX7 to begin with. Its like saying our Geo is better because it gets 50mpg. But the two vehicles are not in any way comparible. One is for commuting, min features, max mpg. The other is a near sports car in SUV clothing with good power and great brakes and handling.
Power comes at a price. You want power you will sacrifice mpg. Especially if the operator insists on punching said gas pedal and causing the turbo to boost the engine. Not even my wife who has a heavy foot has gotten anywhere near 12mpg. High boost to get high power requires 91+ octane to prevent destructive detonation. Again if you did not want to pay for 91 octane why did you buy a CX7?
If you wanted something that was just a basic transport vehicle with better mileage then sstlaure's comment that your original choice to buy the CX7 was wrong is correct. You did not buy the car you actually needed. The fit has 16 less cubic feet of space (4' X 4' ). That is quite a bit less space. If you did not require the additional space again why did you buy a bigger car than needed?
Again it appears you needed a car that is tolerant of your way of operating. Which would take the cheapest gas. That has no engine so even if floored the gas milage will not suffer to much. Gas caps tolerant of being put on wrong. A fixed place to put coins that you cannot knock over etc... Nearly 9 sec 0-60... is okay with your needs. Again why buy a 243 hp car if a car with less getup than a Geo Metro is okay with you?
One hopes the Honda Fit is a better fit for you.
While the CX7 is not a perfect car. It was obviously not what you needed.
If you buy a 2 seat sports car when you needed a pickup truck is it the sports cars failure?
While not that extreme in your case you are replacing it with a car that fits an entirely different market niche. The Fit is a way smaller econ box vehicle. Not a Sports SUV.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
RE: Unhappy with my CX-7
I just bought my wife a 07. Just barly has 2000 miles on it. We love it. I love the power it has. We took it on a trip and it got better gas mileage then the mpv we have. In the first couple of hundred miles the CEL came on and the dealer said to check the gas cap but when we brought it to get checked out cause it didnt go out they said it threw out a bunch of false codes and they cleared it. That was before our trip and it hasnt came back on since. Only gripe i have is the high dollar gas i have to put in it but i feel it makes it up in mileage and that she had to get one with black interor which gets hot on a sunny day lol
Thread Starter
|
Junior Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
RE: Unhappy with my CX-7
First of all, I must apologize because as of this morning, with just 1900 miles on the car, it went in for another "check engine light" problem. One more and the lemon law comes into play.
As for the author of the following idiotic, egocentric and especially ignorant AND ANNOYING poster, please read my comments in blue:
Unlike you I did my research BEFORE I BOUGHT the CX7. I did extensive research about the care reading at least 30 reviews and articles.
Mine had the orginal cap on it. The new one is a new color hence real easy to check. The design caused the CEL to trip if the cap was not tightly screwed down (hence you the user). Even a little loose will cause the CEL to come on. I had the "defective cap" but as I always put it on right I never had any CEL lights coming on in 3,000 miles when the dealer replaced it while doing my door seal TSB as a preventative measure without a request to do so from me. Many like me had no problems but it was not tolerent of operator errors. While one would agree it should be more tolerant of users, calling it defective is an overstatement.A GAS CAP IS DEFECTIVE IF THE DESIGN DOES NOT ALLOW IT TO EASILY AND PROPERLYSEAL LIKE IT DOES IN 99% OF THE HUNDREDS OF MILLION CARS ON THE ROAD. WHY WOULD THEY HAVE PRODUCED REPLACEMENT CAPS IF THE ORIGINAL ONES WERE NOTDEFECTIVE? VIRTUALLY ALL NEW CAPS ARE EASY SEALING.if it leaked gas, or broke I would call it defective. Not when it just does not allow you to poorly attach it to the car.
