Now with the CX-70 "revealed", what is everyone buying?

[dwswager]

Removing features (3rd row), changing cosmetics to appeal to younger crowd, while holding the price the same as the CX90 is a tough sell and we'll see how it goes in the coming months.

If an X5 was questionable for the extra "oversized" charge in a parking garage, the CX70 has removed all doubt!

1. Mazda already knows they traded lower sales of the CX-70 for lower cost to bring it to market.

2. Garage fit is not an insignificant consideration. My wife was shocked how tight her X5 fits into the garage. Her first comment was "maybe I should have gone with the X3". I have a big Milwaukee Rolling toolbox against the front wall and she has to pull up to the point the vehicle is screaming at her that she is about to hit it. The CX-70 would have been a no go.

 

[GTA-CX9]

I took out a '24 Ford Edge ST and didn't hate it as much as I thought I would. Interior is dated and the gauges are straight from 2015...but the vehicle had some redeeming qualities for sure. Nice looking, quiet, lots of power, and a right size.
It was completely optioned up so the price of $65K Canadian is a bit of a hard pill to swallow. Even with the dealer knocking a few thousand off of the price, it's expensive for what it is.

Also took out an F150 Lightning which I absolutely fell in love with, but way beyond my budget, unfortunately.

I also had another CX90 out on Monday and that helped reinforce how much I don't like that vehicle.

Maybe a Blazer RS? Less power, but still over 300 HP and cheaper.

https://www.motortrend.com/features/2023-chevrolet-blazer-ford-edge-pros-cons-review/

 

[EWL5]

Maybe a Blazer RS? Less power, but still over 300 HP and cheaper.

https://www.motortrend.com/features/2023-chevrolet-blazer-ford-edge-pros-cons-review/

Love the goodies that come w/the RS trim but was surprised that a comparably priced X3 30i has a similar 0-60 (despite only being a 4 cylinder) and its cargo area is smaller by less than 10% (more a knock on the Blazer cargo area as a mid-size)!

The article also mentioned the possible discontinuation of the Edge, which would have been unthinkable just a few years ago!

 

[GTA-CX9]

Love the goodies that come w/the RS trim but was surprised that a comparably priced X3 30i has a similar 0-60 (despite only being a 4 cylinder) and its cargo area is smaller by less than 10% (more a knock on the Blazer cargo area as a mid-size)!

The article also mentioned the possible discontinuation of the Edge, which would have been unthinkable just a few years ago!

Ya, i was half asleep when I wrote that so full disclosure now, I own an RS (I may have mentioned that before on here...)

I initially did look at the Germans, but at least in Canada, there was a decent bump up in price for an X3 optioned as I'd want. The Q5 was more manageable but I didn't like what I read online.

Sort of left with no other option since the CX70 was a ways off a that time, I just was dinking around online looking at the Edge and from there the Blazer. The size of both was perfect for us, and though I liked the power of the ST, the style inside and out of the Blazer was much better for our tastes.

And TBH the lower power numbers weren't "low" and it was a naturally aspirated V6 as opposed to the turbo in the Ford, I just liked the idea of that. I can't justify it with hard reasoning, beyond it just "feels" different in a way i like when I mash the gas.

The final difference maker was the handling, much shaper in the RS and torque vectoring as well. Extra bonus was it tows 4500 lb.

It def has a small cargo area, much harder to pack than a CX-9 for ex but we make it work, just the one kid for us though.

Had Mazda made a similar sized CX70 with their inline 6 and thrown in torque vectoring, I'd prob be in there asking to value my trade in, but as it is...

 

[EWL5]

Ya, i was half asleep when I wrote that so full disclosure now, I own an RS (I may have mentioned that before on here...)

I initially did look at the Germans, but at least in Canada, there was a decent bump up in price for an X3 optioned as I'd want. The Q5 was more manageable but I didn't like what I read online.

Sort of left with no other option since the CX70 was a ways off a that time, I just was dinking around online looking at the Edge and from there the Blazer. The size of both was perfect for us, and though I liked the power of the ST, the style inside and out of the Blazer was much better for our tastes.

