Mazda CX-7 vs. Subaru Forester XT (2010)

Families nowadays have it easy. Before, if you’re adding child number two, it’s tantamount to a death sentence. After all, the only choice you’ll have is a van—a refrigerator van at that. Now, there are half a dozen alternatives ranging from car-based MPVs to hot station wagons and even large sedans. Among all of these though, it’s the crossover that reigns supreme. You cannot deny the interior room and flexibility they possess, plus given the chance, they can still carve corners and perform with gusto. The latter is especially true for the two crossovers you see here: the Mazda CX-7 and the Subaru Forester XT.

On the surface, comparing these two seems odd and lopsided; given the Mazda doesn’t have the straightforward performance and that the Subaru is expensive by more than P 250,000. However, driving these two crossovers back-to-back and in everyday conditions leaves the impression that they’re similar, maybe not in performance but in breathing life to the typical family car. In other words, the Mazda CX-7 and the Subaru Forester XT is your atypical family car.

Exterior

If you want to summarize the design of the Mazda CX-7 in one word, it would be: exaggerated. Despite having overall dimensions close to that of a mid-sized sedan, the drastic design cues of the CX-7 make it look much more compact than it seems. Like the rest of the Mazda family, the CX-7 has a huge gapping mouth upfront with a pronounced smile. And it very well should since the Mazda is a welcome breath of fresh air compared to the typical two-box design of crossovers. The large intake is flanked by the fog lamp housing that look like faux brake ducts. Typically, such caricaturized design wouldn’t work, but somehow it does on the CX-7. At the side, the wheel arches are pronounced and shaped like the trademark ‘cycle fenders’. Additionally, the green house kinks upward at the middle of the rear door lending a very fluidic line.

Unfortunately, despite all the work to give an exaggerated, futuristic look to the CX-7, everything goes plain when it comes to the back. It’s as if Mazda took several months designing the front and sides of the CX-7 only to spend 30 minutes at best to complete the rear-end. Additionally, there are several things that shout ‘cheap’; especially given this is a P 1.5-million peso car such as the anemic-looking wheel/tire package, the lack of any serious chrome or aluminum bits, and any aerodynamic parts such as a rear spoiler.

Subaru’s approach with the Forester is completely opposite to that of the CX-7. Any which way you approach it, the Forester looks very plain. Though perfectly proportioned in every angle, it will never send your pulse rate soaring. In fact, with the exception of the turbo scoop, you can never judge the Forester as a very spirited crossover. You can easily dismiss this as a Toyota clone and move on.

However, upon closer inspection, the Forester wins the details battle with the CX-7. It definitely looks more like P 1.7-million by having stuff such as aluminum-finished door handles, roof rails (something the CX-7 lacks), perfectly proportioned tires and a rear spoiler. Plus, the Forester is the only one in its class to come standard with a large moon roof as well as HID headlamps with washers. It’s this close attention to detail that put the Subaru Forester level with the CX-7’s much more refreshing, but poorly detailed design.

Exterior Winner: TIE
Score: Mazda CX-7 (1) / Subaru Forester (1)

Interior

If the feeling of being special is very important to you, then stay away from the Forester. Owning both a Forester and an Impreza, it’s very clear that both use too much shared components. In fact, with the exception of a different gauge cluster and a large center utility box, the Forester’s cabin is undistinguishable from that of the Impreza. That said, the materials used in the Forester are all first rate, especially the leather seats which are plush. The various aluminum accents do nicely to brighten the cabin, though a word of caution: they scratch easily.

Meanwhile, the Mazda CX-7 makes do with scratchy piano black or aluminum accents for more matte plastics which are much more durable. However, despite the lack of shiny bits, the overall design of the CX-7’s cabin is like its exterior: exaggerated and futuristic. Though, unlike the exterior, the CX-7’s interior is nicely detailed with tons of buttons to press. Sure, the Subaru Forester has everything the CX-7 has in terms of interior toys—maybe even more, but the way things are presented on the Mazda makes it look even more special. The only qualm is with the inconsistency with the gauges which feature a plain three-cluster instrumentation, a white-on-black multi-information display and a red-on-black climate and audio control. This portion feels too tacked on—Mazda should have stuck to one look.

