This is why I love watching his channel he listens to us, he knows a lot of us are not happy with this cx 90 3rd row delete car… they made a few changes … the car is nice but should have shortened it 5-7 inches and sloped the back …
@@FeLiX13sLaVe not much just the black chrome and the front panels and back panels it’s not very noticeable at all ! To be honest I think it’s pretty much the cx90 with 3rd row delete !!! I was hoping for more of the cx60 but just didn’t happen … hopefully no one will buy them and Mazda will rethink there idea lol 😂
When I say so far so good, I’m referencing the car, it’s really nice no complaints other than the infotainment, which I knew it would take some getting used to. I’m impressed with the mpg I’m currently getting.
@kevenboudreaux3204 Don't worry after you get used to it you will be able to anything without looking directly at the screen which is the whole idea of mazda .
It's disappointing because we wanted something the size of the CX-60, not a CX-90 minus the 3rd row. What is more concerning is the unproven new power train. The Car Care Nut did an excellent technical review of the design and the jury is still out on its reliability compared to the tried and true 4 cylinder that's been their bread and butter. The CX-5 is still the sure bet imho
Exactamento. Something like the CX-60 would have been perfect here in the Canadian market. We don't need yet another hard-to-park gigantic 5 -seater. Hopefully, enough dealers ask to get the truly midsize CX-60 for the the Canadian market. I have seen only one CX-90 on the street since it came out.
The inline 6 is the regular 2.5L 4 cylinder engine that Mazda has lol it just got beefed up and the same applies to the transmission. It’s the 6 speed but they just beefed it up to 8 gears 😂
Really struggling to understand the point of this vehicle. It's a CX90 without a 3rd row. Couldn't you just drop the seats in your CX90 and call it a CX70? Is there something I am missing here?
I compared pics of the CX-90's cargo area with the third row folded down and the CX-70's cargo area. I was really disappointed to see that there is essentially no difference. It would have been nice to see a lower floor on the CX-70, perhaps with the ability to adjust the floor height like the 2022+ CX-5s. Personally, I would just get the CX-90 and keep the third row folded down until an extra seat or two is needed.
Well the top trims of the CX-90 automatically come with Captain's chairs in the second row so you lose the middle seat in the 2nd row which forces you to have a seat up in the tighter third row. The CX-70 solves that problem bc you get to have 3 adults across in the CX-70 vs the CX-90 in similar trims
@@NileshR12 That is a very valid point. It also shows another bad move on Mazda's part. There are consumers who want the top trims of the CX-90 with 7 or 8 passenger seating. Want to have more than 6 people in your large three-row SUV, but you also want the more powerful Turbo S and something as simple as a heated steering wheel? Well, too bad. Settle for the less powerful powertrain to carry the extra weight, settle for less features in what's supposed to be a luxury-minded SUV, or shop another brand. That applies for other features such as a 360 camera, automatic braking in reverse, ventilated seats, etc. Heck, you can't even get Sonic Silver or Artisan Red paints on a Turbo S with more than 6-passenger seating.
what if you never need a 3rd row? losing the weight from seat I'll never use is nice. the cx-50 is a nice replacement for our CX-5, but we really value space behind the rear seats and the cx-50 is minimally larger than the CX-5....
Would have loved to see Mazda do what VW does with the Atlas/Atlas Cross Sport. Cut off 5-6" to get to ~194 inches, slightly lower roof line, Push the 2nd row back 3-4" and call it a day. That with these black out changes and maybe exposed exhaust pipes I think would have gone over great. Can't believe 2nd row leg room is even less than Cx-5/50. It made sense when the 3rd row was there, but is super dumb in this model.
It looks great! I love the wheels, black accents, and unique front & rear end! I'm one of the ones disappointed about the size, and it just being a 90 "twin". I'm not saying I won't buy one but I don't really want or need a vehicle that big. So I'm conflicted as to what I'm going to do. I still think it was a mistake to use the CX-70 name for this though. They should have reserved that for a future vehicle sized between the 50 and 90. That's what is missing in the line-up and what most of us are wanting. I personally think something similar in size to an Edge, X5, Cayenne, etc would sell better than the 70/90. But being a Mazda loyalist, I still may get one. I need to rent a 90 for a few days to see if the size is manageable.
