CX-70 delayed to next year

[markfm]

I've driven Lexus RX 3xx series since 1999, was ticked when they switched to a 2.4 liter 4 cylinder this year (their 3+ liter 6 cylinder engines were rock solid); I had the new model as a loaner when I went in for service recently, not impressed.

After 5 RX, the CX-70 sounds like a sweet SUV to switch to, but the delay in release is driving me up the wall. Hopefully it'll come in a couple hundred pounds lighter than the CX-90, but more cargo space (including when the rear seats are up). (On my current RX the rear cargo area is so cramped that I had to cut a couple inches off a dog barrier so it would fit.)

 

[dwswager]

some say the CX-5 will be discontinued, but who knows for sure what Mazda plans are?

Sadly, I've heard that as well. The CX-5 was magical in it's sizing. Big enough without being too big and small enough without being too small. Probably why the CX-5 outsold all other mazda models combined for years in the U.S. Market.

 

[dwswager]

was ticked when they switched to a 2.4 liter 4 cylinder....

After 5 RX, the CX-70 sounds like a sweet SUV to switch to, but the delay in release is driving me up the wall.

You and me both! Quit offering a 4,800lb car with a 4 cylinder....especially when you are pretending you are a "luxury" brand. I told the BMW dealer they should be ashamed to offer the X3 (4400lb) with the same power to weight ratio as my wife's 12 year old minivan! My wife kinda likes the Acura RDX, but it is also 4 cylinder.

And I've been ready to buy for 8 months waiting to see the CX-70 and get the wife out of her minivan. I'm about ready to plunk down the cash for the BMW X5...the 375hp B58 inline 6 is magical. That is what makes the CX-70 and CX-90 worth looking into because it also means rear drive based and taking all that weight off the front axle.

 

[markfm]

You and me both! Quit offering a 4,800lb car with a 4 cylinder....especially when you are pretending you are a "luxury" brand. I told the BMW dealer they should be ashamed to offer the X3 (4400lb) with the same power to weight ratio as my wife's 12 year old minivan! My wife kinda likes the Acura RDX, but it is also 4 cylinder.

And I've been ready to buy for 8 months waiting to see the CX-70 and get the wife out of her minivan. I'm about ready to plunk down the cash for the BMW X5...the 375hp B58 inline 6 is magical. That is what makes the CX-70 and CX-90 worth looking into because it also means rear drive based and taking all that weight off the front axle.

I'm hoping the 70 comes in about 400 lb lighter than the 90, with the basic 3.3 turbo combo tweaked to 300+ HP (still regular unleaded), a parallel increase in the S variant. The '24 90 is a good starting point (though not yet a luxury class competitor IMO - need to fix the first year misses on a few areas); with any luck Mazda is taking some of the comments about it to heart, will have a chance to make some positive updates for the delayed 70 release.

 

[GTEyes]

need to fix the first year misses on a few areas); with any luck Mazda is taking some of the comments about it to heart, will have a chance to make some positive updates for the delayed 70 release.

I have a hunch that is why they are delaying the release a bit..improve some of the issues noted on the 90.

 

[markfm]

I have a hunch that is why they are delaying the release a bit..improve some of the issues noted on the 90.

A TSB is coming out for the CX-90 Blind Spot Monitor issue, so with any luck that should be clean for the 70.

 

[dwswager]

I'm hoping the 70 comes in about 400 lb lighter than the 90, with the basic 3.3 turbo combo tweaked to 300+ HP (still regular unleaded), a parallel increase in the S variant. The '24 90 is a good starting point (though not yet a luxury class competitor IMO - need to fix the first year misses on a few areas); with any luck Mazda is taking some of the comments about it to heart, will have a chance to make some positive updates for the delayed 70 release.

I suspect it will be the same 340hp mild 48V hybrid as the CX-90; it was already tuned for torque like the 2.5L 4cylinder turbo. I would love something 190-193" long to slot between the 185" CX-50 and 201" CX-90. And yes, please shave 300lbs or so off it and fix the issues that appear with the CX-90. A little tweaking on the motor wouldn't hurt either (CX-90 is 340hp w/ Premium and 319hp w/ Regular) But as to "luxury" it is more than adequate for my taste.

 

[markfm]

I suspect it will be the same 340hp mild 48V hybrid as the CX-90; it was already tuned for torque like the 2.5L 4cylinder turbo. I would love something 190-193" long to slot between the 185" CX-50 and 201" CX-90. And yes, please shave 300lbs or so off it and fix the issues that appear with the CX-90. A little tweaking on the motor wouldn't hurt either (CX-90 is 340hp w/ Premium and 319hp w/ Regular) But as to "luxury" it is more than adequate for my taste.

I'd be thrilled if the base 6 cylinder turbo setup made it to 319hp (it's a 280 HP right now). The 319 HP on regular appears to be for the PHEV 4 cylinder turbo implementation; PHEV isn't of interest to me, due to 200 pounds more weight and 4 cylinder.

Somewhere in the 193 - 196 inch length zone would be my sweet spot, to have decent cargo capacity even with seats up. We have two dogs, and do a lot of happy homeowner projects, so like to have space with seats up plus the ability to carry boards with second row seats down.