And TBH the lower power numbers weren't "low" and it was a naturally aspirated V6 as opposed to the turbo in the Ford, I just liked the idea of that. I can't justify it with hard reasoning, beyond it just "feels" different in a way i like when I mash the gas.

The final difference maker was the handling, much shaper in the RS and torque vectoring as well. Extra bonus was it tows 4500 lb.

It def has a small cargo area, much harder to pack than a CX-9 for ex but we make it work, just the one kid for us though.

Had Mazda made a similar sized CX70 with their inline 6 and thrown in torque vectoring, I'd prob be in there asking to value my trade in, but as it is...

I hear you about the V6. After 2 4-cylinder cars in a row as my DD, I am looking forward to a 6-cylinder again!

 

[ataraxia]

1. Mazda already knows they traded lower sales of the CX-70 for lower cost to bring it to market.

2. Garage fit is not an insignificant consideration. My wife was shocked how tight her X5 fits into the garage. Her first comment was "maybe I should have gone with the X3". I have a big Milwaukee Rolling toolbox against the front wall and she has to pull up to the point the vehicle is screaming at her that she is about to hit it. The CX-70 would have been a no go.

View attachment 327606

The BMW does have a nice camera system.

 

[kone]

Was just at dealer having another look. Really want to buy another Mazda but it's looking like a no. CX50 is too low and feels so much cheaper than our CX5 Signature. The 90 is an option but I cant get by the bubble butt. Ugly. Had hope for the 70 but with it being the same as the 90, why? Even if I liked the styling I'd get the 90, even if I don't need third row, just for better access through 2nd row. I think Mazda will be eating a lot of 70s and will have to swallow hard and redesign sooner than later. JMO

 

[EWL5]

Was just at dealer having another look. Really want to buy another Mazda but it's looking like a no. CX50 is too low and feels so much cheaper than our CX5 Signature. The 90 is an option but I cant get by the bubble butt. Ugly. Had hope for the 70 but with it being the same as the 90, why? Even if I liked the styling I'd get the 90, even if I don't need third row, just for better access through 2nd row. I think Mazda will be eating a lot of 70s and will have to swallow hard and redesign sooner than later. JMO

Not to mention a 90 would be easier to sell than a 70 given they are the same price at the same trim level!

The creation of the 70 barely cost Mazda any money. Doubtful there will be any meaningful changes even for the MY28 mid-cycle refresh!

 

[dwswager]

Not to mention a 90 would be easier to sell than a 70 given they are the same price at the same trim level!

The creation of the 70 barely cost Mazda any money. Doubtful there will be any meaningful changes even for the MY28 mid-cycle refresh!

Oh, I disagree. Mazda already knows they tanked sales on the CX-70. I think they will turn what is now the CX-70 into a variant of the CX-90 and will release a North American version of the CX-60 as the CX-70. Because if they don't they just tanked their move upclass. Without a midsize 2-row to anchor that branding in North America they have no hope. It is why the CX-60 came first in Europe.

Though I believe the CX-50 is the turd in the punchbowl that kept them from releasing a 190+" CX-70, it can't replace what that would have done for their upscale branding, but it is also selling too well to kill it. I don't know if the CX-50 was intended as a CX-5 replacement or not and I know they needed something to build in Huntsville, but I do know not having actual midsize 2-row in North America is foolish. Don't let the mistake you made making a 2nd Compact SUV keep you from doing the right thing now.

 

[EWL5]

Oh, I disagree. Mazda already knows they tanked sales on the CX-70. I think they will turn what is now the CX-70 into a variant of the CX-90 and will release a North American version of the CX-60 as the CX-70. Because if they don't they just tanked their move upclass. Without a midsize 2-row to anchor that branding in North America they have no hope. It is why the CX-60 came first in Europe.

Though I believe the CX-50 is the turd in the punchbowl that kept them from releasing a 190+" CX-70, it can't replace what that would have done for their upscale branding, but it is also selling too well to kill it. I don't know if the CX-50 was intended as a CX-5 replacement or not and I know they needed something to build in Huntsville, but I do know not having actual midsize 2-row in North America is foolish. Don't let the mistake you made making a 2nd Compact SUV keep you from doing the right thing now.

View attachment 327770

What prior move in Mazda's history has you believing they will bring over the "too skinny for the States" CX60 here? The CX50 is already 1" wider than the CX60!

