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

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.
Mazda was projecting 90,000 sales for the CX-90 and 30,000 for the CX-70. Mazda never positioned the CX-70 as a volume seller.
 
Wow, what were they smoking? Average sales (in U.S.) of CX-9 over the past 17 years is 25,000/year. The best year was only 34,000. How could they reasonably expect to sell 90,000 CX-90's? OK, maybe that's 90,000 worldwide, but even that seems like a huge stretch. The ratio makes sense (3x more CX-90's than CX-70's) but the raw numbers seem very unrealistic to me. Anyhow, the point remains -- hard to justify major expenditure for a mid-size, 2-row SUV unless you're one of the top three or four volume manufacturers.
 
Wow, what were they smoking? Average sales (in U.S.) of CX-9 over the past 17 years is 25,000/year. The best year was only 34,000. How could they reasonably expect to sell 90,000 CX-90's? OK, maybe that's 90,000 worldwide, but even that seems like a huge stretch. The ratio makes sense (3x more CX-90's than CX-70's) but the raw numbers seem very unrealistic to me. Anyhow, the point remains -- hard to justify major expenditure for a mid-size, 2-row SUV unless you're one of the top three or four volume manufacturers.
That number could be for North America. Mazda has said they planned on selling 2.5 - 3x the volume of the CX-9. That was from over a year ago.
 
I can't see how Mazda can realistically triple their sales of their 3-row SUV. Sure, the CX-90 is nicer than the CX-9 ... but three times the number of buyers? IMHO, probably 30,000 CX-90's and 10,000 CX-70's. The CX-70 will cut into the sales volume of the CX-90 (not 100%, but some). But, whatever ... at least they've given me the choice of 2 row or 3 row, blackout trim or chrome, etc.
 
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.
The passport is a unique case. It was originally a rebadged Izuzu Rodeo. Now it is only 188" and built on the global truck platform. It is a specialty product not a progression of the HRV/CRV crossovers. It gets destroyed by the CR-V which is 185" and built for the road. The passport is to the CRV what the CX-50 is to the CX-5.

What you and apparently Mazda don't understand is that the "large platform" vehicles are a whole different line. The differentiation is not size, but the upgraded power trains, rear wheel drive and higher quality/materials. A 190-194" CX-70 would not have competed directly against the CX-5. The problem for Mazda is they lack the wherewithal to create a new brand for these vehicles. Hyundai saw the Genesis sedan was well received but understood quickly that it would not sell well as a Hyundai. And hence the Genesis brand was created.
 
I can't see how Mazda can realistically triple their sales of their 3-row SUV. Sure, the CX-90 is nicer than the CX-9 ... but three times the number of buyers? IMHO, probably 30,000 CX-90's and 10,000 CX-70's. The CX-70 will cut into the sales volume of the CX-90 (not 100%, but some). But, whatever ... at least they've given me the choice of 2 row or 3 row, blackout trim or chrome, etc.
I suspect the CX-90 will sell better than the CX-9. I certainly would not have owned a 4 cylinder full size 3 row. Normalized over 12 months, the CX-90 sold approximately 50,000 units in 2023. They also said they expected the CX-70 to sell at a rate of 25% of the CX-90. So they know they aren't going to sell many. The question is what that CX-70 sales estimate based on a CX-60 enlarged version or the CX-90 2-row. I assume the latter.
 
dwswager I completely agree with "A 190-194" CX-70 would not have competed directly against the CX-5." I believe a 190-194" CX-70 wold have been the right product, fill the gap between CX-5/CX-50 and CX-90, but Mazda couldn't justify the development cost. So they gave us a CX-90 with 3rd row seat delete and some black trim, and called it a day.
Also completely agree "The problem for Mazda is they lack the wherewithal to create a new brand for these vehicles." Before Hyundai/Genesis, it was Toyota/Lexus, Nissan/Infiniti and Honda/Acura -- all successful. I think it's extremely difficult/impossible to change a longstanding brand's image in the marketplace. But I realize it's also extremely costly to launch a new brand. Bigger companies like Toyota, Honda, etc have the resources to establish a new brand -- Mazda probably doesn't.
But I think Mazda will struggle to get consumers to understand the new direction they're trying to take, especially when they come out with an "active outdoor lifestyle" vehicle like the CX-50, followed by a near-luxury/performance vehicle like the CX-90, and then the rather confused direction of the CX-70. Are they trying to be Subaru, or BMW?
 
