CX-70 delayed to next year

Nobody does long reveals like Mazda. Making us guess at a bedsheet's hidden contents. Hopefully the time is used well, to bring a refined 70 to the market.

Edit- i notice that Car and Driver states it will have a shorter wheelbase than the 90, which to me ends the rumour of similar dimensions between the two models. I didn't believe they would as it seemed silly, but the rumour had some staying power.
I wouldn't depend on rumors from Car and Driver. They are rarely correct.
 
Some comments from the Mazda President on the CX-70.


President Kego said, "At the end of last year, we test drove the CX-70 and CX-80 to see how well they performed. He expressed confidence in their dynamic performance and ride quality, saying, "We have made improvements.
 
Hope thats the case and is not just publicity.

When I translated it the caption under the presidents was this:

"The president of the hair basket explains the finish of two large SUVs of the large product group"
 
Nobody does long reveals like Mazda. Making us guess at a bedsheet's hidden contents. Hopefully the time is used well, to bring a refined 70 to the market.

Edit- i notice that Car and Driver states it will have a shorter wheelbase than the 90, which to me ends the rumour of similar dimensions between the two models. I didn't believe they would as it seemed silly, but the rumour had some staying power.
That was the first I have heard/seen any statement on the wheelbase. Assuming C/D got it during their discussion Donnelly, that bodes well. I been getting "its a 2 row CX-90" from my Mazda dealer since the CX-90 dropped and the CX-70 was delayed. I asked specifically on dimensions and it was their take that it would have basically identical dimension as a CX-90. I told them to go ahead and shoot yourselves in the head now and get it over with.

I like the CX-90 for what it is, but it is 8 years late to market. That upright look is so 2016 Lexis GX 460. I really hope the delay was nope, lets make a midsize version of the CX-30 design.

1704719334173.png
 
I worry that CX-70 might not get the Turbo S (340hp), just the detuned Turbo (280hp).
If so, Mazda will lose me as a potential customer (upgrading my '17 CX-5).
 
I worry that CX-70 might not get the Turbo S (340hp), just the detuned Turbo (280hp).
If so, Mazda will lose me as a potential customer (upgrading my '17 CX-5).
Two versions of the inline-6 were certified with Carb for the CX-70, so that would suggest both engines will be available.
 
I worry that CX-70 might not get the Turbo S (340hp), just the detuned Turbo (280hp).
If so, Mazda will lose me as a potential customer (upgrading my '17 CX-5).
They are not that stupid! They are foolish sometimes like making the CX-3 too small, making the CX-50, releasing the 3 row CX-90 first, not planning the 2.0 in the original ND Miata....But they are not THAT stupid. I've been holding my wife off a BMW X5 for a year waiting to see if the CX-70 is a worthwhile lower cost alternative.
 
X5 is more comparable to CX-90, 7-seaters
Nope. X5 is 194" 2-row though there is a little jump seat 3rd row option. But yes, it is big for a midsize. The CX-90 is 202" minivan size! The BWM 3-row X7 is 203" The problem is the CX-50 is big for a compact though it doesn't really give you much over the smaller compact CX-5.

BMW X5 Jump seat option
1704770326632.png
 
Last edited:
well it's the way you compare... 3 row and 2 row cars are separate categories in my mind, but I agree - length is definitely a factor
 
X5 is more comparable to CX-90, 7-seaters

No way. Just because it has those seats does not make it comparable. dwswager is 100% right. Those rear seats in the X5 and in the GLE for that matter, are TINY. There is zero point of those.

That is also why those stupid comparisons between the X5, GLE and CX-90 were so stupid.
 
well it's the way you compare... 3 row and 2 row cars are separate categories in my mind, but I agree - length is definitely a factor
But the X5 is a 2-Row. You can option the jumpseat set if you choose, but they eat badly into the cargo box and maybe 5 year olds could sit in them. The jump seats aren't even listed on their website as an accessory. And with all the ones I've seen listed for sale, most people seem to find them not worth the money, effort or loss of cargo space.
1704808081633.png
 
Last edited:
I worry that CX-70 might not get the Turbo S (340hp), just the detuned Turbo (280hp).
If so, Mazda will lose me as a potential customer (upgrading my '17 CX-5).
At 3.3L, this motor could produce 400hp without much sweat when properly tuned (assuming it can rev higher without failure). Of course, Mazda is apparently redlining it pretty low. They report 340HP on premium at 5000-6000rpm. As a comparison, the torque tuned B58 in the BMW X5 is a 3.0L that produces 375HP at 7,000rpm. (And it is probably closer to 400HP because BMW always lowballs the numbers.)
 
It's about to get stupider b/w the X5, GLE, and CX-70! :ROFLMAO:
CX-90 should be compared to the X7
CX-90/2 should be compared to the X7 with the back seat down!

I'm going Saturday with the SupeWife to spec out an X5 and to me, even that is a little on the big side, but the X3 is too small for her. I drive a MX-5 as a daily and so small is relative to me.
 
CX-90 should be compared to the X7
CX-90/2 should be compared to the X7 with the back seat down!

I'm going Saturday with the SupeWife to spec out an X5 and to me, even that is a little on the big side, but the X3 is too small for her. I drive a MX-5 as a daily and so small is relative to me.
The X5 is a more refined, nicer product over the X3!
 
The X5 is a more refined, nicer product over the X3!
Yes, but if I could manage it, I'd love an X3 with the B58 for the commute into city.

But certainly both are killer options that IMO the CX90 doesn't really approach. Whether they are worth the extra $ is perhaps a diff answer.
 
Back