Edmunds CarPool

I can't argue with your main point volcom. In fact, in a second opinion a few years ago, while writing about the FX35, I basically said, "It doesn't handle as well as a G35, and it can't carry as much as a Nissan Pathfinder (or Xterra). And it's more expensive than either. At some point, isn't 'crossover' really just another word for 'compromise'?"

I think the CX-7 looks cool but I would rather see that kick butt motor in the lighter, cheaper and more practical Mazda5. Why can't we have practicality and fun?
 
I think the next generation of crossover will have sliding doors and be minivans in all but name :)

I think the way the OEM's need to go is to offer sliding doors as an option. That'll just about kill the minivan market, because now that's the main thing that differentiates them from the crossovers.

That's a good point Karl. But I don't think there's anything wrong with seeking compromise; some people will take one FX45 over owning both a 350Z and a Pathfinder. Garage space, insurance, feeling wasteful by owning two cars... there are lots of excuses.

Sure hope you voted the way I would have: Silverado and Aura. Or even CX-7 and Aura. Just not the Camry or Fit...

I must be the only member who does not see the hype of the CX-7. No dual zone A/C, no rear seat vents, one stage heated seats, no telescopic wheel, etc. I think the styling is atrocious and the fuel economy is simply horrible (on premium petrol). Weight is the common enemy to all SUVs whether they be cross-over or truck based. 5 passenger cross-overs are WORSE and more pointless than larger body on frame SUVs (Tahoe, Expedition, etc). They get bad fuel economy but cannot tow or go offroad so what's the point? I'd think it's safe to say that anyone who wanted a CX-7 would be perfectly happy with a Mazda6 wagon.
 
At least the 7 passenger CUVs provide more versatility than the 5 pass versions. Unless we're talking about the Pacifica, Freestyle upcoming Lambdas, etc CUVs are simply a waste of resources. It's really a shame people hate minivans and station wagons so much because they really serve their purpose and I'd drive one if I needed the utility (and I'm in my 20s).

Really, to me the Crossover should be a compromise. Many people need a vehicle that is practicle, but want a good daily driver that is affordable.
 
The giant SUVs of yesteryear certainly garnered alot of attention when driving on the road, but your average person couldn't afford the high dollar cost of the Expidition, nor the high gas cost of operating this vehicle.
 
The choice vehicle of such a target market then is a sedan such as the Camry. It's economical in both cost and maintainance, has a proven reliability, etc. But, it's not the eye catching toy they want. And they still have to call their buddy to bring his pickup over when they want to move a couch.
 
Reading Volcom's remarks above, I get the impression that he doesn't like the Mustang either, as it's a compromise between sports car exotics and a mainstream daily driver. And yet, it performs well in both driving and function, and delivers that sports car feel that your average American wants, but can't afford.
 
I certainly won't argue that CUVs couldn't use some refinement, but all cars can use some refinement. The CUV isn't a car. Compared to a car, it trades handling and milage for an increase in weight and storage. Compared to a SUV, it trades storage and weight for handling and milage.
 
My concern is that I feel automakers are overestimating the demand for CUVs and are flooding the market. Time will tell if I'm right...

A couple of months ago, we went in to buy a CX-7. We had three cars (2006 Miata GT, 2005 Tribute V6 s, and 2006 Mustang V6 SCS) and wanted to "compromise" the Tribute and Mustang into a single vehicle rather than pay the insurance and upkeep of two. After looking around, we felt a crossover would be the perfect compromise, and the CX-7 was our favorite.However, sitting next to the CX-7 we wanted (a AWD Sport model with the Technology package) was a Mazda5 with the newly available Grand Touring package. The more and more we looked at the Mazda5, the more we liked it. It had every available option you could get (leather, moonroof, navigation, xenon HIDs, Sirius, auto climate control, etc.) and yet was $5,825 cheaper than the CX-7. It got better fuel economy, used regular fuel, could seat six, had significantly more maximum cargo capacity (we brought a tape measure along, not trusting Mazda's specs), and had all kinds of cool little features. From a practicality standpoint, the Mazda5 completely trumped the CX-7. Sure, it didn't have AWD, but we weren't looking for that (a Sport CX-7 with the Technology Package is hard to come by, so we would take what we could get, and this was one on only two in Southern California).
We drove both vehicles back to back to back. Sure, the CX-7 had a little more power if you pushed it hard and got the turbo spooled up, but in normal driving, the Mazda5's lighter weight paired with practically the same engine sans turbo offered more low-end grunt and felt more refined. Handling is a no-brainer, with the lighter, lower Mazda5 easily outclassing the CX-7. The Mazda5 was quieter and rode a lot more comfortably. We also found the Mazda5's high-mounted pop-up navigation system to be much more usable than the CX-7's all-in-one navigation screen buried low (in comparison) in the dash. And who could argue with sliding doors? Sure, they have minivan-stigma, but they're so practical all vehicles should have them.
We also liked the Mazda5's wagon-meets-minivan look as much as we liked the CX-7's wagon-meets-SUV look. So, the Mazda5 had more passenger capacity, more cargo room, better fuel economy, better equipment, drove a lot better, and was much less expensive. Needless to say, we drove home in the Mazda5, and nearly two months later, we wouldn't have it any other way. We still get asked nearly everyday by inquisitive passersby about it when driving around. We love the car, and it was much less of a compromise than the CX-7. Space wagons like this offer so much more than these CUVs. It's an untapped market, and perhaps will be the next big thing after the CUV boom.

I've said for years that if you took all the SUV soccer moms out of their Expeditions and Tahoes and Sequoias and made them drive Odysseys or Caravans or Siennas for two weeks, and then said to them, "Okay, we're taking the minivan back and here are your SUV keys" somewhere between 50 and 75 percent of them would say, "Screw you, I'm keeping the minivan!"
 
Cool makes for a nice discussion, but functionality is an undeniable fact, and the Minivan nukes the SUV (or crossover) every time.

I know. My wife and I just bought a minivan and I never thought I'd be so geeked about a minivan. I can finally take my lawn mower to the shop. ;-)

We recently fit a full-size sofa into our Grand Caravan. Try doing that in a CX-7.