The little holder in the console in will stay put if placed in there correctly. ABSOLUTELY NOT, UNLESS YOU ARE PUTTING FEATHERS IN IT. IT IS AN INFERIOR DESIGN. Again 10,000 miles and mine never just falls out. I you did not like it there just take it out. Again, they could have made the channel deeper to again make it more tolerant of users banging it. EXACTLY MY POINT
I think the wrong car comment is that if you wanted 30mpg and a smaller, non sporty car you did not do your homework in buying a CX7 to begin with.MY HOMEWORK TOLD ME THAT THE CX-7 IS RATED AT 19 MPG CITY AND 24 HIGHWAYIts like saying our Geo is better because it gets 50mpg. YOU ARE THE ONE IMPLYING THAT BETTER MILEAGE IS AN INDICATION OF BETTER QUALITYBut the two vehicles are not in any way comparible.REALLY? THEY ARE VERY COMPARABLE, WHILE THE OUTSIDE OF THE HONDA FIT IS CLEARLY MUCH SMALLER, THE INSIDE IS NOT THAT MUCH SMALLER. DOYOUR HOMEWORK AND READ THE SPECS FOR HEADROOM ANDLEGROOM.One is for commuting, min features, max mpgHONDA FIT IS AVAILABLE WITH LOTS OF BELLS AND WHISTLES, HANDLES VERY WELL AND HAS 2/3 THE CUBIC FEET OF CARGO SPACE THAT THE CX-7 DOES AND I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM TAKING IT ON LONG TRIPS. The other is a near sports car in SUV clothing with good power and great brakes and handling. WHILE THE HONDA'S ACCELERATION SPECS ARE CLEARLY SLOWER THAN THE CX-7, BOTH ITS 0-60 TIME AND ITS 1/4 MILE TIMES ARE FASTER THAN THE ORIGINAL BASE V-8 MUSTANGS.
Power comes at a price. You want power you will sacrifice mpg. MY 1995 BMW 530I V-8 AVERAGED 17 MPG IN THE CITY AND 25 ON THE HIGHWAY AND WAS MUCH QUICKER AND FASTER THAN THE CX-7 THOUGH 200 POUNDS LIGHTER. Especially if the operator insists on punching said gas pedal and causing the turbo to boost the engine. Not even my wife who has a heavy foot has gotten anywhere near 12mpg. High boost to get high power requires 91+ octane to prevent destructive detonation. Again if you did not want to pay for 91 octane why did you buy a CX7?MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE VARYING OCTANE LEVELS WITH VEHICLES REQUIRING HIGHER OCTANE GAS IS THAT THE INCREASE IN GAS MILEAGE FROM THE HIGHER OCTANE GAS MADE UP THE COST DIFFERENCE. THE PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCE IS NEGLIGABLE.
If you wanted something that was just a basic transport AND WHAT WERE YOU SMOKING WHEN YOU MADE THAT ASSUMPTION? IS IT THAT THE SMALLER THE CAR, THE MORE BASIC ITS TRANSPORTATION? SO, A SMALL CAR WITH AUTO TRANS, CLIMATE CONTROL AND A HOST OF COMFORT AND PERFORMANCE FEATURE IS BASIC? HELLOvehicle with better mileage then sstlaure's comment that your original choice to buy the CX7 was wrong is correct. You did not buy the car you actually needed. The fit has 16 less cubic feet of space (4' X 4' ). That is quite a bit less space.IS IT? IT'S NOT IF I WOULDN'T NEED IT.If you did not require the additional space again why did you buy a bigger car than needed? I LIKE THE WAY IT DRIVES
Again it appears you needed a car that is tolerant of your way of operating. Which would take the cheapest gas.IT'S NOT THEPRICE OF THE GAS THAT COUNTS IT'S HOW MUCH YOUUSE....That has no engine so even if floored the gas milage will not suffer to much. Gas caps tolerant of being put on wrong.DON'T YOU YET SEE HOW FOOLISH YOU SOUND BRINGING UP THE GAS CAP AGAIN? THEY REPLACED THE GAS CAPS WITH REDESIGNED ONES BECAUSE THEYWERE DEFECTIVE OR POORLY DESIGNED. IS THERE ANY OTHER REASON THATTHEY WOULD DOTHAT? I'VE HAD 21 CARS AND HAVE NEVER, EVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH GAS CAPS. A fixed place to put coins that you cannot knock over etc... Nearly 9 sec 0-60... is okay with your needs. Again why buy a 243 hp car if a car with less getup than a Geo Metro is okay with you? I BOUGHT A CAR WITH 244 HORSEPOWER
One hopes the Honda Fit is a better fit for you.
While the CX7 is not a perfect car. It was obviously not what you needed.
If you buy a 2 seat sports car when you needed a pickup truck is it the sports cars failure? MAYBE GET A CLERGYPERSON TO HOLD YOUR HAND AND TELL YOU THAT I AM UNHAPPY WITH THIS CAR BECAUSE OF ITS INFERIOR QUALITY AND DESIGN OF COMPONENTS AND UNHAPPY WITH THE POOR GAS MILEAGE.
While not that extreme in your case you are replacing it with a car that fits an entirely different market niche. The Fit is a way smaller econ box vehicle. Not a Sports SUV. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR REMINDING ME AND WHO CARES WHAT MARKET NICHE IT WAS MADE FOR. DO YOU BUY PRODUCTS BASED ON THE NICHE TO WHICH IT IS MARKETED OR BASED ON YOUR NEEDS?
