Many people simply will not buy a minivan even if it’s the logical choice for their family and even if minivans rule (they do). Instead, people buy three-row crossovers, which are almost always a compromise of functionality in the name of style. Mazda has decided to address this issue of compromised three-row crossovers by taking its own quite good one, the CX-90, and removing its back row. Now it’s a two-row they call the CX-70. Problem solved!
In place of the third row is… nothing. Mazda just literally took the third row out of the vehicle, gave the car a slightly more aggressive front fascia, and put a couple of hard-to-access cubbies underneath.
Maybe this is genius. Maybe there is a substantial number of buyers who just want a two-row vehicle and don’t want to be forced to buy a vehicle with three rows. Maybe this all makes sense. Or maybe it doesn’t.
[Full Disclosure: Mazda nicely flew me out to Palm Springs and put me up in an adults-only resort with a ton of these little hot spring-fed pools. The company also fed me various foods, including jicama tacos. I was offered a facial or deep-tissue massage, but David needed to go buy a [REDACTED] so I skipped it. I did do a very gentle round of yoga in the yoga dome, however, and got a Japanese cooking lesson. – MH)
Wait, It’s Really Just A CX-90 Without A Third Row?
Yeah. 100%. When the CX-70 was first announced that’s what we guessed it was and now we have confirmation. It’s a CX-90 without a third row.
That seems a little crazy, right?
There is no other company I can think of that does exactly this. Toyota has the Highlander and the larger Grand Highlander. BMW has the X5 and the X7, with the X7 being about nine inches longer than the X5. Jeep has the Grand Cherokee and Grand Cherokee L, the latter of which is about ten inches longer than the non-L. Last year I drove the Volkswagen Atlas (seven-passenger, three-row) and CrossAtlas, which is a two-row version with a rounded-off rear.
Did Mazda move the 2nd row back for more legroom? Nope. It’s exactly the same. Both the CX-70 and CX-90 have 39.4 inches of legroom in the rear seat and 41.7 inches of legroom in the front seat.
Do You Get More Cargo Space?
Yes and, more importantly, no. Just to be safe I reached out to a Mazda rep for the dimensions of the CX-70 and compared them to the Mazda CX-90.
With the 2nd row seats upright the CX-70 has 39.6 cubic feet of cargo volume. The Mazda CX-90, though has 40.0 or 40.1 cubic feet, which is somehow slightly more. With all the seats down the CX-90 has as much as 75.2 inches, whereas according to Mazda, the CX-70 has 75.3 inches, so that’s something. Obviously, these tiny differences are not noticeable and the cars have effectively the same storage area.
The Mazda CX-70 does have some little cubbies.
The Cubbies Are Not That Accessible
Here’s what the rear looks like with the cargo removed. The cupholders are still there but the rear belts, seats, and rear HVAC have been removed. This means the CX-70 is ever so slightly lighter (all that stuff adds about 45 pounds of weight if you were curious). The one pictured here is a PHEV, so it’s got storage for the charger that sort of works.
Then there are these two little cubbies where the seats were on the CX-90. Because of the way the cargo floor closes, the closer of the two cubbies is only accessible if you lift the floor all the way up, which is sort of awkward and only works if you’ve got nothing back there, otherwise, you need to take out whatever is on top of the floor.
The storage area all the way in the front is only accessible if you fold back the 2nd row of seats or, as we did here, remove the cargo cover. It’s certainly better than nothing, but I’m not sure how much better.
What’s Under All That Foam?
I’m glad you asked because David and I took it apart and looked:
You can see some fuel lines, a spare tire (good), a subwoofer, some orange high-voltage lines for the hybrid system, and a few other electronics. This is all fairly deep within the floor and there’s an argument to be made that this could be a larger storage area, except:
That’s a bunch of foam/padding to reduce noise, vibration, and harshness. It works! The CX-70 is fairly quiet, although I think I’d rather have the extra space.
So, It’s Cheaper?
Not exactly. The CX-70 is technically a CX-90 that has less functionality but costs more money. How is this possible?
The CX-90 offers the 3.3 Turbo Select trim, which starts at $37,845 (before delivery). The CX-70 doesn’t have this trim, meaning your cheapest option is the CX-70 3.3 Turbo Preferred, which starts at $40,445. Otherwise, every trim is essentially the same price as the comparable CX-90, so except for the initial starting price it’s just a less functional CX-90 for the same money.