Like the CX-7’s nice-looking front end but plain-looking rear end, you’ll feel designers didn’t spend any time designing the rear accommodations. Aside from the leather seats, there’s nothing else at the back. Additionally, the finish feels very third-rate at the back. Meanwhile, the Subaru Forester does have better materials, better fit and finish as well as more nifty toys like a center-seat console. Once again, the Mazda CX-7 should have won this category, but because of a couple of shortcuts, things ended up with a virtual tie.

Interior Winner: TIE
Score: Mazda CX-7 (2) / Subaru Forester (2)

Ergonomics

Priced like a high-end compact crossover, you’ll be surprised at the girth of the Mazda CX7’s dashboard (after all, it is platform-mates with the Mazda6). Any way you put it, it’s wide and sometimes discontenting, especially when it comes to weaving through traffic. Though there are small ‘port windows’, they don’t help much given the sharply raked windshield and small side view mirrors. The same is true with the back of the CX-7 where the thick D-pillar and small rear glass creates sizeable blind spots there too. And the blind spots are a real shame since the rest of the car is a joy to use. You sit pretty high with a commanding driving position. The three-spoke steering wheel maybe on the small side given the size of the CX-7, but it falls perfectly into your hands. And it pairs well with the stubby shifter giving a sporty, racy feel.

During short trips, the seats of the CX-7 are supportive, but discomfort creeps in on longer trips because the seat cushion length is just lacking. It’s much worse at the back where the hip support is no better than that of a compact car.

This is where the Subaru Forester shines: supportive seats for everyone whether you’re at the front or at the back. Though both the CX-7 and Forester have electric driver seats, the Forester lacks adjustable lumbar support. Despite this, the Forester still provides better back and thigh support. In conjunction with excellent side bolsters and a lower seating position, it all equates to a much more car-like driving position. In addition, the use of knobs rather than buttons makes the Forester easier to use by pure tactile feel. There’s little need to take your eyes off the road. It’s the Forester’s no nonsense and straightforward approach that makes it the definite winner in this category.

Ergonomics Winner: Subaru Forester XT
Score: Mazda CX-7 (2) / Subaru Forester (3)

Space and Luggage

With both of these cars being considered for starter families (i.e. husband, wife and two kids), interior and luggage space must be the most important factor for consideration here. In that case, the Subaru Forester easily trounces the Mazda CX-7. Despite being much smaller than the CX-7 in just about every dimension, the Subaru uses the available space much more efficiently. For instance, the ‘wing motif’ dashboard frees much more leg room compared to that of the CX-7 where banging knees can be a regular occurrence. The same is true for the rear occupants where the CX-7’s large center bin intrudes on the already small knee room. The poor placement of the window switches also removes some valuable millimeters. The simpler approach to the Forester’s design not only returns better seats but more knee room. Additionally, the floor is lower in the Subaru making for a less awkward seating.

Now, typically, once designers sacrifice passenger room, they claw back some luggage space. Unfortunately for the CX-7, this isn’t the case. Though the loading bay looks wider, the depth isn’t that much plus the protruding wheel arches reduces the usable space further. And it’s a great shame since the Mazda does have some unique features such as a reversible cargo bay liner (for wet stuff) and levers on either side to collapse the rear seat from the cargo bay. Overall, it’s a convincing win for the Subaru Forester and add to that the subject of much more cubby holes; and you have a walkover in this contest.

Space and Luggage Winner: Subaru Forester XT
Score: Mazda CX-7 (2) / Subaru Forester (4)

Performance and Fuel Economy

On paper, without the need for any sort of actual experimentation, it’s quite clear that the Subaru Forester will smoke the Mazda CX-7. After all, 230 horsepower and 320 Nm is no match for 163 horsepower and 205 Nm. This is quite true if you’re a pure power junkie or you travel long highway distances regularly. But what happens to all that power when you’re crawling in city traffic? Things start to equalize somewhat. The Forester is still the crossover to have when it comes to accelerating from a standstill or in-gear overtaking. The turbo is the perfect weapon, plus because of that flat-4 layout, the Forester is a smooth operator. The four-speed automatic is considered prehistoric nowadays, but the wide power band compensates for this weakness. However, fuel consumption does suffer: eking out just 6.31 km/L.

