Many people simply will not buy a minivan even if it’s the logical choice for their family and even if minivans rule (they do). Instead, people buy three-row crossovers, which are almost always a compromise of functionality in the name of style. Mazda has decided to address this issue of compromised three-row crossovers by taking its own quite good one, the CX-90, and removing its back row. Now it’s a two-row they call the CX-70. Problem solved!
In place of the third row is… nothing. Mazda just literally took the third row out of the vehicle, gave the car a slightly more aggressive front fascia, and put a couple of hard-to-access cubbies underneath.
Maybe this is genius. Maybe there is a substantial number of buyers who just want a two-row vehicle and don’t want to be forced to buy a vehicle with three rows. Maybe this all makes sense. Or maybe it doesn’t.
[Full Disclosure: Mazda nicely flew me out to Palm Springs and put me up in an adults-only resort with a ton of these little hot spring-fed pools. The company also fed me various foods, including jicama tacos. I was offered a facial or deep-tissue massage, but David needed to go buy a [REDACTED] so I skipped it. I did do a very gentle round of yoga in the yoga dome, however, and got a Japanese cooking lesson. – MH)
Wait, It’s Really Just A CX-90 Without A Third Row?
Yeah. 100%. When the CX-70 was first announced that’s what we guessed it was and now we have confirmation. It’s a CX-90 without a third row.
That seems a little crazy, right?
There is no other company I can think of that does exactly this. Toyota has the Highlander and the larger Grand Highlander. BMW has the X5 and the X7, with the X7 being about nine inches longer than the X5. Jeep has the Grand Cherokee and Grand Cherokee L, the latter of which is about ten inches longer than the non-L. Last year I drove the Volkswagen Atlas (seven-passenger, three-row) and CrossAtlas, which is a two-row version with a rounded-off rear.
Did Mazda move the 2nd row back for more legroom? Nope. It’s exactly the same. Both the CX-70 and CX-90 have 39.4 inches of legroom in the rear seat and 41.7 inches of legroom in the front seat.
Do You Get More Cargo Space?
Yes and, more importantly, no. Just to be safe I reached out to a Mazda rep for the dimensions of the CX-70 and compared them to the Mazda CX-90.
With the 2nd row seats upright the CX-70 has 39.6 cubic feet of cargo volume. The Mazda CX-90, though has 40.0 or 40.1 cubic feet, which is somehow slightly more. With all the seats down the CX-90 has as much as 75.2 inches, whereas according to Mazda, the CX-70 has 75.3 inches, so that’s something. Obviously, these tiny differences are not noticeable and the cars have effectively the same storage area.
The Mazda CX-70 does have some little cubbies.
The Cubbies Are Not That Accessible
Here’s what the rear looks like with the cargo removed. The cupholders are still there but the rear belts, seats, and rear HVAC have been removed. This means the CX-70 is ever so slightly lighter (all that stuff adds about 45 pounds of weight if you were curious). The one pictured here is a PHEV, so it’s got storage for the charger that sort of works.
Then there are these two little cubbies where the seats were on the CX-90. Because of the way the cargo floor closes, the closer of the two cubbies is only accessible if you lift the floor all the way up, which is sort of awkward and only works if you’ve got nothing back there, otherwise, you need to take out whatever is on top of the floor.
The storage area all the way in the front is only accessible if you fold back the 2nd row of seats or, as we did here, remove the cargo cover. It’s certainly better than nothing, but I’m not sure how much better.
What’s Under All That Foam?
I’m glad you asked because David and I took it apart and looked:
You can see some fuel lines, a spare tire (good), a subwoofer, some orange high-voltage lines for the hybrid system, and a few other electronics. This is all fairly deep within the floor and there’s an argument to be made that this could be a larger storage area, except:
That’s a bunch of foam/padding to reduce noise, vibration, and harshness. It works! The CX-70 is fairly quiet, although I think I’d rather have the extra space.
So, It’s Cheaper?
Not exactly. The CX-70 is technically a CX-90 that has less functionality but costs more money. How is this possible?
The CX-90 offers the 3.3 Turbo Select trim, which starts at $37,845 (before delivery). The CX-70 doesn’t have this trim, meaning your cheapest option is the CX-70 3.3 Turbo Preferred, which starts at $40,445. Otherwise, every trim is essentially the same price as the comparable CX-90, so except for the initial starting price it’s just a less functional CX-90 for the same money.
One could argue that rather than try to slot a third-row into a smaller package, Mazda is giving you a capacious two-row crossover instead. Mazda, in fact, tried to make this argument by showing off a BMW X5, non-L Jeep Grand Cherokee, and Lexus RX 350:
Just looking at it, the CX-70 does have more rear storage than either vehicle. The total 75.3 cubic feet of cargo storage trumps even the 72.3 cubic feet in the X5, 70.8 cubic feet in the Jeep, and handily bests the 46.2 cubic feet in the Lexus RX 350. Do you get a cost savings with that?