One could argue that rather than try to slot a third-row into a smaller package, Mazda is giving you a capacious two-row crossover instead. Mazda, in fact, tried to make this argument by showing off a BMW X5, non-L Jeep Grand Cherokee, and Lexus RX 350:
Just looking at it, the CX-70 does have more rear storage than either vehicle. The total 75.3 cubic feet of cargo storage trumps even the 72.3 cubic feet in the X5, 70.8 cubic feet in the Jeep, and handily bests the 46.2 cubic feet in the Lexus RX 350. Do you get a cost savings with that?
Sort of; you can get a base Jeep GrandCherokee Laredo in two-row configuration for $40,035, which is slightly less than the CX-70, even though the CX-70 is demonstrably nicer. It’s not premium, but it is near premium, with many quasi-luxury touches. The Mazda is much cheaper than the Lexus RX 350 (starting at $49,950) and the BMW X5 ($65,700) because, well, it’s a Mazda.
The term “Empty-nesters” got thrown around a lot at this event to explain people who might eschew the third row.
Am I Taking Crazy Pills? Gimme Something
Ok, here’s something kinda cool.
The Mazda CX-70 can, in certain trims, tow a total of 5,000 pounds. This isn’t a wild amount (so can the VW Atlas), but it’s enough to pull a small boat, some jet skis, a small camper, or even an entire classic Mazda supercar like the rotary-powered Cosmo 100s.
If you get a Mazda CX-70 you can get a tow camera to tow things:
I used it to test lining up the CX-70 with the Cosmo pictured above. It worked quite well.
Is This All A Cynical Ploy To Win Over Google Searches?
There is a very good argument to be made that this is all a cynical (or logical) ploy to win over Google Searches and searches on different car-buying platforms. As enthusiasts, we know this is just a two-row CX-90, but perhaps the average buyer just searches for what they want and the existence of both a CX-90 and a CX-90 Sport Two-Row Whatever is confusing.
Our pal Elana got this quote in her review from Mazda, and it supports this theory:
“There are two unique customers for three-row versus two-row,” says Dan Aguilar, Mazda’s product manager of vehicle line planning. “We want to be on the list for both.”
In retrospect, maybe the headline for this piece should have been: The Mazda CX-70 is the First SEO Car.
Anything Else?
Mazda is offering some slightly sportier trim and color combinations on the CX-70 to differentiate it, but it’s extremely subtle. My preference is the CX-70, so perhaps I should be happy that you can get the better-looking car for the same price.
Ok, I Get It, This Is Not Ideal, But Is The CX-70 Good?
Yes, of course, it’s good. If you want to know what the PHEV is like you can read our review of the CX-90 PHEV, because it’s basically the same car. We haven’t reviewed the non-PHEV CX-90, which means we haven’t reviewed the non-PHEV CX-70 because, again, they are identical cars.
I am ideologically more supportive of the CX-70 in PHEV form because I believe every car like this should be a hybrid. When fully charged, the 17.8-kWh battery pack can deliver the CX-70 PHEV a full 26 miles in EV-only mode. So long as you hold back your right foot judiciously you can scoot around town only using the electric motor. It’s not a fun drive, but it’s something. Mash on it and and the 2.5-liter naturally aspirated four-cylinder has a reasonable 323 horsepower at the ready, which feels genuinely quick even if it sounds like a buzzy Mazda powerplant.
https://www.instagram.com/p/C7OsiBJMnE1/
I am emotionally more supportive of the inline-six. Why do we even have V6 engines? Unless you’ve got a Busso V6, the V6 was a historical mistake. Inline sixes are way better in basically every way and the inline-six is a peach. In Turbo S Premium spec the CX-70 glides powerfully to highway speeds thanks to a rockin’ 340 horsepower and 369 lb-ft of torque.
There are too many vehicles in this class with a too-small turbo motor mated to a crappy CVT transmission, so a relatively large inline-six (3.3 liters) putting power down mostly to the rear via an eight-speed transmission does feel better. It also sounds way better.
You’re not going to burn down the Applebees in this thing, but it feels good like a Mazda should, and it’s available in Soul Red so you can happily tow your matching Miata track car and an extra set of tires.
