Mazda CX-70 buying decision and timing

[Muggs1]

I had almost diametrically opposed test drive impressions of the 340HP inline 6 mild hybrid CX-90. It is a nice vehicle, solid, stable, confident. But it lacks the engaging driving characteristics of the CX-5 and CX-50 (both 1,200lb lighter) and those are 4 cylinder vehicles with understeer inducing front wheel drive. I don't need nor want 3 rows and the land yacht dimensions. It sits way too high and feels too big. I really think it is the weight at 5,000lb. Mazda should employ the gram strategy employed with the MX-5 and shave about 500lbs off that pig. My wife's 2012 Odyssey drives better mainly because it is lighter (4,450lbs) and sits lower (lower center of gravity) though the same length (202").

To each they're taste/preference. Maybe you got one without software updates ?
I drove this spring everything from Mazda. From CX50 to CX5 to CX9. Will tell you that imo nothing feels like the CX90. CX50 is the closest to a driver's car, because you sit low, below the belt line and windows, however the torsion beam is really ugly and I couldn't live with feeling every small crack in the pavement. In addition to that, when you floor it, even though it pulls, its nowhere near the feeling of the I6 and the RWD platform. Not to mention the fuel consumption for such a big car which is better than the current turbo 2.5.

And to your point, we don't need 3 rows as well and I dislike the captain's chair, however there is nothing to suits us out there. Hence will do a 3yr lease and I'll switch to CX70 after.

 

[sm1ke]

To each they're taste/preference. Maybe you got one without software updates ?
I drove this spring everything from Mazda. From CX50 to CX5 to CX9. Will tell you that imo nothing feels like the CX90. CX50 is the closest to a driver's car, because you sit low, below the belt line and windows, however the torsion beam is really ugly and I couldn't live with feeling every small crack in the pavement. In addition to that, when you floor it, even though it pulls, its nowhere near the feeling of the I6 and the RWD platform. Not to mention the fuel consumption for such a big car which is better than the current turbo 2.5.

And to your point, we don't need 3 rows as well and I dislike the captain's chair, however there is nothing to suits us out there. Hence will do a 3yr lease and I'll switch to CX70 after.

How does the steering compare? According to what I've read, the CX-50 steering is on the heavier side, while the CX-5 steering is on the lighter side. Is the CX-90 steering closer to the CX-50 or CX-5?

 

[Muggs1]

How does the steering compare? According to what I've read, the CX-50 steering is on the heavier side, while the CX-5 steering is on the lighter side. Is the CX-90 steering closer to the CX-50 or CX-5?

Its different than both of them, definitely lighter than the cx50 and imo better than the cx5.

 

[dwswager]

How does the steering compare? According to what I've read, the CX-50 steering is on the heavier side, while the CX-5 steering is on the lighter side. Is the CX-90 steering closer to the CX-50 or CX-5?

It's in the middle. I never did any high speed maneuvers with it, but the CX-90 felt "right" in the steering. On the day I purchased my wife's Odyessey, I asked if we could tighten up the steering. Hit a bump at 70mph and it reminds you of a 1970s luxoboat with the steering will slopping back and forth till you get settled. The problem is the CX-90 sits too high and is too big and heavy to really drive well. It's good driving for a minivan size, elevated platform. The BMW X7 is generally regarded as the best driving big SUV and I would say the CX-90 was maybe a small step down from that standard for about $25K less.

If you need a vehicle like the CX-90 it is a great one. I'm here for the CX-70 and hoping Mazda does what Genesis tried to do with the GV70 vs the GV80. Make it lower, lighter more responsive with less size and mass to be a better driving vehicle because it can be for those that don't need all that space.

