Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Luvalive

CX7 / RAV4 / Murano / CRV

CX7 / RAV4 / Murano / CRV  

63 members have voted

  1. 1. Which one would you pick?

    • 2007 Mazda CX-7 2.3 Turbo with Sunroof
      13
    • 2008 Nissan Murano 2.5 with Sunroof
      21
    • 2007 Toyota RAV4 2.4 with Sunroof
      9
    • 2007 Honda CRV 2.4 with Sunroof
      20


Recommended Posts

murano is 4speed and 2.5L 4cylinder.

↡ Advertisement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

murano is 4speed and 2.5L 4cylinder.

 

 

Thanks for correcting me [nod]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test drove all those you've shortlisted. I ended up with the CX7 from 2007 to 2010. Best looking of all, even until now. Good interior quality, great Bose sound system, Best handling of all. Till today, I still miss enjoying the ride.

 

Any problems with the turbo? zero. Turbo charged technology has advanced so much since the millennium year. Look at now, all models from Merc, Bmw, Audi, Volvo, Volkswagen, Citroen (turbo diesel), Peugeot (turbo Diesel) are turbo charged. For day to day drive, it won't give much more problem than non turbo cars. You get power on demand (235BHP, 350NM) as and when you need to overtake, you pay 2.3l road tax for the power of about 3.5l non turbo engine power. Still pay lower than 2.5l Murano (170BHP, 245NM).

 

For the benefit of those who are still in the big CC more power era, it is no longer applicable. It is now about horsepower, pulling power (torque), no. of gears (CX7 being the only 6 gears of the 4) last but not least power to weight ratio.

 

There is really not a huge difference in terms of fuel consumption. I'll tell you why below.

 

I get 7.4km per litre for my CX7. 60% city, 40% highway. Mostly kept within 2000rpm rev range, of course with occasional mid to high rev for fun and overtaking slower cars like Murano, CRV and RAV4 [:p]

 

After I sold off my CX7 due to the need for MPV, I got a new Honda Odyssey 2.4l (180BHP, 215NM) for 2 years. Guess what, my consumption is 7.8km per litre. Only 0.4km per litre difference. The weight of CX7 is slightly heavier than Odyssey. FYI, the Odyssey has the same 2.4l engine as CRV and weighs also about 1.7 tonne.

 

When COE when up, I sold off the Odyssey and bought a 2nd hand Nissan Presage 2.5l which is almost identical to Murano's weight and power. I got 7.6km per litre. Why? I guess due to lack of power, it takes more fuel to get up to cruising speed, 4 gears makes it worst as it's harder to keep the rev in the most optimal and efficient range.

 

And now I'm driving a Volkswagen MPV with 2.0l TSI Turbo engine. Not as fun as CX7 but close to it. Consumption wise, 8km per litre.

 

I can only say if you are able to get 8.5km/l for CRV and RAV4, you're consider the minority. For Murano, fat hope will you get 8.5km/l. You must remember all the mentioned models are damn heavy, what are you expecting right?

 

You may think I'm bias but that's my past decision on the CX7 and afterward experiences on other similar weighing cars with and without turbo charged.

  • Praise 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Had the chance to drive both the CRV & Murano (rental cars) in the past.

 

CRV seems to be the softer of both vehicles. Somehow the design feels weird to me cos of the double grille.

 

Murano seems to be more fiercer and better looking of both vehicles, looks much bigger in size and better pick-up(2.5L)

 

If i were you, i would prolly take the Murano, given the ruggedness & looks of the car.

 

CRV does not feel solid enough IMHO.

 

Hope this helps. [drivingcar]

 

murano is like a jacked up latio sport.

  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello everyone,

 

I'm currently driving a Nov '05 Optra and wishes to upgrade to a SUV.

 

I have done my sums and have shortlisted these 4 '07/08 models:

  • 2007 Mazda CX-7 2.3 Turbo with Sunroof
  • 2008 Nissan Murano 2.5 with Sunroof
  • 2007 Toyota RAV4 2.4 with Sunroof
  • 2007 Honda CRV 2.4 with Sunroof

Please give me your honest feedback as to which model I should pick. As I am looking at about 7 year old rides, I am more concerned about their reliability.

 

Fuel economy is less of a concern for me as my fuel bills are paid for by the company that I am working for.

 

My brain tells me to go with RAV4 or CRV, but my heart prefers Murano and the CX7 for their added amenities.

 

Thank you in advance for your kind advice! (:

5 months ago, my ride was rav4, now still driving a Toyota. miss my rav4.