dwswager I completely agree with "A 190-194" CX-70 would not have competed directly against the CX-5." I believe a 190-194" CX-70 wold have been the right product, fill the gap between CX-5/CX-50 and CX-90, but Mazda couldn't justify the development cost. So they gave us a CX-90 with 3rd row seat delete and some black trim, and called it a day.
Also completely agree "The problem for Mazda is they lack the wherewithal to create a new brand for these vehicles." Before Hyundai/Genesis, it was Toyota/Lexus, Nissan/Infiniti and Honda/Acura -- all successful. I think it's extremely difficult/impossible to change a longstanding brand's image in the marketplace. But I realize it's also extremely costly to launch a new brand. Bigger companies like Toyota, Honda, etc have the resources to establish a new brand -- Mazda probably doesn't.
But I think Mazda will struggle to get consumers to understand the new direction they're trying to take, especially when they come out with an "active outdoor lifestyle" vehicle like the CX-50, followed by a near-luxury/performance vehicle like the CX-90, and then the rather confused direction of the CX-70. Are they trying to be Subaru, or BMW?
Well said. It took me a couple reads, but I get where dwswager is coming from.
I think the missing piece with the comments is the customer who walks into a Mazda dealership looking to buy something like a CX5/Rav4/Crv. The typical customer for those types of vehicles does not care about any of the things we all want with the cx60 (I6 engine, RWD chassis, etc…). That’s where we (folks on this forum) and they (typical mainstream customers) differ and where I think Mazda did what they could with the resources available.
I also think instead of going for something smaller than the competition (the cx60), they went with a convenient choice to have something larger, which I think was an intelligent decision based on their history of having smaller vehicles.
 
Having waited 2 years for the CX-70, I will admit my comments are colored by the fact that the CX-70 turned out to be something I do not want, do not need and was not something I expected. I, like most in the automotive press looked at the statements from Mazda and the CX-60 and CX-90 and ASSUMED they would produce a wider and longer CX-60 as the CX-70.

That said, if it was their intent to release a 2 row CX-90 then it is highly disingenuous to have given it a new model designation no matter how much trim you gussy it up in. And if that was not the plan, then the truth is always the best option.
 
In 2 images we see Mazda's mistake. The first is the front of an article comparing the CX-90 to the Fullsize Lexus GX. Their comparison is favorable which is fantastic for Mazda. Then we look at the 2nd image which is Lexus' 2023 U.S. Sales (first column). [Note Lexus NX is the compact 183.5" similar to CX-5/CX-50] Why build 2 versions (CX-90 and CX-70) of an SUV in a segment that sells worse than other segments? The 192" RX is Lexus' best selling SUV. They knew enough to introduce the smaller one first in Europe and just screwed the pooch not only introducing the full size first, but not even making a midsize which would have sold much better. I am still perplexed by Mazda inability to grasp market realities. They make great cars, but can't figure out what cars to make.

1707328091461.png

1707328647108.png
 
The way I see Mazda (I own 4. I am not bad mouthing Mazda), they need to overhaul their product marketing department... bean counting does not help a brand go upmarket.
 
The way I see Mazda (I own 4. I am not bad mouthing Mazda), they need to overhaul their product marketing department... bean counting does not help a brand go upmarket.
Not just Mazda, pretty much all manufacturers make questionable decisions. What seems evident to owners, potential buyers and auto journalists is often ignored by manufacturers. What about focus groups? Seems to me nobody uses them anymore or manufacturers have their own reasons to ignore their findings! My CX-5 is probably my last vehicle so I've pretty much given up on car manufacturers...
 
I got invitation to a focus group a few months ago. I did not attend it.
I attended one before... even they blacked out the logo, I knew it was for a new Caddy.
Never owned a Caddy, but I owned a BMW at that time...

Focus groups don't always work as expected (depending on whom you invite).
Famous example being the sliding door of minivan.

Ford said, their focus group rejected the idea of a sliding door for $500 more.
What happened after that everyone knows.
 
It does not take a focus group to look at what sells. In a economy brand the compact is going to sell the best. In a luxury brand it is likely going to be the midsize depending on where it is positioned in the range vs their other products. The fullsize, highest priced one is almost never going to be the big seller. The one outlier to this is that the Acura MDX (197") outsells the RDX(187"). To me that can be attributed to the sizing, the MDX came first by 5 years, it is priced only $5K over the RDX and comes with a V6 in the base model rather than a 4cylinder which is the only engine available in an RDX.
 