 

[2005mazda]

It's in the middle. I never did any high speed maneuvers with it, but the CX-90 felt "right" in the steering. On the day I purchased my wife's Odyessey, I asked if we could tighten up the steering. Hit a bump at 70mph and it reminds you of a 1970s luxoboat with the steering will slopping back and forth till you get settled. The problem is the CX-90 sits too high and is too big and heavy to really drive well. It's good driving for a minivan size, elevated platform. The BMW X7 is generally regarded as the best driving big SUV and I would say the CX-90 was maybe a small step down from that standard for about $25K less.

If you need a vehicle like the CX-90 it is a great one. I'm here for the CX-70 and hoping Mazda does what Genesis tried to do with the GV70 vs the GV80. Make it lower, lighter more responsive with less size and mass to be a better driving vehicle because it can be for those that don't need all that space.

Beautifully stated my friend.

I, like many others, were anticipating/hoping for what you had described for the CX70. Unfortunately it seems like Mazda didn't quite have the budget for another bespoke product and rehashed the CX90 with the deletion of the 3rd row (in all honesty though, I wouldn't mind a CX90 without the cramped 3rd row).

I just had to comment on this thread- trying to get caught up on the CX70 community. Seems like the CX70 wasn't what we all hoped for, but not all is at lost. I'm in no hurry to purchase, but wanted to see how the CX70 fairs to the CX90. I was hoping that Mazda at least tried to address some of the negative feedback from the CX90's drivetrain being laggy, hesitant, abrupt/jerky, among other descriptions from some reviewers out there.

 

[zhoom-zhoom]

Good points, thanks for the input. Switching to a Pilot or a Pathfinder is not really an option as I dislike both.



Yes, I am a bit wary too and the first year but that's why I was thinking, since it is on the same platform as the CX60 (I think they will 99% be identical, just stretched out a bit) it will technically be a 2nd year and not really a first year. The one thing that will be totally new will be the combination of the inline six with they're 8 auto.

Buying a used CX5 is not really a possibility as the prices are still high so you don't really get any value in that. Slowly the prices will decrease with more inventory available, so you will loose even more money when I will try to sell in 2 yrs.

Or maybe, get the first year CX70 model as a lease and return it 1-2 yrs later and get the the more polished model. Yeah, prolly will loose quite a bit of money but maybe is the safest option ?

You may be better off with the Lexus RX350 instead of leasing the 70 for a couple years then going for the "polished model". Just a thought.

 

[EWL5]

For the month of May, Mazda sold 136 CX70s compared to 4599 CX90s! A far cry from the 25% that Mazda envisioned at launch! Does anyone think it will ever hit 25% of CX70/90 sales?

Mazda Reports May Sales Results

Mazda North American Operations (MNAO) today reported total May sales of 35,562 vehicles, an increase of 6.9 percent compared to May 2023. Year-to-date sales totaled 166,790 vehicles sold; an...

news.mazdausa.com

 

[dwswager]

For the month of May, Mazda sold 136 CX70s compared to 4599 CX90s! A far cry from the 25% that Mazda envisioned at launch! Does anyone think it will ever hit 25% of CX70/90 sales?

Mazda Reports May Sales Results

Mazda North American Operations (MNAO) today reported total May sales of 35,562 vehicles, an increase of 6.9 percent compared to May 2023. Year-to-date sales totaled 166,790 vehicles sold; an...

news.mazdausa.com

No! There is no reason for the CX-70 to exist as it sits. I suspect even if people want a huge 2-row, most will just get the 3-row and put the back seat down. If they sold the CX-90 with the rear bench, it would probably kill 60% of the current minimal sales. Maybe, by the time they get a real U.S. version of the CX-60 ready, the transmission issues will be worked out and the 3.3 Turbo will be pumping out better horsepower with better tuning.

 

[RBrylawski]

No! There is no reason for the CX-70 to exist as it sits. I suspect even if people want a huge 2-row, most will just get the 3-row and put the back seat down. If they sold the CX-90 with the rear bench, it would probably kill 60% of the current minimal sales. Maybe, by the time they get a real U.S. version of the CX-60 ready, the transmission issues will be worked out and the 3.3 Turbo will be pumping out better horsepower with better tuning.

