The CX70 will be my next vehicle choice as our two younger children are in their teens now. We no longer need the 3 row SUV! We've owned eight different SUV's/crossovers, two of them being luxury. With the price point, styling, luxurious feel, sporty ride, etc, it definitely hits the sweet spot for a mid sized SUV!!
That will be the new CX-5. They didn’t want to lose those customers so giving the CX-60 a reskin and unique interior and calling it the CX-5 will keep all their current customers happy as well as bring a ton of new customers who didn’t buy the 5 for its smallish size.
I thought I was going crazy! I've been saying since I first saw the cx90 that the back looks like a mini-van and it turns out someone else does too. Even the front short and thick headlights it's like wtff? What happened to the elegance of the cx9?
as a CX90 owner this car makes no sense. The CX90 is large! Huge for a 2 row. Why wouldn't you just get he 90 and leave the 3rd row down? Prices and engine choice are the same.....its......strange
What is even more odd… the 3rd row cup holders are also in the 70. 70 could be just an option of 90 with just 2 rows instead of a “new and standalone” model”
They did this due to search engine keywords. Two totally different customers shopping for two and three row. Adding another version with all the trims to an already trim heavy 90, would have been a search nightmare. Too much confusion. I would prefer the storage compartment over the third row so I’m the target for this car. I also prefer the sportier front and rear design, the blacked out chrome as well as the red leather. So yeah this vehicle makes perfect sense.
@@MarshallJames-dh3gisweet! The 90 does have WAY too many trims. In my area it was really hard to find the top trim on the standard engine. Which trim interests you most?
@@jstrig ha yea I’m guessing most buyers use the third row only occasionally. Much better options out there if you use a third row a lot. I hope they sell a ton of both. I’m rooting for Mazda
Your comments make absolutely no sense. You’re stating Mazda didn’t want to sell the CX-60 here in America because it was “apparently too close in size to the CX-5 here.” The only vehicle in the American line up that is not available in Europe is the CX-50. They have the CX-5 and CX-30 in Europe. So saying they didn’t sell the CX-60 in the Americas because it’s too close to the CX-5 makes no sense as it’s sold side by side with the CX-60 in other markets.
I found that the third row collapse not laying flat not as serious objection so the CX90 works. I am 74 and will Never use the Third row seat which would be folded day one , much like my 2016 sienna van. I buy cars for the long run like 8 to 10 years. Looking into the inline 6 videos I have found this new design das placed all the servicing belts , chained at the back of the engine. Now the objection servicing may cause the entire engine to be removed when servicing is needed down the road. I have chosen to take a pass on CX 90 & CX 70. With all the room at the front of the engine why does engineering put it at the firewall side , this is plain stupid. But I really love this one and would have purchased it. BillB
What Mazda failed to understand, or accept, is that some of us want a bench seat (3 position) in the middle row of the CX-90 at the upper trim levels. That alone would have simplified their marketing/order/mfg. process saving them a lot of $$.
Everyone was hoping that the CX 70 would be smaller with better handling dynamics. Mazda's solution, a full size 70 with a trailered antique sports car.
At 9:15 mark, showing 3 competitors, X5, Rx, and Grand Cherokee, all 6-8" shorter than the Cx70 makes the point exactly. Cx70 is too long to compete with these cars. Mazda was lazy here. They even announced a shorter Cx80 for Europe that they could have made in a 2 row version.
How does it not compete? It’s a two row SUV which is a very specific search for certain people. They decided to be the best in a segment and beat them in price by TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars. 😆 and it looks cooler than the 90.
@MarshallJames-dh3gi Because any 3rd row can be folded down and if it were shorter it would be lighter, handle better and cost thousands less. This is closer in size to the X7 than the X5. Not to mention the 15" size gap to the Cx50.
Looked at both yesterday. The CX-90 has better rebates and % rates than the CX-70. Since I do not need a third roll. Makes better since just get a CX-90 with better financing (aka lower costs) than a CX-70. If the rebates and rates where the same I would go for a CX-70.
Still waiting for all these clever youtude, just one to review the 70&90 trunk with the privacy rollershutter cover on. Seems everyone is so excited about the drop down mechanism of the rear seats. Not a single youtude bothered to pull the rollershutter so we can see how the parcel shelf look like closed.
@@brianroskelly2177 yeah pls do both CX70&90 for comparison. The 90 will obviously be shorter but the 70 has quite a bit of trunk to cover. I know on the CX60 the cover hooks on to the tailgate.