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

murano is like a jacked up latio sport.

 

 

murano looks more pimped than crv. Dun you think so?

 

which would u choose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test drove all those you've shortlisted. I ended up with the CX7 from 2007 to 2010. Best looking of all, even until now. Good interior quality, great Bose sound system, Best handling of all. Till today, I still miss enjoying the ride.

 

Any problems with the turbo? zero. Turbo charged technology has advanced so much since the millennium year. Look at now, all models from Merc, Bmw, Audi, Volvo, Volkswagen, Citroen (turbo diesel), Peugeot (turbo Diesel) are turbo charged. For day to day drive, it won't give much more problem than non turbo cars. You get power on demand (235BHP, 350NM) as and when you need to overtake, you pay 2.3l road tax for the power of about 3.5l non turbo engine power. Still pay lower than 2.5l Murano (170BHP, 245NM).

 

For the benefit of those who are still in the big CC more power era, it is no longer applicable. It is now about horsepower, pulling power (torque), no. of gears (CX7 being the only 6 gears of the 4) last but not least power to weight ratio.

 

There is really not a huge difference in terms of fuel consumption. I'll tell you why below.

 

I get 7.4km per litre for my CX7. 60% city, 40% highway. Mostly kept within 2000rpm rev range, of course with occasional mid to high rev for fun and overtaking slower cars like Murano, CRV and RAV4 [:p]

 

After I sold off my CX7 due to the need for MPV, I got a new Honda Odyssey 2.4l (180BHP, 215NM) for 2 years. Guess what, my consumption is 7.8km per litre. Only 0.4km per litre difference. The weight of CX7 is slightly heavier than Odyssey. FYI, the Odyssey has the same 2.4l engine as CRV and weighs also about 1.7 tonne.

 

When COE when up, I sold off the Odyssey and bought a 2nd hand Nissan Presage 2.5l which is almost identical to Murano's weight and power. I got 7.6km per litre. Why? I guess due to lack of power, it takes more fuel to get up to cruising speed, 4 gears makes it worst as it's harder to keep the rev in the most optimal and efficient range.

 

And now I'm driving a Volkswagen MPV with 2.0l TSI Turbo engine. Not as fun as CX7 but close to it. Consumption wise, 8km per litre.

 

I can only say if you are able to get 8.5km/l for CRV and RAV4, you're consider the minority. For Murano, fat hope will you get 8.5km/l. You must remember all the mentioned models are damn heavy, what are you expecting right?

 

You may think I'm bias but that's my past decision on the CX7 and afterward experiences on other similar weighing cars with and without turbo charged.

Used to own the CX7 too... loved it till now... made a little post in the thread "Budget Mid-Size SUV, please advise" some time ago, maybe TS should read that up, was reliable up until 120 - 140 k... that's when things started needing some replacing an repairs, kept it until about 240k.

 

But at 120 - 140 k i think most cars would start to need some looking into right?

 

Anyway it was a fun car and made heads turn whenever you drove by.

 

If you're thinking of getting a 5-7 year old SUV or any car for that matter, be prepared to fork out something unless its one of those thats been kept really well by a preferable first owner (knew a guy who owned a Corona for ten years with less than 50k mileage on it).

  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dep for a 7yr old murano 2.4 seems to be ard 12 to 13k.

 

Volvo s80 same age ard this too. Lol

Know what? I have always loved the Volvo S80, from the first generation since I was in secondary school till now!

 

The look is still very relevant to me and really does attracts me a huge load! (Except that my favourite car is now the XC60)

 

So what's holding me back is the supposedly prohibitive Scandinavian maintenance cost. As such, I would still prefer to stick to Japanese rides for now - at least their repair costs are more affordable for me.

Had the chance to drive both the CRV & Murano (rental cars) in the past.

 

CRV seems to be the softer of both vehicles. Somehow the design feels weird to me cos of the double grille.

 

Murano seems to be more fiercer and better looking of both vehicles, looks much bigger in size and better pick-up(2.5L)

 

If i were you, i would prolly take the Murano, given the ruggedness & looks of the car.

 

CRV does not feel solid enough IMHO.

 

Hope this helps. [drivingcar]

Thank you for your kind inputs! (:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Test drove all those you've shortlisted. I ended up with the CX7 from 2007 to 2010. Best looking of all, even until now. Good interior quality, great Bose sound system, Best handling of all. Till today, I still miss enjoying the ride.

