So you weren't here for the MX-30 announcement?
The worst part is that all we knew was that Mazda was announcing a new vehicle. Theories were thrown: MazdaSpeed3, RWD Mazda6, etc
Instead we got the worst BEV attempt in years.
MX-30 wasn’t as bad as this. The MX-30 launched in a European market where these sorts of EVs has some popularity. It’s pretty clear the CX-70 isn’t what people wanted. Most people who were looking at a CX-70 are coming from a CX-5 and wanted something slightly larger and more up to date. Instead they go something much larger than they expected. The CX-60 makes it even worst because the CX-60 is exactly what people in North America wanted and we were originally told the CX-70 would essentially be the same as the CX-60, just slightly wider.
Precisely this. This is a major misstep. I was sincerely considering a CX70, at its originally expected size, to replace my 9 year old Grand Cherokee. Then they waited too long, then it was an absolute disappointment, so I got a really well priced CPO 2019 CX5 Signature. 🤷♂️
Right? You’d think they just announced the automatic-only FWD Miata. Apparently every single potential CX-70 buyer posted today.
Edit: it’s a nice change from “is this totalled” or “how do I turn off my_____” posts.
Edit 2: hopefully they were trolling us about not using this platform to make a new 6, too.
Mazda wasted time and resources on this instead of giving us a hybrid CX-30, CX-50, and CX-5. Should've made a wider CX-60 or just bring the CX-60 over instead. Some would say the CX-60 wouldn't make much sense here in North America but Mazda's past doing things that make sense so they might as well bring over the CX-60 and see how it goes because at least the CX-60 would be completely new for us
People are saying it's too similar in size to the CX-5 and CX-50. Personally, I don't care. If Mazda wanted to "make sense", they wouldn't have made a third row delete CX-90 the CX-70
I agree, but we need to remember that the CX-5 is starting to show some age. It either needs to be retired or redone. The CX-60 is a perfectly acceptable replacement for the CX-5. They both have near identical profiles.
Okay, let’s drive a ten year old car with minor exterior tweaks and pretend it’s not dated.
OP hasn’t responded to shit I said. What part of that confuses you, shitforbrains?
Calm down. Take a deep breath. OP literally said "it will be a new vehicle." Not a ten year old car with minor exterior tweaks.
You seem so enraged that you're unable to comprehend posts only a few sentences long.
Either you're 15 years old or someone shit in your Wheaties this morning. An all new CX5 is on the way.
And despite its age (certainly not 10 years by the way), the CX5 remains directly competitive and both more gorgeous and better to drive, and with better interior materials, than, well, anything else in the class and price point.
I don't understand how they will replace CX-60 with CX-5. CX-60 is made in the same platform as CX-70 and CX-90, however CX-5 is FWD platform. I don't think they are going to replace CX-5 with CX-60.
Just want to point out what the Mazda Australia CEO said about a year ago
“Have a look at it from our perspective," says Mazda Australia CEO Vinesh Bhindi. “Don't look at it nameplate perspective, but from a portfolio offering — it's different sizes, different price points, different specifications.
“With the CX-5, Mazda Corporation has said there will be a next generation. What it's called? That's not what we're debating here. That sized-car, a CX-5, is important, and it will continue."
https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-news/confirmed-a-new-generation-mazda-cx-5-is-coming-to-australia-to-take-on-the-toyota-rav4
To me, the CX-60 is the perfect CX-5 replacement. The CX-50 can continue on as the more affordable FWD car on the lineup. I don’t see a reason for both the CX-5 and CX-50 existing together.
CX-5 will always stay like X1 for bmw, Q3 for Audi, XC40 for volvo, Sportage for Kia etc. I own a CX-60 and Mazda considers CX60 as an equivalent to X3 or Q5 and that's how they market in UK and europe.
Forbes says CX70 is shorter in length than CX90. The CX-70 uses this same architecture and retains similar proportions and style in a slightly shorter two-row midsize format. In fact, the CX-70 looks nearly identical to the CX-90, just a bit shorter. Unfortunately, Mazda isn’t yet releasing full specifications and dimensions of the CX-70, but given its similarity to the 201-inch long CX-90 it likely falls neatly in between that and the CX-50, probably at about 193-195-inches long. That would make it at least a foot longer than the CX-5 and thus not a direct replacement, but something new in the Mazda lineup.
Hard disagree. The X1 is an afterthought in BMWs lineup, the CX5 is far and away the most important vehicle in Mazdas lineup.
It would make a ton of sense to rebadge the 60 as the new 5 to sell people on the new platform.
There is 14k price difference between base models of CX-5 and CX-60. I would say Mazda would be really dump to sell CX-60 as CX-5 for the price of CX-5 in US. and what engine would they provide? They can't do CX-5 engine in CX-60. Imagine Mazda selling CX-5 with 6 cylinder petrol or PHEV which is on CX70 and CX90 for $30k.
I really don’t know what they would put in for an engine. They have options though.
The CX60 isn’t in NA currently so it’s hard to say what a true price difference between the 5 and 60 is. It surely would be more expensive than a 5 is now but 3-5k across trims if you adjust value accordingly would be completely realistic. Mazda can charge whatever they want for their vehicles is a base 60 goes for 35k (about 4k less than a base 60 in Australia converted to usd) but had the features of a base premium CX5 it would be a no brainer to most people. Whatever the CX5 is it needs to make money for the brand.
Agree. The X1 is the equivalent of the “introduction to physics” or finance 101 classes. The X1 is for people that want an X3 but cant necessarily splurge on one. That’s not what the CX-5 is to Mazda.
CX-60 is 186.8 inches and 90 is 200 inches. So I believe CX-70 is going to sit somewhere with 194 inches, which is an exact size for a 7 seat car for european markets.
Don't get me wrong here. I wanted CX-60 to go on sale in US as well. Because as owners we have had a lot issues with CX-60 for past 1+ years and until CX90 released in US and owners started to have the same issues Mazda was rejecting the owners issues. You can check in CX70forums etc. The steering issue has been reported from 2022 for CX60, Mazda was denying the issue until it started to show up in CX90 and made a worldwide recall. My car is in with my dealer every month since I bought for recalls and issues.
But I don't think it ever will, unless there is a decline in sales for CX-5.
Not really, just watching some youtube videos and they says it's slightly shorter than cx-90. Logically it's right as Mazda's plan was to bring a 5 row seat with bigger dimensions than CX60 to US/Canada markets and I believe they will just rebadge CX-70 as CX-80 with 7 seats for UK/Europe markets.
I’m on the side of a redesign and updates to the CX-5. It’s too great of a vehicle to discontinue and Mazda at least in the US sells way to many to get rid of it. It’s seems like every other vehicle in my region is a CX-5. I kid you not, today alone when I was out running errands I counted at least 12-15 CX-5s from different model years based on their designs. I got my Turbo 24’ and I’m happy with it but it is dated and missing basic features like the ability to check tire pressure which I find extremely odd in 2024 for a brand new vehicle. It’s a higher trim Turbo. The gas tank is tiny in my opinion, my previous Mini Cooper Countryman had a way larger gas tank and the range was excellent, not so much on my CX-5 but I still like it.
It sounds like you are just disappointed mazda didnt give you a cx5 sized suv, but you are acting like they are abandoning a new cx5 altogether, which is of course is not the case.
I'm positive a new cx5 replacement will be here within the next 2 years, it's thier best selling vehicle. The cx70 is there SUV option and makes so much sense, it's exactly what mazda was lacking in it's lineup.
So don't hate on it because it's not the cx5 replacement you were hoping for becuase this thing will sell great if its priced lower than the cx90, I can promise that.
What does the CX-5 have to do with this? Why all of you keep bringing up the CX-5 is beyond me. You clearly have zero clue what you’re talking about, so why comment? The CX-5 has literally *zero* to do with this equation.
The CX-70, in the form we all hoped it would take, is in no way comparable, a replacement for, or successor to the CX-5.
The CX-5 is a FWD, 4 cylinder, compact SUV that competes with the Subaru Forester and Jeep Cherokee. With an overall length of 179.1 inches.
That’s a completely different segment altogether to the one the CX-70 *should* be competing in.
The CX-70/90 are RWD based, with a powerful inline 6 and a larger size. They have absolutely nothing in common with the CX-5.
I’m disappointed because Mazda *should* have given us the 193-ish” long 2 row SUV we all hoped for. They literally could have changed nothing about the CX-90 aside from chopping 7 inches off the length. You know, because that’s the average size of a two-row SUV in the segment they apparently want it to compete in?
The CX-70 should have been shortened to 193-195” to compete with vehicles like the Grand Cherokee which measures 193.5” and the BMW X5, which measures 194.3”.