 

[markfm]

The CX-60 is short length (186.7"), short height (66"), and a bit narrow (74.4") to fill that mid-size 2-row upscale gap.

The CX-80 would be a closer fit for the US, at 196.6" L x 67.3" H x 74.4" W. Strip the third row, provide a bit more legroom with the new available front-back space (given 3rd row delete).

Net, I'd see a 2-row CX-80 as pretty close to what a CX-70 should have been in terms of a true midsize for the US, though it really could use another couple inches width.

 

[dwswager]

What prior move in Mazda's history has you believing they will bring over the "too skinny for the States" CX60 here? The CX50 is already 1" wider than the CX60!

The CX-90 is the North American version of the CX-80. What they didn't drop is the North American version of the CX-60. It is the missing link.

 

[GTEyes]

What they didn't drop is the North American version of the CX-60. It is the missing link.

Which is exactly what I want. Gimme a CX60! A little bit bigger than my CX5, with the new power trains from the 60/70/80/90.

 

[curvesahead]

I suspect the new cx5 will be slightly larger and will fill the gap, could be wrong!

 

[N7turbo]

Yeah, that's why I'm doubling down on mine. If the CX-5 gets bigger and/or heavier I'm not likely to be interested.

 

[dwswager]

I suspect the new cx5 will be slightly larger and will fill the gap, could be wrong!

Oh, the CX-5 might me nominally bigger than 180", but it won't fill the gap left by not having the North American CX-60 because it won't have a turbo inline 6 with rear wheel drive. The CX-5 will continue with the 2.5L turbo 4 cylinder and front wheel drive. Besides the CX-50 is already 186" long.

 

[N7turbo]

The CX-5 will continue with the 2.5L turbo 4 cylinder and front wheel drive.

I think you meant all-wheel drive?

Also, power-to-weight wise, it doesn't seem like the CX-60 gains any advantage with its 3.3L 6 cylinder. In fact, it seems it needs it just to make up for its extra weight.

 

[GTEyes]

with its 3.3L V6.

Speaking of V6, I made the decision to go with the Edge ST. Pick it up on Tuesday. Sad to leave Mazda this round but it has so much of what I was looking for. There were definitely some compromises I had to make but overall the Edge (with extended warranty and dealer discounts) is a pretty great package and not as big as the 70.

I’ll share some pics once I pick it up.

 

[dwswager]

I think you meant all-wheel drive?

Also, power-to-weight wise, it doesn't seem like the CX-60 gains any advantage with its 3.3L V6. In fact, it seems it needs it just to make up for its extra weight.

No the CX-5 is still based on front wheel drive...those are the main drive wheels and all that weight is still up on the front axle. It does then have the ability to distribute power to the real wheels. The Upscale ones are Rear Wheel Drive based that distribute power to the front wheels. The majority of weight gets moved backwards to better balance the vehicle and reduce pushing into corners.

Numbers never tell the whole story. It is how those pieces all fit together. The CX-60 is 600lbs heavier than the CX-5 and has about 90hp more. (And yes, the 3.3L Turbo should be producing 380-400hp with no sweat.) It also has a mild hybrid to overcome turbo lag. Bottom line the 4 cylinder and 6 cylinders make power differently. The inline 6 is the smoothest configuration due to firing order of the cylinders makes it balanced. And while Mazda has done a great job tweaking the 2.5L Turbo 4 to make torque down low in the RPM band, it still needs to rev harder to produce more horsepower at speed.

Compare the BMW M340i to the Mercedes C43. The BMW is an inline 6 while the Merc is a 4. Both produce similar numbers, but the BMW beats the C43 because it produces power and torque that is easier to deliver to the wheels when you need it.

 

[N7turbo]

No the CX-5 is still based on front wheel drive...those are the main drive wheels and all that weight is still up on the front axle. It does then have the ability to distribute power to the real wheels. The Upscale ones are Rear Wheel Drive based that distribute power to the front wheels. The majority of weight gets moved backwards to better balance the vehicle and reduce pushing into corners.

This is true but how much does the latter platform distribute power to the front when cornering? The former sends up to 50% to the rear.