Meanwhile, things are completely opposite with the CX-7. Because of its normally-aspirated 4-cylinder engine and 1.58-ton curb weight, straight line grunt is merely adequate. Still, the pick up is good off the line, with the CX-7 losing steam only as the speeds build up. The engine is very peaky too, and this is problematic when overtaking on the highway. More than once, you’ll find yourself using the manual override to extract the maximum performance. Despite working the five-speed automatic hard, the CX-7 still returns a remarkable 9.34 km/L.

Through the corners, both the Forester and the CX-7 exhibits some body roll and under steer given similar suspension tuning. However, you can’t help but notice that both of these cars have their own quirks. For instance, the CX-7 may feel nimbler through tighter bends thanks to quicker steering and firmer ride, but the Forester is much more planted and surefooted thanks to standard all-wheel drive and heavier steering. Over bumps and ruts, the Forester is much more comfortable thanks to a more compliant suspension; but body flex is much more noticeable compared to the CX-7. Meanwhile, the CX-7’s brake pedal feels mushier though they bite just as well as those on the Forester. In the end, for all intents and purposes, they’re almost inseparable maybe except if you value speed and downright performance. In which case, you’d better be off with the Subaru Forester with an aftermarket suspension upgrade.

Performance and Fuel Economy Winner: TIE
Score: Mazda CX-7 (3) / Subaru Forester (5)

Value for Money

For some people, P 1.5-million is already a kingly sum. So what does that make the Subaru Forester which is priced north of the Mazda CX-7 by around P 258,000? However, beyond the price tag, once you consider what the P 1.758-million nets you, it’s actually pretty good value. For instance, you get the same engine and advanced all-wheel drive system found in the WRX—alone worth the purchase price. Unlike the WRX, you get other luxury features like leather seats (with electric adjustment for the driver), a large moon roof and even a subwoofer equipped sound system. On the safety front, the Forester’s got you covered too with six airbags, front and rear fog lamps, anti-lock brakes and traction control. In fact, the only thing lacking is parking sensors.

In contrast, the Mazda CX-7’s P 1.495-million is a steal by anyone’s standard and is shown by the three-month waiting list. The affordable price tag equates to a much more stripped down CX-7 with decisively less toys than the Forester. For example, the CX-7 doesn’t have all-wheel drive. It doesn’t have HID lamps or a fancy audio system either. Still, these features won’t be missed since the most important stuff is still here such as a complete array of safety equipment. You also get leather seating and even cruise control. In short, the Mazda CX-7 has all of the features needed for a true driver’s car and that’s what’s important. How Mazda has priced the CX-7 competitively with such an equipment level is a mystery. Nonetheless, it makes great value.

Value for Money Winner: Mazda CX-7
Score: Mazda CX-7 (4) / Subaru Forester (5)

It’s hard to choose between the Mazda CX-7 and the Subaru Forester as both of these are equally excellent family cars. Both of these pass the criteria of offering flexibility and space utilization along with agility and fun-to-drive factor. If you’re on a budget and unwilling to spend additional money, the Mazda CX-7 is as good as it gets. And it’s not half bad. It’s got the flashy looks plus it’s highly economical. The fun-to-drive factor may not be as high as that of the Subaru Forester, but for 90 percent of people out there, it’s more than enough.

However, for those privileged enough to spend a bit more money, the Subaru Forester delivers the Full Monty. Sure, it doesn’t look as special or quick as the Mazda CX-7, but it’s the better driver’s car. Some people say it’s ‘the better BMW X3’ and it’s not hard to see why. As if the turbo engine isn’t addicting enough, the Subaru offers a much more solid, much better driving experience. The fit and finish is much better as well as the interior room is marginally better than the Mazda.

Verdict
Winner: Subaru Forester (by a hair)