As for the author of the following idiotic, egocentric and especially ignorant AND ANNOYING poster, please read my comments in blue:
Unlike you I did my research BEFORE I BOUGHT the CX7.
I did extensive research about the care reading at least 30 reviews and articles.Mine had the orginal cap on it. The new one is a new color hence real easy to check. The design caused the CEL to trip if the cap was not tightly screwed down (hence you the user). Even a little loose will cause the CEL to come on. I had the "defective cap" but as I always put it on right I never had any CEL lights coming on in 3,000 miles when the dealer replaced it while doing my door seal TSB as a preventative measure without a request to do so from me. Many like me had no problems but it was not tolerent of operator errors. While one would agree it should be more tolerant of users, calling it defective is an overstatement.A GAS CAP IS DEFECTIVE IF THE DESIGN DOES NOT ALLOW IT TO EASILY AND PROPERLYSEAL LIKE IT DOES IN 99% OF THE HUNDREDS OF MILLION CARS ON THE ROAD. WHY WOULD THEY HAVE PRODUCED REPLACEMENT CAPS IF THE ORIGINAL ONES WERE NOTDEFECTIVE? VIRTUALLY ALL NEW CAPS ARE EASY SEALING.if it leaked gas, or broke I would call it defective. Not when it just does not allow you to poorly attach it to the car.
The little holder in the console in will stay put if placed in there correctly. ABSOLUTELY NOT, UNLESS YOU ARE PUTTING FEATHERS IN IT. IT IS AN INFERIOR DESIGN. Again 10,000 miles and mine never just falls out. I you did not like it there just take it out. Again, they could have made the channel deeper to again make it more tolerant of users banging it. EXACTLY MY POINT
I think the wrong car comment is that if you wanted 30mpg and a smaller, non sporty car you did not do your homework in buying a CX7 to begin with.MY HOMEWORK TOLD ME THAT THE CX-7 IS RATED AT 19 MPG CITY AND 24 HIGHWAYIts like saying our Geo is better because it gets 50mpg. YOU ARE THE ONE IMPLYING THAT BETTER MILEAGE IS AN INDICATION OF BETTER QUALITYBut the two vehicles are not in any way comparible.REALLY? THEY ARE VERY COMPARABLE, WHILE THE OUTSIDE OF THE HONDA FIT IS CLEARLY MUCH SMALLER, THE INSIDE IS NOT THAT MUCH SMALLER. DOYOUR HOMEWORK AND READ THE SPECS FOR HEADROOM ANDLEGROOM.One is for commuting, min features, max mpgHONDA FIT IS AVAILABLE WITH LOTS OF BELLS AND WHISTLES, HANDLES VERY WELL AND HAS 2/3 THE CUBIC FEET OF CARGO SPACE THAT THE CX-7 DOES AND I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM TAKING IT ON LONG TRIPS. The other is a near sports car in SUV clothing with good power and great brakes and handling. WHILE THE HONDA'S ACCELERATION SPECS ARE CLEARLY SLOWER THAN THE CX-7, BOTH ITS 0-60 TIME AND ITS 1/4 MILE TIMES ARE FASTER THAN THE ORIGINAL BASE V-8 MUSTANGS.
Power comes at a price. You want power you will sacrifice mpg. MY 1995 BMW 530I V-8 AVERAGED 17 MPG IN THE CITY AND 25 ON THE HIGHWAY AND WAS MUCH QUICKER AND FASTER THAN THE CX-7 THOUGH 200 POUNDS LIGHTER. Especially if the operator insists on punching said gas pedal and causing the turbo to boost the engine. Not even my wife who has a heavy foot has gotten anywhere near 12mpg. High boost to get high power requires 91+ octane to prevent destructive detonation. Again if you did not want to pay for 91 octane why did you buy a CX7?MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE VARYING OCTANE LEVELS WITH VEHICLES REQUIRING HIGHER OCTANE GAS IS THAT THE INCREASE IN GAS MILEAGE FROM THE HIGHER OCTANE GAS MADE UP THE COST DIFFERENCE. THE PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCE IS NEGLIGABLE.