We're in the same boat. I don't need/want anything that big. I'm turn between an X5 and GV70 right if I were to get an SUV. I do want to replace a GLE450 though
I agree, Robert. I just wish people would try to find something positive to say about it. The 70 should have been a couple of CX-90 trim levels. Sport and Sport Plus would have worked perfectly.
Don’t understand what this is! They missed the mark on this. I was really hoping for something larger than the CX50 but less than the CX90. Super disappointed. And the fact they are charging 5k MORE over the CX90 in Canada! Why would I pay more for less? I get Mazda is trying to move upmarket to match the X5 and GLE but there are still other customers to look out for.
Who? Even if you aren't obese what are the chances that your friends and family aren't? This is Japanese commentary on us FAT AMERICANS. They couldn't justify spending more to make it smaller. We've reached that point.
@@mikevaldes9831Mazda is not stupid enough to replace their best selling vehicle in their fleet. The CX5 is their bread and butter model for years. The monthly sales numbers prove this. Where are you getting your misinformation?
First … props to you Jon .. you somehow manage to put a positive spin to almost any wacky situation you run into … while at the same time keeping it real. That’s your credibility secret sauce, keep it up! Ok, back to the CX70 … I won’t repeat any of the obvious factual comments … but, can’t please all the people, all the time. That said I think the suits at Mazda headquarters could have priced the CX70 maybe $2k or $3k lower than the CX90 and diffused all the sameness angst 😂
I’m excited to see how the CX-70 pans out, despite it being similar in size to the 90. Hopefully it will have improvements in driving dynamics over the already great ones of the 90. Got to test drive a CX90 the other day and I loved it, thought it was very fun to drive for an SUV, especially with the acceleration feel and sound.
I completely understand its not the "exact" same. Changing front and rear bumpers doesn't make it different though. Maybe product planners know something we the consumers don't. I really hope Mazda is seeing our concerns. I appreciate their efforts to move upmarket and plan to get my college graduates Mazda 3/30. One of my grads already has a CX5.
I'm fairly certain based on the specs on Mazda USA's website that the black handles are only on the low output inline engine trims and PHEV trims. The Turbo S trims are color matched.
Too bad that they didn’t extend the blacked-out accents to include gloss black Sport spoked wheels. And yes, would be nice to have seen the door handles back as well.
I almost bought the cx50 But waited when I heard they were releasing a new car. I was really hoping for a cx60 version and although the cx70 is just the cx 90.. I’m not mad at it. I’m kinda really liking the black with red interior 😅
The price for cx 70 is absolutely the same as cx 90, who will pay the same price if you can just fold 3rd row. Mazda just couldn't afford to certify and produce cx 60 that available in the whole world in US market?
The only sense I can make of the CX70 is that this was inevitable. Every year vehicles have been getting bigger and bigger. And when they don't get bigger reviwers criticize them for not being spacious enough. So this is really more of a critique on Americans and our obesity epidemic. Isnt it? Should Mazda have cut a foot off of this car? Maybe a foot off of its width just so they could add it back in 5 years? Or should they leave it as is and be a class leader in spaciousness? Weve reached the point where automakers see little benefit in making anything for Americans that arent SUPERSIZED! Shame on us or shame on Mazda?
And yes, if you’re gonna do this with the CX 70 for gosh sake, at least give more legroom to the second row do something Mazda make some adjustments before you release it
The price is not the same!! The basic model of cx70 is more expensive than the basic model of cx 90, so everyone can buy the basic model of cx 90 and not use 3 rows !!! I really don’t understand it!!