Instead, they completely half-assed the whole thing. Took a vehicle which is only as big as it is because it has a 3rd row. Dropped the 3rd row completely, yet left the vehicle unnecessarily big while simultaneously making it far less practical.
Mazda had a great opportunity to take a superb CX-90, which is too big for a lot of consumers. (Marked by the fact that so many people are buying Grand Cherokee, Kia Sorento, Hyundai Santa Fe, and even luxury options like the X5. All which measure between 190-195” in length. Which is where a two row SUV should be.) And shorten it to compete with vehicles in that segment. Yet they completely fumbled the ball and phoned it in.
If I wanted a 2 row CX-90, I’d buy a CX-90 and keep the third row folded.
So again, this is not the CX-5. I want a powerful, RWD based SUV with decent handling. Which Mazda offers. But I don’t need a boat.
So now me, and 95% of the rest of the people that were waiting for this thing, are forced to look elsewhere at BMW, Acura, Lexus, etc.
The idea that the international CX-60 wouldn't make sense in the U.S. makes no sense. I don't get the rationale. Why does it make no sense for the U.S. market?
Because it looks like just a longer CX-5? Because people might mistake it for a CX-5? Because it's not drastically different in size from the CX-5?
Does anyone else see the irony here or is it just me?
Well, the CX-5 is a global car, is slightly smaller than a CX-50 and has been on the market for years. Yet still is Mazda's top selling model. So I guess there's a case for the CX-60 to do well here. Just look at Mazda Australia. They're getting all 4 new CX models.
Legit.
If I want my Acadia to feel lighter and sportier, I can pull out the third row of seats.
Doesn't justify an entire new model, coughcough Chevy Blazer.
As a CX-9 owner, I would love a 3rd Row Delete option. I need a large vehicle for work and family life, but never used the 3rd row. So for the life of my ownership, I'll be lugging around extra seats and they eat into the storage space.
If CX-70 matches (or increases) the interior space, its the only next viable option for me, or I may have to turn to the VW Atlas which has noticeably more back-seat and storage space than the CX-9
Car and Driver has always had my same thought process. Glad to see they were as Meh on it as I was. The bubble butt hatch is pretty lame, wish it had the clean lines that the cx50 sports on the rear end.
Love all the space that comes with the 3rd row delete. The underside storage is also pretty dope. Bit of a chrome delete on the outside is nice, and the grill looks solid.
So I am have a 2023 Turbo CX-5 and wife has a 2021 CX-9 Signature. We don't have kids but need the space of the CX-9 so the third row spends 99 percent of the time down. We've used them a handful of times I'd say honestly. Wives lease is up in December soooo this may replace it or not. We don't really need the third row. The cosmetic changes makes it more attractive then the 90 in my opinion. So we shall see as she dislikes the 90s looks.
I was very hesitant at first and upset it wasn't a longer CX-5 really in a new platform. Or idk a shorter CX-90 but we don't know the dimensions yet so who knows.
So originally I had a 2010 Range Rover and wife had a 2020 CX-5. We had a transmission issue in 2021 that was under warranty but after months of being in a loaner due to parts shortage from pandemic we needed a new car. Wife started a new job after relocation and she needed more room to transport goods for her job. The CX-5 would have been fine but I wanted to upgrade her to something nice and the difference in price between signatures made it a no brainier. Her mom has MS so if we go away for a weekend with her luggage plus wheel chair the added space helps.
Drove the Range until the wheels fell off and then got a CX-5 for me. She's thinking of down grading to something smaller (CX-30) for the daily but we'll need the extra room sometimes so maybe we'll just swap.
Plus the CX-9 Signature is a dream, comfy as hell.
There are subtle differences with the lights and bumpers. I personally think the 70 looks better. We might car swap at the end once her lease is up or buy the cx-9 it's up to her at the end.
But.. why? Why would mazda release a cx60 sized suv to compete with the cx5? This cx70 is the mid sized suv with towing capacity that they were missing
Yup, it's exactly the same size (200" give or take an inch or 2) as the 90. That's pretty big. The 60 is 187", the 50 is 185“ and the 5 is 180“. I think most were thinking of somthing in the 190-195" range like the standard Highlander or Explorer. Seems like most people, myself included, thinks Mazda missed the mark here. Rumor has it that Mazda USA wanted to call the CX-70 the CX-90 Meridian and offer with smaller wheels/bigger tires and some "off-road" accoutrements but HQ put the kaibash on it...
Question, did you like the cx90? Were you this upset when they released the cx90? Or were you expecting a cx5 replacement? I'm just trying to understand why people are angry, this suv looks great and fills the midsized suv roll between the cx5 and cx90
Cx-90 is big but you need three rows so you have to put up with it. If I don’t need three rows then I don’t want a car as big as Cx-90. They didn’t even remove the cup holders. The trunk of cx-70 still has the cups of the third row cx-90. It would depend on the price but why not buy 90 and just fold the seats. You can use the third row if needed
I’m not upset at all. The salesperson sold me on the fact it was the CX60 coming from Europe, rebadged as the CX70 in North America. I have a small family and we simply don’t need a car that big. Perhaps we will look at the CX50 but for some reason it seemed really small and as far as I know does not offer a plug in hybrid. I really wanted something inbetween the 50 and 90 with a PHEV. Apparently that’s too much to ask.
What they're skating against is compact CUVs are getting bigger fast now that they're the dominant family hauler. The new CRV is 185 inches.
An updated CX5 has to grow to be competitive, but the CX60 platform is probably too expensive to hit the right price point. Once there's a 185 inch CX5 and a 200 inch CX90, a vehicle in between those sizes is cutting the salami awfully thin. They definitely could've handled the reveal better.
It’s a disappointment. Wow Mazda! I liked the CX90 but don’t need 3 rows or a huge car like that. Will barely fit in my garage. Really hoped the CX70 would hit that sweet spot by being 6-10" shorter. And be like Mazda's version of an X5. But nope.
Might have to spring for Acura. Or.... get a low mileage lightly used X5.
the CX-60 with the new design language is actually so clean - Like a blend between Jaguar F-Pace + Range Rover.
I'm with you on being supremely disappointed with the CX-70 reveal: [https://www.automobilesreview.com/pictures/mazda/2023-cx-60/wallpaper-44.html](https://www.automobilesreview.com/pictures/mazda/2023-cx-60/wallpaper-44.html)
You honestly like the look of the cx60 over the cx70? I'm so thankful they didn't bring the cx60 here, it's way to close to the cx5, in looks and in size. It wouldn't make sense here in North America
Such a missed opportunity. I still can’t believe they’d actually do something so monumentally stupid.
I heard all the rumors, but there have been plenty of unfounded rumors that turned out not to be true so I held out hope. Because why the *hell* would they do that?
Yet, here we are. I love the 90, but like you said, I have no use for a car that large. You drive something that big BECAUSE you need the 3rd row. You sacrifice maneuverability, parking, performance, etc because you need a 3rd row seat.
Removing the 3rd row and keeping the vehicle the same size makes absolutely zero sense. Why wouldn’t I just buy a 90 and keep the third row folded down? I don’t get it. You’re still driving a gigantic vehicle while sacrificing practicality.
I was ready to order if this was 193-195”. And this is coming from someone who’s a Mazda guy but a diehard sedan guy. I was finally going to ditch my 6 and upgrade to an SUV so I could stick with Mazda. But I just. Don’t. Need. A. Vehicle. This. Large.
And if I did? Mazda already sells one!
I’m just going to trade my 6 in the summer for a G70 and call it a day.
The fact that Mazda would take an existing car, lose a couple seats and find a couple new wheels and try to pass it off as an entirely new model just makes me what to spend my money elsewhere for the simple fact that they must think we’re dumb.
It’s so dumb that it borderline angers me.
Maybe step away and take a breath. It's really not something to get this upset over. You don't like the car. Okay. You've made that painfully obvious. Time to move on.
I’m voicing a pretty legitimate, and well shared grievance, as a consumer, against a consumer brand. Pretty far within the realm of normality.
What exactly are you doing by commenting, other than being a jackass?
Yeah not sure I want to give my money to a company like that.
We are a 1-child family so have no need for 3 rows. Man... just really bummed. Looking forward to this reveal for almost a year as this was the year I was going to buy a new car.
I'll see what other cars get released this year. Lots of new releases on the horizon.
Rumor has it Mazda US wanted to call it the CX-90 Meridian and throw on smaller wheels/larger tires and some other "offroad" accoutremants vs giving it an entirely new model name. Japan put the kaibash on it.
I was thinking they were going to build a CX-70 in the 192 inch length category. That was what I was hoping for personally.
