Appearance: I drove the CX-7 at a Subi/Mazda dealer. I was surprised at how small the CX-7 was - it happened to be parked next to a FXT. The FXT is a few inches taller and a couple of inches narrower. The interior space of the FXT is also greater in all areas, especially cargo.

Amenities: Can be had nicely equipped with NAV, leather, etc., but the quality of the materials is not great - a cut above Subaru, but this is no Infiniti FX. It is perhaps on a par with the Murano. Fit and finish seemed very good.

Driving:

Position: The windshield is steeply raked, which makes it seem like the car has a very long nose. Visibility overall is good, but 11 o-clock and 2 o-clock are hampered by the A-pillar and some useless little triangular windows way forward.

Engine: No life until 3-4K, when the turbo spools. The 6-speed is good at giving you torque when you need it by selecting the proper gear, but the power is overall unimpressive. It is more powerful than a 2.5NA Outback, but not as powerful as the Tribeca. A good comparison might be - the CX-7 is to the FXT as the 2.0 Bugeye WRX is to the STi.

Handling: Corners very flat for an SUV, but has a good deal of nosedive when braking, especially suddenly. Cornering grip seemed quite good, and broke away relatively evenly with a throttle lift mid-corner.

Overall: Handling is better than the new RAV4 and perhaps better than the FXT. I believe real-world mileage will be approx 20-21, based on the need for revs to drive "normally". It turns approx 2500 RPM @ 75 MPH and does so more quietly than the FXT and the RAV4. However, even given the handling, better amenities and better fit and finish, I would not choose this over an FXT or V6 RAV4, due mostly to the interior space and lackluster power. As well, in my opinion, it has no chance against any upmarket competitors like the Infiniti FX or Murano in terms of the overall package.

Cliffnotes: CX-7, meh.

Flame away!

First, it's not meant to compete against the FX, since you've mentioned it a couple of times. I'm also guessing you tested a FWD instead of the AWD (which get's more praise from critics), and I don't believe it's ready for dealers yet.

OTOH, thanks for sharing your experience :)

What is your opinon of the FXT vs V6 RAV4?

BigElm - I tested a Grand Touring AWD at Diablo Mazda/Subi today in Walnut Creek, CA.

NYCShopper - FXT vs. V6 RAV4 - very different - if I was to keep the FXT stock and could live with the poor visibility in the RAV4, RAV4 all the way. More room, better gas mileage, and easier to drive fast than the FXT (faster unless racing).

I just drove a CX-7 last weekend, so I'll throw my $.02 in.

CX-7 vs. FXT size: according to the specs, the FXT is 0.2" taller, but the CX-7 is 5.5" wider and 7.5" longer, so it's bigger (on the outside), but not as tall... it's kind of deceptive looking, i think. Personally I think it *looks* bigger than an FXT. Inside, I think the FXT has the edge in cargo room, and the CX-7 has the edge in passenger room. I especially think the back seat in the CX-7 is much more comfortable than the backseat in the FXT.

Quality of materials: Agreed. Good, but not great. Definitely good for an SUV that starts at $24k and change, IMO.

Visibility: Better than i expected... with fairly small rear windows, and the upsloping beltline, I thought rear visibility would be awful, but it's better than the murano that I've test driven. Front visibility wasn't bad, i wasn't bothered by the weird A-pillars.

Engine: Decent power, but not as powerful as the FXT, although that's probably due to the short-ish gearing in the FXT and the extra weight in the CX-7. I thought the throttle tip-in was a little overly boosted... they need to back that off a little so you can start more smoothly if you're not starting up quickly. Overall, I'd say it's powerful enough for this type of vehicle... I don't need my SUV's to be racecars, but a litlte sporty doesn't hurt.

Handling: Definitely one of the strong points. Firm but not overly harsh ride, barely any body roll. Felt very good, but I didn't push it *too* hard.

Overall: I think this is a very nice overall package, but there wasn't anything about it that grabbed and said "damn, you gotta get one of these." I haven't driven the new rav4, only sat in it at the auto show, but that just didn't excite me at all. As for a comparison with the FXT, i think the FXT has more cargo room, and a more square cargo area which can hold more. I think the CX-7 has a more comfortable cabin for passengers, especially in the back seat. I think the FXT is quicker, but I agree that the CX-7 felt more nimble. I think anyone looking for a vehicle like this should definitely check it out.

Cliffnotes: I liked it a lot... didn't love it.

Edited to add: I definitely don't think they seriously want to compete with the Murano, much less the FX. The CX-7 tops out at $32k sticker, fully loaded. A Murano, similarly loaded up with goodies is like $38k, IIRC. And an FX is well into the $40k's. This is definitely meant to be a sportier alternative to the more pedestrian SUV's like the RAV4, Escape, etc..., IMO.