Having waited 2 years for the CX-70, I will admit my comments are colored by the fact that the CX-70 turned out to be something I do not want, do not need and was not something I expected. I, like most in the automotive press looked at the statements from Mazda and the CX-60 and CX-90 and ASSUMED they would produce a wider and longer CX-60 as the CX-70.
I've only waited for six months at this point - about eight months after I bought my Explorer ST and realized I was not going to keep it very long. I was also hoping for / expecting something 6-8" shorter than the CX90 based on what I'd read online and what the local dealer shared (neither of which is inherently reliable).

The Explorer is very close in size to the CX90 and barely fits in my garage - I can open the hatch with the garage door open and slip past the front of it to get past it. While another 6-8" wouldn't allow me to open the hatch in the garage with the door closed, I'd have more space at the front end. I don't need/want a giant SUV - I got one because I couldn't find another wagon that's fun to drive and doesn't cost $100k (E63AMG or RS6). I prefer smaller cars but my growing kid and road trips dictate that I have something bigger. My favorite daily so far was my Mazdaspeed3.

Having looked at the currently available models, I would love to have a CX60 with the CX70-90 inline 6. Or something with comparable power in a Mazda right around the size of the X5.

I'm going to wait to see the CX70 in person and drive it - hoping that convinces me to buy it. The only thing I'm certain of is that the Explorer will be gone by April.

I've driven/sat in everything at the Mazda dealer -
The CX-30 is too small/underpowered. Same for the 3.
The CX-50 interior / center console is odd and the headroom isn't great. I didn't like the seats.
The CX-5 has a better interior and I felt it drove better but also felt underpowered against what I'm used to driving (the ST is 400HP).
The CX90 drove fine but there's some delay in the initial pedal response - it's a lot quieter than my Explorer and my wife's Civic but I have no use for a 3rd row (haven't used it in the Explorer).

Fingers crossed the CX70 is even slightly smaller or they announce the CX60 is coming with the I6 turbo!
 
It does not take a focus group to look at what sells. In a economy brand the compact is going to sell the best. In a luxury brand it is likely going to be the midsize depending on where it is positioned in the range vs their other products. The fullsize, highest priced one is almost never going to be the big seller. The one outlier to this is that the Acura MDX (197") outsells the RDX(187"). To me that can be attributed to the sizing, the MDX came first by 5 years, it is priced only $5K over the RDX and comes with a V6 in the base model rather than a 4cylinder which is the only engine available in an RDX.
1) What goes for mass market also goes for luxury brands: the cheaper car (compact) is still the volume seller! Much easier to purchase/lease a GLC300, X3, etc. than a GLE or X5! Don't doubt for a minute the entry-level luxury model gets plenty of attention!

2) The MDX outselling the RDX was an anomaly caused by the supply chain. Acura chose to favor the higher profit car at the time but things are starting to turn back to normal. As you can see in the pic below, sales of the MDX have slowed in '24 vs '23 so Acura has rightfully increased the number of RDXs available and will continue to do so as the supply chain eases up!

Screen Shot 2024-02-01 at 10.17.21 AM.png
 
Where have you seen official dimensions and specs of the 70? I'll wait.
From the Mazda CX70 preview site:

"WHERE DOES THE CX-70 FIT IN THE MAZDA LINEUP?

The Mazda CX-70 is a mid-size SUV with sporty style and features. It’s larger than the Mazda CX-5 and the Mazda CX-50. The CX-70 is an option for those seeking a vibrant and active lifestyle who need extra cargo space. By comparison, the similarly-sized Mazda CX-90 offers 3rd-row seating for up to 8 people. This larger vehicle is perfect for families or those who enjoy driving around others in an elegantly crafted interior."


Notice how the 2nd sentence doesn't end w/the expected "...but smaller than the CX-90"! I also bolded and italicized the word "similarly" for emphasis since it's pretty obvious the CX-90 was the starting point for the CX-70. If you are ignoring all the comments being made by car journalists who have seen and taken pics of the CX-70 in person, then you do so at your own peril!


 
Where have you seen official dimensions and specs of the 70? I'll wait.

Yes, official dimensions and specs have not been released yet. By all accounts, it does look like it will be the exact same size, which is probably why all the auto journalists and reviewers are saying it is. But we still don't have official specs, and they were shown pre-production models. It's unlikely that the production model will change appreciably in terms of looks/dimensions, but one can only hope :LOL:
 

Latest posts

Back