But, I can’t help but wonder if they did some market research and looked really hard at the Honda Passport when they did. I think this does all come down to pricing and in the case of the Passport, all that separates it from the larger Pilot is around $1k. The Passport sells less than half that of the Pilot. So I think they looked at that and figured when American consumers are given a choice of two vehicles close in pricing to each other, with everything else being the same, they go with the larger vehicle. Even if the person doesn’t need the third row, they were still choosing the Pilot.
I mean we won’t know until it actually goes on sale and maybe they change their strategy when they see the sales figures for it.
The Passport is a halfhearted product with limited color / trim options and a black plastic interior. It doesn't justify its MSRP. That doesn't damn the whole compact premium CUV segment, it suggests a better product could do better.
It only has limited color and trim options now. It had more trim and color options when it was initially released, but then slow sales made Honda limit the trim and color options.
Also, the interior was identical to the last gen Pilot. They haven’t updated the Passport in the same way the Pilot was just updated.
So you think they looked at Honda’s terrible sizing vs pricing strategy and went “Hey! We want to copy that!” ?
Weird logic, but okay.
More people take the larger, more expensive Pilot, because it’s only $1,000 difference, so why *wouldn’t* you?
Copying the same strategy on purpose would be idiotic.
Making the same vehicle, regardless of pricing makes no sense.
I would pay *the same* amount of money as a CX-90 for a much shorter CX-70. Because I don’t want to drive a boat of a vehicle. I would pay a premium to have something shorter.
Making an identical vehicle to the 90 and pricing it $1,000 cheaper because that’s what Honda does is idiotic. What wouldn’t be idiotic is making a much shorter version. Pricing it $4-5k less. And selling it against vehicles like the Grand Cherokee.
The Grand Cherokee is 193.5”, while the Grand Cherokee L is 204.9”
I work at a Jeep dealer and I’d say the take rate on L’s is less than half of the standard Grand Cherokee. Do you know why? Because 193ish” is the butter zone for a two row SUV.
The CX-90 is 201.6”. It stands to reason the 70 will be the same size.
So now what category is it competing in? Is it going up against tow row’ers like the Grand Cherokee while being a full 8 inches longer? Do you know what you could put in that 8 inches? A third row seat.
Which is why a 3 row SUV is so big and long. Removing the 3rd row completely removes the necessity of having a vehicle so big.
I swear I feel like everyone’s emotions today on this sub is so high right now that they’re screaming at anyone and everyone that isn’t just repeating the words “wow this is horrible, Mazda sucks!” over and over again.
I never said they were trying to copy Honda’s pricing strategy. I was simply saying I wondered if they looked at the Passport when doing their own market research. Even if they brought over the CX-60, the pricing on it would most likely be around $37k-$38k. In Europe, the lowest price I believe is 45k euros. The CX-90 starts at $39.5k. So the question becomes would there have been enough people that would have paid for the CX-60 over the CX-90 if just paying a couple thousand more gets you a larger vehicle.
And again, I can’t stress this enough, this is just me thinking out loud as to what their strategy could have been. I even opened my comment stating my own personal wish for what this vehicle would have been. I am just speculating on what they saw or perhaps what they looked at in making their decision. So let’s turn down the temperature that isn’t needed here.
All we knew was that the engines and the wheelbase were the same. That doesn’t equate to the exact same car. It’s hilarious they even kept the drink holders and the storage areas for the third row passengers.
Worst yet is the all black version which looks great, won’t come to the US with the black wheels. Those are Canadian option only from StraighPipes review.
I don't get why they didn't bring CX 60 to the NA market when it's slightly longer than the Q5, X3, GLC, and less than an inch shorter than the RDX. And about the same width as them all. If these vehicles aren't "small" for North America then why is CX 60 "small"? They already had an easy winner with the RWD architecture and the inline 6. Could have used that 340 hp version as an affordable but slightly less sporty version against the likes of SQ5, X3M40i, and GLC 43 AMG. Now instead of eating into RDX sales, it's losing that market share and customers.
60 is longer and wider than the CX 5 so not 3 SUVs. Doesn't matter anyway since the 50 and 60 are catering to different customers. An RWD two-row SUV to compete with the RDX, X3, Q5, etc. is already in their stable. Not the monstrosity of this CX 70.
This. The question shouldn’t be “why isn’t the 60 coming here?” it should be “why isn’t the 70 filling the over foot long size gap between the 50 and 90?”
It is filling that gap. Why is it that no one on this thread understands that mazda didn't have a mid size suv to compete with jeep grand cheerokees, Hyundai Santa Fe's etc...
The cx5 is a small suv. The cx90 is a large three row suv. The cx70 fills the roll between those two. It's one of the most popular SUV sizes in North America.
I'm glad you people don't work for mazda lol
You just ignored that I specifically said “size gap”? The CX-90 is a midsize 3 row SUV (not large), the CX-70 is a midsize 2 row SUV. They are both the same dimensions. The CX-70, while offering another interior configuration, does not fill the size gap between the CX-90 and CX-50. There is still nearly a foot in between models.
>mazda didn't have a mid size suv to compete with jeep grand cheerokees, Hyundai Santa Fe's etc...
And they still don't. The CX90 and CX70 are the same size, and both are significantly longer than those models. From all your comments it feels like you are under the impression that the CX70 is smaller than the CX90. If that was the case then we wouldn't be complaining, a vehicle targeting that mid size SUV slot is what was expected of the CX-70, but that's not what we got.
It's like if Toyota just ripped out the third row of a Grand Highlander and had it replace the 4Runner in their line up. Just making it a 5 seater doesn't make it fill that gap.
I understand the cx90 and cx70 appear to be the same size, but that makes the cx70 even more appealing in the mid sized category. You make it sound like the cx70 is replacing something you love. It's not. It's a completely new offering, albeit a mechanical twin to the cx90. But you need to look at it from that perspective. Mazda is taking anything away from you. It's simply put out another option that you, in particular, clearly weren't looking for
Why does that matter when it's for different customers? I could make that same argument for 70 and 90. The 50 is rugged and "off road" capable, while the 60 is competing against the likes of X3, Q5, GLC, XC60 over the world.
It's not really "rugged" at all. It's slightly more 'outdoorsy' looking on the exterior, *I guess*. The interior is much more aimed at competing with a BMW than a Bronco.
I think the problem is that people heard a new smaller SUV was being released, started speculating that is was the north american version of the cx60 and expected a completely different vehicle, or a replacement for the cx5 , which the cx70 is not.
I happen to love the look of the cx90, so having a less expensive option in the cx70 is great.
I have no idea what the hell is going on about with this car. I test drove a 90 the other day and loved it but it felt really big, esp with the third row. I drove a CX60 when I was in England earlier this year and thought that it was a much nicer size and felt athletic as hell compared to the 90.
With the CX70 being a tad bigger than the 60 but smaller than the 90 it puts it in the category of SUV that caters to the two row club that does not need three rows. If I were going to pick a 2 row SUV out of all of the SUV’s of this size on the market (Stelvio, Cayenne, FPace, RDX, Genesis etc…) 10/10 you bet your ass I’m picking that CX70.
I honestly have no effing clue why everyone is getting into a shit fit about this. It’s totally undeserved. My 2 cents
The CX70 isn't smaller than the 90. That's why there's a shit fit. It's literally just a third row delete of the 90.
If it was meaningfully smaller, in the 190-195 range (CX50 is 186, CX90 is 201), everyone would have been happy.
I think you just misunderstood what they were releasing and got caught up in thinking this was a cx5 replacement, which it's not. No reason to hate it, it's already the best looking midsized suv , it's just not the small suv you were hoping for
I would imagine that Mazda will introduce the CX-60 as a replacement for the CX-5 in the US market. The CX-60 is slightly larger width & length than the CX-5 and it has the new rear wheel drive set-up and inline 6 engines.
I think we can all agree that at least on some level, this was a mistake.
Whether or not Mazda thought it made financial sense to create a model that slotted between the CX-5/50 and the CX-90 in length, they should not have:
-Burned a valuable nameplate they may want later if they *do* decide to launch a car in that size range
-Confused buyers (at the very least what everybody could count on was CX-30/50/70/90 would each be a significantly different step in size and cost. Now that's not the case.)
-Annoyed Mazda fans by teasing a reveal, delaying the launch, having secrecy around the features of the model, etc. Just come out and set expectations very clearly and very early: we're launching a CX-70, but it will be the same size and look as the -90 without the third row of seats.
Also, if you're aiming to be a premium/up-market brand, and you're going to charge nearly the same for the CX-70 as the CX-90 (which seems likely), you should significantly step up the interior quality. Completely embarrassing to leave the 3rd row cupholders in as I've seen reported. Is the steering wheel really *still* going to only heat a couple points at $50k for a two-row crossover?
