Your Neighbors Won’t Know That The 2025 Mazda CX-70 Isn’t A CX-90

Mazda Cx 70 Autopian 011824 Ts
ADVERTISEMENT

Believe it or not, you haven’t seen this car before. It’s the new 2025 Mazda CX-70, and if you’re thinking it looks an awful lot like the CX-90 crossover we first saw last year, you aren’t wrong. Think of this as Mazda’s take on a large two-row crossover, emphasis on large. It’s here to provide a little showroom diversity and to court the small handful of buyers who wouldn’t, under any circumstances, buy a three-row crossover.

Mazda CX-70 Autopian 011824 Ilce 7rm4 22

Everyone expected the Mazda CX-70 to be a wider version of the CX-60 two-row crossover sold in Europe, Asia, and other regions that aren’t North America. Nope. Instead, the CX-70 is essentially a two-row CX-90, a three-row crossover we’ve seen before. This thing:

2024 Mazda CX-90 17

Now, the CX-90 is pretty great, but it’s also pretty big. Those expecting a smaller two-row crossover are going to be disappointed. Compared to the popular Mazda CX-5, and even the existing two-row CX-50 in Mazda’s lineup, the CX-70 is a different beast entirely. Sure, the new car’s longitudinal platform has something to do with it, but the CX-5 and CX-50 are compact crossovers while the CX-70 is huge.

To differentiate the CX-70 from the CX-90, Mazda’s pasted on the sportiness, or perhaps the stereotypical American sportiness, with hexagonal grille mesh, fake vents accompanying real air curtains in the front bumper, rakish wheel designs, and more faux vents in the rear bumper. I wonder how many Pontiacs there are in Hiroshima? The really amazing takeaways are simple — one, this thing still looks leagues better than much of the competition, and two, the CX-70 is nearly indistinguishable on the outside from a three-row CX-90. Indeed, Mazda has confirmed that the CX-70 is “the same basic size as [CX-]90,” although the CX-70 is “a teeny bit lighter” due to the lack of third-row seats and third-row HVAC.

Mazda CX-70 Autopian 011824 Ilce 7m4 3

Yes, Mazda’s positioning this thing as a sports bus, although without details on engineering changes, the tweaks we can see are largely cosmetic. We’re talking about an optional red leather interior and dark red trim contrasting the CX-90’s top-spec off-white leather and wood. It looks a bit like of set of Etnies I used to have as a child, but that’s the appeal.

Mazda CX-70 Autopian 011824 Ilce 7m4 6

Mind you, ditching the third row comes with an upgrade in cargo flexibility, namely a massive cubby area beneath the cargo area’s false floor that Mazda claims is somewhat weatherproof. In the words of a Mazda USA representative, “you can put cool drinks back there and ice, and it’s not going to ruin it.”

Mazda CX-70 Autopian 011824 Ilce 7rm4 58

As for powertrains, you get exactly the same choices you do in the CX-90 — a 3.3-liter turbocharged mild hybrid inline-six, and a 2.5-liter four-cylinder plug-in hybrid powertrain. Expect performance figures to be, in Mazda’s words, “directly comparable” to those of the CX-90, from power to fuel economy to PHEV electric range.

Mazda CX-70 Autopian 011824 Ilce 7rm4 53

Unsurprisingly, because the CX-70 is essentially the same vehicle as a CX-90, it gets a ton of available kit, from a Bose stereo to heated and ventilated rear seats to wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. New to the CX-70 is a neat active safety feature called unresponsive driver support, which will put out a series of warning chimes if it detects a period of no input through the pedals and/or steering wheel. If those chimes go unattended to, the CX-70 will slowly bring itself to a halt, hopefully before any mayhem occurs. It’s a promising idea, even if coming to a stop in a live lane of traffic seems sketchy.