 

[dwswager]

Regular motor w/ 48V hybrid. Not the plug in hybrid.

 

[sm1ke]

Regular motor w/ 48V hybrid. Not the plug in hybrid.

View attachment 321689

The "basic 3.3 turbo" that @markfm is referring to is the 280hp engine in the non-S trims. That is, 280hp on 87 octane.
In the S trims, the 3.3 engine makes up to 340hp on 93 octane, or 319hp minimum on 87 octane.
@markfm appears to be stating that he would like for the base, non-S engine to start at 319hp on 87 octane, instead of the current 280hp.

 

[dougal]

When I drove the 280 hp car versus the 340 hp car, I felt no difference. Same with the PHEV. Zero difference in power. I personally think they should scrap the 280 and just have the 340 HP car that gets 319 with regular gas and 340 with premium gas.

 

[markfm]

I'd be fine with the S, but wonder about this caveat from the CX-90 manual, the fuel requirements for (e-SKYACTIV G (HIGH POWER))" "Regular unleaded fuel with an octane rating from 87 to 90 (91 to 95 RON) can be used, but this will reduce performance slightly, such as reduced engine output, and engine knocking. "

Knocking generally sounds like an unhappy point for an engine, kind of an "okay to do this at times, but not as the normal mode of operation".

My desire remains the base engine getting a bit of tuning to achieve 300 HP on regular gas, as a normal use case. (319 I'd be thrilled with, on regular gas without knocking, but expect that would be a stretch as a near-term goal ). Alternately if they can tweak the S version so it really runs okay with 319 HP on regular gas, without feeling the need to indicate a risk of knocking in their own manual, that would be excellent.

I give Mazda a big thumbs up for using an I6 engine, simply hope they will be adjusting things a bit for year 2 and later. I don't know which would be easier for them - tweaking the base engine or the High Power version.

Either way, I'm looking forward to seeing what the specs are like late this year, when things should be firming up

 

[dwswager]

The reason you won't feel much difference between them is that the HP figures are ancillary to the Torque. SUVs are going to be engineered and tuned for torque and drivability considering the weight. This motor would easily spin to 7,000-7,500rpm, but nobody is going to wind out an SUV even to it's 6,500rpm redline. The 3.3L inline 6 in the CX-90 makes max torque by 2,000rpm and then makes max HP by 5,000rpm. Compare to the CX-50 Turbo 4 which takes to 4,000rpm to get to max torque and 6,000 rpm to make maximum HP and then the HP falls off the cliff. I would never want a 4 cylinder in a SUV or minivan.

 

[markfm]

Excellent information, thanks! Have you seen a similar curve for the base I6 3.3T? (As opposed to the S/high performance version).

 

[dwswager]

Excellent information, thanks! Have you seen a similar curve for the base I6 3.3T? (As opposed to the S/high performance version).

I think this is what you are looking for...

 

[MichalP]

The reason you won't feel much difference between them is that the HP figures are ancillary to the Torque. SUVs are going to be engineered and tuned for torque and drivability considering the weight. This motor would easily spin to 7,000-7,500rpm, but nobody is going to wind out an SUV even to it's 6,500rpm redline. The 3.3L inline 6 in the CX-90 makes max torque by 2,000rpm and then makes max HP by 5,000rpm. Compare to the CX-50 Turbo 4 which takes to 4,000rpm to get to max torque and 6,000 rpm to make maximum HP and then the HP falls off the cliff. I would never want a 4 cylinder in a SUV or minivan.

View attachment 322144

View attachment 322145

I don't want to be too picky but the 2nd graph shows the regular 2.5L engine and not the turbo version. That's why there is such a difference. The actual 2.5L turbo behaves in a very similar way like the inline 6, reaching max torque (320 ft-lb) by 2000 rpms also. It would be interesting to see the proper graph to compare.

 

[sinistriel@]

These are the actual torque curves from internal documents comparing the 2.5t and both 3.3 engines for anyone interested.

 

[MichalP]

Very similar curves except the new inline 6s can keep the max torque longer (big advantage) and deliver more HP over bigger rpm range. My only problem with this graph is the fact that most likely the previous 2.5T runs on regular fuel here and both new 3.3T shown here are running on premium - based on HP delivery shown here.

 

[sinistriel@]

Very similar curves except the new inline 6s can keep the max torque longer (big advantage) and deliver more HP over bigger rpm range. My only problem with this graph is the fact that most likely the previous 2.5T runs on regular fuel here and both new 3.3T shown here are running on premium - based on HP delivery shown here.

Yes in that graph they are showing with the lower octane, this is the updated graph showing low octane and high octane on the 2.5t version in the 3, CX-30 with the liquid to air intercooler.

 

[dwswager]

I don't want to be too picky but the 2nd graph shows the regular 2.5L engine and not the turbo version. That's why there is such a difference. The actual 2.5L turbo behaves in a very similar way like the inline 6, reaching max torque (320 ft-lb) by 2000 rpms also. It would be interesting to see the proper graph to compare.

Yes, in my haste I pulled the 2.5 normally aspirated. And the one for the Turbo is better, but still shows the hump. Actually quite impressive that they make maximum

torque so early in the RPM range. That is a feat for a 4 cylinder.