Let’s Talk About ‘Yaw Damping’
As soon as Jake, the Mazda PR guy, said the term “Yaw Damping” my first question was:
Is this a Dave Coleman term?
It is, in fact, a Dave Coleman term. If you weren’t aware, Dave Coleman is one of the best automotive journalists from the pre-blog era and wrote for a magazine called Sport Compact Car. It was, for a time, one of the best car magazines in the world and this was due in no small part to nerdy engineer Dave Coleman, who liked to make up terms for technical issues so small that only he noticed (never forget The Dave Point).
The Mazda CX-70, like the CX-90, is only available in AWD trim, but it’s a RWD-biased system and, mostly, the car is driving in RWD unless it needs the extra traction. Because Dave is crazy smart, and Mazda is smart enough to listen to its crazy engineers, they figured out the best way to use the connection between the front and rear wheels (via the AWD system) not for extra traction, but to adjust how the car rotates (yaws) as you turn the steering wheel.
Here, lemme just let him explain it:
The conversation starts at about 3:20 in this video.
Would You Buy This Thing?
I am somewhat infamously in the market for a two-row crossover, so the Mazda is something I’m theoretically considering. It’s a little pricy for me, sure, but it’s far nicer than anything else I’m looking at, and it handles a little bit better than other Japanese or American offerings because that’s what Mazda indexes for in all its vehicles. I don’t need a third row so I’m not out shopping for a third row.
However, if given the choice between the identical CX-70 or CX-90 in any trim I’d probably just get the CX-90. It’s almost entirely the same car and I can think of more times when it would be nice to have an extra row than I can think of reasons why I’d get the CX-70 and its tricky-to-access storage cubbies instead.
If the CX-70 were, like, $2,000 cheaper I’d probably get the CX-70.
I know part of the point was to have a new electrified platform (and RWD, but they’re all AWD standard anyway and how many buyers really care) but I wonder if it might have made more sense to update the old CX-9, yank the 3rd row out of that and keep it around. Not too unlike the CX-5 sticking around in markets where the -50 has popped up. The CX-9 isn’t significantly smaller, maybe an inch or so in most exterior dimensions, but it would offer some more differentiation and more ways to split the lineups rather than have the 70 & 90 basically mirror one another.
CX-9 didn’t sell because it was big and heavy and had a 4 banger in it. 6 cyl would have been so much better.
CX-9 was a pretty steady seller, but it struggled to be a volume player because it was too small inside against most of its competitors, more like a 5+2 seater. While most competitors had a 6 then, that’s pretty much reversed now where 6s are increasingly rare in the segment, rather than the norm.
My thought on keeping the CX-9 around was more in lieu of the -70, to have as an addition to the CX-90. With the -90, the CX-9 no longer needs to take on the role of family hauler for the brand and could be a less expensive or 2-row option. But then the CX-90 was supposed to correct the size shortcoming and most reviews say it’s still a bit tighter inside than a lot of competitors.
“If the CX-70 were, like, $2,000 cheaper I’d probably get the CX-70.”
You know what would make the CX-70 $2000 cheaper?
Getting rid of the unnecessary AWD system and those stupid black plastic fake vent things in the bumpers.
Plastic isn’t expensive.
Simplified powertrain setups make production and shipping easier. Mazda is a fairly small company, so they have to be strategic. AWD has a high take rate, and they use the front wheels as part of their dynamic control system (there’s another article here about it) to improve turning and steering response and such.
I agree with those who are disappointed with Mazda for going the cheap route on the CX-70. I was hoping for a slightly larger CX-60, something decidedly in the two-row space, or perhaps even something “compact,” like the X3 and GV70. Instead, they took an SUV on a ~202-inch wheelbase that wasn’t even that roomy to begin with and then deleted the third row. I’m…aghast.
Mazda is following Porsche’s example and charging more for the lightweight version.
Sir, this isn’t a CX70. It’s a CX90 ST!
“Many people simply will not buy a minivan even if it’s the logical choice for their family and even if minivans rule (they do). Instead, people buy three-row crossovers, which are almost always a compromise of functionality in the name of style.”
From the frying pan of style right into the dumpster fire of style.
Todays Minivan is like owning a pickup in early 60’s and 70’s. Everyone shows up to borrow it or worse wants you to help them move and today people want to have you drive them to the airport or borrow it to take a crowd to a concert. I still have 2 vehicles and if I drop down to one it will be a Minivan
What about regulations and testing having a separate model name under government eyes? Do they need to do all over again?
