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

[cx5boo333]

Right now it says the 90 is starting at $37,845 and the 70 at $40,445… gotta be a mistake right? On a more exciting note, Zircon Sand, Polymetal Grey, and the Melting Copper should look pretty awesome on the 70 (build page has those options!) Glad for some variation between the two even if it’s minor!

 

[EWL5]

Right now it says the 90 is starting at $37,845 and the 70 at $40,445… gotta be a mistake right? On a more exciting note, Zircon Sand, Polymetal Grey, and the Melting Copper should look pretty awesome on the 70 (build page has those options!) Glad for some variation between the two even if it’s minor!

Where do you see that?

 

[youri]

Check the versions to make sure the price is an apple to apple comparison. The lowest trim is not out yet for the CX-70, so that makes the cheapest CX-90 cheaper than the CX-70, but it is actually a lower trim level.

 

[cx5boo333]

@EWL5 @youri It's gotta be a mistake (hopefully), but this is what I see on the Mazda USA website right now:

 

[markfm]

MazdaUSA has been changing the numbers on their site.

Just a short time ago the 70 Turbo S trims MSRPs were showing $4K below the 90 at the same trim.

 

[EWL5]

@EWL5 @youri It's gotta be a mistake (hopefully), but this is what I see on the Mazda USA website right now:

View attachment 326167
View attachment 326168View attachment 326169

As @youri mentioned, you're not comparing comparable trims. Lowest level trim for CX70 is not out yet!

 

[EWL5]

MazdaUSA has been changing the numbers on their site.

Just a short time ago the 70 Turbo S trims MSRPs were showing $4K below the 90 at the same trim.

If correct, I'd take everything w/a grain of salt as the US build/pricing site only came live a couple hours ago!

It's not like you can take advantage of typo pricing ala Slickeals!

 

[markfm]

As @youri mentioned, you're not comparing comparable trims. Lowest level trim for CX70 is not out yet!

He is showing the comparable trims for the US - right now MazdaUSA lists $52,450 and $55,950 for Turbo S Premium and Turbo S Premium Plus respectively, for both the 70 and 90 ( a short time ago the 70 Turbo S' listed as $4K lower).

They're changing the numbers, maybe the 90 trims will now get changed to go up compared to the 70...

 

[EWL5]

He is showing the comparable trims for the US - right now MazdaUSA lists $52,450 and $55,950 for Turbo S Premium and Turbo S Premium Plus respectively, for both the 70 and 90.

They're changing the numbers, maybe the 90 trims will now get changed to go up compared to the 70...

That's fine. Refer to my prior post about typos/Slickdeals...

 

[EWL5]

While MazdaUSA gets their act together, I'd go here for official pricing (credit to @markfm who posted this in the other thread):

Mazda Announces Pricing and Packaging For All-New 2025 Mazda CX-70

/PRNewswire/ -- Mazda North American Operations (MNAO) today announced pricing and packaging for the all-new 2025 CX-70. This mid-size two-row crossover SUV,...

www.prnewswire.com

 

[markfm]

While MazdaUSA gets their act together, I'd go here for official pricing (credit to @markfm who posted this in the other thread):

Mazda Announces Pricing and Packaging For All-New 2025 Mazda CX-70

/PRNewswire/ -- Mazda North American Operations (MNAO) today announced pricing and packaging for the all-new 2025 CX-70. This mid-size two-row crossover SUV,...

www.prnewswire.com

Yup, unfortunately that means the MSRPs would be exactly the same for 70 as 90.

(Best I can tell MazdaUSA reduced the 90 MSRPs to match the 70 numbers found in the PRWire list. Just a while ago when I had looked, the Turbo S Trims on PRWire had been 4K lower for the 70 than the equivalent 90 Trims on MazdaUSA).

I expect the MazdaUSA site to keep changing MSRPs for a bit...

 

[EWL5]

Yup, unfortunately that means the MSRPs would be exactly the same for 70 as 90.

(Best I can tell MazdaUSA reduced the 90 MSRPs to match the 70 numbers found in the PRWire list. Just a while ago when I had looked, the Turbo S Trims on PRWire had been 4K lower for the 70 than the equivalent 90 Trims on MazdaUSA).