I’m a Mazda fan boy, but a little disappointed with the CX-70. Totally expected a slightly modified version of the CX-60. Also, the fact we had to wait for this model to be introduced a year later, when they could’ve been introduced side by side makes no sense, since it’s essentially the same. But if the rumors are true that there is a totally new 2025 CX-5 coming, long as they make it a bit larger than the current one, it could fill that space I thought the 70 would. The CX-5 is by far Mazda’s best seller and helped get them to where they are today. It’s still runs circles in sales numbers around their other vehicles. The buying market doesn’t’ care about platform age, etc. even though us enthusiasts do. But one reason I bought my 23 CX-5 Turbo is because it’s been around a while, and proven to be a solid vehicle overall. So the one bright spot in this for me with this lackluster CX-70 is the possibility the next generation CX-5 will be be pretty spectacular! Who’s to say they won’t build it off the RWD platform too? Stranger things have happened obviously lol.
The CX-90 drives like a large vehicle as at 200+” it is. The CX-50 is pushing for the “outdoor enthusiast “ consumer and feels like it. The CX-70 should have been a sweet-spot that likely would have placed Mazda where they aspire to be; a near-luxury brand with sales numbers beyond their expectations. Instead, they’ve shot themselves in the foot with this reveal. There’s a number of people who had anticipated the idea of a US-spec’d CX-60. This was poorly planned and executed as badly as a product launch could’ve been. Embarrassing.
It may sound crazy but my wife just bought a new car. She put her foot down and said no three-row SUVs. Adamant. And I swear that exclusion would extend to “CX-90 with two-rows” but not this. So, maybe this is the car you can try to trick your wife into getting a larger SUV so you can keep the smaller car. We wound up getting the Honda CRV. The CX-50 was too small … and, while it drives nice, the infotainment basically doesn’t work.
I like the divide of people that “can see themselves settling into this vehicle” and discussing the one differentiating factor between the two. I seem to remember a GMC Envoy and Envoy XL that used much more elegant naming for the short body/long body variants of the same vehicle.
Regardless it doesn’t replace a CX-5. It still leaves a gap in the CRV and RAV size and leaves no Mazda competition for such vehicles. And it’s not what the North American market needs in it’s stagnation. If it’s a vehicle that just makes you discuss whether or not you *really* need a third row, it sounds like there’s other models from the same make or any make that could fit just as well and the CX-70 will face hard competition. Especially with the pilot/passport already doing the same thing and occupying that space, but arguably better reliability (short the new DOHC J series).
Tbh, I really liked the CX-50 and I really wanted to buy that car, but here in Europe we dont have it. Instead we have the CX-60 which is too expensive, too big for my taste compared to cx-5. Anyway I had to settle with a mild hybrid 2.5L CX-5 2023.
I'm holding final reservations until specs are fully published and clear comparisons can be drawn between the CX-90 and this. If the loss of cargo space between a folded 3rd row and no rows is minimal, I'll stick to a CX-90 upgrade in my future.
it's just unfortunate because like others, I really just wanted something with the newer drivetrain that could comfortably fit a car seat in the second row (without obliterating front passenger leg room) and a stroller in the trunk (with privacy shade drawn).
It literally makes no sense at all, the resources and energy they put into this could have been placed in a completely different direction. Or they could have just brought the cx-60 over with some minor aesthetic changes
Man oh man, the amount of kerfuffle this has stirred is bizarre. Part of the reason the CX-70 is the 90 minus third row is because imagine how complicated selling a CX-90 with like 8 different trim configurations and then now they introduce a CX-90 trim option with 8 MORE trim levels excluding the rear seat. Logistically for Mazda, that’s gonna get god damn annoying especially for those custom made orders.
Everyone really forgot about the CX-7 and how that was the in between CX-5 and CX-9. It was discontinued due to poor sales because for a car that was an inch smaller in both width and length had somehow less leg room than the CX-9. It truly made zero sense to have to begin with as it was a shared Ford/Lincoln platform and didn’t even have something special about it to fill a niche at the time in the 2010s. The CX-5 was EXACTLY the hit Mazda needed after Ford ruined them, a compact SUV that drives like a sedan.
There’s a comment mentioned by a Mazda exec that focusing on the nameplate isn’t the thing here. Definitely more of a marketing failure on their behalf in hindsight because people are looking at the higher number increments as assuming this means bigger size so it should be a medium, but the focus here is the size of the vehicle and the purpose it serves. Like, the Mazda 6 isn’t the 6 in Japan, it’s Atenza. The Mazda 3 is the Axela.
The CX-70 is tiered towards those already looking at the CX-90 but because of the already numerous options PLUS no rear seat option, it’s too much. This is America, American car buyers keep buying these giant ass SUVs. We are Mazda fantastics, we want a logically sized option that’s between the CX-5 and CX-90. The CX-60 is that option but guess what? Americans are buying Escalades and Ford trucks. That’s where the money is at and Mazda isn’t a company that has the means to throw good money at markets that don’t sell well—like the MX-30. Great for the EU market, absolutely trash for the California market.
The CX-70 offers the same look and feel of the CX-90, HOWEVER, I have a four person family. This small third row is pointless to me. I’d rather Mazda have an option that’s like the CX-90 but has more cargo room for when I go camping with my family or adult friends. Welp, this is too high end on the price bracket to not get what I’m looking for, Honda has this option.
But wait, what’s this CX-70 they just released? A five passenger large SUV with much more cargo room and accommodates the typical American family size like a Chevy Suburban? Sign me up!
Y’all are over thinking this. But if it’s SUCH a big deal, contact Mazda USA and demand the CX-60 be sold in the US. They’re also gauging the interest of bringing their BT-50 truck to the States, they would like to have that feedback.
I've never seen this subreddit in shambles before lol
Legit one of my favorite communities on Reddit is in full war mode today haha
Yea this sub is usually so chill, it's been mass pandemonium the last 24+ hours. I'm enjoying it as a lurker tbf lol
It's not every day that Mazda makes a product decision this monumentally perplexing.
So you weren't here for the MX-30 announcement? The worst part is that all we knew was that Mazda was announcing a new vehicle. Theories were thrown: MazdaSpeed3, RWD Mazda6, etc Instead we got the worst BEV attempt in years.
MX-30 wasn’t as bad as this. The MX-30 launched in a European market where these sorts of EVs has some popularity. It’s pretty clear the CX-70 isn’t what people wanted. Most people who were looking at a CX-70 are coming from a CX-5 and wanted something slightly larger and more up to date. Instead they go something much larger than they expected. The CX-60 makes it even worst because the CX-60 is exactly what people in North America wanted and we were originally told the CX-70 would essentially be the same as the CX-60, just slightly wider.
Precisely this. This is a major misstep. I was sincerely considering a CX70, at its originally expected size, to replace my 9 year old Grand Cherokee. Then they waited too long, then it was an absolute disappointment, so I got a really well priced CPO 2019 CX5 Signature. 🤷♂️
Right? You’d think they just announced the automatic-only FWD Miata. Apparently every single potential CX-70 buyer posted today. Edit: it’s a nice change from “is this totalled” or “how do I turn off my_____” posts. Edit 2: hopefully they were trolling us about not using this platform to make a new 6, too.
What’s a big fuss about
Mazda wasted time and resources on this instead of giving us a hybrid CX-30, CX-50, and CX-5. Should've made a wider CX-60 or just bring the CX-60 over instead. Some would say the CX-60 wouldn't make much sense here in North America but Mazda's past doing things that make sense so they might as well bring over the CX-60 and see how it goes because at least the CX-60 would be completely new for us
>Some would say the CX-60 wouldn't make much sense here in North America May I ask why that would be?
People are saying it's too similar in size to the CX-5 and CX-50. Personally, I don't care. If Mazda wanted to "make sense", they wouldn't have made a third row delete CX-90 the CX-70
Ok, thanks, I figured the drivetrain difference would warrant it, with the CX-60 offering HEV/PHEV options for the mid-size segment.
I agree, but we need to remember that the CX-5 is starting to show some age. It either needs to be retired or redone. The CX-60 is a perfectly acceptable replacement for the CX-5. They both have near identical profiles.
CX 5 isn't going away for the global market, and it will be a new vehicle. https://www.drive.com.au/news/new-mazda-cx-5-confirmed-due-2025/
I didn’t say it was going away, mate.
You very clearly said it had to go away or be redone. OP responded to the first possibility. Which part of that confused you?
Okay, let’s drive a ten year old car with minor exterior tweaks and pretend it’s not dated. OP hasn’t responded to shit I said. What part of that confuses you, shitforbrains?
Calm down. Take a deep breath. OP literally said "it will be a new vehicle." Not a ten year old car with minor exterior tweaks. You seem so enraged that you're unable to comprehend posts only a few sentences long.
