About that smaller part: Mazda won’t comment on whether the CX-70 is *actually shorter* than the CX-90. So, I could be crazy in thinking that the proportions are better because it’s possible this is just a 90 without the third row. Hopefully we will know more soon. More: it looks like it is the same size after all, but still waiting on more info
Edmunds says the Mazda reps confirmed this has basically the same dimensions. So weird if that’s the case, debuting what was thought to be a new vehicle when in fact it’s the same minus a row of seats.
It's not smaller than the CX90, they are the same size. Slightly aggressive design makes it look just a tad smaller, but they are exactly the same size!!!
*This* is what took them so long to debut??? It's barely any different from CX-90. We've already seen this trick in the VW Atlas/Cross Sport and the Honda Pilot/Passport. Mazda should've just given us a slightly larger CX-60 as originally expected. I see zero reason to not just get a 90 and keep the third row folded, and then you still have the extra seats just in case.
The Command Knob is fantastic. After a bit of time, your common functions become muscle memory without additional distraction fumbling around with a screen.
Have you tried zooming in google maps on apple CarPlay? Or trying to highlight a song in Apple Music menu? 😂 There are so many turns that can be achieved by just a few finger presses
I hope it is the case. Finding stations in our new Mazda are a pain with multiple point and clicks - very hard to do when driving. You have to save stations so you only have to push the center button to scroll though pre programed favorites. Once we did that it was easier. The touchscreen car we have is still easier but we make this work.
I wouldn't be surprised, if this was designed for durability/reliability reasons. Less travel , less stress on the motor and other moving parts.. We had one (on Mercedes ) that lifts up, goes all the way over the back glass (one covering back seat) and sits on top of it. And it broke relatively early. Apparently, It was a common problem for that Gen.
It's not just Mazda, it seems to be a Japanese brand thing. If you look at space/size comparisons, Japanese brands are usually either at the bottom or near the bottom. And most times interior space drops compared to the models they replace.
I think most of the commenters did not understand my POV. Mazda's are as big as the competitors in size. The problem is the use of the space. Even if the car looks big from outside the usability of that space is not great. Mazda states bigger rear leg room number than Rav4, in reality the rear leg room of a rav 4 and cx5 is not even close. In reality rav4 feels and is much more spacious. You can argue that rav4 is longer but come on how long is it really, definitely not long enough to justify a vast space difference. Look at this cx70. They used a body of cx90 to create a two row suv.
@@Striker50_ over the course of a 3 year lease or 5-7 year finance schedule that that means nothing. You'd be better off getting the 90 and keeping the seats folded for the rare use case, they're the same size
$1,500 is still $1,500. That is quite literally 1-2 nice vacations. Invested for 7 years your money doubles. And $1,500 less that has to be financed at 5-9% APR Said another way $1,500 can be free gas for a year@@JDubbs07
@@moondog3056 I'm now seriously considering this over the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV because I have absolutely zero use for 3rd row that can't be removed.
Major disappointment Mazda. They basically just removed the 3rd row and ever so slightly modified the front. They didn’t even bother removing the cup holders from the 3rd row, which it doesn’t have. How cheap. Mainly disappointed because Mazda does provide the CX-60 in other parts of the world. That model is a legitimate 2 row that’s distinctly different then the CX-90.
New Land Cruiser has 3rd row cup holders...without a 3rd row. Think of it as more storage space. I am disappointed that this does seem to be just a 90 with the seats taken out though.
@@ericchang5217 because the land cruiser 250 is a standard hybrid. Thats why the hybrids dont have a third row, and likely will follow for the Lexus GX hybrid as well likely to be called 500h or 550h
Disappointed with this, they could have given us a smaller lighter more sporty CX-60 which is sold in Europe or at least shortened the wheelbase and length for the 70
@MukisaSS No this isn't even close to true. The CX-50 rides on the smaller platform family of Mazda with the likes of Mazda3 and CX-30, torsion beam rear, FWD biased, and doesn't house an I6. CX-60 shares the same platform of the CX-90, and CX-70.
Bruh there was no point in Mazda bringing the CX-70, which is literally just a CX-90 with a third row delete because apparently we don't know to just fold down the third row
@@DanielSparten I think what he means is the CX60 is more of a compact crossover rather than a midsize. And Mazda wouldn’t bring a compact crossover with an inline 6 to North America.
Is this not… literally exactly same body and interior as the CX-90, just minus the third row? Like even identical sheet metal? Sure trim pieces might be a bit different but where other mainstream vehicles actually have different wheelbases between the 2 and 3-row variants, this doesn’t look like it does?
What the hell? They just got rid of the 3rd and that's it? Why does the trunk have cup holders lol. Mazda engineers took a 11 month vacation on this travesty.
This is the only reveal video I've seen where the vehicle has this plastic cladding. Something about the cladding actually makes this look shorter the CX-90. Which I like. The rear door physically looks shorter.
I'm sorry. Alex going on and on about how the "tighter proportions" work better on the CX-70 vs CX-90 had me rolling 😂. Bro needs to get his eyes checked? It's the same car! Mazda's marketing team is apparently staffed by a troupe of magicians. The dinner and hotel room must have been nice!
@@MLHunt Then again, he was probably as stunned as we are with this stunt Mazda pulled. Flying out hundreds of journalists and content creators to NYC and California to drive a less-than-exciting trim of a car they have all seen and driven before under the pretense that it is all-new? His brain honestly probably didn't want to accept what he was seeing. It doesn't make sense.
@unimpressively_charming the fact that Mazda wasn't clear and upfront about what exactly the CX-70 is, even to the people attending the event, underscores the levels of marketing sham this whole deal is.
Maan if Mazda did dual exhausts with that black and red combination, that CX70 would be a complete boss in overall looks 👌🏾 Japanese auto makers always shy away from making bold statements with design.
I'm hoping they'll use the engine and RWD configuration in a Mazda 5 or 6 wagon someday. I'd be more interested in that than another big SUV. It might seem far fetched, but if they're trying to compete with the luxury brands it could actually be a good thing to have in the lineup.
In another video a representative did say the CX-70 and CX-90 have the same wheelbase. Even if its shorter or longer than the cx-90, it would be no more or less than an 2 inches. That is because any change in dimensions is due to the front and rear fascia. Not the platform itself. I thought it was pretty obvious from the beginning the car looks IDENTICAL except for all the blacked out trim. Overall a disappointment unless the car gives a discount greater than 3K versus the CX-90. Otherwise you may as well spend the little more for the cx-90 and just black out the chrome after market. Doesn't make any sense to buy a 200in+ crossover and only have 2 rows haha.
"All new"? It's the CX-90 with 3rd row delete. You should dispense with the nonsense and say what it is. This is disappointing. What is Mazda doing? I was hoping for the Euro CX-60, The 90 is nice, but is too big for me.