 

Any problems with the turbo? zero. Turbo charged technology has advanced so much since the millennium year. Look at now, all models from Merc, Bmw, Audi, Volvo, Volkswagen, Citroen (turbo diesel), Peugeot (turbo Diesel) are turbo charged. For day to day drive, it won't give much more problem than non turbo cars. You get power on demand (235BHP, 350NM) as and when you need to overtake, you pay 2.3l road tax for the power of about 3.5l non turbo engine power. Still pay lower than 2.5l Murano (170BHP, 245NM).

 

For the benefit of those who are still in the big CC more power era, it is no longer applicable. It is now about horsepower, pulling power (torque), no. of gears (CX7 being the only 6 gears of the 4) last but not least power to weight ratio.

 

There is really not a huge difference in terms of fuel consumption. I'll tell you why below.

 

I get 7.4km per litre for my CX7. 60% city, 40% highway. Mostly kept within 2000rpm rev range, of course with occasional mid to high rev for fun and overtaking slower cars like Murano, CRV and RAV4 [:p]

 

After I sold off my CX7 due to the need for MPV, I got a new Honda Odyssey 2.4l (180BHP, 215NM) for 2 years. Guess what, my consumption is 7.8km per litre. Only 0.4km per litre difference. The weight of CX7 is slightly heavier than Odyssey. FYI, the Odyssey has the same 2.4l engine as CRV and weighs also about 1.7 tonne.

 

When COE when up, I sold off the Odyssey and bought a 2nd hand Nissan Presage 2.5l which is almost identical to Murano's weight and power. I got 7.6km per litre. Why? I guess due to lack of power, it takes more fuel to get up to cruising speed, 4 gears makes it worst as it's harder to keep the rev in the most optimal and efficient range.

 

And now I'm driving a Volkswagen MPV with 2.0l TSI Turbo engine. Not as fun as CX7 but close to it. Consumption wise, 8km per litre.

 

I can only say if you are able to get 8.5km/l for CRV and RAV4, you're consider the minority. For Murano, fat hope will you get 8.5km/l. You must remember all the mentioned models are damn heavy, what are you expecting right?

 

You may think I'm bias but that's my past decision on the CX7 and afterward experiences on other similar weighing cars with and without turbo charged.

Thank you for your honest review!

 

The main reason as to why I drop the CX7 from my consideration is the alarming 6km/l fuel efficiency that I will have to tahan once I take over the car. My current Optra gives me between 8 - 9km/l and I find this acceptable, although I can't help but to look enviously at my colleagues who are driving more efficient vehicles - like my colleague who averages 12km/l on his 1.8 Wish!

 

As I work in sales, my fuel bills are paid for by the company. However, I am not comfortable with any vehicles that falls below 8km/l. I think this would be my floor threshold of acceptance.

 

Although I have never yet been in the cabin of any CX7, I have come to believe that the ride is gonna be fun and I am going to love driving the CX7. Although "fun" in driving is a factor I value, I am also very concerned about reliability and the maintenance costs. I would prefer to be financially prudent and lose some fun factor yet get a better balance for drivability, reliability and the servicing costs.

 

As such, I believe the CX7 is not the car for me but I thank you once again for sharing your thoughts on the CX7.

 

As for the CRV, RAV4 and Murano, I visited some websites and read on random forums that the CRV and RAV4 can average 11km/l! That is an upgrade for me! As for the Murano, I am hoping it can at least give me 8km/l returns and I would be satisfied. :D

 

murano is like a jacked up latio sport.

Why would you say that? Is it the ride or the looks you are referring to?

 

I hope you are not referring to the sluggish acceleration of the Latio on the Murano! :o

5 months ago, my ride was rav4, now still driving a Toyota. miss my rav4.

I have driven the RAV4 before and I do like it too!

 

However, it seems to be not as popular among our forum friends here.

Used to own the CX7 too... loved it till now... made a little post in the thread "Budget Mid-Size SUV, please advise" some time ago, maybe TS should read that up, was reliable up until 120 - 140 k... that's when things started needing some replacing an repairs, kept it until about 240k.

 

But at 120 - 140 k i think most cars would start to need some looking into right?

 

Anyway it was a fun car and made heads turn whenever you drove by.

 

If you're thinking of getting a 5-7 year old SUV or any car for that matter, be prepared to fork out something unless its one of those thats been kept really well by a preferable first owner (knew a guy who owned a Corona for ten years with less than 50k mileage on it).