If you wanted something that was just a basic transport AND WHAT WERE YOU SMOKING WHEN YOU MADE THAT ASSUMPTION? IS IT THAT THE SMALLER THE CAR, THE MORE BASIC ITS TRANSPORTATION? SO, A SMALL CAR WITH AUTO TRANS, CLIMATE CONTROL AND A HOST OF COMFORT AND PERFORMANCE FEATURE IS BASIC? HELLOvehicle with better mileage then sstlaure's comment that your original choice to buy the CX7 was wrong is correct. You did not buy the car you actually needed. The fit has 16 less cubic feet of space (4' X 4' ). That is quite a bit less space.IS IT? IT'S NOT IF I WOULDN'T NEED IT.If you did not require the additional space again why did you buy a bigger car than needed? I LIKE THE WAY IT DRIVES
Again it appears you needed a car that is tolerant of your way of operating. Which would take the cheapest gas.IT'S NOT THEPRICE OF THE GAS THAT COUNTS IT'S HOW MUCH YOUUSE....That has no engine so even if floored the gas milage will not suffer to much. Gas caps tolerant of being put on wrong.DON'T YOU YET SEE HOW FOOLISH YOU SOUND BRINGING UP THE GAS CAP AGAIN? THEY REPLACED THE GAS CAPS WITH REDESIGNED ONES BECAUSE THEYWERE DEFECTIVE OR POORLY DESIGNED. IS THERE ANY OTHER REASON THATTHEY WOULD DOTHAT? I'VE HAD 21 CARS AND HAVE NEVER, EVER HAD A PROBLEM WITH GAS CAPS. A fixed place to put coins that you cannot knock over etc... Nearly 9 sec 0-60... is okay with your needs. Again why buy a 243 hp car if a car with less getup than a Geo Metro is okay with you? I BOUGHT A CAR WITH 244 HORSEPOWER
One hopes the Honda Fit is a better fit for you.
While the CX7 is not a perfect car. It was obviously not what you needed.
If you buy a 2 seat sports car when you needed a pickup truck is it the sports cars failure? MAYBE GET A CLERGYPERSON TO HOLD YOUR HAND AND TELL YOU THAT I AM UNHAPPY WITH THIS CAR BECAUSE OF ITS INFERIOR QUALITY AND DESIGN OF COMPONENTS AND UNHAPPY WITH THE POOR GAS MILEAGE.
While not that extreme in your case you are replacing it with a car that fits an entirely different market niche. The Fit is a way smaller econ box vehicle. Not a Sports SUV. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR REMINDING ME AND WHO CARES WHAT MARKET NICHE IT WAS MADE FOR. DO YOU BUY PRODUCTS BASED ON THE NICHE TO WHICH IT IS MARKETED OR BASED ON YOUR NEEDS?
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Unhappy with my CX-7
First of all, I must apologize because as of this morning, with just 1900 miles on the car, it went in for another "check engine light" problem. One more and the lemon law comes into play.
I did extensive research about the care reading at least 30 reviews and articles.
You needed to go to a number of CX7 Forums and browse the Problems/Troubles postings and ask questions of owners before you buy. If you had any concerns questions that is the time and place to post them. But your first post here was to scream how you hate your CX7 and are getting rid of it. Besides venting, that helped you how?
Oh looky we can yell on the internet... [sm=insomnia.gif] Real mature...
A GAS CAP IS DEFECTIVE IF THE DESIGN DOES NOT ALLOW IT TO EASILY AND PROPERLYSEAL LIKE IT DOES IN 99% OF THE HUNDREDS OF MILLION CARS ON THE ROAD. WHY WOULD THEY HAVE PRODUCED REPLACEMENT CAPS IF THE ORIGINAL ONES WERE NOTDEFECTIVE? VIRTUALLY ALL NEW CAPS ARE EASY SEALING.
I can say that I had 0 percent problems with CEL. With the old cap. That only proves that the cap is not defective. Defective implys if fails to function as designed for the purpose it was designed for when installed as required. The old design required a tight seal. If you didn't do that you caused the CEL to come on. But if you did, as in my case it never went on. So it is not defective. It may be an intolerant design but as it never failed when installed as required it was not defective. Did they address this problem? Yes go get the new cap and get over it. Mazda listened and produced a new cap, one more tolerant of being put on looser.
The little holder in the console in will stay put if placed in there correctly. ABSOLUTELY NOT, UNLESS YOU ARE PUTTING FEATHERS IN IT. IT IS AN INFERIOR DESIGN. Again 10,000 miles and mine never just falls out. I you did not like it there just take it out. Again, they could have made the channel deeper to again make it more tolerant of users banging it. EXACTLY MY POINT
MY HOMEWORK TOLD ME THAT THE CX-7 IS RATED AT 19 MPG CITY AND 24 HIGHWAYIts like saying our Geo is better because it gets 50mpg. YOU ARE THE ONE IMPLYING THAT BETTER MILEAGE IS AN INDICATION OF BETTER QUALITY
So my CX is getting 91.67% of the EPA highway mileage and 94.44% of the EPA city mileage. It is not an economy car. Would I be happier if it got better mileage, sure who wouldn't. I just did not expect it.