Alex, Since you mentioned it, I would take the Crown Signia over this CX-70 but I would take this Mazda over any German CUV. Why wouldn't you want 7:52 sliding second row seats? 🤔
The crown signia has no chance to compete with this The crown signia already looks outdated compared to the cx70 and it’s not even out yet. Compared to the cx70, the crown signia is DOA
Personally I'd pass on both the CX-70 and CX-90 and get a used CX-9 or CX-7. The CX-90 and CX-70 look exactly the same, I'm pretty sure they're exactly the same with a third row delete on the CX-70.
@@naveenthemachine Naveen, wanna make a bet on which will sell better. This or Crown Signia? If you win you might finally afford the Genesis you always wanted.
Yes, that's why these reviewers exist. To convince you it's groundbreaking and new and totally different. I miss honest reviewers that call it as it is
CX 90 offers performance and COMFORT (and, of course, high security as all Mazda models). We were told that CX 70 offers the same performance, a sporty design and a DYNAMIC driving experience. If that means a SPORTY driving experience then CX 70 can stand out as a distinct model. Otherwise, why have 2 models with the same dimensions, engines and driving experience? And please don’t state because of one row of seats difference …
Damn it, Mazda! I saw a Canadian CX-70 Phev with body color cladding around the wheels and then found out that is only available in Canada. I will not pay for a top trim Phev model on a CX-90 or CX-70 to have it look like a rental spec. So here I am again marking Mazda off my shopping list. At least give us the option in the United States!
Also takes longer to scroll. I dont want to scroll 7 tabs over on Android Auto, just to overscroll by 2. Touching exactly what you want to interact with will always be faster
I am replying to the original comment. I am well aware of the touchscreen functionality Also, most Mazdas already sold don't have any touchscreen ability. @@JackSmith-qi7dr
@@Striker50_ That's not a thing, spinning a wheel on your Spotify playlist is superior. The rotary dial also acts like a D-pad so you can push it up down left and right without doing whatever made up problem you just created.
Having had the original cx5 with touch screen and the current with the rotary, I haven't issue with the current method at all. It is definitely intuitive and allows me to see the changes just fine. The only drawback is for the dialing.. that is presented in a sort of rotary mode so you have to scroll through. This then highlights the benefit of Android auto where I can speak out the numbers... or dial using the phone. So I can see both. Sides a bit. However I have to say the rotary is not a problem.
Interior colors maroon on black, home run. That looks stunning. First hybrid I've seen with a spare tire, a must have on American roads. I wish the CX-50 could lose the body plastic. It looks awful. Way too much. At least offer a matched color. I like that CX-90/70 has full body paint panels.
Been waiting months for this day! This size is definitely what I'm looking for... don't need 3 rows, just 2 row utility. I like the CX90 design and this with a shrunken rear overhang is awesome! These are all wins and nice touches: Read amber turn signals, Spare tire and the reclining and adjustable rear seats.
It's literally a CX-90 without a third row. You're absolutely in the minority here. Why wouldn't you just buy a CX-90 and keep the third row folded? You would accomplish the same thing while also having the ability to use the third row if need be. The rest of us only want to drive a boat of a vehicle if we have a need for a third row. Which is what should make a vehicle this big. If there's no third row. The size is pointless. I've been waiting years for this thing and my disappointment is bordering on anger.
@@charname-playermaybe like 1000 cheaper😂, I would rather keep the 3rd row for occasional use. This is why the 3 row midsize SUVs sell better than 2 row midsize SUVs.
I wonder what Mazda engineers were smoking when they decided not to make this a shorter vehicle - and I’d like to get some if I can. It was clearly incredibly strong, so I’d like to try some if I can. I think it would’ve been better if Mazda engineers weren’t smoking at the time, but it is what it is.
Which is what they want. The service center is their Cash cow. The CX 5 we just picked up doesn't even tell you how much oil it takes in the owners manual anymore. It just recommends to take it in to service at Mazda center.
They took handling characteristics too serious with this platform. A move stretched too far to reach 50/50 weight distribution and balanced handling, sacrificing ease of maintenance.
And it has a rear mounted engine cam chain tensioner. If that fails, the entire engine must be removed. That’s a $3000 job to replace a $100 part. Bad engineering.
I wished Subaru aimed for this with the Forester. Aside from the knob- controlled infotainment, I would totally put a deposit for a PHEV CX70 with AWD. But what’s the EV range?
As far as the extremely small two-row midsize SUV segment goes, I'm really looking forward to seeing a whole lot of CX-70 and Atlas Crossport comparisons. These seem to both be the top in this class and I hope you can compare these soon.
I thought it was going to be an American version of the 60. I was looking from something between the 50 and 90 but looks really big. Looks like a 90 minus 3rd row. Guess I will hold onto my cx5.
I for one would be all over it if it were a good bit less money. I’m just happy someone got their head out of their rear and figured out not everybody needs a third row - nor wants to pay for it.
Mazda, man. They're like the Apple of the car world. Redesign of the same design! Why couldn't they just make a 2-row version of the CX-90 and call it a day? It's so annoying when car companies don't try to make their models look different. I mean, if I see one of those on the road, I'm gonna think it's a CX-90 unless I squint really hard. The CX-70 should've been a coupe' sport crossover SUV, like the Atlas Cross Sport.
Mazda is a smaller car company and doesnt have the luxury of altering their supply chain. I imagine the new CX-5 will be roomier, and offer a traditional hybrid. The cx-70 and 90 are more temporary stepping stones that will generate profit margins from higher sales prices
I hope not. The 50 is FWD architecture, so will likely get the Toyota FWD hybrid synergy drive. I doubt we'll see a PHEV 50 - Toyota can barely make enough PHEVs for their own customers let alone diluting the supply of batteries by giving some to Mazda. IMHO.
I'd be angry at Mazda if i were Alex, made you try to differentiate the CX70 from the CX90 when they are in essence the same car. I just want a Cx5 with more cargo space and rear legroom. Not a 200 inch behemoth 2 row. How hard is that? Mazda: heres a CX50 with crappier suspension, interior and more plastic cladding. No Hers a CX90 with 3 rows... No Heres a CX90 with 2 rows... Ughh
15:26 too many mistakes in these videos sometimes, maybe slow down on the releases to ensure less mistakes and more editing time. or maybe channel needs more manpower, eyes and ears. at least include a voice over that recants the mistake
4:56 just because mazda gave it a long hood that means we should assume that it has perfect weight balance? thats absurd, by that logic the kia sportage has perfect weight balance too.
That's an absurd comment that implies absurdity. The engine and transmission were placed as close to the middle of the vehicle as possible. I would have not used the word "perfect" however.
Local dealer told me same as the CX-90 just without the 3rd row... Length 201.6 Width 77.6 weight=4,899 if that is true then mazda missed the mark.. this should have been their sporty model being a little bigger then the CX-50. And compareing this to the German vehicles... for performance it will loose 0-60 and 1/4 mile which if they did some zoom zoom to it could be closer.
