UnknownJinX

Normally, I am not one to care for SUVs(Spirit Racing is where I am eyeing), but seeing how this is related to my job...

So the new CX-70 just got unveiled, and oh boy. At first glance, it looks way too similar to the CX-90 with a 3rd row delete. Supposedly lots of media sources are saying it is indeed the same size as the CX-90, which raises the question of why there is a delay in launch. It was supposed to come out last fall, but it got delayed to now.

I will wait to see the final concrete official info before I really draw conclusions, but so far people aren't taking it well. If the size is different, they really should have done a much better job communicating that. It's not just the keyboard warrior bashing as well; some people did put a deposit down and they want it back - can't have the car if it looks like it doesn't even fit in their garage.

@ASH8 If you are still around, do your rant.

ASH8

Supply...?..plus a few production problems (recalls of all CX-60 and CX-90s) to fix Steering Rack Worm Drive Spring
which is a large repair job. (Steering gets harder to control or use as spring is too strong).

Record demand in USA and North America.
Remember MMC (IMO) were caught a little short in production allocation, the CX-60 came out over a year ago in EU in 2022.
All CX-60,70,90 and soon CX-80 are made in the one plant in Japan.

I think the CX-70 is THE perfect fit, this 2 row is extra wide over the MTM AL made CX-50 and plently of leg room @ second row.
3.3 six cylinder and the 2.5 PHEV.

YES the floor pan dimensions are the same as CX-90

ASH8

RANT, you Cheeky Bugger

Jedi54

iTrader: (7)

glad you started this thread, I got busy 2 days ago and didn't get around to it.
Jedi has thoughts...

I've been waiting for the launch of the 70 as it's probably what I will end up getting as my next SUV. The CX-5 has been great but I do find myself wanting a larger SUV from time to time. The 90 (or any 3 row SUV) has never appealed to me as we have no kids so what would I do with those seats?
I figured the 70 would end up being a slightly shorter version of the 90 (essentially a 60 modified for US) and that seemed appealing because if it shares the same power plants as the 90 but sheds a few hundred pounds, it could be a really fun SUV to drive. Also, that PHEV seems very popular here and with less weight I'm thinking it adds a few more miles in range.
nope.
not what we got at all.

Pros for Mazda: saves costs on R&D, chassis development, etc.
Cons for Consumers: no true mid size SUV in Mazda's lineup.

Now the really big question becomes: how do they price this "new" SUV.
if it's virtually the same price as the 90, why get the 70
if it's too cheap compared to the 90, it takes sales away from the 90.
yes, essentially those are both sales for MNAO it still puts them in a rather odd position.

Jedi54

iTrader: (7)

Full Story: https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a4...x-70-vs-cx-90/

UnknownJinX

ASH8, I think having an SUV bigger than the CX-50 is warranted, but it also would need to stay under the size of the CX-90. Something to compete with the likes of BMW X5 and Honda Passport. That's the issue here.

Doesn't help that Mazda doesn't have anything close to the size of the 5 and 50 in hybrid. Well, there is going to be a CX-50 hybrid and it's already out in China, but people will have to wait more for one.

And this about sums it up.

Anecdote here, but I heard from multiple customers that they love the CX-90, but they think it's too big(to for in their garages/driveways/apartment parking spots) and they would love an SUV shorter than it but has the same powertrain, especially the PHEV. CX-70 just bursted that bubble and well, I will have to tell them that when the numbers are here. I don't expect the ones that have put down a deposit to be happy.

Of course, there is like one customer who insisted on having a CX-90 without the 3rd row and still wanted to maintain the size, but that's like 1 in, what, 20 customers or so?

And if it's to save money, that's just incredibly short-sighted.

I have heard that CX-90 might introduce an option as well to make the 2nd row bench seats on any trim. If true, this would have made the 70 completely pointless. The extra cargo space is pretty negligible, and if I am in the market for an SUV this size, I would have gotten a CX-90 anyway for $2k more than CX-70 - good to have the extra seats just in case. As for now, I personally don't even consider compact sedans anymore; for $1k extra, the compact hatchback's extra space is good to have just in case. Helps that if you buy the car new and then sell it later, the hatchback is worth more in the used market, effectively making the price difference a null point.

