CX-70 debut information, pictures, discussion

[GTEyes]

hey!!!! I was just about to post this - something I noticed in the video - are these really cupholders from CX-90?
View attachment 325576

It was mentioned in the Straight Pipes video above...they replaced the cup holders with oval storage cubbies..haha. I guess they gave us what we wanted (more storage for smaller items).

 

[kaehlin]

Add me to the disappointed group. We are in the market for a midsize and I thought this would be an option. Oh well.

 

[dwswager]

I'll wait to see one in person before deciding if I'm disappointed. There's a lot that I like about this model even though I wanted it to be 8-12" shorter than the CX90.

Yes, most automotive reviewers will tell you that other than the X7, the CX-90 is the best driving Fullsize SUV. That is what makes not getting a midsize so painful. The only things in that class (upper end, midsize, not hampered by a 4 cylinder and RWD) are the X5 and GV70/GV80. And these are $20-$25K more. (Mazda just made my brokerage account $25K lighter than it would have otherwise been! I'm not bitter though! )

 

[youri]

I would choose the cx-70 instead of the CX-90 just for the bench seats instead of the captain chairs. But it is too big for me. For me as well, this isn’t the midsize SUV I was looking for. And replacing seat with that inconvenient storage cubicle isn’t really a good idea either. I could excuse the CX-70 if they would have moved the rear seats back to give more passengers space, but it doesn’t look like they did.

 

[hoodlum]

It is interesting that Mazda Australia will be selling the CX-70 in addition to the CX-60 and CX-90 they already have. They also plan on selling the CX-80.

I am not sure how their market compares with the US, but it will be interesting to see which models their market gravitates towards.

 

[GTEyes]

I would choose the cx-70 instead of the CX-90 just for the bench seats instead of the captain chairs. But it is too big for me. For me as well, this isn’t the midsize SUV I was looking for. And replacing seat with that inconvenient storage cubicle isn’t really a good idea either. I could excuse the CX-70 if they would have moved the rear seats back to give more passengers space, but it doesn’t look like they did.

Interesting. I am the opposite. Love the captain chairs!

 

[hoodlum]

I would choose the cx-70 instead of the CX-90 just for the bench seats instead of the captain chairs. But it is too big for me. For me as well, this isn’t the midsize SUV I was looking for. And replacing seat with that inconvenient storage cubicle isn’t really a good idea either. I could excuse the CX-70 if they would have moved the rear seats back to give more passengers space, but it doesn’t look like they did.

This does bring up an interesting point when comparing top trims. The CX-70 is loosing only one seat (6 vs 5). I am just not sure how the market will react to this.

 

[VaEagle]

Hi, new to the forum, although I've read it often. Huge Mazda fan. Love our 2019 CX-5. Really was waiting for this CX70.

I'll start with a positive comment (because my mother always told me to say something nice): Taken on its own, the CX70 is a striking vehicle – albeit large for a supposed mid-size. I thought the CX90 was striking too, so its hardly surprising I like the looks of this one.

But WTF Mazda!?!? Like almost everyone (including professional car reviewers) I’m shocked that Mazda didn’t – at a minimum - trim the rear even a little, even 5-6 inches, add a few angles and make it more sporty looking. Even that – which is so much more than they did – would have been low effort since the two vehicles could have shared about 80% of their content. Look at the VW Atlas Cross Sport v the Atlas - which set the bar for low effort differentiation until this; the BMW X4 which is mostly an X3; or the MB GLC300 Coupe: at least those other vehicles have a different look and modest size differences from the family members that gave them life.

I imagine something happened along the development plan, with Mazda execs realizing they had committed to bringing a new two-row mid-size to the American market but decided they had spent too much recently developing other vehicles – like the CX90. So, they pivoted to Plan B. They’ll probably start to differentiate the “two models” with the next facelift iterations (like, maybe shaving a few inches from the CX70’s rear and removing the cupholders from the non-existent third row). Not making those changes in the first place is a missed opportunity by Mazda. This isn’t much of a different offering.

