CX-70 will have same exterior dimensions as CX-90

[Muggs1]

An interesting comment from Mazda regarding the naming of the vehicle.

The 2025 Mazda CX-70 Is Literally Just A CX-90 With Only Two Rows Of Seats And A Different Name

Weeks after getting to check it out in person, we're still wondering why Mazda did this.

jalopnik.com

So, different enough customers but not different enough cars ? Somebody needs to check they're logic.

It is really a blindside move by Mazda and I really hope the negative review will continue so they can understand that they actually made a mistake by doing this.
The reality is that I think the amount of issues they had with the new platform (CX60/CX90), they decided against an all new model, due to probably lack of development people/tools etc. The original plan was to make an all new CX70 but when you have a product that is half baked and you don't have the resources you come up with a bad product like this and you hope that customers will eat it.

Now, something crossed my mind, what if Mazda is planning something else to fill that gap? Lets say a wagon on the new large platform that will be around 195" long and will fill the gap left by the Mazda 6 and the new supposed to be CX70. I don't think they are smart enough to do this but I would buy something like that in a heart beat.

 

[EWL5]

Am I a winner or loser? I waited to 2 years for a midsize 2 row, but I did predict Mazda would f-ck it up! So does that make me a winner? SMH My conversation with my wife.

View attachment 325568

Car and Driver thinks Mazda is Trolling them.

You are a winner because the idea of a decent CX70 forced you to wait, allowing new car pricing to stabilize in the consumer's favor. Now, instead of paying close to MSRP for an X5, you can probably pay close to invoice in 2024!

 

[MichalP]

I also think there is something else at play here. Whatever Mazda was planning to do initially did not work. This one year delay basically allowed them to retrofit current CX90 and create this abomination. It does not make any sense to me. My current CX-9 is my 3rd Mazda vehicle. I really like the brand and at least until now it was always checking majority of the boxes for me. Don't let me even start talking about what I don't like about Honda, Toyota or any Korean brands although Kia Telluride was the close contender initially. Anyway for now it feels like I am running out of options with Mazda. My wife's CX-5 is getting older and will need to be replaced in a few years. I was really hoping for something just slightly bigger. She is not going to drive 5 meters tank. In the end we might just settle on cx50 or another cx5. Who knows.

What I am curious and this is an idea a had also years ago. Why Mazda has not decided to retrofit CX 80 as a 2 row vehicle for American market. It's slightly shorter than cx90, not as wide. Would be perfect in my opinion. Just delay the whole thing another year or so. There are spy photos already so I believe production of cx80 might be starting soon. Years ago when I saw CX8 introduced to Australian market my first thought was to bring this car to Canada as a 2 row option and i would not hesitate it to buy it. Basically slightly bigger CX-5 with much bigger trunk. Perfect solution.

 

[markfm]

Looking at some of the CX-90 photos with the rear door open it would seem that they should be able to tighten up the wheelbase around 5", with that much shortening of the overall length. while still preserving the second row seating legroom/headroom/... for the 70 (or 80).

With the second row seats location maintained, a 2 row would then have loss of cargo capacity maybe around 7 cubic feet. At 33 cubic feet seats up, 68 seats folded, that would be about the same as an X5.

Ahh, well, shoulda/coulda/woulda...

 

[dwswager]

I also think there is something else at play here. Whatever Mazda was planning to do initially did not work. This one year delay basically allowed them to retrofit current CX90 and create this abomination. It does not make any sense to me. My current CX-9 is my 3rd Mazda vehicle. I really like the brand and at least until now it was always checking majority of the boxes for me. Don't let me even start talking about what I don't like about Honda, Toyota or any Korean brands although Kia Telluride was the close contender initially. Anyway for now it feels like I am running out of options with Mazda. My wife's CX-5 is getting older and will need to be replaced in a few years. I was really hoping for something just slightly bigger. She is not going to drive 5 meters tank. In the end we might just settle on cx50 or another cx5. Who knows.

What I am curious and this is an idea a had also years ago. Why Mazda has not decided to retrofit CX 80 as a 2 row vehicle for American market. It's slightly shorter than cx90, not as wide. Would be perfect in my opinion. Just delay the whole thing another year or so. There are spy photos already so I believe production of cx80 might be starting soon. Years ago when I saw CX8 introduced to Australian market my first thought was to bring this car to Canada as a 2 row option and i would not hesitate it to buy it. Basically slightly bigger CX-5 with much bigger trunk. Perfect solution.