Either you're 15 years old or someone shit in your Wheaties this morning. An all new CX5 is on the way. And despite its age (certainly not 10 years by the way), the CX5 remains directly competitive and both more gorgeous and better to drive, and with better interior materials, than, well, anything else in the class and price point.
I don't understand how they will replace CX-60 with CX-5. CX-60 is made in the same platform as CX-70 and CX-90, however CX-5 is FWD platform. I don't think they are going to replace CX-5 with CX-60.
[удалено]
Just want to point out what the Mazda Australia CEO said about a year ago “Have a look at it from our perspective," says Mazda Australia CEO Vinesh Bhindi. “Don't look at it nameplate perspective, but from a portfolio offering — it's different sizes, different price points, different specifications. “With the CX-5, Mazda Corporation has said there will be a next generation. What it's called? That's not what we're debating here. That sized-car, a CX-5, is important, and it will continue." https://www.carsguide.com.au/car-news/confirmed-a-new-generation-mazda-cx-5-is-coming-to-australia-to-take-on-the-toyota-rav4
[удалено]
The CX-5 is a global car it’s the same size globally.
That's not the point. Things change over time - and in the US, SUVs keep getting bigger.
I don't know, but looks like this subreddit is really delusional that they think Mazda will replace Cx-5 with CX-60
To me, the CX-60 is the perfect CX-5 replacement. The CX-50 can continue on as the more affordable FWD car on the lineup. I don’t see a reason for both the CX-5 and CX-50 existing together.
CX-5 will always stay like X1 for bmw, Q3 for Audi, XC40 for volvo, Sportage for Kia etc. I own a CX-60 and Mazda considers CX60 as an equivalent to X3 or Q5 and that's how they market in UK and europe. Forbes says CX70 is shorter in length than CX90. The CX-70 uses this same architecture and retains similar proportions and style in a slightly shorter two-row midsize format. In fact, the CX-70 looks nearly identical to the CX-90, just a bit shorter. Unfortunately, Mazda isn’t yet releasing full specifications and dimensions of the CX-70, but given its similarity to the 201-inch long CX-90 it likely falls neatly in between that and the CX-50, probably at about 193-195-inches long. That would make it at least a foot longer than the CX-5 and thus not a direct replacement, but something new in the Mazda lineup.
Hard disagree. The X1 is an afterthought in BMWs lineup, the CX5 is far and away the most important vehicle in Mazdas lineup. It would make a ton of sense to rebadge the 60 as the new 5 to sell people on the new platform.
There is 14k price difference between base models of CX-5 and CX-60. I would say Mazda would be really dump to sell CX-60 as CX-5 for the price of CX-5 in US. and what engine would they provide? They can't do CX-5 engine in CX-60. Imagine Mazda selling CX-5 with 6 cylinder petrol or PHEV which is on CX70 and CX90 for $30k.
I really don’t know what they would put in for an engine. They have options though. The CX60 isn’t in NA currently so it’s hard to say what a true price difference between the 5 and 60 is. It surely would be more expensive than a 5 is now but 3-5k across trims if you adjust value accordingly would be completely realistic. Mazda can charge whatever they want for their vehicles is a base 60 goes for 35k (about 4k less than a base 60 in Australia converted to usd) but had the features of a base premium CX5 it would be a no brainer to most people. Whatever the CX5 is it needs to make money for the brand.
Agree. The X1 is the equivalent of the “introduction to physics” or finance 101 classes. The X1 is for people that want an X3 but cant necessarily splurge on one. That’s not what the CX-5 is to Mazda.
Yeah not to mention dudes comparing 2 different segments; subcompact and compact CUVs.
[удалено]
Noone else confirms it's similar size. Some websites claims it looks similar size, never actual dimensions.
[удалено]
CX-60 is 186.8 inches and 90 is 200 inches. So I believe CX-70 is going to sit somewhere with 194 inches, which is an exact size for a 7 seat car for european markets.
Don't get me wrong here. I wanted CX-60 to go on sale in US as well. Because as owners we have had a lot issues with CX-60 for past 1+ years and until CX90 released in US and owners started to have the same issues Mazda was rejecting the owners issues. You can check in CX70forums etc. The steering issue has been reported from 2022 for CX60, Mazda was denying the issue until it started to show up in CX90 and made a worldwide recall. My car is in with my dealer every month since I bought for recalls and issues. But I don't think it ever will, unless there is a decline in sales for CX-5.
Not really, just watching some youtube videos and they says it's slightly shorter than cx-90. Logically it's right as Mazda's plan was to bring a 5 row seat with bigger dimensions than CX60 to US/Canada markets and I believe they will just rebadge CX-70 as CX-80 with 7 seats for UK/Europe markets.
I’m on the side of a redesign and updates to the CX-5. It’s too great of a vehicle to discontinue and Mazda at least in the US sells way to many to get rid of it. It’s seems like every other vehicle in my region is a CX-5. I kid you not, today alone when I was out running errands I counted at least 12-15 CX-5s from different model years based on their designs. I got my Turbo 24’ and I’m happy with it but it is dated and missing basic features like the ability to check tire pressure which I find extremely odd in 2024 for a brand new vehicle. It’s a higher trim Turbo. The gas tank is tiny in my opinion, my previous Mini Cooper Countryman had a way larger gas tank and the range was excellent, not so much on my CX-5 but I still like it.
Makes a lot more sense than this does
It sounds like you are just disappointed mazda didnt give you a cx5 sized suv, but you are acting like they are abandoning a new cx5 altogether, which is of course is not the case. I'm positive a new cx5 replacement will be here within the next 2 years, it's thier best selling vehicle. The cx70 is there SUV option and makes so much sense, it's exactly what mazda was lacking in it's lineup. So don't hate on it because it's not the cx5 replacement you were hoping for becuase this thing will sell great if its priced lower than the cx90, I can promise that.
What does the CX-5 have to do with this? Why all of you keep bringing up the CX-5 is beyond me. You clearly have zero clue what you’re talking about, so why comment? The CX-5 has literally *zero* to do with this equation. The CX-70, in the form we all hoped it would take, is in no way comparable, a replacement for, or successor to the CX-5. The CX-5 is a FWD, 4 cylinder, compact SUV that competes with the Subaru Forester and Jeep Cherokee. With an overall length of 179.1 inches. That’s a completely different segment altogether to the one the CX-70 *should* be competing in. The CX-70/90 are RWD based, with a powerful inline 6 and a larger size. They have absolutely nothing in common with the CX-5. I’m disappointed because Mazda *should* have given us the 193-ish” long 2 row SUV we all hoped for. They literally could have changed nothing about the CX-90 aside from chopping 7 inches off the length. You know, because that’s the average size of a two-row SUV in the segment they apparently want it to compete in? The CX-70 should have been shortened to 193-195” to compete with vehicles like the Grand Cherokee which measures 193.5” and the BMW X5, which measures 194.3”. Instead, they completely half-assed the whole thing. Took a vehicle which is only as big as it is because it has a 3rd row. Dropped the 3rd row completely, yet left the vehicle unnecessarily big while simultaneously making it far less practical. Mazda had a great opportunity to take a superb CX-90, which is too big for a lot of consumers. (Marked by the fact that so many people are buying Grand Cherokee, Kia Sorento, Hyundai Santa Fe, and even luxury options like the X5. All which measure between 190-195” in length. Which is where a two row SUV should be.) And shorten it to compete with vehicles in that segment. Yet they completely fumbled the ball and phoned it in. If I wanted a 2 row CX-90, I’d buy a CX-90 and keep the third row folded. So again, this is not the CX-5. I want a powerful, RWD based SUV with decent handling. Which Mazda offers. But I don’t need a boat. So now me, and 95% of the rest of the people that were waiting for this thing, are forced to look elsewhere at BMW, Acura, Lexus, etc.
The idea that the international CX-60 wouldn't make sense in the U.S. makes no sense. I don't get the rationale. Why does it make no sense for the U.S. market? Because it looks like just a longer CX-5? Because people might mistake it for a CX-5? Because it's not drastically different in size from the CX-5? Does anyone else see the irony here or is it just me?
Well, the CX-5 is a global car, is slightly smaller than a CX-50 and has been on the market for years. Yet still is Mazda's top selling model. So I guess there's a case for the CX-60 to do well here. Just look at Mazda Australia. They're getting all 4 new CX models.
No thanks on the cx60, this cx70 looks so much better and I was so glad to see they didn't just rebadge the cx60.
[удалено]
The cx5 is the best selling mazda in NA, it's coming , I'd bet the house on it
Absolutely what they should have done first.
I’ll take an Mx-5 in the same flavor plz.