Mazda CX-70 Autopian 011824 Ilce 7rm4 61

The Mazda CX-70 looks good, but also seems like a head-scratcher. How many people would go with it when the CX-90 is almost the same vehicle with an extra row of seats? Normally, three-row and two-row vehicles different enough to have their own model names have substantially different bodystyles, like the Volkswagen Atlas and Atlas Cross Sport, or the Jeep Grand Cherokee L and shorter Grand Cherokee. Instead of chopping out noticeable length, Mazda claims to be positioning the CX-70 as a psychological play for customers who, for whatever reason, don’t want a third row of seats. Still, more choice is a good thing, and it shouldn’t be terribly difficult for Mazda to adjust production depending on demand. Expect pricing and full specifications for the 2025 Mazda CX-70 to be released in about a month, when we’ll see just how much like the CX-90 it really is.

Mazda CX-70 Autopian 011824 Ilce 7rm4 23

Mazda CX-70 Autopian 011824 Ilce 7rm4 82

Mazda CX-70 Autopian 011824 Ilce 7rm4 83

Mazda CX-70 Autopian 011824 Ilce 7rm4 60

Now has anyone seen a Cosmo around here?

Mazda Autopian 011824 Ilce 7m4 77

(Photo credits: Griffin Riley)

Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.

Relatedbar

Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.

About the Author

View All My Posts

72 thoughts on “Your Neighbors Won’t Know That The 2025 Mazda CX-70 Isn’t A CX-90”

  1. This just made it to the list of contenders for my next family car, in PHEV flavor. Our current XC60 is a tad small, and I’m lobbying for a minivan. My wife wants an SUV, but I hate the idea of the third row without large sliding doors. Mazda XC70 to the resuce it seems!

  2. If we look at this from a different perspective, the CX-90 feels kinda like a larger 2-row with a 3rd row shoved in. Due to the longitudinal I6, the exterior dimensions were quite long, yet many reviews criticized the lack of interior room of the CX-90 (partially the front row which hasn’t changed, partially the 3rd row which was very cramped for the class).

    This still feels like botched product planning. While the CX-60 does exist in the EU market, apparently it’s not bigger than the US CX-50, which eliminates it as an option. What really should’ve happened is the CX-90 needed to be longer, and the CX-70 would be a short wheelbase version of that. What they ended up going with is a length compromise to avoid having 2 wheelbases.

  3. The “large” two row SUV is a harder thing to come by these days. My wife and I just replaced our 2018 Tiguan, and we had a hard time finding something that was as large inside without having 3 rows. We have two kids, and we just don’t need a third row. The problem is most SUVs such as the Highlander lose almost all cargo space behind the seats when the third row is up. We ended up with a 2024 Subaru Outback because it was the closest thing dimensionally to our Tiguan that we liked (plus, wagon). The Outback is really the last affordable wagon out there, Audi, Volvo, Porsche, etc. are all huge money. This is a glorified wagon, this is Mazda’s way of giving the consumer what they don’t realize they actually want, a wagon.

    1. My wife has a Tiguan for the reasons you state above. The packaging is crazy good for a vehicle of that footprint. I own a wagon – an A4 allroad that is actually 2″ longer than the Tiguan but has so much less passenger room. Now that I have a second kid, I’m looking for something bigger but not 200″ long like the CX-9 and the VW Atlas. It’s really hard to find something in between. I’d look at the Outback seriously except for my one-year experience with a 2013 Legacy that made me write off the CVT transmission (and Subaru) entirely. Did you omit the Atlas Cross Sport due to size?

  5. Mazda Corporate Headquarters, first meeting of the CX-70 design team, many engineers from powertrain, dynamics, and others around, designers for interior and exterior…

    “Good morning everyone. We have gathered this highly talented team to keep our momentum rolling.”

    Everyone nods

    “Yes, it is very important we do so. We need to design a car for the North American market that will fit between the CX-5/50 and the CX-90.”

    More agreement

    “So, I know you all are very excited to start and take some of our market research to design such a vehicle.”

    More nodding, people getting restless

    “However, after careful deliberation, the CX-70 will be the CX-90 minus the third row. You may all go home now. Except for our interior designer. We need like two new panels, and a new cargo tray for pickleballs.”

  6. I honestly can’t tell the majority of them apart, anyway, unless I check the badge. And I’m not quite sure if that’s a good thing or a bad thing.