Sort of; you can get a base Jeep GrandCherokee Laredo in two-row configuration for $40,035, which is slightly less than the CX-70, even though the CX-70 is demonstrably nicer. It’s not premium, but it is near premium, with many quasi-luxury touches. The Mazda is much cheaper than the Lexus RX 350 (starting at $49,950) and the BMW X5 ($65,700) because, well, it’s a Mazda.
The term “Empty-nesters” got thrown around a lot at this event to explain people who might eschew the third row.
Am I Taking Crazy Pills? Gimme Something
Ok, here’s something kinda cool.
The Mazda CX-70 can, in certain trims, tow a total of 5,000 pounds. This isn’t a wild amount (so can the VW Atlas), but it’s enough to pull a small boat, some jet skis, a small camper, or even an entire classic Mazda supercar like the rotary-powered Cosmo 100s.
If you get a Mazda CX-70 you can get a tow camera to tow things:
I used it to test lining up the CX-70 with the Cosmo pictured above. It worked quite well.
Is This All A Cynical Ploy To Win Over Google Searches?
There is a very good argument to be made that this is all a cynical (or logical) ploy to win over Google Searches and searches on different car-buying platforms. As enthusiasts, we know this is just a two-row CX-90, but perhaps the average buyer just searches for what they want and the existence of both a CX-90 and a CX-90 Sport Two-Row Whatever is confusing.
Our pal Elana got this quote in her review from Mazda, and it supports this theory:
“There are two unique customers for three-row versus two-row,” says Dan Aguilar, Mazda’s product manager of vehicle line planning. “We want to be on the list for both.”
In retrospect, maybe the headline for this piece should have been: The Mazda CX-70 is the First SEO Car.
Anything Else?
Mazda is offering some slightly sportier trim and color combinations on the CX-70 to differentiate it, but it’s extremely subtle. My preference is the CX-70, so perhaps I should be happy that you can get the better-looking car for the same price.
Ok, I Get It, This Is Not Ideal, But Is The CX-70 Good?
Yes, of course, it’s good. If you want to know what the PHEV is like you can read our review of the CX-90 PHEV, because it’s basically the same car. We haven’t reviewed the non-PHEV CX-90, which means we haven’t reviewed the non-PHEV CX-70 because, again, they are identical cars.
I am ideologically more supportive of the CX-70 in PHEV form because I believe every car like this should be a hybrid. When fully charged, the 17.8-kWh battery pack can deliver the CX-70 PHEV a full 26 miles in EV-only mode. So long as you hold back your right foot judiciously you can scoot around town only using the electric motor. It’s not a fun drive, but it’s something. Mash on it and and the 2.5-liter naturally aspirated four-cylinder has a reasonable 323 horsepower at the ready, which feels genuinely quick even if it sounds like a buzzy Mazda powerplant.
I am emotionally more supportive of the inline-six. Why do we even have V6 engines? Unless you’ve got a Busso V6, the V6 was a historical mistake. Inline sixes are way better in basically every way and the inline-six is a peach. In Turbo S Premium spec the CX-70 glides powerfully to highway speeds thanks to a rockin’ 340 horsepower and 369 lb-ft of torque.
There are too many vehicles in this class with a too-small turbo motor mated to a crappy CVT transmission, so a relatively large inline-six (3.3 liters) putting power down mostly to the rear via an eight-speed transmission does feel better. It also sounds way better.
You’re not going to burn down the Applebees in this thing, but it feels good like a Mazda should, and it’s available in Soul Red so you can happily tow your matching Miata track car and an extra set of tires.
Let’s Talk About ‘Yaw Damping’
As soon as Jake, the Mazda PR guy, said the term “Yaw Damping” my first question was:
Is this a Dave Coleman term?
It is, in fact, a Dave Coleman term. If you weren’t aware, Dave Coleman is one of the best automotive journalists from the pre-blog era and wrote for a magazine called Sport Compact Car. It was, for a time, one of the best car magazines in the world and this was due in no small part to nerdy engineer Dave Coleman, who liked to make up terms for technical issues so small that only he noticed (never forget The Dave Point).
The Mazda CX-70, like the CX-90, is only available in AWD trim, but it’s a RWD-biased system and, mostly, the car is driving in RWD unless it needs the extra traction. Because Dave is crazy smart, and Mazda is smart enough to listen to its crazy engineers, they figured out the best way to use the connection between the front and rear wheels (via the AWD system) not for extra traction, but to adjust how the car rotates (yaws) as you turn the steering wheel.
Here, lemme just let him explain it:
The conversation starts at about 3:20 in this video.
Would You Buy This Thing?
I am somewhat infamously in the market for a two-row crossover, so the Mazda is something I’m theoretically considering. It’s a little pricy for me, sure, but it’s far nicer than anything else I’m looking at, and it handles a little bit better than other Japanese or American offerings because that’s what Mazda indexes for in all its vehicles. I don’t need a third row so I’m not out shopping for a third row.
However, if given the choice between the identical CX-70 or CX-90 in any trim I’d probably just get the CX-90. It’s almost entirely the same car and I can think of more times when it would be nice to have an extra row than I can think of reasons why I’d get the CX-70 and its tricky-to-access storage cubbies instead.
If the CX-70 were, like, $2,000 cheaper I’d probably get the CX-70.
