We had a feeling this was coming, but the cat's now officially out of the bag: The Mazda CX-7 is being discontinued in the United States.

The recently launched 2013 CX-5 will effectively replace the CX-7 (as well as the Ford-sourced Tribute), meaning there won't really be a void in Mazda's product lineup. "CX-5 has a clearer competitive set, unlike CX-7, which was in the middle of two segments," explains Mazda product communications specialist Beverly Braga.

Dimensionally, the CX-5 is slightly smaller than the CX-7, but actually boasts more cargo capacity and overall interior volume. With the rear seats folded, the CX-5 can hold up to 65.4 cubic feet of cargo (compared to 58.6 cubic feet in the CX-7) and has a total of 103.8 cubic feet of overall passenger space (101.7 in CX-7).

What's more, the CX-5's nifty new 2.0-liter Skyactiv four-cylinder engine offers substantially better fuel economy than the base 2.5-liter four of the CX-7. And while we'll certainly miss the potency of the optional 2.3-liter turbo four of the CX-7 – a version of the mill used in the Mazdaspeed3 – we can easily do without its fuel economy ratings of 18/24 miles per gallon city/highway (or 17/21 when paired with all-wheel drive – ouch!).

This may be the end of the road for the CX-7 in the U.S., but Mazda says that sales of the crossover will still continue in other markets. The CX-7 will officially be phased out at the end of the 2012 model year.


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 48 Comments
      SethG
      • 2 Years Ago
      Now that it is distinct from Ford, Mazda doesn't feel the need to take the shotgun approach to CUVs the way Ford does with the Escape, Edge, Flex and Explorer. For a car maker Mazda's size there's no need to have 3 CUVs.
        • 2 Years Ago
        @SethG
        [blocked]
          nickms3
          • 2 Years Ago
          Yeah but all Subarus come with AWD so I think it makes more sense for them to offer more CUVs in as many classes as they are able to.
          Typesbad
          • 2 Years Ago
          Yes, and as a result, Subaru's have always been strong in SUV-heravy markets (mountains, snow-belt) and they completely fit the Subaru brand image. r Mazda's brand image has always been in the sporty handling area and its products have generally delivered well in that area, including the CX-7. What they learned together with Acura, is that not enough people want a crossover that feels like a sports sedan. (Those that do, will get an X3 if they can swing it). Most would much rather it have something comfortable and economical. There is room for fun-to-drive, as it Mazda's forte, but it has to be largely compromise-free. I always liked the CX-7's appearance. But, it was thirsty (llike the RDX) and sporty handling and a high center of gravity are unhappy bedfellows. I can't think of a single "Sporty CUV where I wouldn't select the brand's sport-hatch or sportwagon instead.
        Randy
        • 2 Years Ago
        @SethG
        Ford still owns a portion of Mazda and they share some parts. Ford also sold their stock in mazda to a large amount of different investors so that competitors couldn't get it. They're either protecting patents or going to go back and re-acquire!
          sukispeed
          • 2 Years Ago
          @Randy
          I think part of the reason Mazda is operating in the red right now is because they had to buy back there stock from Ford.
      Edward
      • 2 Years Ago
      My recollection is that the CX-7 was based on the mazda6, which is still in production in its old form as the Fusion, Edge and others, most to be gone soon also. That's pretty good yield from ten year old engineering.
        sukispeed
        • 2 Years Ago
        @Edward
        The CX-7 shares the front suspension of the Mazda MPV minivan and the rear suspension from the Mazda5
      Evan
      • 2 Years Ago
      I've owned two CX7's and my latest one is identical to the one shown in the story above. Great to drive, looks good and I think has a lot of value for the money. That said, I'd trade it for a CX5 in a second assuming that the article is correct about it actually having more cargo capacity. The CX5 looks pretty good, IMO.
      guyverfanboy
      • 2 Years Ago
      No surprise there. Hopefully the 2.2 diesel for the CX-5 will come in 2013.
        jonnybimmer
        • 2 Years Ago
        @guyverfanboy
        Diesel CX-5 in the States? Ha! Yeah right! Though I really wish it would be true....
      stever
      • 2 Years Ago
      the 2.5L non turbo was a real winner, decent mileage and adequate powah
      EG
      • 2 Years Ago
      Id be real surprised if they dont bring it back as a true midsize crossover/suv with full skyactiv treatment in a couple years.
        axiomatik
        • 2 Years Ago
        @EG
        This makes the most sense to me. There is a huge chasm between the CX-5 and the CX-9. If I were running Mazda, I would increase the size of the CX-7 a little bit and position it against the Ford Edge, Nissan Murano, etc.
      MANARC100
      • 2 Years Ago
      Actually there they are gone much much faster than this story would leave you to believe. "The CX-7 will officially be phased out at the end of the 2012 model year." The 2012 model year was run for 2 months in November and December. The handful of 2012's they built are all on the ground at stores right now. There are no more coming. The CX5 is replacing the CX7 right now. In another 30 days youd be hard pressed to find a new CX7 at most stores.
        sukispeed
        • 2 Years Ago
        @MANARC100
        The CX-7 is not the Crown Victoria, There is not going to a run on them form police depts stocking up before they stop making them. at end of 2012 ther will be CX-7s on dealers lots.
      brgtlm
      • 2 Years Ago
      Mazda really needs every car to be a success. The CX-7 was not that attractive and had a peaky, gas guzzling turbo engine that wasn't very appealing to buyers. Once the CX-9 came out, there was really no reason to get the CX-7. Now that the CX-5 is here, time to say sayonara.
        axiomatik
        • 2 Years Ago
        @brgtlm
        I don't get the "buy the biggest car you can afford" mentality. The CX-9 is gigantic, sized within a few inches of my old Ford Expedition. It is in a completely different class than the CX-7. When my wife and I were shopping, we wanted something *smaller* than the Expedition we were replacing, and thus we chose a CX-7. The fact that it will get 10mpg more than the Expedition is also a nice bonus.
      CarCrazy24
      • 2 Years Ago
      It never had the engine it deserved...the mpg was always horrible in the CX-7. I actually like the way the car looked when it was first introduced, but the redesign made it so gaudy and cheap looking that with the CX-5 it definitely has no place on the market. Sad to see it go, but it is fairly pointless with the 35mpg CX-5 there.
      techie69
      • 2 Years Ago
      Mazda needs a CX-7 in a 3-row 2.5 SkyActiv configuration since there is a market for it. Nissan, a new player in the 4cy-3row-crossover, is exploring in the possibility of making a 4-cylinder crossover by putting on display its HighCross crossover concept for developing peoples' interest.
        Bscar
        • 2 Years Ago
        @techie69
        I can't see the 7 being a 3 row suv. The back seats are kinda cramped if the fronts are pushed back; Can't see adding a 3rd row to narrow that even more. You want 3 rows, got for the 9
        axiomatik
        • 2 Years Ago
        @techie69
        I don't think it needs to be 3-row. I would just increase the interior volume a little bit to bring it more in-line with the mid-size market.
      Gorgenapper
      • 2 Years Ago
      As soon as I saw the CX-5, I knew right away (without being told or having read it) that the CX-7's days were numbered. The 2.3L DISI is not meant for an SUV weighing in at 3929lbs, it's the same mistake that Acura made when they put a similar turbo 4 in their first gen RDX. When off boost, the car will feel sluggish and weak, and when on boost it is working too hard to motivate all that bulk around....
      rrod436
      • 2 Years Ago
      We have a 2008 AWD Turbo one and love it. Too bad it has to go, but I get why.
    • Load More Comments