Still confused.. when only serious mazda fans can tell the difference tells you marketing wise, this will bea struggle... if mazda dropped the price $1k-$1.5k, that would help differentiate.. Otherwise its an expensive 2 row CUV that you might as well buy the cx-90
We love it! It more perfectly fits what we need in a vehicle than the CX-90. We were surprized to discover that it is a couple inches longer and wider than our GX460. I like the Artisan Red better, but I get no vote in this. Soul it will be.
Currently own and love a CX-9. Soon to replace my other car. May well want the CX-70 for hauling capacity while keeping CX-9 for the 1 or 2 times per year of needing capacity for 6.
Jonathan, can you comment in your response video about the 2025 model transmission compared to the 2024 CX-90? I know it is the same transmission, but I wonder if Mazda did any software updates so it's not as jerky sometimes (According to other reviews).
6 หลายเดือนก่อน +1
CX 70 better looking than the CX 90 with the smaller front grill less bulbous than the CX 90 the vents in the front lower facia mixed review. Unlike Audi, they did not distinguish the CX 90 from the CX 70 very well as Audi did with the Q7 and the Q8. Hope the chassis will be a little sportier in terms of its dynamics. The CX 90 has a long list of technical service bulletins. Atypical for Mazda. I think it was rushed into production. I hope the CX 70 will benefit from all of those mechanical and electrical updates. Pricing is obviously more attractive makes no sense that I would have to spend $18,000 more for CX 90 to get the same components I have in my CX nine grand touring. Electronics are disappointing. They could’ve been more advanced. My wife’s X.3 has substantially more to its infotainment design. For 50 to 60k+ vehicles there’s lots of competition from Japan, Korea and Germany at better price points. Plus, Hyundai and Kia will introduce next generation Telluride/Palisades later this year still raising the bar for Mazda.
The CX-70 is disappointing, but it is different in one big obvious way from the CX-90. If you need cargo area, the CX-90 is a four seat SUV with cargo area, while the CX-70 is a 5 seat SUV with the same cargo area. The disappointment? Why couldn't Mazda just offer a bench seat on the top trims or offer the CX-60 design. . Huge mistake and this car will flame out in 3 years, maybe 5.
I believe Mazda its doing the right thing for both needs, what I believe they screwed up in is in the name and the build-up expectation. The CX-70 its just the CX-90 SPORT TRIM. Which I love, don't get me wrong. The black accents in the 70 its all I ever wanted for the 90, plus the red seating. Obviously there its people with needing more cargo space, then others with more people space need. But there are some of us that were hoping this could have been like the CX-60. The CX-5 its outdated, CX-50 its not what we want. Many of us just wanted a CX-60.
Giving CX 70 is actually the same as CX 90 (even the price) the only reason CX 70 can stand out as a distinct model will be to have a sportier handling. I truly hope Mazda will do this at least. Otherwise, CX 70 is a total nonsense.
The paint matched door handles for higher trims was in the US press release. Just another example that dealers and employees don't always know the product they're trying to sell you.
Mazda is making an extended version of the CX-60 and calling it the CX-80 for Europe and other markets. It would have made more sense for them to delete the 3rd row out of that upcoming vehicle and offer it as the CX-70 in North America.
On paper, the CX-70 is a great idea of a car with its size, however, I personally think that if Mazda was going to make a different model of a car based on the large platform, they should have made a car that would have been a more performance-minded designed version of the CX-60. While a large 2-row with plenty of space is a great option, I think that Mazda should have offered the CX-90 with a third row delete option for more cargo space while the CX-70 would have been a smaller car more on par with the size of SUVs like the BMW X3 and the Genesis GV70.
People always mention the CX-60 because they don't realize how small it is. The CX-50 is nearly the same in length and interior space. That's too small imo
Love the cx70 ! I don’t need a third row seat but definitely need room inside. The wheels look very good and the black accents make it look more sporty.
I did hear one excuse for this move was if it were a wider cx-60 that it wouldn't have enough cargo space. That's why I wanted X5 size 194" but that would have increased Mazda's cost so they took the easy way out. Problem is convincing buyers when they can just get the cx-90.
