2008 Subaru Forester vs. 2012 Mazda CX-7
To start off, 2012 Mazda CX-7 is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2008 Subaru Forester. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2008 Subaru Forester would be higher. At 2,500 cc (4 cylinders), 2012 Mazda CX-7 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2012 Mazda CX-7 weights approximately 161 kg more than 2008 Subaru Forester.
Because 2008 Subaru Forester is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2012 Mazda CX-7. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2008 Subaru Forester will offer significantly more control. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2008 Subaru Forester (320 Nm @ 3600 RPM) has 102 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Mazda CX-7. (218 Nm @ 3500 RPM). This means 2008 Subaru Forester will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Mazda CX-7.
Compare all specifications:
| 2008 Subaru Forester | 2012 Mazda CX-7 | |
| Make | Subaru | Mazda |
| Model | Forester | CX-7 |
| Year Released | 2008 | 2012 |
| Body Type | SUV | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2457 cc | 2500 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | boxer | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 161 HP |
| Torque | 320 Nm | 218 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3600 RPM | 3500 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1425 kg | 1586 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4490 mm | 4681 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1740 mm | 1872 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1590 mm | 1646 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2530 mm | 2751 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 8.7 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 11.8 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 60 L | 62 L |