Why pay full sticker for a new CX70 this year if you can buy a CPO CX90 for less and just fold down the third row? BTW, the resale prices on CX90s are a big drop from original MSRPs, which is not surprising when Mazda pushed the envelope on luxury pricing.

Ending on a positive (again, for mom): The CX70 is a good-looking vehicle for buyers who want two rows and are okay with the above-average dimensions for a “mid-size”. I could even be one of those people despite my venting about Mazda’s low effort reveal.

 

[ceric]

I imagine something happened along the development plan, with Mazda execs realizing they had committed to bringing a new two-row mid-size to the American market but decided they had spent too much recently developing other vehicles – like the CX90. So, they pivoted to Plan B. They’ll probably start to differentiate the “two models” with the next facelift iterations (like, maybe shaving a few inches from the CX70’s rear and removing the cupholders from the non-existent third row). Not making those changes in the first place is a missed opportunity by Mazda. This isn’t much of a different offering.

I also suspect that cost cutting played a big role in this strange decision by Mazda.
Making a wider CX-60 would have costed more $$$.
In this end, bean counter won.

 

[ceric]

We need a survey:
Are you disappointed by the CX-70's dimensions being the same as CX-90s?

 

[Muggs1]

Hi, new to the forum, although I've read it often. Huge Mazda fan. Love our 2019 CX-5. Really was waiting for this CX70.

I'll start with a positive comment (because my mother always told me to say something nice): Taken on its own, the CX70 is a striking vehicle – albeit large for a supposed mid-size. I thought the CX90 was striking too, so its hardly surprising I like the looks of this one.

But WTF Mazda!?!? Like almost everyone (including professional car reviewers) I’m shocked that Mazda didn’t – at a minimum - trim the rear even a little, even 5-6 inches, add a few angles and make it more sporty looking. Even that – which is so much more than they did – would have been low effort since the two vehicles could have shared about 80% of their content. Look at the VW Atlas Cross Sport v the Atlas - which set the bar for low effort differentiation until this; the BMW X4 which is mostly an X3; or the MB GLC300 Coupe: at least those other vehicles have a different look and modest size differences from the family members that gave them life.

I imagine something happened along the development plan, with Mazda execs realizing they had committed to bringing a new two-row mid-size to the American market but decided they had spent too much recently developing other vehicles – like the CX90. So, they pivoted to Plan B. They’ll probably start to differentiate the “two models” with the next facelift iterations (like, maybe shaving a few inches from the CX70’s rear and removing the cupholders from the non-existent third row). Not making those changes in the first place is a missed opportunity by Mazda. This isn’t much of a different offering.

Why pay full sticker for a new CX70 this year if you can buy a CPO CX90 for less and just fold down the third row? BTW, the resale prices on CX90s are a big drop from original MSRPs, which is not surprising when Mazda pushed the envelope on luxury pricing.

Ending on a positive (again, for mom): The CX70 is a good-looking vehicle for buyers who want two rows and are okay with the above-average dimensions for a “mid-size”. I could even be one of those people despite my venting about Mazda’s low effort reveal.

I will give you couple reasons on why I will probably buy the CX70 although I don't like the length and same styling as the CX90.

-CPO's are really low because they are first that they adopted the car and it is plagued with issues so I wouldn't touch one
-I need a bench on the highest trim
-It is a 2025 model, which tells me that every fix that they come up with in the last 2years (CX60 and CX90) would already been incorporate into this new package
-Like the RED interior over the tan one
-In Canada, I don't have any other alternatives in this price point.

 

[VaEagle]

I will give you couple reasons on why I will probably buy the CX70 although I don't like the length and same styling as the CX90.

-CPO's are really low because they are first that they adopted the car and it is plagued with issues so I wouldn't touch one
-I need a bench on the highest trim
-It is a 2025 model, which tells me that every fix that they come up with in the last 2years (CX60 and CX90) would already been incorporate into this new package
-Like the RED interior over the tan one
-In Canada, I don't have any other alternatives in this price point.