@rendaddy_ cx50 and cx 5 are the same way it'd just else noticeable because the cars themselves are shorter. Also the b pillar protrudes and is not set back like some cars which accentuates it.
The shot at 9:03 is how big the cargo area should have been. Everything in front of that and behind the 2nd row seats (you know, the part where the 3rd row seats lived in the CX-90?) should have been removed to shorten the vehicle to the size it SHOULD have been.
The all new CX-70 is?? A CX-90 with a bench seat and no third row. Really Mazda? All new? How stupid are we? Not quite that stupid. Still... I paused on getting the CX-90 due to that ridiculous 3rd row and the lack of 2nd row bench on higher trims. So, the 70 is a 90 without the flaws. But, marketed as another model? Please. It's a CX-90 with the "no third row" box checked. Now let's see how they price it. Maybe another mile or two of EV range due to lower curb weight? Might they have fit a slightly larger battery under that bench? Hope so...
Alex is a professional, and it shows in this review. Battery is dead in the vehicle he's prepared to present, suddenly switched to another vehicle (that looks like a pre-production CX-70 that a Mazda employee has been driving), and still pulls off the usual quality presentation. Bravo, sir!! The Mazda looks a LOT better than the CX90 with its substantial booty. 😊
Looks promising and have been waiting for the next CX-7, now a CX-70. Question: based on a rumour, how is the Hybrid system Mazda is using related to that of Toyota’s? (Shared technology, identical, made by Toyota or by Mazda, how is but different)?
Mazda is absolutely crazy: So first they make a 200 inch long "midsize" crossover that barely has any more room than the "too small" CX9 t replaced and doesnt have the useble space of the competition (Pilot, GH, Telluride, Palisade, etc), it has a TURBO 3.3L engine that is barely faster than all the old competition, they then take that SAME HUGE midsize crossover and chop the rear seats off the back and give it a whole different name. No changes to the HUGE exterior porportions, no real changes to the interior or exterior. This series of vehicles looked promising on paper: RWD, I6, sporty mazda handling and looks, etc. but the exection of both the CX90 and now the CX70 miss the mark horribly and I suspect that both are going to flop. The three row one has more than enough space on the outside that it should be much roomier than what it is and yet the two row one has decent space but its exterior is far too big for a "two row" midsize SUV. How does Mazda manage to get a vehicle that is so critical to this market so wrong? I find the CX50 to have this same similar issue. Its HUGE on the outside but barely is roomier than the CX5 which has been knocked for years for being too small compared to the CR-V, Rav4, etc. I'm a two time Mazda owner (Mazda3 and a CX5 Turbo) What I wanted was something midsized, RWD, sporty, not a three row SUV in drag with black trim and a 3row seat delete. Its gonna FLOP big time. This is laziness on a level that even Honda didnt attempt. At least the Passport is noticeably smaller than the old Pilot. These two are basically the same. Why spend the money on marketing, etc. for a CX70 that basically should have been a CX90 Sport. They could have at LEAST given it a coupe-like rear end or something. We waited a YEAR for this bullsh**?
Mazda was screwed by Toyota, they told Mazda they were going to use the platform and it's inline 6 engine for the Lexus IS, but plans changed, the next IS will be a full EV. Mazda knew they were on their own, so they had to kill the Mazda 6 development. The CX-70 is the last attempt to grab some easy money, after that they wouldn't stand a chance in this ultra competitive segment.
I'm glad to see there are people in the comments who appreciate this vehicle. A spacious 2-row CUV with abundance of storage and hybrid availability. I've been wanting something like this for a long time. I'm glad Mazda is bringing this to reality. And for the critics: no, a 3-row CUV doesn't do the same thing this as the useless 3rd row eats away at precious cargo space.
It's strange I went from a Corolla to a new Mazda 3, beautiful car but the sunroof only opens 8 inches. The Corolla had a huge opening. There's nothing that would stop it opening a bit further I think Mazda don't like big sun roofs.
It's beautiful just like the 90. Sadly I tested a 90 and the seats have no padding and are very small..... Would love to own the 90 but I need a little more storage and better seats.
i don’t buy mazda’s claimed “safety” reasoning for keeping the stupid controller method for the screen… sure, they say it keeps the driver’s eyes closer to road, but then they have the tiniest HVAC display and buttons like 12 inches below that screen 😂 i’m calling BS! just get with the times, mazda. ditch the clunky controller and make it full touch functionality!
I actually don’t understand what was the point of making a cx50 at this point? Could’ve invested that money for a redesigned cx5 with slightly bigger dimensions and have an off road version of it. And this needed to be slightly smaller instead of the exact same size as the 7 seater 😭 This is gonna be an issue cuz the pricing will be almost similar for this vs. 90. If they didn’t had Cx50 and make cx70 smaller. The pricing would’ve been justified as it would make sense to have it start around 38k CAD for a base model since the base cx90 in Canada starts around 46-47k
Why Alex is the only reviewer who says the length is less than CX-90? Every other reviewer is saying that CX70's length is same as Cx90. Which means a 200" long 2 rows SUV, that doesn't make sense. What is going on here?
I think cx70 might be a tad more successful than cx90. And that’s because of driving dynamics. A three row large car with sporty dynamics makes a lot less sense because that sportiness is not very comfortable for those in third row. This is Mazda we are talking about - they are small and probably don’t have that much R&D budget. I think they took an extra year to possibly fine tune their mild-hybrid in-line 6 configuration. Love them or hate them, for a relatively small company they are trying something different.
Wtf is wrong with people, this comment section is so dumb - for people who want a compact vehicle Mazda has CX-5 (next gen will obviously get bigger) and CX-50, so why is everyone complaining about this being too big? Makes absolutely no sense. Also where do they expect the longitudinal drivetrain to go in a smalller vehicle... Reality is that the CX-60 would sell poorly in the US bc of cramped back seats that don't fit child seats. CX-70 obviously offers more back seat space than CX-60 and will sell much better in the US than CX-60 would, no matter what clueless keyboard warriors think.