That is precisely my point of checking on the reliability and maintenance cost of these vehicles first before I really start going for test drives. And sadly, that is also one of the reasons I am dropping the CX7 from the contender's list. (:

 

I hope the Murano or the CRV would be quite fun to drive too!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most likely both Murano & CRV 2.4 will probably return you ard 7- 7.5km/l since your optra gives you 8-9km/l. We used to have an optra & get about 10km/l.

 

End of the day if you drive lots in city, I think you wont get much FC difference in a heavy SUV akin to Murano size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

even if the fuel bills are paid by the company, won't your boss question why you are claiming so much more than you colleagues? i would. if it is just a bit 10-20% more its fine but not double! unless you bring in double the sales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for your honest review!

 

The main reason as to why I drop the CX7 from my consideration is the alarming 6km/l fuel efficiency that I will have to tahan once I take over the car. My current Optra gives me between 8 - 9km/l and I find this acceptable, although I can't help but to look enviously at my colleagues who are driving more efficient vehicles - like my colleague who averages 12km/l on his 1.8 Wish!

 

As I work in sales, my fuel bills are paid for by the company. However, I am not comfortable with any vehicles that falls below 8km/l. I think this would be my floor threshold of acceptance.

 

Although I have never yet been in the cabin of any CX7, I have come to believe that the ride is gonna be fun and I am going to love driving the CX7. Although "fun" in driving is a factor I value, I am also very concerned about reliability and the maintenance costs. I would prefer to be financially prudent and lose some fun factor yet get a better balance for drivability, reliability and the servicing costs.

 

As such, I believe the CX7 is not the car for me but I thank you once again for sharing your thoughts on the CX7.

 

As for the CRV, RAV4 and Murano, I visited some websites and read on random forums that the CRV and RAV4 can average 11km/l! That is an upgrade for me! As for the Murano, I am hoping it can at least give me 8km/l returns and I would be satisfied. :D

Why would you say that? Is it the ride or the looks you are referring to?

 

I hope you are not referring to the sluggish acceleration of the Latio on the Murano! :o

I have driven the RAV4 before and I do like it too!

 

However, it seems to be not as popular among our forum friends here.

That is precisely my point of checking on the reliability and maintenance cost of these vehicles first before I really start going for test drives. And sadly, that is also one of the reasons I am dropping the CX7 from the contender's list. (:

 

I hope the Murano or the CRV would be quite fun to drive too!

 

yes the sluggish acceleration lol

 

 

murano looks more pimped than crv. Dun you think so?

 

which would u choose?

 

i will choose ur gti u tutukueh lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been driving CRV 2.4 for more than 10 years.. Started with Gen2 and Gen3 since 2008..

 

I am able to consistently clock 9 to 10km/l (65% hw, 35% city). The sound proofing is weak, but other than that I am very satisfied.

 

Interior leather broke recently after 7 years as last year the car was under the Sun most of the time.

 

Maintenance and parts are easy and cheaper to source. Go for it..

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro, other than Murano, I had driven the other 3 and I currently own a CRV. Here is my quick feedback.

 

If fuel efficiency, it would be Rav4. I can get about 9-10 on Rav 4 but only about 8.5 for CRV and about 9 for cx7.

 

If space, CRV is better. Cx 7 looks big exterior but slightly smaller in the interior. Rav4 about crv size.

 

Soundproofing, cx7. My ride currently has soundproofing added and not too bad. Rav 4 is in between.

 

Driving comfort - CRV for me. Cx 7 is ok. Rav4 is rougher.

 

Spare parts. Rav4 and crv abt similar. Cx7 is costlier.

 

Reliability - crv followed by rav4. Cx7 easier for wear n tear it seems.

 

Wife - she likes crv. Lol.

Edited by Andyngps
  • Praise 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want better weight to power ratio....go for CX7. It is a turbo SUV so the power is there....For Murano, the car is comfortable but lack in power.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am driving a CRV , i bought it at 2007 , so far so good the car never give me a single problem yet , but my lock just deflect not long ago. was quoted to fix is 2k ,cause the motor deflect , i was like what the , but the workshop told me 2007 to 2010 CRV got locks problem , indeed it has , checked website Honda is recalling those lock problem ,but i didnt fix it cause it just will keep lock and unlocking itselfs when driving so its still okay, if you plan to buy a CRV , do look out for this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got to test drive the All New Toyota Rav4 last month and I personally like it alot.

 

Full review up in my blog with pictures here:

http://ilovedawn00.blogspot.sg/2015/01/car-review-2015-toyota-rav4.html

↡ Advertisement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×