I never researched this topic, something similar to a Chevy Traverse/Buick Enclave. Same vehicle underneath but different brand.
With the odd price change for the CX-90 when the CX-70 was announced – yeah, $61,000 is a big ask for the top Turbo S, as nice as it is, and getting the base under $40,000 would be good for marketing, but the whole process seemed clunky – and now this, whoever’s in charge of this rollout should get dinged on their next performance review. Since there’s no mention of any suspension calibration changes and the towing capacity is the same for CX-90 Preferred Plus trims and above, I’m banging my head on the wall trying to figure out any reason for the differentiation. They’ll have to run a separate ad campaign or make the model name distinction in joint ads.
Presumably the two-row Crown Signia will be physically a little more adept around town, if not tuned to quite as sporting a degree, and will have substantially better fuel economy with the standard hybrid and comparable acceleration with somewhat lower fuel consumption if it gets the Max hybrid, so what makes the CX-70 a more compelling competitor than the CX-90 already would have been? David can’t tell us yet how the Crown Signia is to drive. but I’m guessing he’s told you.
I really don’t understand the value of a CX-70, even after reading this review. Does it really just come down to the stigma of a third row? Unless that second row is getting more leg room (which it’s not), I’d just drive around with the third row folded down 99% of the time and have it for the rare occasion I’ve got more than three passengers. At least the other two row variants of a three row SUV tend to have some combination of shorter length, better second row legroom, and/or more cargo space.
When it’s time to replace my Ridgeline, I’d consider a CX-90 as a towing and hauling large stuff vehicle. But the dealer would have to leave a lot of money on the hood to make me consider a CX-70.
I was thinking that too, even if rarely used what’s the downside to having the third row and just leaving it folded flat most of the time-this is added versatility, never a bad thing in an SUV.
This makes me think of how the Prius v apparently had an optional 3rd row in some foreign markets. For toddlers, maybe. Dunno how you’d fit anyone back there. I once had to carry 7 people in an emergency and could barely fit one adult in the trunk.
It helps if you chop them up first to make better use of the available space.
If it had more rear legroom, this would make sense. But it does not have more leg room. Or more storage room. One could fold down the CX-90 rear seats and essentially have the exact same vehicle. So why even do it?
The thing about the CX-90/CX-70 that drives me crazy is that the floor is so incredibly high. The cargo space is accordingly hard to use and the passenger space feels cramped. We looked at the CX-90 PHEV to replace our Pacifica PHEV and decided absolutely not. It’s worse in every imaginable way.
*Busso V6 OR De Virgilio (Lancia) V6
The Porsche/Audi turbo 3 liter V6 is a peach as well…and the GM 3.6 liter is better than it has any right to be.
Uhhh the 3.6L that has a notorious appetite for timing chains, among other issues?
Buick’s turbo 3.8 v6 in the Grand National is another v6 for the ages. Would absolutely smoke a Ferrari 308, Corvette, Porsche 911 and would pull on a Testarossa or Lambo Countach to about 70-80mph.
GM’s 3.6 DOHC, well its great on the test drive in a Caddy CTS Wouldnt own one out of warranty.
I’m disappointed that the 70 doesn’t end up a little cheaper. I had been a little interested, since I like cargo space and don’t need a third row (it’s larger than I’d like to go, though). But you are right; the third row is a better value than a small amount of hard-to-reach storage.
If they dropped the price by about $1500, I could see a few people considering it. $2500 would really make people consider it if they don’t need the third row, I think.
I would have just made it a package on the CX-90. Rear seat delete option or a specific trim. No need for a separate model.
Yeah it’s overpriced. I was expecting something completely different and smaller than the CX-90.
My favorite thing about this is that they still have chunks of the CX90’s trim next to where the third row would be. It’s just such a remarkably lazy vehicle…and I genuinely have no idea why they’re making it as a separate model. This entire thing could’ve been a trim of the CX90. It’s just such bizarre, artificial product differentiation. I kind of wonder if a bunch of stuff was more or less lost in translation along the way, if that makes sense.
It seems like this is just a swing and a miss trying to appeal to Americans in a cynical way. I genuinely have no idea why you would buy this over a CX90. It’s literally the same thing in a less useful package. But anyway, as much as I love the CX90 on paper they’re having pretty significant issues with them so far.