CX-5 and CX-50 is small enough to compete with the the compact SUVs like the CR-V, Tiguan, Equinox, RAV4. But It's too small to compete with actual Mid-Size SUVs which is most people thought that CX-70 would slot in. Mid-Size, 2 ROW, SUVs like the Passport, Atlas Sport, Santa Fe. So take in now the CX-70, nearly 4.7k lbs, 200 inches just like the CX-90, competing with 2 Row SUVs, with 3 row seating deleted. It's too heavy, its practically the same size as its 3 row counterpart. It's upside competing with this segment would be, its actually large. Obviously, the big caveat is that its because its the same size as its 3 row cousin. People going into a Mazda dealership are going to question why two identical cars on the outside have different number badging. Mazda had an opportunity to fix what they did wrong with the CX-90, which was focusing on making a driver focused car when it was supposed to be a family hauler, in a segment where people with families need space, 3 row seating. Now they pretty much did the opposite of this for the CX-70. They forgot that they're going down a size segment where the tide shifts towards younger people, more adventurous, more energetic. So yeah, people who want a smaller SUV, the CX-5 and CX-50 are here but they're economy cars. There are people wanting a RWD biased, I6, upscaled feeling SUV that's not in a size of the CX-90, not a 4 banger, torsion rear suspension, economy SUV. Why do you think the people clamoring for the return of the Mazda6 with the same I6 powertrain of these new SUVs not flocking to Mazda3 sedan? Because a Mazda3 is not what they want. It's almost the exact issue here. The route Mazda could've taken was take the CX-60, lengthen it out to 190 inches, do whatever width to fit the average North American, slap on the CX-70 styling and lights, put in the North American powertrains, boom, it fits the NA Mazda Line up more logically, and it can satisfy the people outcrying right now. You lose, 0.5 inches of legroom in the rear, cool. That's the reality of a Mid-Size SUV to its 3 row counterpart. If Mazda, wanted to fix that, surely they can go engineer it out. Oh..they won't? Ok, then a CX-90 with an optional 2 row seating configuration, it is.
Because it's 200.8 inches long, which is longer than all but the Grand Highlander/Traverse. Yet the inside is the size of a Sorento which is almost a foot shorter. Same reason the TLX doesn't make sense. Midsize dimensions compact cabin space. Mazda has this problem throughout their lineup, their cars are bigger outside yet smaller inside. Also, why spend the same money for a 2 row version of a 3 row car? The price differential won't be that much.
I love that there are many introducing midsized 5-passenger SUVs (especially after hearing Ford and GM are axing the Edge and Blazer respectively). These cars are perfect for my family of 3 adults and one child as I don’t need an excessively large 3-row SUV but want more breathing room than a compact SUV. That being said though, I am a bit disappointed with this. I don’t mind the use of the same platform, but like the Honda Passport and Jeep Grand Cherokee, I wish they would make an attempt to differentiate the styling of the 3-row and 2-row variants. The Passport and GC atleast have some minor styling differences. And the Cadillac XT5 and XT6 still have many visual differences even though they are essentially the same vehicles but different wheelbases. But here the CX-70 and CX-90 look identical except for maybe the interior color. Why even give it a different model name at that point? Call one CX-90 and the other CX-90L.
This is literally a two row CX-90. They could’ve done a trim with a 3rd row delete instead. Mazda should’ve given us the CX-60 from overseas. I think this is a huge miss by Mazda.
About that smaller part: Mazda won’t comment on whether the CX-70 is *actually shorter* than the CX-90. So, I could be crazy in thinking that the proportions are better because it’s possible this is just a 90 without the third row. Hopefully we will know more soon. More: it looks like it is the same size after all, but still waiting on more info
Edmunds says the Mazda reps confirmed this has basically the same dimensions. So weird if that’s the case, debuting what was thought to be a new vehicle when in fact it’s the same minus a row of seats.
I am surprised that you did not measure its length.
No tape measure handy? 🙄
It's not smaller than the CX90, they are the same size. Slightly aggressive design makes it look just a tad smaller, but they are exactly the same size!!!
Motormouth says these share the same platform.
*This* is what took them so long to debut??? It's barely any different from CX-90. We've already seen this trick in the VW Atlas/Cross Sport and the Honda Pilot/Passport. Mazda should've just given us a slightly larger CX-60 as originally expected. I see zero reason to not just get a 90 and keep the third row folded, and then you still have the extra seats just in case.
Rebadge the CX-60 as the new CX-5 in North America. Then this makes sense.
There are more cargo compartments where a third row would be. I’d buy this one!
@@magnoliap5824 would a $30 trunk organizer not suffice??
The cross sport actually looks a lot better than the atlas
Exactly!
The Command Knob is fantastic. After a bit of time, your common functions become muscle memory without additional distraction fumbling around with a screen.
Have you tried zooming in google maps on apple CarPlay? Or trying to highlight a song in Apple Music menu? 😂 There are so many turns that can be achieved by just a few finger presses
Agreed! I have a Mazda 6 which allows for touchscreen when stopped, but I still use the knob. No nasty fingerprints either!
Have to agree. Wasn’t a fan of the knob and was disappointed at first. Now I wish my other car had it. So much easier and quicker.
I hope it is the case. Finding stations in our new Mazda are a pain with multiple point and clicks - very hard to do when driving. You have to save stations so you only have to push the center button to scroll though pre programed favorites. Once we did that it was easier. The touchscreen car we have is still easier but we make this work.
@@Buc_Stops_Here I have to agree. I don’t even bother using the radio haha. Apple car play ftw
Yes, everybody was anticipating cx70, but received cx90. What a gyp.
Thank you for being one of the only reviewers to show that the panoramic roof barely opens
I wouldn't be surprised, if this was designed for durability/reliability reasons. Less travel , less stress on the motor and other moving parts.. We had one (on Mercedes ) that lifts up, goes all the way over the back glass (one covering back seat) and sits on top of it. And it broke relatively early.
Apparently, It was a common problem for that Gen.
Mazda sucks at use of space. Please dont bash me I own a CX5.
Mazda needs to learn how to make optimal use of space.
If you need more space, there are plenty of other options which fulfill that brief.
It's not just Mazda, it seems to be a Japanese brand thing. If you look at space/size comparisons, Japanese brands are usually either at the bottom or near the bottom. And most times interior space drops compared to the models they replace.
@@damilolaakannino you’re forgetting have a lot of space inside
@@naveenthemachine you are whining too much
I think most of the commenters did not understand my POV. Mazda's are as big as the competitors in size. The problem is the use of the space. Even if the car looks big from outside the usability of that space is not great.
Mazda states bigger rear leg room number than Rav4, in reality the rear leg room of a rav 4 and cx5 is not even close. In reality rav4 feels and is much more spacious.
You can argue that rav4 is longer but come on how long is it really, definitely not long enough to justify a vast space difference. Look at this cx70. They used a body of cx90 to create a two row suv.
Should've been Edge sized. Not sure who whould buy this over a CX90 when they're the same vehicle +/- a few seats.
probably a $1,500 price difference
@@Striker50_ over the course of a 3 year lease or 5-7 year finance schedule that that means nothing. You'd be better off getting the 90 and keeping the seats folded for the rare use case, they're the same size
$1,500 is still $1,500. That is quite literally 1-2 nice vacations.
Invested for 7 years your money doubles.
And $1,500 less that has to be financed at 5-9% APR
Said another way $1,500 can be free gas for a year@@JDubbs07
People who don't want the useless 3rd row seats
@@moondog3056 I'm now seriously considering this over the Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV because I have absolutely zero use for 3rd row that can't be removed.