  7. I am one of those people that doesn’t really want the 3rd row in most things. I have a 3rd row in our van that has been used maybe three times, a Suburban or Expedition XL with a 3rd row is fine too but for something like this I’d rather have the cargo room and under floor storage.

  8. Oh, it’s like they wanted to wagon. But then Big Boss Mazda Machine was like “In this economy! We can’t wagon!” So, they released a Wagon-adjacent Utility Vehicle instead. I know Mazda isn’t exactly flush with moola for taking risk. But there’s got to be some money in being the one who goes “Fine, yah bastards, here’s a wagon that doesn’t make 600hp and cost 142k.”

  9. A shorter, tauter CX-70 could have been an interesting choice given that the street price delta between a RAV4 Prime and a base or mid-grade CX-90 PHEV rounds to zero.

  13. For a small manufacturer with limited resources it is indeed an odd choice to have a separate model instead of calling it a CX-90 Sport or Offroad or the like that.

  14. Ok, clearly someone at Mazda missed a memo or something because this is how they organized the naming scheme on this platform.

    CX-60 SWB 2-row
    CX-70 LWB 2-row
    CX-80 SWB 3-row
    CX-90 LWB 3-row

    The 70 and 80 need swapped for this to make more sense, the SWB ones need to be the smaller numbers not how many seat rows they have.

    1. I don’t think it matters because all of those aren’t sold in the same markets, you only ever get the option of the 2 row or 3 row. So you’ll only ever be able to pick between a 60 & 80 – or – the 70 & 90; who cares if some model, with a similar name, is actually bigger/smaller than the one you got. Naming schemes are often market specific, not global, and this still works.

      1. I guess I’m hung up on the need for all four variants, it seems like this could have been simplified a bit especially from a production standpoint

  15. I get the impression Mazda had to abandon plans for a totally different model, perhaps due to costs, but they already committed to bringing something out and leaving out the 3rd row was the most effective way to do it.

    I like that there’s an option that doesn’t force you into a 3rd row, but I’m not sure it will be meaningfully different (or cheaper) enough from a CX-90 that people won’t just buy that instead. Maybe it rides lower still than the CX-90, which is a bit shorter than say, a Pilot?

    I guess I get it though, the segment between a CX-50/CR-V/etc and the CX-90/Pilot/etc had a moment but isn’t a big volume one any more. Most brands would probably be served just as well with an option leaving out the 3rd row. GMC did just that with the outgoing Acadia for a few years, but dropped the option IIRC. At Honda, a Passport is a good bit shorter in length than a Pilot, but also positioned more ‘active lifestyle.’ Maybe the Atlas Cross Sport is a closer comparison and that’s not significantly shorter in length than an Atlas, plus the faster roofline. Seems like the Toyota Crown Signia would be a comparison, perhaps some overlap with upper trims of the Outback for someone that wants something more plush than a Subaru.

    1. The craziest part is that they have a SWB two row version already being made for Europe and Austrail-Asia. You’d think they’d try and save money by only making two different versions, not four.

      1. Right, I think they got ahead of themselves when they thought “we’ll do a unique product for different markets!!” which even bigger companies than Mazda have scaled back on doing in these larger/crossover segments.

        The CX-60 isn’t significantly longer than the CX-50, and the -50 is actually a smidge wider, so I think they would be too close to sell alongside each other here, especially since most buyers would go for the inevitably cheaper -50. And they could have used a hybrid -50 here much sooner than the -70. I’m not sure if they sell the -50 and -60 together in any markets (doesn’t look like they do in the UK for example), but seems like they’d have been better served just selling the -50 in more markets instead with different powertrains – like Toyota sells the same RAV4 in many markets, Subaru the Forester, Hyundai/Kia have shorter versions of the same crossovers, VW different length Tiguans, etc.

        The CX-80 is supposed to debut in March I think, so now I wonder how different that will actually be.

    2. You are probably right. Seems extremely half-assed to release this despite having a delay in the release schedule. I also hope they don’t eff up the trim levels because I cannot understand why they have so many options for the CX-90. It’s extremely confusing. They should have three or four tops like VW and Honda.

