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

Someone posted a CX-70 video early. The dealer who provide details of CX-90 with 2 rows, black trim, larger front vent and red interior was correct.

 
Last edited:
idk how the marketing department doesn’t get fired for having two identical vehicles with different names. Blows my mind.
 
idk how the marketing department doesn’t get fired for having two identical vehicles with different names. Blows my mind.
Its not the marketing that should get fired its the planning department. Absolutely horrendous decision.

On a brighter note, the guy with the early video mention something about a slightly smaller and lighter version of the cx90, although from the clip it looks identical.
Also I like the red interior more than the tan version.
 
Its not the marketing that should get fired its the planning department. Absolutely horrendous decision.
100%. Mazda really need to clean house. They got really hung up on having different widths for different markets and I think that led to a lot of poor decisions.

- CX-50 too similar to CX-5 while not being a replacement.

- CX-60-90 program was probably unnecessarily ambitious and distracted by market widths. They should have just made X3,5,7 equivalents.
 
Hey everyone, now that the CX-70 has been officially announced, I created a new thread for confirmed photos and info. Hopefully this helps sort out any confusion (compared to keeping speculative and confirmed info in the same thread).

New thread linked here.
 
You people complaining about Mazda are funny, as their sales are better than ever. Let the market decide if their strategy will work out.

Me, I will need to see what is different between the CX-70 and CX90 to see which is better for me (if either).
 
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.

1706640315097.png


Car and Driver thinks Mazda is Trolling them.
 
We should wait for official specs. But.. after all the waiting in the lead up to the reveal, it seems a bit unfair to ask to wait longer for official specifications from Mazda regarding wheelbase, overall size, weight, cargo space, pricing, etc.
 
You people complaining about Mazda are funny, as their sales are better than ever. Let the market decide if their strategy will work out.

Me, I will need to see what is different between the CX-70 and CX90 to see which is better for me (if either).
Yes, they hit 2.37% U.S. market share in 54 years! The issue is it could be so much better if they would quit cocking up the U.S. Market.

- CX-3 having to be replaced by CX-30 because it was way too small
- ND Miata planned to have 1.5L in NA and having to do the ND2 refresh
- MX-30 EV with 100 mile range.
- A Outdoorsy oriented CX-5 which is actually selling OK, but took way too many resources
- A 2nd fullsize when the they already have 2 compacts and no midsize since 2012.

I truly believe this was not their original plan and a lack of some resource of some kind prevented them from executing a midsize 2-row in time for release (even a year late).
 
We should wait for official specs. But.. after all the waiting in the lead up to the reveal, it seems a bit unfair to ask to wait longer for official specifications from Mazda regarding wheelbase, overall size, weight, cargo space, pricing, etc.
The first sentence of the reveal should have been "The not quite all new CX-70 is X inches/mm in length with a curb weight of Y lbs/Kg." Guess they knew giving real information would be too embarassing.
 
Yes, they hit 2.37% U.S. market share in 54 years! The issue is it could be so much better if they would quit cocking up the U.S. Market.

- CX-3 having to be replaced by CX-30 because it was way too small
- ND Miata planned to have 1.5L in NA and having to do the ND2 refresh
- MX-30 EV with 100 mile range.
- A Outdoorsy oriented CX-5 which is actually selling OK, but took way too many resources
- A 2nd fullsize when the they already have 2 compacts and no midsize since 2012.

I truly believe this was not their original plan and a lack of some resource of some kind prevented them from executing a midsize 2-row in time for release (even a year late).
They had a record year last year and are profitable. Again, they are a company, offering a product. If you like the product and it fits your needs, buy it. If you don't like it and it does not fit your needs, don't. This is a free market and the market will decide.
 
They had a record year last year and are profitable. Again, they are a company, offering a product. If you like the product and it fits your needs, buy it. If you don't like it and it does not fit your needs, don't. This is a free market and the market will decide.
Why are people so desperate to defend incompetence? Most manufacturers had a great year last year...sales in the U.S. were up 11% year over year.

Almost everyone here likes Mazda's products. We have 2 in my family (CX-5 and MX-5). I was actually intending to own a 3rd...CX-70...had it been what was originally promised and expected by customers and the entire automotive press. My wife still has a CX-50 in the running though she is leaning to the X5 because she was hoping at 54 to get something smaller than her minivan, but bigger than my daughter's CX-5 and a step up in quality. She already shot down the X7 and CX-90 for being Minivan sized.