I agree something changed their original plan. When the delay was announced, they said it was production capacity limitations preventing the simultaneous introduction of the 70 and 90. But you never really know with Mazda. They can pull some bonehead stuff. They build good cars, but can't really get a bead on what to build for the U.S. Market. I think the whole 4 models when 2 would have sufficed bit them in the backside. Of course, if the was the case, then the PR was horrid. They should have just come out and said, we lack the capacity to bring a 2-row midsize to market at this time so we are going to at least offer a 2-row fullsize based on the CX-90 until we can fill that gap in our lineup. The would look a lot less stupid than they do trying to pawn the CX-90 off as a CX-70.

The best COA would have been to release a 2-row in the U.S. first. Make it something about 192" and continue the CX-9 until the CX-90 was released. But lots of complicated moving parts in manufacturing. They may have planned and executed the shutdown of CX-9 way in advance and closed the option.

 

[GTA-CX9]

Am I a winner or loser? I waited to 2 years for a midsize 2 row, but I did predict Mazda would f-ck it up! So does that make me a winner? SMH My conversation with my wife.

View attachment 325568

Car and Driver thinks Mazda is Trolling them.

In my book you're a winner since I now have proof for my wife that she's not the only one who gets car texts from her husband.

 

[Zelstel]

I think the whole 4 models when 2 would have sufficed bit them in the backside.

I agree. I think they were overly fixated on different widths for different markets. They really should have just built three models matching the sizes of X3, 5, and 7.

 

[EWL5]

I agree. I think they were overly fixated on different widths for different markets. They really should have just built three models matching the sizes of X3, 5, and 7.

Mazda apparently missed the class on "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"!

 

[Zelstel]

Mazda apparently missed the class on "imitation is the sincerest form of flattery"!

Haha. Maybe BMW has it all wrong and their lineup should really be X3, awkward LWB X3, and one model splitting the difference between X5 and 7….or maybe not.

 

[dwswager]

Haha. Maybe BMW has it all wrong and their lineup should really be X3, awkward LWB X3, and one model splitting the difference between X5 and 7….or maybe not.

The X5 is 194" the X7 is 203" That is actually the problem. So the CX-90 is 202 and X7ish.

I agree. I think they were overly fixated on different widths for different markets. They really should have just built three models matching the sizes of X3, 5, and 7.

That actually is a great call. The "premium" line have 3 models worldwide. I still think they could have done it like Genesis with 2 models both straddling the size classes.

But again, the turd in the punchbowl is the CX-50. Even though it is the non-premium line of vehicles, it is basically the size of a CX-5 masquerading as a large compact. Mazda isn't alone. In Honda's line the HRV is now a compact at 180", the CRV a compact at 185" and passport is too small and on a truck frame at 188" and then the Pilot is 200". The difference is the CRV actually has a lot more usable space than the HRV where the CX-50 doesn't.

 

[Zelstel]

I suppose CX-90 is the right product for 4 years ago but not now with so many competitors offering much more interior volume.

CX-50 is definitely a head scratcher, but I actually think it could be made to be a legit North American CX5 replacement by refreshing (improving) the interior and offering a sport or Signature-esque trim that removes the matte black exterior cladding.

 

[youri]

You can’t really just use the length to compare vehicles class though. Sit in a Passport vs a CR-V and you will notice a big difference. Even though it is only 3 inches longer. The problem with the CX-50 is they lowered the roof. That cuts into the interior space.

Also the classes of vehicles interior space are different from mainstream to luxury. I am pretty sure the a CR-V has a lot more interior space than BMW X3, Q5, etc. Which are supposed to be in the same class.

 

[EWL5]

I am pretty sure the a CR-V has a lot more interior space than BMW X3, Q5, etc. Which are supposed to be in the same class.

A RWD architecture like in the X3 usually penalizes interior space (the fact that it's luxury means even less space as they pack stuff in). The Q5 is based on FWD architecture and has a bit more interior than the X3. If car length is not used for class determination, the fuel tank capacity can be a good indicator as "the higher the class, the greater the range".

 

[Freedom55]

Contrary to the CX-5, no one will blame Mazda for making the CX-70 too small if that's any consolation But then again, you can't please every one

 

[cx5boo333]

Contrary to the CX-5, no one will blame Mazda for making the CX-70 too small if that's any consolation But then again, you can't please every one

Way to look at the bright side! I get why everyone's upset, but I'm tryna focus on what the 70 has to offer rather than what I wanted it to. Excited to see the new color in person, hear about the pricing/dimensions exactly, etc. Cause while I could look at what I wish they did, it's still a cool car!

 

[GTA-CX9]

The X5 is 194" the X7 is 203" That is actually the problem. So the CX-90 is 202 and X7ish.



That actually is a great call. The "premium" line have 3 models worldwide. I still think they could have done it like Genesis with 2 models both straddling the size classes.

