Nissan
Murano vs Mazda CX7
- is the older truck worth so much more money?
Bosses at Mazda are describing the
CX-7 as a ‘sports crossover’, and it’s certainly sleeker than most 4x4 rivals.
There are hints of the maker’s racy RX-8 in the pronounced wheelarches, steeply
raked windscreen, narrow lights
and prominent grille, and overall the car has an upmarket feel.
That theme continues inside, with cowled instruments which, again, take inspiration
from the RX-8. Everything is smart
and well built, with ebony trim on the centre console and a three-spoke multifunction
steering wheel.
The driving position is comfortable, and the view forward excellent, although
a lack of reach adjustment on the column means
that tall drivers will find their legs brushing against the dashboard.
In the back, legroom is adequate, but there’s less space
than in the longer Murano. The transmission tunnel is bigger, too, and this
restricts the floor area for the middle seat occupant.
The Mazda’s 455-litre boot is 21 litres behind the Nissan’s, and with the
seats in place, the load space is 2mm shorter.
But that’s not to say it’s not versatile; as with its rival, a handy one-touch
seat folding mechanism makes lowering the rear chairs easy.
If you believe the marketing hype, what really sets the Mazda apart is its
driving experience.
Once you’re on the move, the 4x4 doesn’t disappoint. It immediately feels
much more involving and alive than most SUVs.
The ride is firm, but the damping does a good job of absorbing bumps, while
excellent body control means the car is solid
and sure-footed in corners. The steering offers plenty of feedback, too.
In fact, it’s only the raised view of the road ahead which reminds you that
the Mazda isn’t an ordinary sedan.
Stability at speed is very reassuring, and there’s no suspension dive under
heavy braking.
The six-speed manual transmission, meanwhile, is slick and precise. Mazda’s
four-wheel-drive system automatically shifts
power between the front and rear axles, so traction is never compromised.
In normal driving conditions, up to 90 per cent of
drive is through the front wheels.
Mazda is keen to stress that the newcomer is not designed for off-road use
– there is no low-ratio transfer box or locking differential.
As a result, the firm has managed to get around the dynamic compromises that
some class competitors have been saddled with in
an effort to offer genuine mud-plugging ability.
Performance is also a strong point. The 2.3-litre four-cylinder engine generates
a surge of acceleration when the turbo kicks in at
around 2,500rpm, and the 7.9-second 0-60mph time is a full second ahead of
the Nissan’s. However, this performance means
economy isn’t a strong point. But with a manual gearbox, lighter kerbweight
and a more efficient engine, the CX-7 should have
better fuel returns than the Murano.
The Mazda is refined, too. While the unit isn’t as tuneful as the V6 Nissan’s,
even at high revs it doesn’t become strained,
while both road and engine noise are suppressed at speed.
At C$35,000, the CX-7 costs more than C$13,000 less than the Murano, and
gets heated leather seats, cruise control, parking
and rain sensors, xenon lights and climate control all as standard.
ECONOMY
Our test route didn’t allow enough driving to get a realistic average for
the CX-7.
Yet the official combined figure of 27.7mpg is 4.7mpg better than the Nissan’s.
RESIDUALS
Predictions for the CX-7 have yet to be released, and with no other SUVs
in the range, it’s hard to know how it will fare.
Mazda is hoping for similar figures to the RX-8 – it holds 43 per cent of
its value.
VERDICT
Sharp handling and decent body control, first-class cabin quality, punchy
and refined performance
Large transmission tunnel restricts rear legroom, no steering wheel telescope
adjustment
Not many car firms have a 4x4
line-up to match Nissan’s. Its offerings range from the compact X-Trail to
the chunky Pathfinder
As with the CX-7, the Murano is marketed as a crossover vehicle that bridges
the gap between a conventional car and an SUV.
The Nissan’s adventurous styling is starting to look dated – and it’s a
similar story inside
And the styling reflects this; it looks very different from Nissan’s other
off-road models. Minimal overhangs, angled headlights
and a chrome grille give it an athletic appearance, while the upswept D-pillars
help to disguise the car’s large dimensions.
But the Nissan’s adventurous styling is starting to look a little dated –
and it’s a similar story inside, where the cabin isn’t as
fresh and modern as the CX-7’s.
It’s still relatively upmarket, and the design is quite bold – the three-pod
instrument binnacle has orange dials, while the
high-mounted colour sat-nav screen comes with a bank of controls mounted
flat in front of it. Yet the materials don’t feel or
look as good as those in the Mazda, and as with its opponent here, the steering
wheel doesn’t adjust for reach.
The driving position is comfortable, however, while in the back, the Nissan
certainly has the upper hand.
Passengers are better catered for than in the Mazda, thanks to the flatter
transmission tunnel and greater legroom,
while the trunk has a generous 476-litre capacity.
The rear seats fold in one move to make a completely flat load area, and
overall there isn’t much to choose between these
two cars when it comes to practicality.
From behind the wheel, the differences are far more obvious, though. The
Nissan tips the scales at 1,865kg – that’s 170kg
more than the Mazda – and this blunts performance. The Murano’s nose-heavy
nature means it doesn’t turn into corners with
the same precision as the CX-7.
Grip is adequate, but there’s more body roll, and the chassis is never as
composed.
Steering feedback is also vague in comparison, and while the suspension has
a softer set-up than the CX-7, the ride is far from
perfect. On smooth surfaces it’s more comfortable than the sporty Mazda,
but over imperfections, the dampers fail to control the
suspension movement, and bumps are sent crashing through the cabin.
So the Nissan can’t match the Mazda for handling, although it’s worth noting
that when judged against the majority of off-roaders,
the Murano is more than capable on asphalt. It’s just that the CX-7’s dynamics
are so car-like that the Nissan comes across as a
hefty 4x4 in comparison.
The CVT gearbox also feels lethargic compared to the manual Mazda. However,
the auto makes town driving more relaxing,
while a responsive throttle means it delivers optimum torque when needed.
While the Murano’s 3.5-litre V6 is smooth, it isn’t very efficient. It delivers
231bhp – 25bhp less than the Mazda – and torque is
also down on its rival, so the Nissan is slower than the CX-7 from 0-60mph,
at 8.9 seconds.
Fuel economy and emissions also take a hit, thanks to the CVT. Our noise figures
show it is more refined, though.
Neither of these cars returns good economy, but the Nissan will be the costlier
at the pumps.
And with a price tag that’s C$13,000 higher than its rival’s, it’s expensive
to buy, too.
ECONOMY
With a V6 engine and CVT gearbox, the Murano isn’t going to be an economical
car.
We averaged 21.4mpg, which at least is close to the 23.0mpg combined figure.
RESIDUALS
The Nissan is worth 49.4 per cent of its value after three years.
VERDICT
More legroom and slightly larger trunk than in CX-7, standard colour sat-nav,
bold, sporting dash pod borrowed from 350Z
Adventurous styling starting to date, cabin materials lose out in quality
to rival here, nose-heavy handling and vague steering
feedback in comparison