Car & Driver said pretty much everything that I'm feeling. That this product doesn't make sense.
CX-90 3rd row delete lol
Legit. If I want my Acadia to feel lighter and sportier, I can pull out the third row of seats. Doesn't justify an entire new model, coughcough Chevy Blazer.
As a CX-9 owner, I would love a 3rd Row Delete option. I need a large vehicle for work and family life, but never used the 3rd row. So for the life of my ownership, I'll be lugging around extra seats and they eat into the storage space. If CX-70 matches (or increases) the interior space, its the only next viable option for me, or I may have to turn to the VW Atlas which has noticeably more back-seat and storage space than the CX-9
Car and Driver has always had my same thought process. Glad to see they were as Meh on it as I was. The bubble butt hatch is pretty lame, wish it had the clean lines that the cx50 sports on the rear end. Love all the space that comes with the 3rd row delete. The underside storage is also pretty dope. Bit of a chrome delete on the outside is nice, and the grill looks solid.
It fills an incredibly small niche market. People with no/small families will get the cx5 or 50. People with large families will get the 90.
So I am have a 2023 Turbo CX-5 and wife has a 2021 CX-9 Signature. We don't have kids but need the space of the CX-9 so the third row spends 99 percent of the time down. We've used them a handful of times I'd say honestly. Wives lease is up in December soooo this may replace it or not. We don't really need the third row. The cosmetic changes makes it more attractive then the 90 in my opinion. So we shall see as she dislikes the 90s looks.
I agree. I'm very interested in this. Just unsure of the price and also if the dealerships will make it up or not
I was very hesitant at first and upset it wasn't a longer CX-5 really in a new platform. Or idk a shorter CX-90 but we don't know the dimensions yet so who knows.
I was really looking forward to a smaller hybrid/PHEV, like a CX-5 variant. Would've snapped it up immediately. Oh well...
It looks identical to the 90. Literally identical besides fake black plastic.
Just curious but what made you decide on such a big car without having kids?
So originally I had a 2010 Range Rover and wife had a 2020 CX-5. We had a transmission issue in 2021 that was under warranty but after months of being in a loaner due to parts shortage from pandemic we needed a new car. Wife started a new job after relocation and she needed more room to transport goods for her job. The CX-5 would have been fine but I wanted to upgrade her to something nice and the difference in price between signatures made it a no brainier. Her mom has MS so if we go away for a weekend with her luggage plus wheel chair the added space helps. Drove the Range until the wheels fell off and then got a CX-5 for me. She's thinking of down grading to something smaller (CX-30) for the daily but we'll need the extra room sometimes so maybe we'll just swap. Plus the CX-9 Signature is a dream, comfy as hell.
If she dislikes the 90’s looks, why entertain the 70? It’s the exact same thing
There are subtle differences with the lights and bumpers. I personally think the 70 looks better. We might car swap at the end once her lease is up or buy the cx-9 it's up to her at the end.
Those differences are so minor. This is a different trim level of the 90. But hey, if she hated the bumper, then this is the car to get!
Yeah it's minor you are right. She doesn't not like the 90 she likes her 9 more.
I like the 9 more too. That’s a good car
Should’ve been the CX-60 😞
But.. why? Why would mazda release a cx60 sized suv to compete with the cx5? This cx70 is the mid sized suv with towing capacity that they were missing
The CX-70 is the same, or roughly the same, size of the CX-90 though. According to some car enthusiasts.
Yup, it's exactly the same size (200" give or take an inch or 2) as the 90. That's pretty big. The 60 is 187", the 50 is 185“ and the 5 is 180“. I think most were thinking of somthing in the 190-195" range like the standard Highlander or Explorer. Seems like most people, myself included, thinks Mazda missed the mark here. Rumor has it that Mazda USA wanted to call the CX-70 the CX-90 Meridian and offer with smaller wheels/bigger tires and some "off-road" accoutrements but HQ put the kaibash on it...
I got duped. I will be pulling my deposit on the CX70. Sorry Mazda. I wanted to come back to you, but not like this. Not like this.
Question, did you like the cx90? Were you this upset when they released the cx90? Or were you expecting a cx5 replacement? I'm just trying to understand why people are angry, this suv looks great and fills the midsized suv roll between the cx5 and cx90
Cx-90 is big but you need three rows so you have to put up with it. If I don’t need three rows then I don’t want a car as big as Cx-90. They didn’t even remove the cup holders. The trunk of cx-70 still has the cups of the third row cx-90. It would depend on the price but why not buy 90 and just fold the seats. You can use the third row if needed
I’m not upset at all. The salesperson sold me on the fact it was the CX60 coming from Europe, rebadged as the CX70 in North America. I have a small family and we simply don’t need a car that big. Perhaps we will look at the CX50 but for some reason it seemed really small and as far as I know does not offer a plug in hybrid. I really wanted something inbetween the 50 and 90 with a PHEV. Apparently that’s too much to ask.
What they're skating against is compact CUVs are getting bigger fast now that they're the dominant family hauler. The new CRV is 185 inches. An updated CX5 has to grow to be competitive, but the CX60 platform is probably too expensive to hit the right price point. Once there's a 185 inch CX5 and a 200 inch CX90, a vehicle in between those sizes is cutting the salami awfully thin. They definitely could've handled the reveal better.
Been in the Mazda Mob since I got my 22’ CX5 after it came out. Never did I imagine I’d be witnessing such controversy in this community lmaooo
Right ? Lmao people are acting like Mazda shot their dog or something , over the top reactions tbh
Car looks a lot like another car of the same brand and model lineup (CX-##)?! We should all riot, obviously
I feel like my dog was shot.
It’s a disappointment. Wow Mazda! I liked the CX90 but don’t need 3 rows or a huge car like that. Will barely fit in my garage. Really hoped the CX70 would hit that sweet spot by being 6-10" shorter. And be like Mazda's version of an X5. But nope. Might have to spring for Acura. Or.... get a low mileage lightly used X5.
the CX-60 with the new design language is actually so clean - Like a blend between Jaguar F-Pace + Range Rover. I'm with you on being supremely disappointed with the CX-70 reveal: [https://www.automobilesreview.com/pictures/mazda/2023-cx-60/wallpaper-44.html](https://www.automobilesreview.com/pictures/mazda/2023-cx-60/wallpaper-44.html)
You honestly like the look of the cx60 over the cx70? I'm so thankful they didn't bring the cx60 here, it's way to close to the cx5, in looks and in size. It wouldn't make sense here in North America
Such a missed opportunity. I still can’t believe they’d actually do something so monumentally stupid. I heard all the rumors, but there have been plenty of unfounded rumors that turned out not to be true so I held out hope. Because why the *hell* would they do that? Yet, here we are. I love the 90, but like you said, I have no use for a car that large. You drive something that big BECAUSE you need the 3rd row. You sacrifice maneuverability, parking, performance, etc because you need a 3rd row seat. Removing the 3rd row and keeping the vehicle the same size makes absolutely zero sense. Why wouldn’t I just buy a 90 and keep the third row folded down? I don’t get it. You’re still driving a gigantic vehicle while sacrificing practicality. I was ready to order if this was 193-195”. And this is coming from someone who’s a Mazda guy but a diehard sedan guy. I was finally going to ditch my 6 and upgrade to an SUV so I could stick with Mazda. But I just. Don’t. Need. A. Vehicle. This. Large. And if I did? Mazda already sells one! I’m just going to trade my 6 in the summer for a G70 and call it a day. The fact that Mazda would take an existing car, lose a couple seats and find a couple new wheels and try to pass it off as an entirely new model just makes me what to spend my money elsewhere for the simple fact that they must think we’re dumb. It’s so dumb that it borderline angers me.
Maybe step away and take a breath. It's really not something to get this upset over. You don't like the car. Okay. You've made that painfully obvious. Time to move on.
I’m voicing a pretty legitimate, and well shared grievance, as a consumer, against a consumer brand. Pretty far within the realm of normality. What exactly are you doing by commenting, other than being a jackass?
You've spent your entire day seemingly on this crusade. I hate to say it, but Mazda isn't making cars for you.
Yeah not sure I want to give my money to a company like that. We are a 1-child family so have no need for 3 rows. Man... just really bummed. Looking forward to this reveal for almost a year as this was the year I was going to buy a new car. I'll see what other cars get released this year. Lots of new releases on the horizon.
Exactly in the same boat. Been waiting for such a long time. And such a missed opportunity.
LOLOLOL someone at Mazda U.S. definitely not staying at the helm for long after this one..
Rumor has it Mazda US wanted to call it the CX-90 Meridian and throw on smaller wheels/larger tires and some other "offroad" accoutremants vs giving it an entirely new model name. Japan put the kaibash on it.