But again, the turd in the punchbowl is the CX-50. Even though it is the non-premium line of vehicles, it is basically the size of a CX-5 masquerading as a large compact. Mazda isn't alone. In Honda's line the HRV is now a compact at 180", the CRV a compact at 185" and passport is too small and on a truck frame at 188" and then the Pilot is 200". The difference is the CRV actually has a lot more usable space than the HRV where the CX-50 doesn't.

Isn't the Passport a unibody? I thought it shared chassis with the Pilot.

I was thinking how Audi seems to do ok with the small Q3, the bread and butter Q5 and the Q7 sort of straddling upper sizes. I'd guess it's smaller than a GLS but bigger than a GLE (I will look up).

They do have the Q8 as a five seater but that's clearly positioning a class up based on the 15-20k premium on the Q7. I do think the Q8 can offer lessons here though, in how it shares the platform and engines with the Q7 but have IMO substantial visual differences. The VW Cross Sport is similarly easy to distinguish from an Atlas. So even forgiving the length of a CX70, for me a greater visual contrast in the models would have been the minimum I'd have expected.

Jeep is another ex, the Grand Cherokee and GC L being diff lengths but basically the same design.

I guess what I'm on about is I'd have been ok with either a shorter length or different look. Both would have been ideal, but neither is certainly a let down.

 

[GTA-CX9]

Sorry just to add on here, interestingly the Jeep GC 5 seater is 193.5 inches, the L version is almost a foot longer at a hair under 205. Quite a large seven seater for the mid size class. Basically clipping the heels of the full size Wagoneer/Yukon/Exped size.

Tows significantly more than most mid sizes as well, is sort of in a class by itself (as is the CX70), I don't recall such questioning of Jeep when it came out (I at one point was considering one so was half paying attn to release).

Maybe end of day you try to offer a product that can find a market without blowing your budget. If our user case didn't involve city commuting, maybe a sporty but roomy 5 seater would work for us with one kid and a small dog.

Heck, were here scrutinizing classes of SUVs and I'm old enough to recall when SUVs stood out as rare vehicles for regular family duty. Sometimes you gotta make a market!

 

[EWL5]

Way to look at the bright side! I get why everyone's upset, but I'm tryna focus on what the 70 has to offer rather than what I wanted it to. Excited to see the new color in person, hear about the pricing/dimensions exactly, etc. Cause while I could look at what I wish they did, it's still a cool car!

While we're ruminating on why Mazda answered the question that no one asked...

Possible CX-70 uses:

* Dedicated golf carpool driver that can fit all bags for a foursome comfortably!
* Door to door salesman (is this still a profession?)
* Multi-dog owner
* An "Uber" for a traveling sports team

 

[dwswager]

Maybe end of day you try to offer a product that can find a market without blowing your budget. If our user case didn't involve city commuting, maybe a sporty but roomy 5 seater would work for us with one kid and a small dog.

Heck, were here scrutinizing classes of SUVs and I'm old enough to recall when SUVs stood out as rare vehicles for regular family duty. Sometimes you gotta make a market!

There is a market for a 5 seater fullsize with lots of cargo space. Problem is it is small compared to a 5 seat midsize. And most of those buyers would settle for a 7 seat fullsize and put the back seat down. Similar to why white, black and grey are so prominent. A buyer wanted blue and won't buy green, but will settle for white, black or grey.

There is nothing wrong with offering a 5 seat fullsize. What was wrong was naming it as a different model. It hoses up the CX-70 moniker. The other was the PR screwup of allowing a 2 1/2 year expectation for a midsize to coalesce and not shooting it down. Mazda had to see what had been printed about the CX-70. How could they not know it was go over like a lead balloon when this supposedly all new model, expected to be a midsize between the 50 and 90 turned out to be a CX-90 fullsize variant. Especially with the CX-60 already a year old.

There is a big difference between releasing something unexpected (a 5 seat CX-90) and releasing something that violates all expectations.

 

[mgvrmark]

I believe Mazda's decision on the CX-70 was based on projected sales volume. There isn't enough sales volume in this segment to justify the cost of any significant changes in the platform.
Honda sells nearly three times as many Pilots (3-row -- about 110,000 units/year) than Passports (2-row -- about 40,000 units). We don't have enough data yet on CX-90 sales, but if you look back at historic Mazda three-row SUV sales (the CX-9), Mazda usually sold around 30,000 units. That would predict that Mazda might sell about 10,000 CX-70's per year. Mazda couldn't justify any significant development costs for a vehicle that will only produce 10k sales/year. OK, maybe we should adjust those numbers upwards somewhat, maybe they'll sell more CX-90's than the old CX-9, but I still think the best-case scenario for the CX-70 is less than 15,000 units/year. That's why it's simply a CX-90 with 3rd row seat delete and some trim changes. They couldn't even justify the cost of shrinking the wheelbase & overall length of the same platform.