      1. One article said that Mazda reps said that customers found the CX-90’s range of trims was confusing, but I could say the same for the full Mazda lineup. On some models I think the trim walks have changed virtually every model year, and then isn’t helped when they label the trims like option packages. The -90 just amplifies it with more powertrains and runs counter to the rest of the lineup: a Turbo S is the more powerful, top CX-90, but “s” designates the standard engines/lower trims on other Mazdas?

        What happened to Signature or Reserve like they’d slap on to top models in the 2010s? Or the 2000s, with i and s to designate engine and Sport/Touring/Grand Touring trims?

  16. This is the first time I wished for a “coupe” version of an SUV. This would make some sense as a CX-90 with a swoopier roofline, but as is I just don’t get it. Good thing I liked the looks of the CX-50 already, can’t wait for that hybrid.

  17. The delayed launch must have been because they forgot to renew their adobe licenses. Because all they needed to do was photoshop the “70” over the “90” on the rear end. That’s all this is.

  18. Mazda took some lessons from GM, not the good ones. They even delayed the launch of this product. Why would you buy a CX-70 when you have the CX-90, fold the third row down and then you have it.

    I was expecting something like the Porsche Macan compared to the Cayenne but well…

    1. Now, this is spoken from one of the biggest outliers there is, but I would much rather not have to deal with a 3rd row at all. Just having it there means I’ll always have a 3-row vehicle. I’d rather there not be any waste with adding extra seating and just have it be one solid piece of flooring there instead, if that makes sense?

    2. I would love the 2-row if it meant more rear legroom than the 3. I am tall, so I usually need the driver’s seat all the way back, and on 3-row SUVs, that usually means I am almost leaning against the 2nd row seatback. They just cram that third row in, the heck with everyone else’s comfort.

      Of course, it won’t be like that.

    3. The target market for large SUVs with 2 rows is couples with no children (or grown children), that have dogs and also play golf. There’s definitely a market for it. I don’t understand why they never show golf clubs in the cargo area.

  19. I like the ball storage indicating that yes, this is indeed marketed towards the pickeball crowd of people who don’t have kids but still want to drive something needlessly large and not actually practical because of the “what if” scenarios they made up while paying $90 for a Stanley mug.

    1. Exactly this. I picture these people using the exact same lines as big dumb truck owners. ‘I have an active lifestyle so I need the cargo volume. You wouldn’t understand.’

  20. What a disappointment. I for one was hoping for something in between the size of the CX-5/50 and the CX-90 – and the ROW CX-60 looks perfect for that. Primary reason I wanted the in-between size is because I can’t fit the CX-90 or anything of that size in my garage. If this thing is the same length (or minus one or two inches) it’s a no dice for me. I also don’t need three rows but the CX-5 and 50 are too small to fit a legit rear-facing car seat in the back with my 6′-3″ frame (time two kids).

  21. It makes a lot of sense. Honda has been doing this with the Pilot and Passport for a few years. The Passport is a bit shorter, but it’s roughly the same vehicle sans third row and with a little more cargo space. Doing this has netted Honda and extra 35-50k units per year without meaningfully cannibalizing Pilot sales.

    The only caveat being the Passport is about 10″ shorter than the Pilot. The CX-70 would do well to a bit shorter like that, but this is Mazda we’re talking about. They’re resources are limited.

    1. If you check the CX-60 that’s sold in Europe, that’s exactly what that is. Making this lack of differentiation all the more puzzling honestly.

      1. I’d like to know if they are able to increase second row leg room as a result. In any case, this makes the platform more attractive to people that would prioritize cargo space over that third row. Think high income couples and singles that want to roadtrip or camp with friends. Small families that would categorically exclude three row SUVs because they’re uncool (the same mentality that made crossovers the default family hauler instead of minivans).

          1. Disappointing, but not surprising or a deal breaker for the business case I foresee. It’d be interesting to see them basically make a cheater LWB version of the CX90 by losing the third row and pushing the second row back a few inches if they weren’t going to shorten the whole thing.

    2. The reduced length of the Passport (and the lack of PHEV option) is what killed it from my list of possible new cars. I need t be able to fit golf clubs and baby strollers at the same time.

      I know I want a minivan, but my wife doesn’t want to go there for some reason!