The delay is also a big mystery. Someone mentioned that "it's to give CX-90 more time to establish itself." Okay... Then shouldn't the CX-70 be scheduled to be released now in the first place, before the CX-90 was even launched? Should have been a part of the roadmap. The impression I always got was that is CX-70 needed more time, not CX-90 needed more time to "establish."

IMO, if they want to emphasize that much on the whole "cargo space" and "active lifestyle" schtick... They could have made a unibody truck version of the CX-90/CX-70. BT-70, anyone? Ford, Dodge, and Hyundai are all giving the unibody truck idea a whack, and Mazda has an advantage here with the platform being a longitudinal-engine hybrid platform.

Jedi54

iTrader: (7)

I think this is really going to come down to pricing.
should be interesting when those figures get released.

UnknownJinX

@Jedi54 Price is here today.

The US price seems a bit chaotic right now(with 90 being cheaper than the 70 in some trims), but the Canadian price is about what I expected: you get about CAN$1,000 off for the CX-70 compared to an equivalent CX-90.

So... yeah. If it's me, I'd pay the extra grand to keep the rear seats just in case. If you consider resale, that one extra grand is basically nothing unless you decide to keep the CX-90/CX-70 until their wheels fall off. Kinda like how Mazda3 hatches go for more money new or used, so the extra cost of the hatch is fairly minimal, and if on the off chance you need to load big boxes into the car? You'd be thanking the stars for a hatchback. In the case of 90 vs. 70, that'd translate to "if on the off chance you have to load your visiting relatives in the same car."

On a related note: China is pretty well known for having some "L" variants of car models exclusive to the Chinese market. CT4 has a CT4 L in China, and BMW 5 Series have L variants as well. This denotes a longer wheelbase version for customers looking for more seating space. Some people are saying the CX-60 is too small for North America - fair enough, but why not make it a CX-60 L, call it the CX-70, and sell it here?

Poor old CX-7 is probably rolling in its grave... And I got a tiny bit of interest in the CX-7 since it has the Mazdaspeed engine, LOL.

Jedi54

iTrader: (7)

Saw the prices drop this morning and finally had a chance to delve into it.
Mazda did listen to it's customers and reduced the number of trims on the 70 down to 4 as the 90 just had way too many (8 trims plus 3 more PHEV versions) and it was a bit confusing for customers.

Here are the comparable trims and prices for the 70 / 90

• CX-70 Turbo S Premium: $52,450 vs CX-90 Turbo S Premium: $52,450
• CX-70 Turbo S Premium Plus: $55,950 vs CX-90 Turbo S Premium Plus: $55,950

PHEV Models:

• CX-70 PHEV Premium: $54,400 vs CX-90 PHEV Premium: $54,400
• CX-70 PHEV Premium Plus: $57,450 vs CX-90 PHEV Premium Plus: $57,450

The CX-70 is the same price as the CX-90! Damn it Mazda, please make this make sense.

oh and it seems the CX-70 gets 3 fewer colors in the US than the 90

1. No Machine Gray, instead it gets Polymetal Gray Metallic (which to me has too much blue in it)
2. No Artisan Red Premium
3. No Deep Crystal Blue Mica
4. Platinum Quartz Metallic is replaced with Zircon Sand Metallic

BigCajun

iTrader: (1)

They're trying way too hard with these color names.

UnknownJinX

Nah, the price makes perfect sense. Mazda3 sedan and hatch are CAN$750/~US$1,200 apart for equivalent trims, and that's significantly ​​​more re-engineering between the two. MX-5 soft top and RF are CAN$3,000/~US$2,000 apart. Again, way more redesign between the two.

I even joked that I wouldn't be surprised if we get a batch of "special" CX-90 with CX-70 bumpers. They are essentially the same car, so it makes sense there is minimal/no price difference.

I would like to hear the marketing team's decision on this. Sure, there are still people that would buy it, but it looks like a short-sighted move to me.