Someone should send the Mazda CEO's and design team the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. They have the "too small" and the "too big" covered, but are missing the "just right" in the middle offering. The CX-5/50 are great for those that want a compact and CX-90 is great for those that want a bigger 3 row. But this should have been designed to slot in around 195" and redesigned to streamline that bulbous back end since they didn't need the head room where the third row used to be. The rest of the design language is great; just too long and the back end should have been redesigned. I think if they had, then this model would have absolutely crushed it in North America. I'm disappointed as a consumer, but I would really be disappointed if I was a Mazda dealer.
Exactly, I thought they wanted to target X5 buyers/owners and that is the size of the X5 194". Maybe when the test drives come out we'll get some answers but I doubt it.
Mazda has never disappointed me until now. I wanted the CX-70 to be like the CX-60. Why a CX-90 without a 3rd row. I don't need a car the size of a CX-90. Mazda this was a BIG mistake!!!
Yes, if you’re gonna sell a car like this the way they’re doing at least give us exhaust tips on each side exposed come on Mazda you still have time to make a few changes before you release that thing
I think people forget the CX-5 and CX-60 are almost the same size, making the 70 from the 60 would have replaced it, and it seems Mazda plans to have a new CX-5 soon. So they may rebadge the 60 to be the 5.
CX5 and 50 have more similarities to me. Both are FWD based and similar engines. My daughter has a CX5 but I would prefer the CX60 for its rear biased driving dynamics
I'm not currently in the market, but if I were I'd likely choose the CX-70 over the 90 because the underfloor storage would be more useful to me than a third row, and I like the blacked out look. Main problem I have is the lack of Artisan Red, but I dig the red leather and am interested to see how Burnt Copper looks in person.
@@cgnefarious5785 The underfloor storage space is so nominal. You can see it fit like two pickle ball paddles and a set of balls. The rear trunk room is so expansive anyway that there shouldn't be a need to pay the same price and not get the third row. Now if the price of the 70 was about 1.5K or 2K less, then that stands to reason to reach for the 70 over the 90.
Mazda is a weird company. They make safe and reliable vehicles but they always seem to fall a little short whether it's a half-finished design or tech that is a few years behind the competition. I might purchase a 70 but the hype makes no sense at all.
This is why I love watching his channel he listens to us, he knows a lot of us are not happy with this cx 90 3rd row delete car… they made a few changes … the car is nice but should have shortened it 5-7 inches and sloped the back …
What changes?
@@FeLiX13sLaVe not much just the black chrome and the front panels and back panels it’s not very noticeable at all ! To be honest I think it’s pretty much the cx90 with 3rd row delete !!! I was hoping for more of the cx60 but just didn’t happen … hopefully no one will buy them and Mazda will rethink there idea lol 😂
So happy I got my CX-90 and didn't wait for this.
Just bought the CX90 turbo S yesterday. So far so good.
hope so it's 2 days old. pretending the Mazda is a land rover or Aston Martin?
When I say so far so good, I’m referencing the car, it’s really nice no complaints other than the infotainment, which I knew it would take some getting used to. I’m impressed with the mpg I’m currently getting.
@kevenboudreaux3204 Don't worry after you get used to it you will be able to anything without looking directly at the screen which is the whole idea of mazda .
It's disappointing because we wanted something the size of the CX-60, not a CX-90 minus the 3rd row. What is more concerning is the unproven new power train. The Car Care Nut did an excellent technical review of the design and the jury is still out on its reliability compared to the tried and true 4 cylinder that's been their bread and butter. The CX-5 is still the sure bet imho
Exactamento. Something like the CX-60 would have been perfect here in the Canadian market. We don't need yet another hard-to-park gigantic 5 -seater.
Hopefully, enough dealers ask to get the truly midsize CX-60 for the the Canadian market. I have seen only one CX-90 on the street since it came out.
The inline 6 is the regular 2.5L 4 cylinder engine that Mazda has lol it just got beefed up and the same applies to the transmission. It’s the 6 speed but they just beefed it up to 8 gears 😂
@@BernardPY I hope Mazda sees our concerns. I'm shocked product planners suggested a seat-delete CX90.