      1. In another year? you could meet her 1/2 way and get a Lucid Gravity, despite being minivan shaped it doesn’t call itself a minivan of course it (unfortunately) is likely to be base price $80k, keeping it well out of reach for like +90% of the market + the whole Saudi funding isn’t super attractive for a lot of people

        It seems really funny to me how much the “minivan” stigma exists in the US. One of my best friends wife is the same, what does she drive? A Subaru Ascent, i.e. the 10-15% embiggening of the Outback.

        Certainly ice minivans* (like nearly all cars) could greatly benefit from better aerodynamics… It is a near perfect shape to carry 6-8 people and their stuff.

        *there are at least 2 Chinese ev minivans/mpvs that have a cd value of 0.24 or below which seems super impressive

        1. Interesting, thanks!

          However, $80k is definitely out of budget for us – maybe one of the ev aerodynamic chinese minivans will launch here (a man can dream, right?)

          1. Yes! From a purely product perspective there are 2 EV Chinese MPVs that both have a cd of 0.24 or below that I would Love to see in the US only bc these are literally the only full ev mpv options available anywhere.
            Fingers crossed the Lucid Gravity IS super successful And that inspires competition to bring lower cost options to the US market. Tesla (or at least Elon) has been talking about bringing a van to market and I guess the model X is close, but unfortunately it is of course made as a luxury product. Replace the stupid falcon doors with sliding doors and get rid of some of the luxury features like the auto opening/closing of the driver door.
            I would think this would be the quickest way (for Tesla) to create a more affordable mpv. Of course basing it off of the cybertruck could make for a sweeter product, but it would need to be more aerodynamic than the cybertruck.

            From a geo-political perspective (buying super high cost products from Chins) is an entirely different matter

  22. I was really excited for this since we’re going to be looking at family haulers pretty soon but right now I am merely whelmed. I’m not entirely sure why this even needs to exist if it’s as much of a boat as the CX90 is. I was hoping for something a little more compact with more cargo flexibility and it looks like we only got one of those things.

    I don’t see any compelling reason to choose this over the 90 unless it’s significantly cheaper or you want the interesting powertrains and increased driving engagement but aren’t planning on using it as a hauler…and the CX90 has some glaring issues as a family car as is.

    Apparently the transmission is really jerky at low speeds, the powertrains and electronics have been buggy, the interior storage is mediocre, the ride is rough, and while everything looks nice the interior it apparently doesn’t feel as good as it looks. Don’t get me wrong-as an enthusiast I see the appeal of it, but based on what I’ve read I couldn’t see myself recommending one for someone who just needs a big car to haul spawns, pets, and assorted other stuff around.

    It’s objectively not great at that, and this just seems like it’ll have the same issues with way less flexibility…so what’s the point? To me it looks like Mazda is going after the sort of customers who might buy an X3 or X5 but those folks won’t give a shit about a Mazda. Normies and enthusiasts who want to haul people around in something a little less NPC do….but they’re not going to accept as many compromises as this car will require.

    This seems like a real missed opportunity to me. I think a semi affordable X5 is a neat enough idea and the X5 is an objectively great car. But who is this for? Like 6-7 car blog inhabitants who think a straight 6 powered, RWD crossover for $50,000 is a cool idea? When it comes to the main purpose of these vehicles the CX90 falls a bit short and this is literally just that with less practicality. So what’s the point?

    1. From a general ethos, I think there’s at least a small niche to be filled with premium presenting products for sensible-ish people (which is why the Infiniti G35 did so well) – but besides the class giant Lexus, they’ve also got Genesis to compete against now. I still like the idea of a BMW that doesn’t have so many BMW problems out of warranty, but you’re also right that the CX-90’s interior materials haven’t quite hit German levels yet (had a chance to poke around one while buying a CX-5).

  23. The CX70 seems like another perfectly adequate if too big crossover, even if the six cylinder engine does sound interesting! That Cosmo on the other hand, I would do very very bad things to get my hands on…..

  25. Does it still have an instrument cluster, a backup camera, and a telephone charger for every seat? Because the recent CX-90 commercials seem to mostly highlight those features and not much else

Leave a Reply