1706705012578.png


People are [insert every adjective in the book] because they are dumbfounded. I'm angry because I waited for this and it wasn't as promised and I know the only real competitors to it are $25K more. Google Midsize SUVs not hampered by 4 cylinder motors and FWD. This just wasn't that hard of a decision to make on what size of a 2-row SUV the CX-70 should have been. Guess which model is BMW's best selling SUV? If there is a reason, they went with a CX-90 without a backseat, then it behooves them to tell everyone. But standing there lying that they just announced an all new MIDSIZE 2-row SUV model is a bad look.

1706705259437.png
 
I agree with others who say this was not the original plan. I think a near identical vehicle with only 3rd row seats removed is completely pointless as there are absolutely minimal cost savings to be had in just removing the 3rd row seats - unlike the CX-60 which would actually be a different vehicle in a different size. Essentially, the CX-70 is just a different trim level of the CX-90, which is fine. They'll sell some but the CX-90 will continue to get most of the sales.

I think they should have continued to offer the CX-9 at a slightly lower price point instead alongside the CX-90, as the CX-9 was still selling well right until the CX-90.

 
I am waiting until all the details are out before I form my full opinion.
Make no mistake, I am disappointed but I remain open minded.

If this comes in lower in price by a good amount, it could give customers a vehicle with much more cargo room than the competition. There is considerable cost savings for them to use the CX-90 vehicle as a basis for this "new model". Again, we don't know all the details yet.

I am not aware of Mazda promising they were bringing over a CX60-sized vehicle as the CX70. I really wanted that but the rumours have been swirling for months that that wasn't the case.
 
Why are people so desperate to defend incompetence? Most manufacturers had a great year last year...sales in the U.S. were up 11% year over year.

Almost everyone here likes Mazda's products. We have 2 in my family (CX-5 and MX-5). I was actually intending to own a 3rd...CX-70...had it been what was originally promised and expected by customers and the entire automotive press. My wife still has a CX-50 in the running though she is leaning to the X5 because she was hoping at 54 to get something smaller than her minivan, but bigger than my daughter's CX-5 and a step up in quality. She already shot down the X7 and CX-90 for being Minivan sized.

View attachment 325580

People are [insert every adjective in the book] because they are dumbfounded. I'm angry because I waited for this and it wasn't as promised and I know the only real competitors to it are $25K more. Google Midsize SUVs not hampered by 4 cylinder motors and FWD. This just wasn't that hard of a decision to make on what size of a 2-row SUV the CX-70 should have been. Guess which model is BMW's best selling SUV? If there is a reason, they went with a CX-90 without a backseat, then it behooves them to tell everyone. But standing there lying that they just announced an all new MIDSIZE 2-row SUV model is a bad look.

View attachment 325581

I don't think Mazda ever promised anything with the CX-70. People just speculated on what it could be and where it could fit in Mazda's lineup, then developed their expectations and ran with it. IMO the speculations and expectations were well thought out and logical, which is why most people who saw the reveal yesterday felt so blindsided, myself included.

Why are people so desperate to defend incompetence?

People are sharing their opinions, there's nothing wrong with that.
 
I don't think Mazda ever promised anything with the CX-70. People just speculated on what it could be and where it could fit in Mazda's lineup, then developed their expectations and ran with it. IMO the speculations and expectations were well thought out and logical, which is why most people who saw the reveal yesterday felt so blindsided, myself included.
They never gave specifications. But they also gave lots of interviews which spawned lots of automotive press stories that universally indicated that the CX-70 would be 1) a midsize and 2) slotting between the CX-50 and CX-90. They were announced as North American versions of the CX-60 and CX-80 respectively. (wish I still had the original announcement video because I am sure that is what they actually said). Now, if your interview leaves people with the wrong impression, then from an ethical standpoint, it behooves you to correct that. Should the automotive press trust Mazda now? And from a PR perspective they have now created tremendous negative sentiment allowing a global consensus to gel for 3 years. Managing expectations and preventing product launches from impacting existing sales is always tough. But there was absolutely no excuse that Mazda had not corrected the global consensus by categorically stating the CX-70 would be positioned as a full size and not a midsize.

I would love to know the truth of whether this was the original intent for the CX-70 or something caused them to alter their original plan and were for some reason forced to release this as is. They already expect the CX-70 to sell at 25% the rate of the CX-90 which when sales stabilize will almost certainly be their lowest selling SUV (other than the CX-70). Nobody does that to themselves on purpose when they could have released a midsize that would outsell the CX-90. Will be interesting to view the CX-60 to CX-80 sales ratios as well compared to CX-70/CX-90.
 
Last edited:
An interesting comment from Mazda regarding the naming of the vehicle.


a Mazda U.S. spokesperson told me that Mazda considered naming it some variant of CX-90, but decided against it because CX-70 and CX-90 customers are differentiated enough and are not shopping in the same segment.
 
Back