Really struggling to understand the point of this vehicle. It's a CX90 without a 3rd row. Couldn't you just drop the seats in your CX90 and call it a CX70? Is there something I am missing here?
I compared pics of the CX-90's cargo area with the third row folded down and the CX-70's cargo area. I was really disappointed to see that there is essentially no difference. It would have been nice to see a lower floor on the CX-70, perhaps with the ability to adjust the floor height like the 2022+ CX-5s. Personally, I would just get the CX-90 and keep the third row folded down until an extra seat or two is needed.
Ok so you agree. I’m truly failing to understand how this is a unique model. Just drop the seats on the CX90 = CX70
Well the top trims of the CX-90 automatically come with Captain's chairs in the second row so you lose the middle seat in the 2nd row which forces you to have a seat up in the tighter third row. The CX-70 solves that problem bc you get to have 3 adults across in the CX-70 vs the CX-90 in similar trims
@@NileshR12 That is a very valid point. It also shows another bad move on Mazda's part. There are consumers who want the top trims of the CX-90 with 7 or 8 passenger seating. Want to have more than 6 people in your large three-row SUV, but you also want the more powerful Turbo S and something as simple as a heated steering wheel? Well, too bad. Settle for the less powerful powertrain to carry the extra weight, settle for less features in what's supposed to be a luxury-minded SUV, or shop another brand. That applies for other features such as a 360 camera, automatic braking in reverse, ventilated seats, etc. Heck, you can't even get Sonic Silver or Artisan Red paints on a Turbo S with more than 6-passenger seating.
what if you never need a 3rd row? losing the weight from seat I'll never use is nice. the cx-50 is a nice replacement for our CX-5, but we really value space behind the rear seats and the cx-50 is minimally larger than the CX-5....
Would have loved to see Mazda do what VW does with the Atlas/Atlas Cross Sport. Cut off 5-6" to get to ~194 inches, slightly lower roof line, Push the 2nd row back 3-4" and call it a day. That with these black out changes and maybe exposed exhaust pipes I think would have gone over great.
Can't believe 2nd row leg room is even less than Cx-5/50. It made sense when the 3rd row was there, but is super dumb in this model.
Legroom 39", same as cx90.
@@raymondgraber9629which is less than CX-50
Totally disappointed in this car. This was gonna be my next car, but not anymore.
YES Me too. I was planning on getting this for over a year until its large size is now undesirable!!!!!
It looks great! I love the wheels, black accents, and unique front & rear end! I'm one of the ones disappointed about the size, and it just being a 90 "twin". I'm not saying I won't buy one but I don't really want or need a vehicle that big. So I'm conflicted as to what I'm going to do. I still think it was a mistake to use the CX-70 name for this though. They should have reserved that for a future vehicle sized between the 50 and 90. That's what is missing in the line-up and what most of us are wanting. I personally think something similar in size to an Edge, X5, Cayenne, etc would sell better than the 70/90. But being a Mazda loyalist, I still may get one. I need to rent a 90 for a few days to see if the size is manageable.
We're in the same boat. I don't need/want anything that big. I'm turn between an X5 and GV70 right if I were to get an SUV. I do want to replace a GLE450 though
I agree, Robert. I just wish people would try to find something positive to say about it. The 70 should have been a couple of CX-90 trim levels. Sport and Sport Plus would have worked perfectly.
Don’t understand what this is! They missed the mark on this. I was really hoping for something larger than the CX50 but less than the CX90. Super disappointed. And the fact they are charging 5k MORE over the CX90 in Canada! Why would I pay more for less? I get Mazda is trying to move upmarket to match the X5 and GLE but there are still other customers to look out for.
Who? Even if you aren't obese what are the chances that your friends and family aren't? This is Japanese commentary on us FAT AMERICANS. They couldn't justify spending more to make it smaller. We've reached that point.