Major disappointment Mazda. They basically just removed the 3rd row and ever so slightly modified the front. They didn’t even bother removing the cup holders from the 3rd row, which it doesn’t have. How cheap. Mainly disappointed because Mazda does provide the CX-60 in other parts of the world. That model is a legitimate 2 row that’s distinctly different then the CX-90.
New Land Cruiser has 3rd row cup holders...without a 3rd row. Think of it as more storage space.
I am disappointed that this does seem to be just a 90 with the seats taken out though.
Almost all companys do this
@@ericchang5217 because the land cruiser 250 is a standard hybrid. Thats why the hybrids dont have a third row, and likely will follow for the Lexus GX hybrid as well likely to be called 500h or 550h
Disappointed with this, they could have given us a smaller lighter more sporty CX-60 which is sold in Europe or at least shortened the wheelbase and length for the 70
The CX-60 is basically a CX-50 with 1 extra inch. Not point bringing it here.
@MukisaSS No this isn't even close to true. The CX-50 rides on the smaller platform family of Mazda with the likes of Mazda3 and CX-30, torsion beam rear, FWD biased, and doesn't house an I6. CX-60 shares the same platform of the CX-90, and CX-70.
Bruh there was no point in Mazda bringing the CX-70, which is literally just a CX-90 with a third row delete because apparently we don't know to just fold down the third row
@@DanielSparten I think what he means is the CX60 is more of a compact crossover rather than a midsize. And Mazda wouldn’t bring a compact crossover with an inline 6 to North America.
@@DeadAir21 Right, because that would just be too awesome, and we just can't have nice things! ;)
Is this not… literally exactly same body and interior as the CX-90, just minus the third row? Like even identical sheet metal? Sure trim pieces might be a bit different but where other mainstream vehicles actually have different wheelbases between the 2 and 3-row variants, this doesn’t look like it does?
That seems to the be the case. Insane.
@@bradcomis1066 no this appears to have a smaller end to end dimensions, but bigger trunk space than when the seats are up in the cx90
Mix one part CX-90 with no 3rd row and three parts caffeinated marketing staff and you get a CX-70.
What the hell? They just got rid of the 3rd and that's it? Why does the trunk have cup holders lol. Mazda engineers took a 11 month vacation on this travesty.
Exactly!
This CX-70 is the equivalent of trying to finish your book report on the bus to school.
@@chowsquid 😄😄
This is the only reveal video I've seen where the vehicle has this plastic cladding. Something about the cladding actually makes this look shorter the CX-90. Which I like. The rear door physically looks shorter.
As someone moving upmarket from a Subaru, but still wants some soft-roading capability, the plastic cladding is totally welcome!
Shrunken CX-90? It's the same size.
Watching this video and him never once coming to the realization that this is a 2-row CX-90 was kinda cringe...
I'm sorry. Alex going on and on about how the "tighter proportions" work better on the CX-70 vs CX-90 had me rolling 😂. Bro needs to get his eyes checked? It's the same car! Mazda's marketing team is apparently staffed by a troupe of magicians. The dinner and hotel room must have been nice!
Gotta agree. I have up to now read Alex as an honest reviewer but he lost a little credibility with me on that one.
Agree on that one, usually he is one of the most informed youtubers, but dropped the ball on this one @@MLHunt
@@MLHunt Then again, he was probably as stunned as we are with this stunt Mazda pulled. Flying out hundreds of journalists and content creators to NYC and California to drive a less-than-exciting trim of a car they have all seen and driven before under the pretense that it is all-new? His brain honestly probably didn't want to accept what he was seeing. It doesn't make sense.
The Mazda staff are smoking 🚬 ROCKS 🪨
@unimpressively_charming the fact that Mazda wasn't clear and upfront about what exactly the CX-70 is, even to the people attending the event, underscores the levels of marketing sham this whole deal is.
Maan if Mazda did dual exhausts with that black and red combination, that CX70 would be a complete boss in overall looks 👌🏾
Japanese auto makers always shy away from making bold statements with design.
No gloss black interior! Thank you, Mazda!
I'm hoping they'll use the engine and RWD configuration in a Mazda 5 or 6 wagon someday. I'd be more interested in that than another big SUV. It might seem far fetched, but if they're trying to compete with the luxury brands it could actually be a good thing to have in the lineup.
Fold 3rd row of cx90 and now it’s cx70 tada……😂
In another video a representative did say the CX-70 and CX-90 have the same wheelbase. Even if its shorter or longer than the cx-90, it would be no more or less than an 2 inches. That is because any change in dimensions is due to the front and rear fascia. Not the platform itself.
I thought it was pretty obvious from the beginning the car looks IDENTICAL except for all the blacked out trim. Overall a disappointment unless the car gives a discount greater than 3K versus the CX-90. Otherwise you may as well spend the little more for the cx-90 and just black out the chrome after market. Doesn't make any sense to buy a 200in+ crossover and only have 2 rows haha.
Bro will you shut up with touch screens? It is what it is. Live with it.
The rotary knob is annoying, touch screen is so much better. Apparently they are not committed on that safety crap because they caved on AA & ACP.
@@horsepowerandtalk1033 I own a 21 CX5 and much prefer it over a touch screen. Cry some more.
"All new"? It's the CX-90 with 3rd row delete. You should dispense with the nonsense and say what it is.
This is disappointing. What is Mazda doing? I was hoping for the Euro CX-60, The 90 is nice, but is too big for me.
Alex, Since you mentioned it, I would take the Crown Signia over this CX-70 but I would take this Mazda over any German CUV. Why wouldn't you want 7:52 sliding second row seats? 🤔
The crown signia has no chance to compete with this
The crown signia already looks outdated compared to the cx70 and it’s not even out yet. Compared to the cx70, the crown signia is DOA
Personally I'd pass on both the CX-70 and CX-90 and get a used CX-9 or CX-7. The CX-90 and CX-70 look exactly the same, I'm pretty sure they're exactly the same with a third row delete on the CX-70.
@@naveenthemachine Naveen, wanna make a bet on which will sell better. This or Crown Signia? If you win you might finally afford the Genesis you always wanted.
@@wyw201 lol I’m not interested in gambling 😂
@@naveenthemachine obviously you cant .man who drives a 2002 Hyundai sonata and posting untrue comments .😂
Alex I love the interior RED color, ❤️& very little piano black anywhere 😊
I would like more of a station wagon back, more cargo space for big boxes. My first new car was a 1981 Mazda GLC.
An I-6 would indeed be fun.
There are no "shrunken dimensions" it's a 2 row CX90, 201" long. We waited how long for CX90 2 row SUV, pathetic.
Alex, I have great respect for your reviews, but this is NOT a shrunken CX90. Mazda says the wheelbase is the same. C’mon man - that’s noteworthy.
Im confused. They brought out a CX-90 minus 3rd row....am I getting that correct...