Apparently the transmission is a nightmare in stop and go traffic because it basically behaves like a DCT…lurching and yanking you along. The consensus seems to be the ride is way too stiff for a hauler as well. Folks are also having issues with the 48 volt system being wonky and unrefined in the straight 6 versions. Don’t get me wrong-I admire that Mazda has gone full Mazda and tried to give us a boat that’s somewhat engaging to drive, but for this particular segment I have to wonder who it’s going to appeal to outside of us sickos.
I also appreciate that they’re offering a PHEV, but it’s way, way more expensive. The base PHEV starts at about 10 grand more than the ICE variant…and it somehow gets slightly worse fuel economy. If the EV range is enough for your commute and errand type drives then you’ll still see a benefit…but for some reason I struggle to rationalize PHEVs that don’t outperform their ICE counterparts when it comes to gas mileage.
It’s a damn hybrid. It should do better even when you aren’t driving in full electric. I have similar gripes with the 4Xe Jeeps. Also, due to the buggy mild hybrid system even the ICE versions of these get dramatically better fuel economy than their pure ICE competitors…24/28 in the base Turbo. That’s legitimately really good for a hauler.
Anyway, I don’t think the PHEV will pay for itself over the course of ownership and I’m really not sure how much better it is environmentally than the plain Turbo and Turbo S. I genuinely love the CX90 on paper and when it comes to styling…it just seems like a product that needed a little more time in the oven. Peep the CX90 forums if you need receipts…the owners of the first year of these are miserable.
That being said I imagine the kinks will be worked out, and my wife and I will still look at a CX90 when it’s time to replace her car. I just worry that I’ll love it, she won’t, and we’ll wind up with a hybrid Highlander just like everyone else…
Sad to hear of all the issues with the CX-90s. Hopefully, Mazda gets them all ironed out soon enough. I perused the forums earlier at your suggestion and man, there are a lot of complaints.
I am still hoping to upgrade to a 2016-2023 CX-9 for my wife someday (she’s in a 2016 CX-5 right now).
That’s the thing about the CX-90; even on its own, for most people, it’s arguably worse in function than a Grand Highlander, Pilot, Atlas, Traverse, or just about anything else in that segment. You really do have to be a special kind of buyer to go for the Mazda. And that’s a good thing–we deserve choice–but I don’t understand all the professionals recommending the CX-90 when most people would be better-served by its competitors.
You’re basically summarizing everything Savagegeese has said about the CX90 and it’s valid. I’m also puzzled as to why all the car publications keep recommending it wholeheartedly. The compromises it comes with make it a pretty bad choice when it comes to its central mission-hauling people and stuff. It’s smaller than most of its competitors, it lacks interior storage space, the suspension is stiff, and the small increase in sportiness it offers make it less refined as a daily.
I remain particularly perplexed by the transmission. Why they decided to in house engineer a proprietary torque converter-less multi clutch setup is beyond me. I’ve daily’d two DCTs in a row and while they’re a joy when driving hard they suck ass in stop and go traffic…I have a comparatively high tolerance for a lack of refinement and even I find myself exhausted sometimes when the DCT in my car is yanking me through traffic.
At its worst it can feel like someone shifting a manual very poorly…and that’s how folks on the CX90 forums describe it with Mazda’s weird transmission. Like you implied, these are compromises that folks like us can put up with it….but for the average consumer looking for a big appliance? I don’t see how the CX90/70 offer anything that they can’t get in their competitors other than improved fuel economy/hybrid options.
For whatever reason the Odyssey, Palluride twins, Pilot, Traverse, Durango, etc. only offer thirsty, old school NA engines…and even the mild hybrid CX90/70 are rated at 24/28 for gas mileage, which is comparatively much better.
Having had two TDI SportWagens and as someone currently considering a Golf R for a daily, I agree. DCTs can be rough.
Oh man…I’d skip the Golf R entirely. I’ve had dreadful experiences with the EA888. We have some VW stans on this site who swear by it but I’m never touching one again….slash long term ownership is going to be way, way more expensive than its competitors because of how German it is under the hood.