That is your opinion and one you're certainly entitled to have. But for me, I would NOT purchase the CX90. I don't have any need for a 3 row SUV. But the CX70 is perfect for me, so it's what I wanted and bought. There isn't anything about my CX70 I'd change. The engine is great. Driving dynamics are great. Interior appointment (I bought the Turbo S Premium Plus) are luxurious and for my needs the car is pretty much perfect.

 

[ataraxia]

No! There is no reason for the CX-70 to exist as it sits. I suspect even if people want a huge 2-row, most will just get the 3-row and put the back seat down. If they sold the CX-90 with the rear bench, it would probably kill 60% of the current minimal sales. Maybe, by the time they get a real U.S. version of the CX-60 ready, the transmission issues will be worked out and the 3.3 Turbo will be pumping out better horsepower with better tuning.

I tend to agree with you - the 2nd row not having a bench in the upper trim levels seemed to be a common complaint on various forums I frequented when considering the CX90 vs. the CX70.

Mazda USA seems to have hatched the CX70 plan in haste. A wider CX60 would have been a better fit for the model - offer an option to delete the 3rd row in the CX90 and offer it with a bench in all trim levels. I think they're afraid to crater the CX5 sales so they're leaving it alone and riding the wave as long as they can - when the CX50 takes over sales, the CX5 will disappear.

 

[dwswager]

That is your opinion and one you're certainly entitled to have. But for me, I would NOT purchase the CX90. I don't have any need for a 3 row SUV. But the CX70 is perfect for me, so it's what I wanted and bought. There isn't anything about my CX70 I'd change. The engine is great. Driving dynamics are great. Interior appointment (I bought the Turbo S Premium Plus) are luxurious and for my needs the car is pretty much perfect.

As we all understand, there is always a niche of people for any vehicle. But it is not sufficient to make a profit. Their calculus was that the lower cost to market would make up for lower sales. They anticipated Selling 60,000 CX-90s per year and 15,000 CX-70s. The CX-70 went on sale in April and June was the first full month of sales and Mazda sold 136 in June. The CX-90 sold 4,599. They were wrong. A midsize CX-70 would have sold much better and would have outsold the CX-90.

I tend to agree with you - the 2nd row not having a bench in the upper trim levels seemed to be a common complaint on various forums I frequented when considering the CX90 vs. the CX70.

Mazda USA seems to have hatched the CX70 plan in haste. A wider CX60 would have been a better fit for the model - offer an option to delete the 3rd row in the CX90 and offer it with a bench in all trim levels. I think they're afraid to crater the CX5 sales so they're leaving it alone and riding the wave as long as they can - when the CX50 takes over sales, the CX5 will disappear.

Yeah, it's stupid not to have a 8 passenger version of the CX-90 at the upper level. And further agree I am totally confused by Mazda's model strategy. One would have thought with the new naming that the CX-50 was a replacement for the CX-5, but the CX-5 still outsells the 50 more than 2:1. And then why have 2 compacts and 2 full size and no midsize!

 

[RBrylawski]

As we all understand, there is always a niche of people for any vehicle. But it is not sufficient to make a profit. Their calculus was that the lower cost to market would make up for lower sales. They anticipated Selling 60,000 CX-90s per year and 15,000 CX-70s. The CX-70 went on sale in April and June was the first full month of sales and Mazda sold 136 in June. The CX-90 sold 4,599. They were wrong. A midsize CX-70 would have sold much better and would have outsold the CX-90.


Yeah, it's stupid not to have a 8 passenger version of the CX-90 at the upper level. And further agree I am totally confused by Mazda's model strategy. One would have thought with the new naming that the CX-50 was a replacement for the CX-5, but the CX-5 still outsells the 50 more than 2:1. And then why have 2 compacts and 2 full size and no midsize!