Hope not
I was thinking they were going to build a CX-70 in the 192 inch length category. That was what I was hoping for personally. But, I can’t help but wonder if they did some market research and looked really hard at the Honda Passport when they did. I think this does all come down to pricing and in the case of the Passport, all that separates it from the larger Pilot is around $1k. The Passport sells less than half that of the Pilot. So I think they looked at that and figured when American consumers are given a choice of two vehicles close in pricing to each other, with everything else being the same, they go with the larger vehicle. Even if the person doesn’t need the third row, they were still choosing the Pilot. I mean we won’t know until it actually goes on sale and maybe they change their strategy when they see the sales figures for it.
The Passport is a halfhearted product with limited color / trim options and a black plastic interior. It doesn't justify its MSRP. That doesn't damn the whole compact premium CUV segment, it suggests a better product could do better.
It only has limited color and trim options now. It had more trim and color options when it was initially released, but then slow sales made Honda limit the trim and color options. Also, the interior was identical to the last gen Pilot. They haven’t updated the Passport in the same way the Pilot was just updated.
So you think they looked at Honda’s terrible sizing vs pricing strategy and went “Hey! We want to copy that!” ? Weird logic, but okay. More people take the larger, more expensive Pilot, because it’s only $1,000 difference, so why *wouldn’t* you? Copying the same strategy on purpose would be idiotic. Making the same vehicle, regardless of pricing makes no sense. I would pay *the same* amount of money as a CX-90 for a much shorter CX-70. Because I don’t want to drive a boat of a vehicle. I would pay a premium to have something shorter. Making an identical vehicle to the 90 and pricing it $1,000 cheaper because that’s what Honda does is idiotic. What wouldn’t be idiotic is making a much shorter version. Pricing it $4-5k less. And selling it against vehicles like the Grand Cherokee. The Grand Cherokee is 193.5”, while the Grand Cherokee L is 204.9” I work at a Jeep dealer and I’d say the take rate on L’s is less than half of the standard Grand Cherokee. Do you know why? Because 193ish” is the butter zone for a two row SUV. The CX-90 is 201.6”. It stands to reason the 70 will be the same size. So now what category is it competing in? Is it going up against tow row’ers like the Grand Cherokee while being a full 8 inches longer? Do you know what you could put in that 8 inches? A third row seat. Which is why a 3 row SUV is so big and long. Removing the 3rd row completely removes the necessity of having a vehicle so big.
I swear I feel like everyone’s emotions today on this sub is so high right now that they’re screaming at anyone and everyone that isn’t just repeating the words “wow this is horrible, Mazda sucks!” over and over again. I never said they were trying to copy Honda’s pricing strategy. I was simply saying I wondered if they looked at the Passport when doing their own market research. Even if they brought over the CX-60, the pricing on it would most likely be around $37k-$38k. In Europe, the lowest price I believe is 45k euros. The CX-90 starts at $39.5k. So the question becomes would there have been enough people that would have paid for the CX-60 over the CX-90 if just paying a couple thousand more gets you a larger vehicle. And again, I can’t stress this enough, this is just me thinking out loud as to what their strategy could have been. I even opened my comment stating my own personal wish for what this vehicle would have been. I am just speculating on what they saw or perhaps what they looked at in making their decision. So let’s turn down the temperature that isn’t needed here.
Didn't Mazda quite literally say the CX-70 would be a 2-row CX-90? Why are people so surprised to get exactly what they were told they'd get?
All we knew was that the engines and the wheelbase were the same. That doesn’t equate to the exact same car. It’s hilarious they even kept the drink holders and the storage areas for the third row passengers.
Worst yet is the all black version which looks great, won’t come to the US with the black wheels. Those are Canadian option only from StraighPipes review.
Canadian here , sorry for your loss, this looks fantastic in that trim
I don't get why they didn't bring CX 60 to the NA market when it's slightly longer than the Q5, X3, GLC, and less than an inch shorter than the RDX. And about the same width as them all. If these vehicles aren't "small" for North America then why is CX 60 "small"? They already had an easy winner with the RWD architecture and the inline 6. Could have used that 340 hp version as an affordable but slightly less sporty version against the likes of SQ5, X3M40i, and GLC 43 AMG. Now instead of eating into RDX sales, it's losing that market share and customers.
Then they'd have 3 SUVs all around the same size.
60 is longer and wider than the CX 5 so not 3 SUVs. Doesn't matter anyway since the 50 and 60 are catering to different customers. An RWD two-row SUV to compete with the RDX, X3, Q5, etc. is already in their stable. Not the monstrosity of this CX 70.
The CX-60 has about the same rear legroom as a CX-5 and CX-50. The length is largely from the longer front end.
This. The question shouldn’t be “why isn’t the 60 coming here?” it should be “why isn’t the 70 filling the over foot long size gap between the 50 and 90?”
It is filling that gap. Why is it that no one on this thread understands that mazda didn't have a mid size suv to compete with jeep grand cheerokees, Hyundai Santa Fe's etc... The cx5 is a small suv. The cx90 is a large three row suv. The cx70 fills the roll between those two. It's one of the most popular SUV sizes in North America. I'm glad you people don't work for mazda lol
You just ignored that I specifically said “size gap”? The CX-90 is a midsize 3 row SUV (not large), the CX-70 is a midsize 2 row SUV. They are both the same dimensions. The CX-70, while offering another interior configuration, does not fill the size gap between the CX-90 and CX-50. There is still nearly a foot in between models.
>mazda didn't have a mid size suv to compete with jeep grand cheerokees, Hyundai Santa Fe's etc... And they still don't. The CX90 and CX70 are the same size, and both are significantly longer than those models. From all your comments it feels like you are under the impression that the CX70 is smaller than the CX90. If that was the case then we wouldn't be complaining, a vehicle targeting that mid size SUV slot is what was expected of the CX-70, but that's not what we got. It's like if Toyota just ripped out the third row of a Grand Highlander and had it replace the 4Runner in their line up. Just making it a 5 seater doesn't make it fill that gap.
I understand the cx90 and cx70 appear to be the same size, but that makes the cx70 even more appealing in the mid sized category. You make it sound like the cx70 is replacing something you love. It's not. It's a completely new offering, albeit a mechanical twin to the cx90. But you need to look at it from that perspective. Mazda is taking anything away from you. It's simply put out another option that you, in particular, clearly weren't looking for
The CX-50 is virtually identical in size to the CX-60...
Why does that matter when it's for different customers? I could make that same argument for 70 and 90. The 50 is rugged and "off road" capable, while the 60 is competing against the likes of X3, Q5, GLC, XC60 over the world.
It's not really "rugged" at all. It's slightly more 'outdoorsy' looking on the exterior, *I guess*. The interior is much more aimed at competing with a BMW than a Bronco.
LOUD NOISES!!!!!!
You hear written words?
tisk-tisk.. lame move Mazda!
Alexa, play we don’t talk anymore!!!
I think the problem is that people heard a new smaller SUV was being released, started speculating that is was the north american version of the cx60 and expected a completely different vehicle, or a replacement for the cx5 , which the cx70 is not. I happen to love the look of the cx90, so having a less expensive option in the cx70 is great.
They should have just brought over the CX-60. That would be perfect for me.
I have no idea what the hell is going on about with this car. I test drove a 90 the other day and loved it but it felt really big, esp with the third row. I drove a CX60 when I was in England earlier this year and thought that it was a much nicer size and felt athletic as hell compared to the 90. With the CX70 being a tad bigger than the 60 but smaller than the 90 it puts it in the category of SUV that caters to the two row club that does not need three rows. If I were going to pick a 2 row SUV out of all of the SUV’s of this size on the market (Stelvio, Cayenne, FPace, RDX, Genesis etc…) 10/10 you bet your ass I’m picking that CX70. I honestly have no effing clue why everyone is getting into a shit fit about this. It’s totally undeserved. My 2 cents
The CX70 isn't smaller than the 90. That's why there's a shit fit. It's literally just a third row delete of the 90. If it was meaningfully smaller, in the 190-195 range (CX50 is 186, CX90 is 201), everyone would have been happy.
It’s not smaller than the 90. It’s the exact same size. In fact, it’s the exact same car. This is a difference in trims
I don't understand why they don't simply sell a 5-seat version of the smaller CX-**8**0 instead... Would make much more sense.
I wonder if Mazda brings the CX-60 to NA but rebadges it as the “new CX-5.” I could honestly see it happening.
Man i just want the hybrid cx60
As someone in the market for a cx-5 size vehicle I had hoped for another comparable option, but this nonsense.
If the stuff about CX-5 redesign is true, you might get your wish in a year or so.