Yes, that's why these reviewers exist. To convince you it's groundbreaking and new and totally different.
I miss honest reviewers that call it as it is
CX 90 offers performance and COMFORT (and, of course, high security as all Mazda models). We were told that CX 70 offers the same performance, a sporty design and a DYNAMIC driving experience. If that means a SPORTY driving experience then CX 70 can stand out as a distinct model. Otherwise, why have 2 models with the same dimensions, engines and driving experience? And please don’t state because of one row of seats difference …
Love the way it looks. Probably going to hate the price!
So glad to have Alex back
Damn it, Mazda! I saw a Canadian CX-70 Phev with body color cladding around the wheels and then found out that is only available in Canada. I will not pay for a top trim Phev model on a CX-90 or CX-70 to have it look like a rental spec. So here I am again marking Mazda off my shopping list. At least give us the option in the United States!
Yea it’s a little sad but u can always throw some ceramic coating on it , make it more glossy and metallic
3:37 Ponda Passport... Alex you are sounding like me, an old man. 😅
Black with the red seats looks amazing.
You have to get over the infotainment inputs. It’s superior than trying to touch a screen while in motion. On a bumpy road it’s terrible.
Agreed!!!
Also takes longer to scroll. I dont want to scroll 7 tabs over on Android Auto, just to overscroll by 2. Touching exactly what you want to interact with will always be faster
@@Striker50_No need to scroll in Android or Car Play. Both are touchscreens.
I am replying to the original comment. I am well aware of the touchscreen functionality
Also, most Mazdas already sold don't have any touchscreen ability. @@JackSmith-qi7dr
@@Striker50_ That's not a thing, spinning a wheel on your Spotify playlist is superior. The rotary dial also acts like a D-pad so you can push it up down left and right without doing whatever made up problem you just created.
Having had the original cx5 with touch screen and the current with the rotary, I haven't issue with the current method at all. It is definitely intuitive and allows me to see the changes just fine. The only drawback is for the dialing.. that is presented in a sort of rotary mode so you have to scroll through. This then highlights the benefit of Android auto where I can speak out the numbers... or dial using the phone. So I can see both. Sides a bit. However I have to say the rotary is not a problem.
We need the CX60! This CX 70 is not what was hoped for…
They should bring the CX60 to us!🎉
Just right for us. I’ll give it a look
the knob is fine. its better than touch screen tbh
Interior colors maroon on black, home run. That looks stunning. First hybrid I've seen with a spare tire, a must have on American roads. I wish the CX-50 could lose the body plastic. It looks awful. Way too much. At least offer a matched color. I like that CX-90/70 has full body paint panels.
Been waiting months for this day! This size is definitely what I'm looking for... don't need 3 rows, just 2 row utility. I like the CX90 design and this with a shrunken rear overhang is awesome! These are all wins and nice touches: Read amber turn signals, Spare tire and the reclining and adjustable rear seats.
It's literally a CX-90 without a third row. You're absolutely in the minority here. Why wouldn't you just buy a CX-90 and keep the third row folded? You would accomplish the same thing while also having the ability to use the third row if need be. The rest of us only want to drive a boat of a vehicle if we have a need for a third row. Which is what should make a vehicle this big. If there's no third row. The size is pointless. I've been waiting years for this thing and my disappointment is bordering on anger.
@@ScottXC91yeah disappointed here as well. I was expecting a shorter and lowered version of the 90.
@@ScottXC91because this can be cheaper?
Why don’t you just buy a CX90, and just fold down the 3rd row, it’s literally the same thing.
@@charname-playermaybe like 1000 cheaper😂, I would rather keep the 3rd row for occasional use. This is why the 3 row midsize SUVs sell better than 2 row midsize SUVs.
Still hate the push to change it to a touch screen.
I wonder what Mazda engineers were smoking when they decided not to make this a shorter vehicle - and I’d like to get some if I can. It was clearly incredibly strong, so I’d like to try some if I can.
I think it would’ve been better if Mazda engineers weren’t smoking at the time, but it is what it is.
Alex matching his pants color to the seat color. That’s why he’s a pro!
have they used this engine in any other vehicle? i'm worried about the inline turbo in terms of reliability.
What makes you worried about an inline engine with a turbo?
CX-60 and CX-90
Yep, no torque converter to boot.
@@timsul3092 what’s wrong with that?
I'm liking both CX 70 & 90 look, style. Mom just got a used 2019 CX 5, and while very good, the seats are small for me.
The dealership near my can’t give their cx-90s away. I think they have over 60 of them currently
and where is this dealership. Not the case where I live.
Where I live their CX90 never stay past 30 days.
Those CX-90s will get some company when the CX70 shows up
All this long hood, yet the engine is tucked under the dash/ windshield like a minivan! Not a DIY friendly.
Which is what they want. The service center is their Cash cow. The CX 5 we just picked up doesn't even tell you how much oil it takes in the owners manual anymore. It just recommends to take it in to service at Mazda center.
They took handling characteristics too serious with this platform. A move stretched too far to reach 50/50 weight distribution and balanced handling, sacrificing ease of maintenance.
Crash structure. Lots of it 🙂
And it has a rear mounted engine cam chain tensioner. If that fails, the entire engine must be removed. That’s a $3000 job to replace a $100 part. Bad engineering.
Insane vehicle Alex.
I wished Subaru aimed for this with the Forester. Aside from the knob- controlled infotainment, I would totally put a deposit for a PHEV CX70 with AWD. But what’s the EV range?
Finally some competition for the Rav4 Prime.
As far as the extremely small two-row midsize SUV segment goes, I'm really looking forward to seeing a whole lot of CX-70 and Atlas Crossport comparisons. These seem to both be the top in this class and I hope you can compare these soon.
I noticed they finally have the lane keeping tech while in cruise, usually it's just smart cruise control.
I’m sorry , but what’s the difference between this and a cx-90 ?
I thought it was going to be an American version of the 60. I was looking from something between the 50 and 90 but looks really big. Looks like a 90 minus 3rd row. Guess I will hold onto my cx5.
I for one would be all over it if it were a good bit less money. I’m just happy someone got their head out of their rear and figured out not everybody needs a third row - nor wants to pay for it.
I agree, unfortunately I wouldn’t be shocked if it were upper $30k. Why make a vehicle affordable when it can be overpriced
Looking forward to the new CX-60, this time with a second row seat delete and some tape around the rear doors to make it a coupe. 🏆
4:00 *Japanese and RWD based? Sign me up!* 16:45
Mazda, man. They're like the Apple of the car world. Redesign of the same design! Why couldn't they just make a 2-row version of the CX-90 and call it a day? It's so annoying when car companies don't try to make their models look different. I mean, if I see one of those on the road, I'm gonna think it's a CX-90 unless I squint really hard. The CX-70 should've been a coupe' sport crossover SUV, like the Atlas Cross Sport.