Nice try Jonathan, but no thanks. Will wait for hopefully a redesigned CX5.
cx-5 is going to be replaced with cx-50 eventually just like they did with the cx-9 and cx-90
@@mikevaldes9831Mazda is not stupid enough to replace their best selling vehicle in their fleet. The CX5 is their bread and butter model for years. The monthly sales numbers prove this. Where are you getting your misinformation?
I am with you on this. I am excited to see it, and I also want a big 2 row and this is exactly that.
Awesome! I can’t wait
First … props to you Jon .. you somehow manage to put a positive spin to almost any wacky situation you run into … while at the same time keeping it real. That’s your credibility secret sauce, keep it up! Ok, back to the CX70 … I won’t repeat any of the obvious factual comments … but, can’t please all the people, all the time. That said I think the suits at Mazda headquarters could have priced the CX70 maybe $2k or $3k lower than the CX90 and diffused all the sameness angst 😂
Wouldn’t change the fact this is a trim package of the 90 with a third row delete…NOT a totally separate model entirely.
I just ordered the vehicle Turbo S Premium Rhodium/red leather. My local dealer says 3-4 months before it comes in most likely.
I’m excited to see how the CX-70 pans out, despite it being similar in size to the 90. Hopefully it will have improvements in driving dynamics over the already great ones of the 90. Got to test drive a CX90 the other day and I loved it, thought it was very fun to drive for an SUV, especially with the acceleration feel and sound.
Similar? Exact - even has residual cupholders for the storage area.
@@JackSmith-qi7dr Good point, that made me remember seeing the specs and finding out the 70 & 90 are the exact same size.
I just ordered the red turbo s premium plus with Ambiance, Premier Tow, Digital Rearview Mirror and Body Color splash Guards, front and rear.
Got my VIN and window sticker. On the water as of 5-9-2024
I completely understand its not the "exact" same. Changing front and rear bumpers doesn't make it different though. Maybe product planners know something we the consumers don't.
I really hope Mazda is seeing our concerns. I appreciate their efforts to move upmarket and plan to get my college graduates Mazda 3/30. One of my grads already has a CX5.
I’m ok with the 70…..don’t need the third row and the additional storage is welcomed over my current cx5! I also like the color matched wheel arches.
I'm fairly certain based on the specs on Mazda USA's website that the black handles are only on the low output inline engine trims and PHEV trims. The Turbo S trims are color matched.
Too bad that they didn’t extend the blacked-out accents to include gloss black Sport spoked wheels. And yes, would be nice to have seen the door handles back as well.
Saw one of those n person with the roof rails in black and looked fantastic.
I almost bought the cx50 But waited when I heard they were releasing a new car. I was really hoping for a cx60 version and although the cx70 is just the cx 90.. I’m not mad at it. I’m kinda really liking the black with red interior 😅
The price for cx 70 is absolutely the same as cx 90, who will pay the same price if you can just fold 3rd row.
Mazda just couldn't afford to certify and produce cx 60 that available in the whole world in US market?
The only sense I can make of the CX70 is that this was inevitable. Every year vehicles have been getting bigger and bigger. And when they don't get bigger reviwers criticize them for not being spacious enough. So this is really more of a critique on Americans and our obesity epidemic. Isnt it? Should Mazda have cut a foot off of this car? Maybe a foot off of its width just so they could add it back in 5 years? Or should they leave it as is and be a class leader in spaciousness? Weve reached the point where automakers see little benefit in making anything for Americans that arent SUPERSIZED! Shame on us or shame on Mazda?
I’m glad they didn’t go black handles. That would’ve looked cheap
And yes, if you’re gonna do this with the CX 70 for gosh sake, at least give more legroom to the second row do something Mazda make some adjustments before you release it
Same price just buy the cx90 and leave the rear seat up (don’t make any sense)they have to make it cheaper I don’t think anyone will buy it!!!
The price is not the same!! The basic model of cx70 is more expensive than the basic model of cx 90, so everyone can buy the basic model of cx 90 and not use 3 rows !!! I really don’t understand it!!