All valid points. I'm no fan of the rear captain's chairs.

 

[dwswager]

To all the people that argue Mazda is a small company with less resources and use that as an excuse for the CX-70 and the other debacles along the way, I will merely point out that it is not a lack of resources, it is misapplication of the resources they do have.

Hyundai/Kia is a large company but when Genesis became a brand, they were given 4 models (2 SUVs and 2 Sedans) Being a luxury brand they were able to ignore the subcompact class. But how do you cover the compact, midsize and fullsize with 2 SUVs. Their results.

The 2-Row GV70 is slightly too big to be a compact, but not so big that a compact buyer is put off. The 3-row GV80 is just small enough to be considered midsize, but not so small that a fullsize buyer would not bite on it. They covered 3 class segments with 2 vehicles. Mazda has 5 SUVs now and only cover 3 size classes. They also differentiated the 2 from each other. They also left room to bring the GV60 in and move the GV70 and GV80 up in size.

The sad part is a 190-194" CX-70 would have sold 5-8x what the actual CX-70 will sell. Mazda has already predicted it's sales to be 1/4 of the CX-90. It would have given them a model into which CX-5/50 owners could have moved. My daughter is a happy CX-5 owner and I can guarentdamntee she would never bite on the CX-70 or CX-90. The CX-70 should have been to the CX-90 what the GV70 was to the GV80. That would have been the winning move.

I also wanted to say goodbye. Now that we know it might be years for Mazda to bring a Midsize to market, the SuperWife has scheduled me to take to the BMW dealer Saturday for an X5. I'm just dumbfounded and $25k lighter in the wallet.

 

[VaEagle]

To all the people that argue Mazda is a small company with less resources and use that as an excuse for the CX-70 and the other debacles along the way, I will merely point out that it is not a lack of resources, it is misapplication of the resources they do have.

Hyundai/Kia is a large company but when Genesis became a brand, they were given 4 models (2 SUVs and 2 Sedans) Being a luxury brand they were able to ignore the subcompact class. But how do you cover the compact, midsize and fullsize with 2 SUVs. Their results.

View attachment 325596
The 2-Row GV70 is slightly too big to be a compact, but not so big that a compact buyer is put off. The 3-row GV80 is just small enough to be considered midsize, but not so small that a fullsize buyer would not bite on it. They covered 3 class segments with 2 vehicles. Mazda has 5 SUVs now and only cover 3 size classes. They also differentiated the 2 from each other. They also left room to bring the GV60 in and move the GV70 and GV80 up in size.

The sad part is a 190-194" CX-70 would have sold 5-8x what the actual CX-70 will sell. Mazda has already predicted it's sales to be 1/4 of the CX-90. It would have given them a model into which CX-5/50 owners could have moved. My daughter is a happy CX-5 owner and I can guarentdamntee she would never bite on the CX-70 or CX-90. The CX-70 should have been to the CX-90 what the GV70 was to the GV80. That would have been the winning move.

I also wanted to say goodbye. Now that we know it might be years for Mazda to bring a Midsize to market, the SuperWife has scheduled me to take to the BMW dealer Saturday for an X5. I'm just dumbfounded and $25k lighter in the wallet.

Maybe not a full $25K lighter. Shop CPO on BMWs. They lease so many of their vehicles that they always have a ton of low-mileage vehicles available and they price those reasonably. In fact, that massive CPO inventory really places companies like Mazda (at least with the new-ish CX90) and Genesis with its relatively new offerings at a disadvantage with guys like me. Do I want to buy a new CX90 or GV80 or a CPO BMW X5 ... for about the same money, maybe less.

We bought my wife an X3 (Xdrive with premium package) with 12k miles on it for just under $40k.

Happy shopping. The X3 and X5 drive wonderfully.

 

[N7turbo]

I can't get over how it looks like a larger Europe-ized CX-5 plus a CX-50 interior.

On that note, for people expecting an overhaul of the CX-5, look at the CX-70 and CX-60. If their latest design/thinking shares most of the same body lines and cues as their 2017-2024 CX-5, don't expect them to go in a radically new direction.