If you’re thinking Golf R take a look at the Integra Type S. It’s all the joy of the Civic Type R with an added layer of comfort. Or, save yourself 10 grand and check out the Elantra N. It won’t be as nice on the inside and is less refined, but it’s exponentially more fun to drive. I’ve driven a MK7 R and owned a 7.5 GTI and both my Kona N and the Elantra N I’ve driven were easily twice as engaging.
If you absolutely must go German, the updated Audi S3 now has all the equipment the Golf R has without the hellish infotainment experience. I sure as hell wouldn’t want one off warranty, but if you buy new you’ll probably have a good time.
Waaaaiiittt, it has a DCT?!? I missed that, what a monumentally stupid idea for a big 3 row SUV. Automatics have gotten so good that I really cannot see any justification for a DCT anywhere but actual sporty cars.
I really like Mazda (owned 2 and considering a 3rd for my wife’s car) and want them to succeed but they really seem to get stuck on some weird ideas some times…which has at times helped them make some awesome iconic stuff, but a DCT is not a value add or differentiator for a car in this class. And at a small company that probably doesn’t have excess budget to throw around it also seems like a massive waste of development money-especially given that in other reviews I’ve read the inline 6 seems a little underdeveloped and they should’ve put the money there. Which to your earlier point this whole vehicle just seems a tad undercooked.
I should have clarified-it’s not a DCT, it’s a wet clutch/set of planetary gears that doesn’t have a torque converter. Regardless, it’s a weird choice here.
Oh ha, oops. IIRC only AMG has done a wet clutch automatic before (maybe Lexus did at some point)? But still, don’t see the advantage for even a sporty SUV.
CX-90 doesn’t really compete with any of those models. Aviator, GLS, X7, Q7, Range Rover, arguably the new LX (despite being body on frame); the big luxury-marque RWD-based family hauler is where this competes. Not those FWD-based offerings from pedestrian brands.
It definitely competes with those. Mazda aspires to be a premium brand, but they are not a luxury marque. The Aviator and a GV80 maybe, but those are against top trims of the Mazda, most of the 3.3’s trims are in the $40k range, squarely where the pedestrian brand crossovers are. And even if it’s rear-biased, the Mazda is standard AWD anyway, and the base MSRP is lower than another RWD offering from a pedestrian brand, the Ford Explorer. And lower than the Pilot, Grand Highlander, even Atlas.
I’d like to know why they decided to make a whole new model name for this, when they could’ve just made the CX-90 with a two- row option? Makes no sense.
Make it the CX-90 Sport and call it a day. Or make the 2-row the hot version and call it the MazdaSpeed CX-90.
I was very eagerly anticipating the CX-70, hoping that we were going to get a slightly-larger CX-60. I did not expect a 2-row CX-90. I’m still interested in it (I haven’t used the third row in my XC90 in a long time), but I don’t want something quite that large.
It also weakens and confuses the naming convention in the lineup, which had been fairly linear. The CX-70 could/should be the CX-80, or 80, but the CX-80 already exists.
The CX-60 – which shares its RWD-based platform with its 70, 80, & 90 siblings – is nearly the same size as the FWD-based CX-50, which is just a touch smaller than I’d want. There’s about a 15-inch difference in total length between the 60 and 70/90, so more than enough room in the lineup for an in-betweener that could compete with the Lincoln Nautilus, X5, GLE, etc., on the two-row premium front.
Was there a consensus among the other journalists there about the car and its place in the market?
As wild as it sounds, and maybe this should have been the headline: The Mazda CX-70 Is The FIrst SEO Car Ever. If Mazda has to compete with two-row and three-row vehicles then it needs two different names to be considered in search/et cetera.
Actually, Elana makes this point in her review on C/D and so I added a link to it and added a section on it in this post. It probably is an SEO/search play and, from that perspective, it does make more sense.
Oh, that’s a really good point. I always forget about those sorts of considerations. I think something like the Grand Cherokee L is perhaps better implementation of naming differentiation, since it more clearly relates the models, but maybe that actually muddies the water for folks who are searching for these things.
That certainly makes a lot of sense, and allows them to claim to make more models, which keeps shareholders and “bean-counters” alike happier.
From a manufacturing perspective it’s also sensible, as the hard points and stamping are all identical, just less stuff behind the 2nd row.
Doesn’t mean I don’t want them to bring the CX-60 (even if slightly stretched? Maybe a CX-65?) here, if they’re trying to keep certain models distinct for certain markets.