I expect the MazdaUSA site to keep changing MSRPs for a bit...

Since Mazda did so little work in creating the CX70, kinda makes you wonder how they could f*ck up the MSRP on day one?

 

[Fruitwolf]

My personal thoughts:
I got one life and I love to drive. After the head crack and CX-70 hype bs, my next car will be a BMW X5.
I’m gonna get what I really want, no “settling.”
It’ll cost more but it’ll be worth it.
Life is short. Wishing everyone a nice day.

 

[markfm]

It's 5 hours later, no more adjustments shown on MazdaUSA.

I really can't figure out what their market is.
-If they wanted to play against the X5, the "I really want a high HP, I6" crowd, they really should have bumped the engine specs (like BMW did), and the BMW X5 sales volume is < 60K units/year in NA. (trying to scavenge some sales from a fairly small niche).

-If they wanted to compete against a Lexus RX (twice the BMW X5 sales volume, a much larger group to cross-shop), they needed to be smaller/lighter (X5 length IMO would have worked great), or boosted HP/torque for both base and S engines, or had a multi-K lower price to get a Turbo S Premium or Premium+ a couple K below the equivalent RX trims. Otherwise it's a "why bother", particularly as the RX, as a Gen 5 vehicle, simply does what it does well.

Frankly, having a 7K price differential to get to the S is a whoops to me. If they really wanted good sales they should have had the Turbo S versions priced much closer to the Turbo numbers, maybe a 2 - 3 K upgrade option vs. 7K (or else just drop the lower HP engine offering entirely).

Doing a third-row delete may have been a cheap thing on their end, but I wouldn't be surprised if the cheap way out ends up matched by bad sales volume (and/or scavenging sales from their own CX-90, hardly a win-win - they should be trying to grow market share, not cannibalize themselves).

I wish Mazda all the best, but like the X5 comment above, I'm pretty much getting pushed back to the RX. I do like the cargo capacity, but that by itself is likely a relatively small group of buyers.

 

[dwswager]

Very disappointed in this Cx-70! A sad and lazy attempt by Mazda by simply removing the 3rd row seats…was expecting a diff platform, shape and design but no! As someone who’s downsizing soon after owning the great CX-9 for 7+yrs and having the last 3 vehicles all Mazdas, was looking forward to the next replacement which was the CX-70 but I don’t need a 200-inch vehicle in my driveway any longer!

It not that they did it. It is that they did not say that is what they were going to do at least a year in advance. And it should have been a configuration option for the CX-90. They have now squandered the CX-70 moniker. There is no way to recover in a numbering system.

Because Mazda either refused or were unable to deliver a midsize SUV with an inline 6, I ordered a BMW X5 40i over the weekend. Will cost me $20K more, but is more vehicle. SMH What a squandered opportunity.

Oddly enough, my local Mazda dealer has a used 2023 BMW M340i that I might buy as I was already considering adding the M340i to the CX-70 I expected my wife to be driving.

 

[dwswager]

It's 5 hours later, no more adjustments shown on MazdaUSA.

I really can't figure out what their market is.
-If they wanted to play against the X5, the "I really want a high HP, I6" crowd, they really should have bumped the engine specs (like BMW did), and the BMW X5 sales volume is < 60K units/year in NA. (trying to scavenge some sales from a fairly small niche).

-If they wanted to compete against a Lexus RX (twice the BMW X5 sales volume, a much larger group to cross-shop), they needed to be smaller/lighter (X5 length IMO would have worked great), or boosted HP/torque for both base and S engines, or had a multi-K lower price to get a Turbo S Premium or Premium+ a couple K below the equivalent RX trims. Otherwise it's a "why bother", particularly as the RX, as a Gen 5 vehicle, simply does what it does well.

Frankly, having a 7K price differential to get to the S is a whoops to me. If they really wanted good sales they should have had the Turbo S versions priced much closer to the Turbo numbers, maybe a 2 - 3 K upgrade option vs. 7K (or else just drop the lower HP engine offering entirely).