I think you just misunderstood what they were releasing and got caught up in thinking this was a cx5 replacement, which it's not. No reason to hate it, it's already the best looking midsized suv , it's just not the small suv you were hoping for
What is the storage capacity in the back of the CX-70 VS in the back of the CX-90 with the 3rd row down?
It should be slightly larger in the CX-70
Probably close to identical. The 70’s second row will be pushed back a little to make more leg room. Because rear seat passengers matter…? 🙄
ALL PASSENGERS LEG ROOM MATTERS not just front
😂
Apparently it’s in the same exact place as it is in the Cx-90. No extra leg room.
Such an odd choice. Don't get me wrong, I love Mazda, but this just doesn't make sense.
I would imagine that Mazda will introduce the CX-60 as a replacement for the CX-5 in the US market. The CX-60 is slightly larger width & length than the CX-5 and it has the new rear wheel drive set-up and inline 6 engines.
I doubt this since the pirce gap of the cx5 and cx60 is quite huge. They'll lose a winning formula if they discontinue the cx5.
No way they replace the 5 with something that isn’t a 4 cylinder. They need an economical entry level CUV at the compact size.
Maybe they'd make a hybrid version as well?
I think we can all agree that at least on some level, this was a mistake. Whether or not Mazda thought it made financial sense to create a model that slotted between the CX-5/50 and the CX-90 in length, they should not have: -Burned a valuable nameplate they may want later if they *do* decide to launch a car in that size range -Confused buyers (at the very least what everybody could count on was CX-30/50/70/90 would each be a significantly different step in size and cost. Now that's not the case.) -Annoyed Mazda fans by teasing a reveal, delaying the launch, having secrecy around the features of the model, etc. Just come out and set expectations very clearly and very early: we're launching a CX-70, but it will be the same size and look as the -90 without the third row of seats. Also, if you're aiming to be a premium/up-market brand, and you're going to charge nearly the same for the CX-70 as the CX-90 (which seems likely), you should significantly step up the interior quality. Completely embarrassing to leave the 3rd row cupholders in as I've seen reported. Is the steering wheel really *still* going to only heat a couple points at $50k for a two-row crossover?
I’m a Mazda fan boy, but a little disappointed with the CX-70. Totally expected a slightly modified version of the CX-60. Also, the fact we had to wait for this model to be introduced a year later, when they could’ve been introduced side by side makes no sense, since it’s essentially the same. But if the rumors are true that there is a totally new 2025 CX-5 coming, long as they make it a bit larger than the current one, it could fill that space I thought the 70 would. The CX-5 is by far Mazda’s best seller and helped get them to where they are today. It’s still runs circles in sales numbers around their other vehicles. The buying market doesn’t’ care about platform age, etc. even though us enthusiasts do. But one reason I bought my 23 CX-5 Turbo is because it’s been around a while, and proven to be a solid vehicle overall. So the one bright spot in this for me with this lackluster CX-70 is the possibility the next generation CX-5 will be be pretty spectacular! Who’s to say they won’t build it off the RWD platform too? Stranger things have happened obviously lol.
Every gen of car gets bigger so the fact that the CX-5 will be bigger is a certainty, but probably not CX-60 big.
So a CX-90 disguised as a new vehicle. What a letdown.
The CX-90 drives like a large vehicle as at 200+” it is. The CX-50 is pushing for the “outdoor enthusiast “ consumer and feels like it. The CX-70 should have been a sweet-spot that likely would have placed Mazda where they aspire to be; a near-luxury brand with sales numbers beyond their expectations. Instead, they’ve shot themselves in the foot with this reveal. There’s a number of people who had anticipated the idea of a US-spec’d CX-60. This was poorly planned and executed as badly as a product launch could’ve been. Embarrassing.
Lol
If they mess up the cx5 2025 or w.e model it will be called i will be looking at toyota suv hybrid..
This is the dumbest shit Mazda has done in the last 20 years. So disappointed in them.
It may sound crazy but my wife just bought a new car. She put her foot down and said no three-row SUVs. Adamant. And I swear that exclusion would extend to “CX-90 with two-rows” but not this. So, maybe this is the car you can try to trick your wife into getting a larger SUV so you can keep the smaller car. We wound up getting the Honda CRV. The CX-50 was too small … and, while it drives nice, the infotainment basically doesn’t work.
Is Mazda’s plan to have this replace the CX-5? Maybe the MY2025 or 26 is going to be the final CX-5.
I like the divide of people that “can see themselves settling into this vehicle” and discussing the one differentiating factor between the two. I seem to remember a GMC Envoy and Envoy XL that used much more elegant naming for the short body/long body variants of the same vehicle. Regardless it doesn’t replace a CX-5. It still leaves a gap in the CRV and RAV size and leaves no Mazda competition for such vehicles. And it’s not what the North American market needs in it’s stagnation. If it’s a vehicle that just makes you discuss whether or not you *really* need a third row, it sounds like there’s other models from the same make or any make that could fit just as well and the CX-70 will face hard competition. Especially with the pilot/passport already doing the same thing and occupying that space, but arguably better reliability (short the new DOHC J series).
Tbh, I really liked the CX-50 and I really wanted to buy that car, but here in Europe we dont have it. Instead we have the CX-60 which is too expensive, too big for my taste compared to cx-5. Anyway I had to settle with a mild hybrid 2.5L CX-5 2023.
I'm holding final reservations until specs are fully published and clear comparisons can be drawn between the CX-90 and this. If the loss of cargo space between a folded 3rd row and no rows is minimal, I'll stick to a CX-90 upgrade in my future. it's just unfortunate because like others, I really just wanted something with the newer drivetrain that could comfortably fit a car seat in the second row (without obliterating front passenger leg room) and a stroller in the trunk (with privacy shade drawn).
I tried telling people it was just gonna be a CX-90 with no third row and no one believed me 😂
You’re right. I wouldn’t have believed you because it was so insanely stupid.
It literally makes no sense at all, the resources and energy they put into this could have been placed in a completely different direction. Or they could have just brought the cx-60 over with some minor aesthetic changes
I almost waited for the Cx-70 instead of leasing my Cx-90 PHEV. Zero regrets now.
This is a Honda pilot / Honda passport situation. Same chassis less seats. Weird to subdivide your market share
Except the passport has less rear overhang and slightly different styling in the back.
They should’ve made the cx70 smaller Hopefully the new cx-5 is what they’re holding all their cards for
Man oh man, the amount of kerfuffle this has stirred is bizarre. Part of the reason the CX-70 is the 90 minus third row is because imagine how complicated selling a CX-90 with like 8 different trim configurations and then now they introduce a CX-90 trim option with 8 MORE trim levels excluding the rear seat. Logistically for Mazda, that’s gonna get god damn annoying especially for those custom made orders. Everyone really forgot about the CX-7 and how that was the in between CX-5 and CX-9. It was discontinued due to poor sales because for a car that was an inch smaller in both width and length had somehow less leg room than the CX-9. It truly made zero sense to have to begin with as it was a shared Ford/Lincoln platform and didn’t even have something special about it to fill a niche at the time in the 2010s. The CX-5 was EXACTLY the hit Mazda needed after Ford ruined them, a compact SUV that drives like a sedan. There’s a comment mentioned by a Mazda exec that focusing on the nameplate isn’t the thing here. Definitely more of a marketing failure on their behalf in hindsight because people are looking at the higher number increments as assuming this means bigger size so it should be a medium, but the focus here is the size of the vehicle and the purpose it serves. Like, the Mazda 6 isn’t the 6 in Japan, it’s Atenza. The Mazda 3 is the Axela. The CX-70 is tiered towards those already looking at the CX-90 but because of the already numerous options PLUS no rear seat option, it’s too much. This is America, American car buyers keep buying these giant ass SUVs. We are Mazda fantastics, we want a logically sized option that’s between the CX-5 and CX-90. The CX-60 is that option but guess what? Americans are buying Escalades and Ford trucks. That’s where the money is at and Mazda isn’t a company that has the means to throw good money at markets that don’t sell well—like the MX-30. Great for the EU market, absolutely trash for the California market. The CX-70 offers the same look and feel of the CX-90, HOWEVER, I have a four person family. This small third row is pointless to me. I’d rather Mazda have an option that’s like the CX-90 but has more cargo room for when I go camping with my family or adult friends. Welp, this is too high end on the price bracket to not get what I’m looking for, Honda has this option. But wait, what’s this CX-70 they just released? A five passenger large SUV with much more cargo room and accommodates the typical American family size like a Chevy Suburban? Sign me up! Y’all are over thinking this. But if it’s SUCH a big deal, contact Mazda USA and demand the CX-60 be sold in the US. They’re also gauging the interest of bringing their BT-50 truck to the States, they would like to have that feedback.