Edit: should say “The CX-70 should be the CX-80, but the CX-80 already exists. Or maybe the CX-85 if they have to have a distinct model name. ” in the second paragraph. Not sure what happened there.
On the plus side, this is arguably better than Chrysler calling a decontented Pacifica the Voyager and doubling their model count.
These are the best looking SUV in my rear view mirror. I find myself fawning over them when they are behind me. Such a great front end design.
See, I’m waiting for the announcement of the new CX-50, which will be the CX-70 but without the 2nd row. It’ll also cost a little bit more, because luxury means exclusive exclusivity, and your small passengers are excluded.
CX-50 is taken (and arguably the best in its class, especially having won a very recent comparison test), but CX-40 is available.
We only need a two row thingy ourselves to replace our 24 year old Subaru Forester (one careful owner!) but it probably won’t be a CX-70…even though I’m sure it’s nice.
Mostly because it’s as big as a CX-90. Which are fat. Which tends to make it an inefficient user of space and resources. Especially for just three people. And expensive to run, given fuel prices in Oz.
BYD just launched their awfully named Sea Lion PHEV down here for a smidge under fifty grand or about 6 grand cheaper than a Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV. Seats five. 80 km EV range. 1,000 km total fuel range (claimed). And probably twenty grand or more cheaper than the CX-70 will be given the CX-90 starts at seventy five grand in Australia.
Man, that is weird. How does it not have much more storage? Did I not read that right?
They already used what space they could for the CX-90.
But they took 2 entire seats out. Am I right that all the “extra” space created by taking out 2 entire seats was somehow taken up by 2 under-the-floor cubbies??
Something fishy is going on there. I wonder if they measured the CX-90 cargo space with the rear seats completely removed or something.
No, the seats, HVAC, belts, etc. were removed, and instead there’s the cubbies and more floor and the insulation panel that fills what was the footwell for the third-row passengers.
My friend is looking for exactly this, no third row but a larger cargo area than their Sportage, plus a hybrid. I’ll show them this
It’s absurd that this doesn’t get a big discount, or more likely, that the CX-90 doesn’t cost a few thousand more. It seems very likely that the CX-90 will go up in price next year.
I’m pretty sure the resale value of the CX-70 will be a lot lower after five or ten years, and it’ll probably be harder to find a buyer willing to accept only 2 rows in an SUV that large.
I’m all for weight reduction, but for 45 pounds of weight, I’m taking the additional utility of a third row, even if I’d never use it. It’s the resale potential that would have me picking the CX-90 every time.
“What’s Under All That Foam?
I’m glad you asked because David and I took it apart and looked:”
Of course you did, ya little rascals. The Mazda reps must have been delighted to see you yanking the insulation out of their press car.
Automakers need to start having a vehicle set aside for The Autopian, like giving a baby a smash cake on their birthday. Then you can really get in your groove and start tearing off body panels to get a better look at the wiring and suspension.
“Baby’s Smash Cake” is a great name for this Autopian series!
Having zero need for a third row, I’m one who might consider the 70 over the 90. If I could work the right deal. At a higher price for essentially the same car, I’d bet the CX-90 will be flying off lots (relatively speaking) while the 70s will languish. A bargain might be had somewhere.
I’m expecting for something along those lines.
I was hoping for more than a 45-pound weight advantage for the 2-row version, and increased legroom for the 2nd row, like how Volvo did for the various XC90 2-rows (for instance) they’ve made. Otherwise this seems like a waste of a model name and should just be an option for the CX-90.
I don’t think you’re the one on crazy pills, MH. What is Mazda thinking here? Makes ZERO sense.
Zero is a bit strong.
-It uses the same stampings as other model(s), so it’s less expensive to develop and manufacture. I strongly believe that Mazda doesn’t have the spare money and flexibility to develop multiple entirely separate two-row models and body styles on this platform. Witness the CX-60 and CX-80 offered overseas, for comparison.
-Some folks genuinely don’t want that third row, for whatever reason. Now with that said usually two-row versions of cars that also have three rows in the same body shell tend to offer a bit more legroom for the second row compared to the three-row version. I think that was probably their biggest misstep with this model (besides the name, which should have been numbered closer to 90 to allow for a future 70 to bridge the gap).
-The more crossovers Mazda sells, the more they can justify passion projects like the MX-5 Miata and rotary R&D.