Still confused.. when only serious mazda fans can tell the difference tells you marketing wise, this will bea struggle... if mazda dropped the price $1k-$1.5k, that would help differentiate.. Otherwise its an expensive 2 row CUV that you might as well buy the cx-90
They should’ve made this car the size of the BMW X5. And the back of it gives mini van vibes.
We love it! It more perfectly fits what we need in a vehicle than the CX-90. We were surprized to discover that it is a couple inches longer and wider than our GX460. I like the Artisan Red better, but I get no vote in this. Soul it will be.
You can get the CX-90 and keep the back seat down and still get the Artisan Red. Problem solved.
They delayed the release because Mazda decided to add a third row to them. For flexibility
I'm very interested in purchasing a CX-70. I'm desperate for reviews, new information, and seeing them on dealer lots.
Currently own and love a CX-9. Soon to replace my other car. May well want the CX-70 for hauling capacity while keeping CX-9 for the 1 or 2 times per year of needing capacity for 6.
Jonathan, can you comment in your response video about the 2025 model transmission compared to the 2024 CX-90? I know it is the same transmission, but I wonder if Mazda did any software updates so it's not as jerky sometimes (According to other reviews).
CX 70 better looking than the CX 90 with the smaller front grill less bulbous than the CX 90 the vents in the front lower facia mixed review. Unlike Audi, they did not distinguish the CX 90 from the CX 70 very well as Audi did with the Q7 and the Q8. Hope the chassis will be a little sportier in terms of its dynamics. The CX 90 has a long list of technical service bulletins. Atypical for Mazda. I think it was rushed into production. I hope the CX 70 will benefit from all of those mechanical and electrical updates. Pricing is obviously more attractive makes no sense that I would have to spend $18,000 more for CX 90 to get the same components I have in my CX nine grand touring. Electronics are disappointing. They could’ve been more advanced. My wife’s X.3 has substantially more to its infotainment design. For 50 to 60k+ vehicles there’s lots of competition from Japan, Korea and Germany at better price points. Plus, Hyundai and Kia will introduce next generation Telluride/Palisades later this year still raising the bar for Mazda.
The CX-70 is disappointing, but it is different in one big obvious way from the CX-90. If you need cargo area, the CX-90 is a four seat SUV with cargo area, while the CX-70 is a 5 seat SUV with the same cargo area. The disappointment? Why couldn't Mazda just offer a bench seat on the top trims or offer the CX-60 design. . Huge mistake and this car will flame out in 3 years, maybe 5.
I need cargo space not more people space. I’m loving the CX70, this could be my first Mazda
I believe Mazda its doing the right thing for both needs, what I believe they screwed up in is in the name and the build-up expectation. The CX-70 its just the CX-90 SPORT TRIM. Which I love, don't get me wrong. The black accents in the 70 its all I ever wanted for the 90, plus the red seating. Obviously there its people with needing more cargo space, then others with more people space need. But there are some of us that were hoping this could have been like the CX-60. The CX-5 its outdated, CX-50 its not what we want. Many of us just wanted a CX-60.
Holding out for the Mazda i6. Hope they make a sportback variant.
Giving CX 70 is actually the same as CX 90 (even the price) the only reason CX 70 can stand out as a distinct model will be to have a sportier handling. I truly hope Mazda will do this at least. Otherwise, CX 70 is a total nonsense.
Wish the rear bumper sticks out abit more like the QX60.
Hopefully there 18 or 17” wheels so we can have more rubber and better price on tires
Did they push it back to say, maybe a CX 60?
😂
The paint matched door handles for higher trims was in the US press release. Just another example that dealers and employees don't always know the product they're trying to sell you.
Mazda is making an extended version of the CX-60 and calling it the CX-80 for Europe and other markets. It would have made more sense for them to delete the 3rd row out of that upcoming vehicle and offer it as the CX-70 in North America.
You mentioned it being pushed back. Has Mazda shared when dealer allocation will begin?
