[nstiesi]

My fiance is pretty much settled on it, but we just thought of something....its a turbo I4, does it need high octane fuel? Some sites say no, some say it needs 91, some say it works satisfactorily on either. Anyone know?

 

[kipp]

everything performance I've seen from mazda does require 91 oct. One of my old managers had one and loved it. good power, handles well (for an suv), decent on gas and a general nice car

 

[Osiris]

First year does. The newer ones don't.

 

[Virtual_Insanity]

First year does. The newer ones don't.

Correct the new ones run on regular gas and no longer need premium gas.

 

[Dubzilla]

http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=modelsSpecs&vehicleCode=CX7

"Minimum fuel rating Regular Unleaded (87 Octane) Recommended fuel Premium (91 - 93 Octane)"

Not to be a dick, but it literally took me all of ten seconds.

 

[nstiesi]

http://www.mazdausa.com/MusaWeb/displayPage.action?pageParameter=modelsSpecs&vehicleCode=CX7

"Minimum fuel rating Regular Unleaded (87 Octane) Recommended fuel Premium (91 - 93 Octane)"

Not to be a dick, but it literally took me all of ten seconds.

Well, Richard, I had read that too.....but alot of the motor trend type sites and car reviews specified 91 octane only. In light of multiple contradicting statements, I thought I would ask the Jet, lol.

 

[ZedX31485]

Well, Richard, I had read that too.....but alot of the motor trend type sites and car reviews specified 91 octane only. In light of multiple contradicting statements, I thought I would ask the Jet, lol.

Generally, most cars that "recommend" 91 will run on 87 just fine. From what I read the cost savings is not always worth it though....

For instance, my 08 GTI recommends 91. People on other forums have done tests on 87 vs 91 and have found that while 87 is cheaper at the pump, the engine does not run as efficiently and thus results is lower MPG's over the life of the tank. So is it really worth it to spend less $$ on fuel that is going to net you lower MPG's? Or should you spend the money up front and get better efficiency and not loose any of the performance of the car?

 

[Osiris]

Well, that's all well and good, but the point is, the newer models are tuned to run off 87. That means the motor is efficient at that octane level. Will it run better on higher grade stuff? Sure it will, but when it isn't available its good to know there's little to fear.

 

[pseudonym]

The 2010 CX-7 will be avaiilable with the 2.5 as the base engine.

http://www.leftlanenews.com/mazda-cx-7.html

 

[Focusfre4k]

My uncle has one ...says the MPG on it sucks...could be him hitting boost a bit too much though

 

[hermitmaster]

I read several reviews and comparisons when I was shopping and they all say the mpg sucks on the CX-7. It didn't take first in any comparisons either.

 

[econorocketZX3]

I've got one and the mpg on straight hwy is around 22-23 if you are cruising around 75-80

I have first year and and run premium. Its the ONLY thing I don't like about the car.

 

[CrUziN4L]

*delete*

 

[CrUziN4L]

There is a reason why the CX-9 sold 10x more than the CX7...the CX-7 blows.

poor tuning on the engine led to poor MPGs, poor performance, and lack luster "fun" factor. I have driven one for around and hour or so, and the turbo is actually more annoying than cool.

Wait for the new one, or get the CX-9 which will get u the same MPGs prettymuch. Drove the CX-9 too, while it is definitely larger and feels that way, i found it more fun to drive...ran on the 20s, but wasnt too harsh


-chris