Doing a third-row delete may have been a cheap thing on their end, but I wouldn't be surprised if the cheap way out ends up matched by bad sales volume (and/or scavenging sales from their own CX-90, hardly a win-win - they should be trying to grow market share, not cannibalize themselves).

I wish Mazda all the best, but like the X5 comment above, I'm pretty much getting pushed back to the RX. I do like the cargo capacity, but that by itself is likely a relatively small group of buyers.

The motor will get better with time and tweaking. It has the potential to easily surpass 400HP if they want at 3.3L. It is the transmission where it falls down. It just doesn't get the power to the wheels lik the 8sp ZF in the X5.

If I recall, the Lexus RX is CX-50/X3 size while the CX-70 is X7 size! SMH

 

[markfm]

The '24 RX is 193", with cargo capacity of 30/46 cubic feet (seats up/down), with a bit less head room but more leg room than the '24 194" X5. (Lexus RX is known for its anemic cargo capacity, though that 46 feels wrong).

Visually more like the X5, a true mid-size SUV, though nothing like the X5 HP/torque - RX has 275 HP/317 lb-ft with a 4300 lb curb weight.

Congrats on ordering an X5!

 

[GTEyes]

It not that they did it. It is that they did not say that is what they were going to do at least a year in advance. And it should have been a configuration option for the CX-90. They have now squandered the CX-70 moniker. There is no way to recover in a numbering system.

Because Mazda either refused or were unable to deliver a midsize SUV with an inline 6, I ordered a BMW X5 40i over the weekend. Will cost me $20K more, but is more vehicle. SMH What a squandered opportunity.

Oddly enough, my local Mazda dealer has a used 2023 BMW M340i that I might buy as I was already considering adding the M340i to the CX-70 I expected my wife to be driving.

Congrats.
I didn't think people were actually cross shopping an X5 with a Mazda CX-70...I consider those vehicles to be in entirely different classes.
If I had $20k extra to burn, I think I would be looking elsewhere, too.
My time in the Signature CX90 had me thinking it was a step down from my CX5 Signature, so I can't imagine what the difference between the X5 would be.

 

[dwswager]

Congrats.
I didn't think people were actually cross shopping an X5 with a Mazda CX-70...I consider those vehicles to be in entirely different classes.
If I had $20k extra to burn, I think I would be looking elsewhere, too.
My time in the Signature CX90 had me thinking it was a step down from my CX5 Signature, so I can't imagine what the difference between the X5 would be.

Not my original intent. I drive a MX-5 and my daughter has a CX-5. I was waiting on and intending to buy a CX-70. In preparation my wife and I test drove a X5, Genesis GV70, Toyota RAV, Honda CRV, Mazda CX-50. She wanted something bigger than my daughter's CX-5 (180") and smaller than her minivan (202"). She was really impressed by the value and feel of the CX-50 so I assumed a CX-70 was a given.

Then Mazda dropped a minivan sized 2-row instead of something midsize. I attempted to steer her to the CX-50 as the best value and it would be better in town. She responded with wanting to test drive an X3 which meant the Turbo Inline 6 0-60 in 4.4s X3 M40i. At that point she was pretty much hooked on the BMWs and opted for the midsize X5 over the compact X3.

A Mazda CX is not the equal of the BMWs. They have the potential to get much closer if they tweak the 3.3L and get a better transmission. The CX-90 is already considered the best driving Fullsize other than the X7. It is a value calculation of getting 85-90% to what a BMW is for 65-70% of the money.

 

[Dr Kev]

My personal thoughts:
I got one life and I love to drive. After the head crack and CX-70 hype bs, my next car will be a BMW X5.
I’m gonna get what I really want, no “settling.”
It’ll cost more but it’ll be worth it.
Life is short. Wishing everyone a nice day.

Given that an X5 comparably equipped to top of line CX-70 is over $15,000 more (around $62,000 vs. around $77,000) it damn well better not involve any “settling”! And yet it does involve settling for the extra money-inferior space, inferior safety performance, and BMW has this obsession with getting rid of almost all physical controls in the interior. And what is that stupid little nub instead of a shifter?!?! Fortunately, Mazda hasn’t given in to that stupidity. The beloved BMW of old is long gone! Fail!