Your Fit is rated 39/33. Is your actual within 1 or 2 mpg of that EPA?
The fit has no turbo. So stomping around on the gas does not have the same affect on mileage doing so in the CX does. The CX will go way rich anytime you are at WOT and the turbo boosting it just magnifys this. So unless you need it a light foot is what is required. But on your Fit has very little effect. Just like my Geo. I can stomp it all day and it will drop to 39 in town and 41 on the highway.
But the two vehicles are not in any way comparible.REALLY? THEY ARE VERY COMPARABLE, WHILE THE OUTSIDE OF THE HONDA FIT IS CLEARLY MUCH SMALLER, THE INSIDE IS NOT THAT MUCH SMALLER. DOYOUR HOMEWORK AND READ THE SPECS FOR HEADROOM ANDLEGROOM.One is for commuting, min features, max mpgHONDA FIT IS AVAILABLE WITH LOTS OF BELLS AND WHISTLES, HANDLES VERY WELL AND HAS 2/3 THE CUBIC FEET OF CARGO SPACE THAT THE CX-7 DOES AND I WOULD HAVE NO PROBLEM TAKING IT ON LONG TRIPS. The other is a near sports car in SUV clothing with good power and great brakes and handling. WHILE THE HONDA'S ACCELERATION SPECS ARE CLEARLY SLOWER THAN THE CX-7, BOTH ITS 0-60 TIME AND ITS 1/4 MILE TIMES ARE FASTER THAN THE ORIGINAL BASE V-8 MUSTANGS.
You buy the CX because of they way it looks and drives. Not for mileage and maximum seating or internal volume.
The Fit is an econo box designed for maximizing internal space while minimizing the power required to move it.
Power comes at a price. You want power you will sacrifice mpg. MY 1995 BMW 530I V-8 AVERAGED 17 MPG IN THE CITY AND 25 ON THE HIGHWAY AND WAS MUCH QUICKER AND FASTER THAN THE CX-7 THOUGH 200 POUNDS LIGHTER. Especially if the operator insists on punching said gas pedal and causing the turbo to boost the engine. Not even my wife who has a heavy foot has gotten anywhere near 12mpg.
[quote]
High boost to get high power requires 91+ octane to prevent destructive detonation. Again if you did not want to pay for 91 octane why did you buy a CX7?[color="#0000ff"]MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE VARYING OCTANE LEVELS WITH VEHICLES REQUIRING HIGHER OCTANE GAS IS THAT THE INCREASE IN GAS MILEAGE FROM THE HIGHER OCTANE GAS MADE UP THE COST DIFFERENCE. THE PERFORMANCE DIFFERENCE IS NEGLIGABLE.
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Unhappy with my CX-7
my friend just got one of the suv's and that thing has some power...
i dunno about this hole gas cap but i do know that u need to put 93 in
IT'S A TURBO i mean come on u would give your turbo some **** gas??????
ya got to put that in also he has not had any lights come on and he has like 1100 on his.
also the mpg he has had good miles with his and he is a driver and he drives alot he his car is on like for 7 or 8 hours some time and he still drives all over if we go to bars but he loves it and i even was like happy when i drove it and i really love cars not suv'sbut thats my input
i dunno about this hole gas cap but i do know that u need to put 93 in
IT'S A TURBO i mean come on u would give your turbo some **** gas??????
ya got to put that in also he has not had any lights come on and he has like 1100 on his.
also the mpg he has had good miles with his and he is a driver and he drives alot he his car is on like for 7 or 8 hours some time and he still drives all over if we go to bars but he loves it and i even was like happy when i drove it and i really love cars not suv'sbut thats my input
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
From:
RE: Unhappy with my CX-7
Sorry about your cx-7
I have about 11000 miles on my cx7 mostly highway and get 24/25 mpg no problem but you have to use the 91/92 octane and do not use the ethanol blend. The 10% ethanol drops my mileage down to 20.5 or 21 mpg so it is worth the extra dime to buy the good stuff.
I have about 11000 miles on my cx7 mostly highway and get 24/25 mpg no problem but you have to use the 91/92 octane and do not use the ethanol blend. The 10% ethanol drops my mileage down to 20.5 or 21 mpg so it is worth the extra dime to buy the good stuff.
