However, I had my doubts as to its ability to move something so much bulkier than the 3. This engine, code named MZR, is a 2.5-litre, 4-cylinder affair. All right so far. The trouble is, its 161-hp maximum output is delivered in its entirety at 6,000 rpm, which is quite high on the rpm scale. Torque, also rated at 161, is unleashed at 3,500 rpm, again rather late to my liking. OK, so Mazda has always enjoyed playing in the high rpm ranges, but the price was always the same, i.e., excessive petrodollar spending. Would I be spared this time around?
Good sport that I am, I gave my competitor a chance and programmed Toronto into the navigation system. The goal? Travel 605 kilometres, most of them on the famous and sleep-inducing 401. The highway would play in my favour and enable me to achieve decent fuel economy figures.
I was also counting on the fact that my tester was a front-wheel-drive model and thus lighter than an all-wheel-drive version. The automatic transmission was also part of my arsenal, and its five well-spaced gears would be giving me a serious helping hand.
As the kilometres flew by, I kept my eyes riveted on the on-board computer, on the lookout for the magic number that would make me smile and bring my goal within reach.
Unfortunately, every time I glanced at my average consumption reading I rarely found it below the 13 L/100 km mark. I tried to reassure myself, telling myself the trip wasn’t over yet, that I hadn’t arrived at my destination, and I changed my driving tactics accordingly.
Finally, I conditioned myself, thinking I must have missed something and that, in fact, my fuel consumption was a lot lower than what it said. Surprise, surprise, the fuel gauge echoed the computer, telling me the CX-7 was actually guzzling those 13 litres per 100 km.
All in vain
Mazda responded to the requests of the typical CX-7 buyers that are worried about fuel efficiency by plunking in an engine that should, under normal circumstances, have ensured a decrease in consumption. Putting a smaller engine in a bigger vehicle is all well and good, but when that engine is constantly being spurred forward and operating at its limits, there’s no way you can win the fuel efficiency battle.
Good sport that I am, I gave my competitor a chance and programmed Toronto into the navigation system. The goal? Travel 605 kilometres, most of them on the famous and sleep-inducing 401. The highway would play in my favour and enable me to achieve decent fuel economy figures.
 |
| This engine, code named MZR, is a 2.5-litre, 4-cylinder affair. (Photo: Bertrand Godin/Auto123.com) |
I was also counting on the fact that my tester was a front-wheel-drive model and thus lighter than an all-wheel-drive version. The automatic transmission was also part of my arsenal, and its five well-spaced gears would be giving me a serious helping hand.
As the kilometres flew by, I kept my eyes riveted on the on-board computer, on the lookout for the magic number that would make me smile and bring my goal within reach.
Unfortunately, every time I glanced at my average consumption reading I rarely found it below the 13 L/100 km mark. I tried to reassure myself, telling myself the trip wasn’t over yet, that I hadn’t arrived at my destination, and I changed my driving tactics accordingly.
Finally, I conditioned myself, thinking I must have missed something and that, in fact, my fuel consumption was a lot lower than what it said. Surprise, surprise, the fuel gauge echoed the computer, telling me the CX-7 was actually guzzling those 13 litres per 100 km.
All in vain
Mazda responded to the requests of the typical CX-7 buyers that are worried about fuel efficiency by plunking in an engine that should, under normal circumstances, have ensured a decrease in consumption. Putting a smaller engine in a bigger vehicle is all well and good, but when that engine is constantly being spurred forward and operating at its limits, there’s no way you can win the fuel efficiency battle.
Article Gallery