I agree with tailpipe situation, they should be exposed. I wonder if they can make CX-70 with off-road package
On paper, the CX-70 is a great idea of a car with its size, however, I personally think that if Mazda was going to make a different model of a car based on the large platform, they should have made a car that would have been a more performance-minded designed version of the CX-60. While a large 2-row with plenty of space is a great option, I think that Mazda should have offered the CX-90 with a third row delete option for more cargo space while the CX-70 would have been a smaller car more on par with the size of SUVs like the BMW X3 and the Genesis GV70.
People always mention the CX-60 because they don't realize how small it is. The CX-50 is nearly the same in length and interior space. That's too small imo
Love the cx70 ! I don’t need a third row seat but definitely need room inside. The wheels look very good and the black accents make it look more sporty.
Could you compare the night view of the backup cameras of the CX-5 and CX-50. My CX-5 is poor
Like because they didn’t put cladding on the fenders
Would have preferred the CX-60 the rest of the world is getting. And a likely lower price.
Call it Cx-88, should have been X5 size. I'll probably get the Cx-90 due to best option for the price, Turbo S trim.
I did hear one excuse for this move was if it were a wider cx-60 that it wouldn't have enough cargo space. That's why I wanted X5 size 194" but that would have increased Mazda's cost so they took the easy way out. Problem is convincing buyers when they can just get the cx-90.
Someone should send the Mazda CEO's and design team the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. They have the "too small" and the "too big" covered, but are missing the "just right" in the middle offering. The CX-5/50 are great for those that want a compact and CX-90 is great for those that want a bigger 3 row. But this should have been designed to slot in around 195" and redesigned to streamline that bulbous back end since they didn't need the head room where the third row used to be. The rest of the design language is great; just too long and the back end should have been redesigned. I think if they had, then this model would have absolutely crushed it in North America. I'm disappointed as a consumer, but I would really be disappointed if I was a Mazda dealer.
Exactly, I thought they wanted to target X5 buyers/owners and that is the size of the X5 194". Maybe when the test drives come out we'll get some answers but I doubt it.
Turbo S for me. Just the price....wah.
Mazda has never disappointed me until now. I wanted the CX-70 to be like the CX-60. Why a CX-90 without a 3rd row. I don't need a car the size of a CX-90. Mazda this was a BIG mistake!!!
Yes, if you’re gonna sell a car like this the way they’re doing at least give us exhaust tips on each side exposed come on Mazda you still have time to make a few changes before you release that thing
I think people forget the CX-5 and CX-60 are almost the same size, making the 70 from the 60 would have replaced it, and it seems Mazda plans to have a new CX-5 soon. So they may rebadge the 60 to be the 5.
CX5 and 50 have more similarities to me. Both are FWD based and similar engines. My daughter has a CX5 but I would prefer the CX60 for its rear biased driving dynamics
@@timw2083 i agree! The CX60 is about 7 or 8 inches longer than the CX5
How does he look 9 and 59 at the same time?
9-year-old headtop, 59 year old beard.
cx-70 beats all other competitors
Hmmm 🤔 don’t get this model 🇦🇺
The probably pushed it back to resolve the transmission and steering problems and squealing brakes.
Nothing you can't black out yourself. Same price fail. People trying to emphasize underfloor storage as a reason to buy the 70.
I'm not currently in the market, but if I were I'd likely choose the CX-70 over the 90 because the underfloor storage would be more useful to me than a third row, and I like the blacked out look. Main problem I have is the lack of Artisan Red, but I dig the red leather and am interested to see how Burnt Copper looks in person.
@@cgnefarious5785 The underfloor storage space is so nominal. You can see it fit like two pickle ball paddles and a set of balls. The rear trunk room is so expansive anyway that there shouldn't be a need to pay the same price and not get the third row. Now if the price of the 70 was about 1.5K or 2K less, then that stands to reason to reach for the 70 over the 90.
Its a mini van :(
Mazda is a weird company. They make safe and reliable vehicles but they always seem to fall a little short whether it's a half-finished design or tech that is a few years behind the competition. I might purchase a 70 but the hype makes no sense at all.