Mazda is a smaller car company and doesnt have the luxury of altering their supply chain.
I imagine the new CX-5 will be roomier, and offer a traditional hybrid.
The cx-70 and 90 are more temporary stepping stones that will generate profit margins from higher sales prices
Isn't the rear sideview just like last-gen Kia Sorento?
Very disappointed, mazda. Waited so long for this cx90 lookalike. Could have given us cx60
Kudos to Mazda…no PIANO BLACK on the console and door cards!
So does the CX-70 PHEV mean they'll ditch the CX-50 going PHEV? Styling of the CX-50 sure is more fun then the 70 and 90
I hope not. The 50 is FWD architecture, so will likely get the Toyota FWD hybrid synergy drive. I doubt we'll see a PHEV 50 - Toyota can barely make enough PHEVs for their own customers let alone diluting the supply of batteries by giving some to Mazda. IMHO.
Mazda fumbled
Barely any ground clearance though, makes a great station wagon
Better suspension and off road tires would solve this
增加了第二排的调节度，取消了鸡肋的第三排从而增加了载货空间，这正是我想要的。不过，马自达给予重新命名而不是作为cx90的一个装饰级别，让人产生误会。
mazda please change that bmw taillight for the face-lift, i think cx9 style taillight works perfect for this design language.
I don’t know why you’d buy this over 90 unless price is very different. Same with Pilot vs Passport
I think the passport is suppose to be the mountain climbing version. This CX-70 is not that.
I'd be angry at Mazda if i were Alex, made you try to differentiate the CX70 from the CX90 when they are in essence the same car.
I just want a Cx5 with more cargo space and rear legroom. Not a 200 inch behemoth 2 row. How hard is that?
Mazda: heres a CX50 with crappier suspension, interior and more plastic cladding.
No
Hers a CX90 with 3 rows...
No
Heres a CX90 with 2 rows...
Ughh
Here’s a CX-90 with 1 row
15:26 too many mistakes in these videos sometimes, maybe slow down on the releases to ensure less mistakes and more editing time. or maybe channel needs more manpower, eyes and ears. at least include a voice over that recants the mistake
4:56 just because mazda gave it a long hood that means we should assume that it has perfect weight balance? thats absurd, by that logic the kia sportage has perfect weight balance too.
That's an absurd comment that implies absurdity. The engine and transmission were placed as close to the middle of the vehicle as possible. I would have not used the word "perfect" however.
It is really about the mass balance. Weight is a downward force. Weight has no meaning when you turn the vehicle on a horizontal road.
Local dealer told me same as the CX-90 just without the 3rd row... Length 201.6 Width 77.6 weight=4,899 if that is true then mazda missed the mark.. this should have been their sporty model being a little bigger then the CX-50. And compareing this to the German vehicles... for performance it will loose 0-60 and 1/4 mile which if they did some zoom zoom to it could be closer.
why are front doors so short / rear doors so long...? looks very off
A product of Mazdas push towards a rwd architecture and long hood profiles.
@@th003g this makes no sense - look how far forward the b pillar is
@rendaddy_ cx50 and cx 5 are the same way it'd just else noticeable because the cars themselves are shorter. Also the b pillar protrudes and is not set back like some cars which accentuates it.
It’s almost like this was really designed as a 3 row suv.
Hood struts. About time.
The shot at 9:03 is how big the cargo area should have been. Everything in front of that and behind the 2nd row seats (you know, the part where the 3rd row seats lived in the CX-90?) should have been removed to shorten the vehicle to the size it SHOULD have been.
The all new CX-70 is?? A CX-90 with a bench seat and no third row. Really Mazda? All new? How stupid are we? Not quite that stupid. Still... I paused on getting the CX-90 due to that ridiculous 3rd row and the lack of 2nd row bench on higher trims. So, the 70 is a 90 without the flaws. But, marketed as another model? Please. It's a CX-90 with the "no third row" box checked. Now let's see how they price it. Maybe another mile or two of EV range due to lower curb weight? Might they have fit a slightly larger battery under that bench? Hope so...
So why can’t you just get a CX-90 and keeps the 3rd row folded down. Unless this is much cheaper, I see no point in this. It does look good tho
Alex is a professional, and it shows in this review. Battery is dead in the vehicle he's prepared to present, suddenly switched to another vehicle (that looks like a pre-production CX-70 that a Mazda employee has been driving), and still pulls off the usual quality presentation. Bravo, sir!! The Mazda looks a LOT better than the CX90 with its substantial booty. 😊
It’s literally the exact same thing as a 90. There’s no difference in the “booty”.
I despise those rear seat plastic seat lock covers. The Buick rental I was in had those as well - adults in the back hated them.
Looks promising and have been waiting for the next CX-7, now a CX-70. Question: based on a rumour, how is the Hybrid system Mazda is using related to that of Toyota’s? (Shared technology, identical, made by Toyota or by Mazda, how is but different)?
I'm looking forward to the sedan platform.
Mazda is absolutely crazy: So first they make a 200 inch long "midsize" crossover that barely has any more room than the "too small" CX9 t replaced and doesnt have the useble space of the competition (Pilot, GH, Telluride, Palisade, etc), it has a TURBO 3.3L engine that is barely faster than all the old competition, they then take that SAME HUGE midsize crossover and chop the rear seats off the back and give it a whole different name. No changes to the HUGE exterior porportions, no real changes to the interior or exterior. This series of vehicles looked promising on paper: RWD, I6, sporty mazda handling and looks, etc. but the exection of both the CX90 and now the CX70 miss the mark horribly and I suspect that both are going to flop. The three row one has more than enough space on the outside that it should be much roomier than what it is and yet the two row one has decent space but its exterior is far too big for a "two row" midsize SUV. How does Mazda manage to get a vehicle that is so critical to this market so wrong? I find the CX50 to have this same similar issue. Its HUGE on the outside but barely is roomier than the CX5 which has been knocked for years for being too small compared to the CR-V, Rav4, etc. I'm a two time Mazda owner (Mazda3 and a CX5 Turbo) What I wanted was something midsized, RWD, sporty, not a three row SUV in drag with black trim and a 3row seat delete. Its gonna FLOP big time. This is laziness on a level that even Honda didnt attempt. At least the Passport is noticeably smaller than the old Pilot. These two are basically the same. Why spend the money on marketing, etc. for a CX70 that basically should have been a CX90 Sport. They could have at LEAST given it a coupe-like rear end or something. We waited a YEAR for this bullsh**?
Mazda was screwed by Toyota, they told Mazda they were going to use the platform and it's inline 6 engine for the Lexus IS, but plans changed, the next IS will be a full EV. Mazda knew they were on their own, so they had to kill the Mazda 6 development. The CX-70 is the last attempt to grab some easy money, after that they wouldn't stand a chance in this ultra competitive segment.