 

[N7turbo]

I also suspect that cost cutting played a big role in this strange decision by Mazda.
Making a wider CX-60 would have costed more $$$.
In this end, bean counter won.

The calculus was likely:

Let's just make one body to streamline production
Let's not compete with the CX-5 in the USA for now

 

[hoodlum]

Someone posted photos from Japan of the CX-70. The vehicle at the back looks like a copper or dark orange color.

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

 

[dwswager]

The calculus was likely:

Let's just make one body to streamline production
Let's not compete with the CX-5 in the USA for now

I would say maybe they ran out of production capability to build the 4th Large Platform. But it makes no sense from a monetary standpoint as even Mazda has already admit this thing is not going to sell well (25% of CX-90) and half of that will be CX-90 buyers that opt for a different configuration given the 90 only has 6 seats and the 70 has 5 of them. And does it make sense to screwup your biggest market?

And if worrying about CX-5 sales was an issue they would not have built and Outdoorsy version of the CX-5 called the CX-50. I've watch buyers choose between them and it is almost exclusively on the aesthetics because they are essentially the same size with very similar interiors and identical power trains.

The Large Platform vehicles do not compete with the other SUVs. They are wholly different with different engines, different drive (RWD vs FWD). different build quality, and a different disposition. Nobody that drives a CX-5/50 and a CX-60 is going to not notice the massive differences.

 

[Space Muffin]

Well then.

I bought an X3 M40i last summer--my first non-Mazda in 16 years--partly because it was my last chance to own a B58 mild hybrid with a traditional cockpit, and partly because Mazda had nothing for me at the time, with the CX-5's interior still a generation behind that of my 2019 Mazda3, and not wanting to own yet another first-year product in the CX-70.

I fully expected that I'd be back for the CX-70's mid-cycle refresh, right around the time that the BMW's warranty and prepaid maintenance would come to an end. Except now it seems that Mazda forgot to actually make a CX-70.

Not at all the vehicle I expected, and I have to agree that it screams "cobbled together at the last second due to unforeseen circumstances". Unfortunate that there's no path back to Mazda for me, but I'm enjoying the BMW, and when my wife eventually wears out the Mazda3, a hybrid CX-30 will be a fine replacement to keep some Soul Red in the family.

 

[youri]

Interesting. I am the opposite. Love the captain chairs!

@GTEyes I guess it depends on your usage. And I know in the early days of the Cx-9 no captain chairs turned some people away from the car. But for me the captain chairs advantage of easier access to the third does not outweigh the disadvantages. In my usage, 90% of the time my third row is folded. If i had a need to use the third row on a regular basis then my opinion of the captain chair would be different. Why do I own a 3-row if I barely use the third row ? Because Mazda does not have a midsize SUV, and the CX-5 is not big enough for my need. Sadly like everyone here I was hoping the CX-70 would fill that gap, and it still doesn’t for me.

So for my use case, the bench seats advantage in the Cx-9:
- allows me to transport 5 passengers with the full trunk space. So if we go to for a day trip to the beach for example, I can still have access to the full cargo space for a cooler etc if I need it. If i don’t need to bring a lot of stuff i can send the 5th occupant to the third row, if not i have the option of the middle seat.
- provide a physical barriers between my cargo and the passengers. With the captain chairs if the third row is down, then groceries or anything else can roll or slide through that space in the middle between the two captain chairs.
- provide a space between the two passengers seats for my kids to put their toys, snacks, books, ipad etc on long road trip. There is also cup holders in the bench seat (in the middle seat) where they are able to grab their water bottle while being attached in their car seat. The higher trims captain chairs added a center console to negate this argument, but then the middle passage is blocked by the center console, might as well just have a bench seat then.
- when the second row is folded, it creates a flat cargo space. I can use the full width of the cargo space without having a hole in the middle. I guess the captain chairs does provide a slightly larger cargo space because you could fill that empty space, but i still think a flat cargo floor is more useful.