I wouldn't expect a brand new model, many have never heard of to be a market leader in its first month of sales. My crystal ball is no more accurate than your crystal ball. Time will tell. But I honestly don't care at all what people think. For me, the CX70 was the way to go as I would NEVER buy a 3 row SUV. Removing a row, changing the trim some and making it look more sporty was enough to get me to open my wallet for the CX70.

 

[dwswager]

I wouldn't expect a brand new model, many have never heard of to be a market leader in its first month of sales. My crystal ball is no more accurate than your crystal ball. Time will tell. But I honestly don't care at all what people think. For me, the CX70 was the way to go as I would NEVER buy a 3 row SUV. Removing a row, changing the trim some and making it look more sporty was enough to get me to open my wallet for the CX70.

Time will tell, but this model was 2 years late. It does not bode well that there is no pent up demand. Had they released a midsized (longer, wider version of the CX-60) and not a land yacht, I would own one. As others on this is dozens of other boards. As soon as they dropped it, my wife chose the BMW X5.

 

[RBrylawski]

Time will tell, but this model was 2 years late. It does not bode well that there is no pent up demand. Had they released a midsized (longer, wider version of the CX-60) and not a land yacht, I would own one. As others on this is dozens of other boards. As soon as they dropped it, my wife chose the BMW X5.View attachment 329673

I'm not sure what investment you have here? I'm not sure what the text conversation is supposed to prove either? If the CX70 wasn't for you or your wife, that's why there are other options out there. I simply don't get the vitriol over the CX70 at all? It's a great car, which has a luxurious interior, a marvelously smooth Inline 6 cylinder engine, with loads of space and costs a LOT less than a comparable BMW X5.

But I hope your wife loves her BMW. They're great cars.

 

[Antoine]

I'm not sure what investment you have here? I'm not sure what the text conversation is supposed to prove either? If the CX70 wasn't for you or your wife, that's why there are other options out there. I simply don't get the vitriol over the CX70 at all? It's a great car, which has a luxurious interior, a marvelously smooth Inline 6 cylinder engine, with loads of space and costs a LOT less than a comparable BMW X5.

But I hope your wife loves her BMW. They're great cars.

Agree…Time to move on from this discussion…This is the CX-70 Forum which is dedicated to supporting CX-70 Owners and not endless discussion on why the model exists.

A reminder for everyone…Let’s stay on topic here and that’s the CX-70, thank you.

 

[Muggs1]

I'm not sure what investment you have here? I'm not sure what the text conversation is supposed to prove either? If the CX70 wasn't for you or your wife, that's why there are other options out there. I simply don't get the vitriol over the CX70 at all? It's a great car, which has a luxurious interior, a marvelously smooth Inline 6 cylinder engine, with loads of space and costs a LOT less than a comparable BMW X5.

But I hope your wife loves her BMW. They're great cars.

There's no vitriol here, we are Mazda owners that wanted to buy another Mazda product that will suit our needs. That Mazda product never came, and everybody agreed, from journalists/reviewers that this product does not make any sense. CX90 did not make any sense not to have bench on 2nd row in upper trims and CX70 does not justify another name plate as is basically the same car. Key thing, Mazda is still missing a car/suv in their lineup that is around 195" long. Guess what, us and probably 90% of users that I know was waiting for that product.

Agree…Time to move on from this discussion…This is the CX-70 Forum which is dedicated to supporting CX-70 Owners and not endless discussion on why the model exists.

A reminder for everyone…Let’s stay on topic here and that’s the CX-70, thank you.

That's going to be my only comment

 

[Antoine]

Once again, it’s time to move on from this discussion over the CX-70’s existence. Points have been made but the fact is, the model exists and people are buying them…This CX-70 Forum is for supporting the ownership experience (as with any model), it is not for endlessly disparaging a new model just because it does not meet your criteria.

Thread closed.