If they have the money to restart rotary R&D after that many years, they have the money for an CX-60 L.

Oh well, we will see how many of the 70's we sell.

The Melting Copper is a nice colour, BTW. I will give them that. I have mixed feelings about Polymetal Gray. It's nice, but it's also essentially Mazda's take on the primer gray... Not sure if I can get behind the idea.

delhi

I was quite looking forward to this car after checking out the CX50 and CX90 last year. The former is a bit too Subaru Outback and the latter is just too big. Was certain that the CX70 would be a Goldilocks Mazda SUV for us. But alas am quite disappointed that it looks like a rebadged CX90 minus the 3rd row. I really do not grasp Mazda's rationale for this. As above poster highlighted, one might as well pine for the cx90 and keep the 3rd row as backup. The CX70 makes about as much sense as the MX30. What's the point?

Jedi54

iTrader: (7)

only thing I can think of (and I'll admit I've been pondering this far too much as of late) is that Mazda needed a win in the mid size SUV category.
the CX-5 has been a huge success for them but it's classified as a compact. When I was buying mine in 2019, there were a lot of comparisons to other SUV's such as the CR-V and where did Mazda lose every. single. time. Cargo space.
Fast forward 5 years and everyone's SUV's have gotten even bigger. I look at the current offerings from KIA / Hyundai and those are good sized and quite roomy.

would the CX-60 have been large enough for the US market?
don't know.

but I do expect to see reviews on the CX-70 that should state "class leading cargo space".
when was the last time you read that in a Mazda review?

yes, it's a bit of a cop out to rebadge a CX-90 as a 70 by simply removing the rear seat but for those of us who will never need a rear seat and want a perfectly flat cargo area instead (with storage compartments) maybe this makes sense?
it'll definitely put them in direct competition for US buyers who crave larger 2 row SUV's.

BigCajun

iTrader: (1)

Sounds like a good fit for a dog lover.
Koko has the whole back seat in my pickup.

BigCajun

iTrader: (1)

That's a good idea.
Maybe even a whole raised level like a false bottom, similar to bass boat storage?

I've been looking at boat conversion kits, you can even design your own storage systems with pre-made lids.

BigCajun

iTrader: (1)

^^Might be a good way to conceal pews also.
They make long lids for fishing rod storage, that would work for long guns too.

Jedi54

iTrader: (7)

it's funny you mention that because that would be a reason I'd get it.
probably the only reason for getting it over the 90.

ahhh, the things I do for Alaska.

UnknownJinX

MX-30 has its own special reason to exist in North America, and it accomplished that goal. That's really all it needs to do.

Honestly, the small number of MX-30s stuck in the Mazda dealers' inventory is nothing compared to the EVs stuck in, say, Mercedes dealers. One of the local MB dealers have like 30 EVs stuck in their inventory that no one wants. It's gotten to the point that they are willing to give CAN$50k off on CAN$175k EQS 580 with 0.99% APR financing. Yeah... The Japanese dealers have it easy.

Anecdotes here, but the two customers who put down a deposit for CX-70 through me both now want it back, and I am processing that as I type.

One of them says it's out of their budget, and the other one thinks it's too big. Yep, about sums up the CX-70. Can't even blame them.

They could just stretch the CX-60 a bit and it would have made sense. Again, CX-60 L.

And there are reviews all right. Car & Driver thinks Mazda is trolling with the CX-70. Makes sense, the cargo space comes at the cost of being big and expensive. That's still not competitive. Competing interior volume with competitors offering transverse AWD setups is just a lost cause.

Again for the CAN$1,200, I'd keep the 3rd row just in case, and if you consider resale, there is about no difference in cost.

BigCajun

iTrader: (1)

Ikr?
If I go on a road trip with Koko, it's probably going to cost more than boarding her.
I couldn't do that to her though, I still remember her in the shelter.
She was the only one we could see from the waiting area.

She was my 2nd choice.
There was a 4 month old B&W hunting dog that reminded me of my Springer Spaniel, Cleo.

I'm glad I settled for Koko.

​​​​