I'm glad to see there are people in the comments who appreciate this vehicle. A spacious 2-row CUV with abundance of storage and hybrid availability. I've been wanting something like this for a long time. I'm glad Mazda is bringing this to reality. And for the critics: no, a 3-row CUV doesn't do the same thing this as the useless 3rd row eats away at precious cargo space.
The brake lights on the cx90 are tiny. Like 2” teeny, tiny slivers, as if they were an afterthought!
I see it as a more affordable CX90 with no chrome trimming which is a plus for me.
There are no shrunken dimensions. It’s a 90. You even refer to it as a CX-90 at the 2:52 mark of the video
Wish it looked more like the cx60
I'm trying to figure out if it's smaller or shorter the cx90. beautiful car ; right doesn't look like a station wagon.
Redline confirmed it’s the exact same exterior dimensions as the CX90
It's strange I went from a Corolla to a new Mazda 3, beautiful car but the sunroof only opens 8 inches. The Corolla had a huge opening. There's nothing that would stop it opening a bit further I think Mazda don't like big sun roofs.
It's beautiful just like the 90. Sadly I tested a 90 and the seats have no padding and are very small..... Would love to own the 90 but I need a little more storage and better seats.
Is it 40/20/40 folding in the back? Can't tell from the video
Probably not, it will be the same as the CX-90.
40:60 based on Redline Reviews' video
i don’t buy mazda’s claimed “safety” reasoning for keeping the stupid controller method for the screen…
sure, they say it keeps the driver’s eyes closer to road, but then they have the tiniest HVAC display and buttons like 12 inches below that screen 😂 i’m calling BS!
just get with the times, mazda. ditch the clunky controller and make it full touch functionality!
I actually don’t understand what was the point of making a cx50 at this point? Could’ve invested that money for a redesigned cx5 with slightly bigger dimensions and have an off road version of it. And this needed to be slightly smaller instead of the exact same size as the 7 seater 😭
This is gonna be an issue cuz the pricing will be almost similar for this vs. 90. If they didn’t had Cx50 and make cx70 smaller. The pricing would’ve been justified as it would make sense to have it start around 38k CAD for a base model since the base cx90 in Canada starts around 46-47k
Why Alex is the only reviewer who says the length is less than CX-90? Every other reviewer is saying that CX70's length is same as Cx90. Which means a 200" long 2 rows SUV, that doesn't make sense. What is going on here?
I think cx70 might be a tad more successful than cx90. And that’s because of driving dynamics. A three row large car with sporty dynamics makes a lot less sense because that sportiness is not very comfortable for those in third row. This is Mazda we are talking about - they are small and probably don’t have that much R&D budget. I think they took an extra year to possibly fine tune their mild-hybrid in-line 6 configuration. Love them or hate them, for a relatively small company they are trying something different.
Wtf is wrong with people, this comment section is so dumb - for people who want a compact vehicle Mazda has CX-5 (next gen will obviously get bigger) and CX-50, so why is everyone complaining about this being too big? Makes absolutely no sense. Also where do they expect the longitudinal drivetrain to go in a smalller vehicle... Reality is that the CX-60 would sell poorly in the US bc of cramped back seats that don't fit child seats. CX-70 obviously offers more back seat space than CX-60 and will sell much better in the US than CX-60 would, no matter what clueless keyboard warriors think.
CX-5 and CX-50 is small enough to compete with the the compact SUVs like the CR-V, Tiguan, Equinox, RAV4. But It's too small to compete with actual Mid-Size SUVs which is most people thought that CX-70 would slot in.
Mid-Size, 2 ROW, SUVs like the Passport, Atlas Sport, Santa Fe. So take in now the CX-70, nearly 4.7k lbs, 200 inches just like the CX-90, competing with 2 Row SUVs, with 3 row seating deleted. It's too heavy, its practically the same size as its 3 row counterpart. It's upside competing with this segment would be, its actually large. Obviously, the big caveat is that its because its the same size as its 3 row cousin. People going into a Mazda dealership are going to question why two identical cars on the outside have different number badging.
Mazda had an opportunity to fix what they did wrong with the CX-90, which was focusing on making a driver focused car when it was supposed to be a family hauler, in a segment where people with families need space, 3 row seating. Now they pretty much did the opposite of this for the CX-70. They forgot that they're going down a size segment where the tide shifts towards younger people, more adventurous, more energetic.
So yeah, people who want a smaller SUV, the CX-5 and CX-50 are here but they're economy cars. There are people wanting a RWD biased, I6, upscaled feeling SUV that's not in a size of the CX-90, not a 4 banger, torsion rear suspension, economy SUV. Why do you think the people clamoring for the return of the Mazda6 with the same I6 powertrain of these new SUVs not flocking to Mazda3 sedan? Because a Mazda3 is not what they want. It's almost the exact issue here.
The route Mazda could've taken was take the CX-60, lengthen it out to 190 inches, do whatever width to fit the average North American, slap on the CX-70 styling and lights, put in the North American powertrains, boom, it fits the NA Mazda Line up more logically, and it can satisfy the people outcrying right now. You lose, 0.5 inches of legroom in the rear, cool. That's the reality of a Mid-Size SUV to its 3 row counterpart. If Mazda, wanted to fix that, surely they can go engineer it out. Oh..they won't? Ok, then a CX-90 with an optional 2 row seating configuration, it is.
Because it's 200.8 inches long, which is longer than all but the Grand Highlander/Traverse. Yet the inside is the size of a Sorento which is almost a foot shorter. Same reason the TLX doesn't make sense. Midsize dimensions compact cabin space.
Mazda has this problem throughout their lineup, their cars are bigger outside yet smaller inside.
Also, why spend the same money for a 2 row version of a 3 row car? The price differential won't be that much.
I love that there are many introducing midsized 5-passenger SUVs (especially after hearing Ford and GM are axing the Edge and Blazer respectively). These cars are perfect for my family of 3 adults and one child as I don’t need an excessively large 3-row SUV but want more breathing room than a compact SUV. That being said though, I am a bit disappointed with this. I don’t mind the use of the same platform, but like the Honda Passport and Jeep Grand Cherokee, I wish they would make an attempt to differentiate the styling of the 3-row and 2-row variants. The Passport and GC atleast have some minor styling differences. And the Cadillac XT5 and XT6 still have many visual differences even though they are essentially the same vehicles but different wheelbases. But here the CX-70 and CX-90 look identical except for maybe the interior color. Why even give it a different model name at that point? Call one CX-90 and the other CX-90L.
Love it
no, the zoom zoom we are waiting for is a MazdaSpeed 3
Or the return of a Mazdaspeed Miata.
This is literally a two row CX-90. They could’ve done a trim with a 3rd row delete instead. Mazda should’ve given us the CX-60 from overseas. I think this is a huge miss by Mazda.
There's a speculation about some form of CX-60 replacing the CX-5.