The problem is, none of the changes outside the loss in practicality of the bench seat are out of the realm of a wrap job or handy owner who gets the right black bits from a pick and pull or from Mazda.
It is a mommy mobile. It looks like a minivan. If they wanted something sportier, they should have actually made it sportier rather than removing a row, change some colors, and mailing it home.
Mazda should and never get rid of that red paint. I love it to this day even though I don’t have a master anymore and it’s got to be their number one seller.
A loaded turbo is still wayyyyy cheaper than a pos Grand Cherokee. These 70's and 90s are bargains imo
So, the CX 90 with 3rd row, is the same price as the CX 70 without the 3rd row. I'm not a math genius, but that does not make financial sense.
The CX70 will be my next vehicle choice as our two younger children are in their teens now. We no longer need the 3 row SUV!
We've owned eight different SUV's/crossovers, two of them being luxury. With the price point, styling, luxurious feel, sporty ride, etc, it definitely hits the sweet spot for a mid sized SUV!!
I would have preferred a wider CX60. Something a bit bigger than the 5/50 but more premium and sport.
That will be the new CX-5. They didn’t want to lose those customers so giving the CX-60 a reskin and unique interior and calling it the CX-5 will keep all their current customers happy as well as bring a ton of new customers who didn’t buy the 5 for its smallish size.
The CX-60 is too small. It's basically the same size inside as the CX-5. The CX-50 is a wider CX-5
@@MarshallJames-dh3giwrong. Next CX-5 will retain its FWD underpinnings and no inline 6.
Regardless, Mazda's are amazing, regardless of seat/platform config. Also, the intro music had me 😂
Everyone needs something to complain about. It seems to be an American past time.
@@jdm1039 because we are pointing out that a company did something that doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense? What wrong with that?
I thought I was going crazy! I've been saying since I first saw the cx90 that the back looks like a mini-van and it turns out someone else does too. Even the front short and thick headlights it's like wtff? What happened to the elegance of the cx9?
as a CX90 owner this car makes no sense. The CX90 is large! Huge for a 2 row. Why wouldn't you just get he 90 and leave the 3rd row down? Prices and engine choice are the same.....its......strange
What is even more odd… the 3rd row cup holders are also in the 70.
70 could be just an option of 90 with just 2 rows instead of a “new and standalone” model”
They did this due to search engine keywords. Two totally different customers shopping for two and three row. Adding another version with all the trims to an already trim heavy 90, would have been a search nightmare. Too much confusion.
I would prefer the storage compartment over the third row so I’m the target for this car. I also prefer the sportier front and rear design, the blacked out chrome as well as the red leather. So yeah this vehicle makes perfect sense.
@@MarshallJames-dh3gisweet! The 90 does have WAY too many trims. In my area it was really hard to find the top trim on the standard engine. Which trim interests you most?
It makes total sense. The CX-90 is a mediocre third row SUV. Taking the third row out makes the CX-70 a really great two row SUV
@@jstrig ha yea I’m guessing most buyers use the third row only occasionally. Much better options out there if you use a third row a lot. I hope they sell a ton of both. I’m rooting for Mazda
Your comments make absolutely no sense. You’re stating Mazda didn’t want to sell the CX-60 here in America because it was “apparently too close in size to the CX-5 here.” The only vehicle in the American line up that is not available in Europe is the CX-50. They have the CX-5 and CX-30 in Europe. So saying they didn’t sell the CX-60 in the Americas because it’s too close to the CX-5 makes no sense as it’s sold side by side with the CX-60 in other markets.
I found that the third row collapse not laying flat not as serious objection so the CX90 works. I am 74 and will Never use the Third row seat which would be folded day one , much like my 2016 sienna van.
I buy cars for the long run like 8 to 10 years. Looking into the inline 6 videos I have found this new design das placed all the servicing belts , chained at the back of the engine. Now the objection servicing may cause the entire engine to be removed when servicing is needed down the road. I have chosen to take a pass on CX 90 & CX 70. With all the room at the front of the engine why does engineering put it at the firewall side , this is plain stupid. But I really love this one and would have purchased it. BillB
without the 3rd row, the price should be adjusted accordingly. (thinking of Tesla Model Y, thousands of dollars more for adding the 3rd row)
You do get more standard kit on the 70 than you do for the comparable trims in the 90 so there’s that.
What Mazda failed to understand, or accept, is that some of us want a bench seat (3 position) in the middle row of the CX-90 at the upper trim levels.
That alone would have simplified their marketing/order/mfg. process saving them a lot of $$.
Everyone was hoping that the CX 70 would be smaller with better handling dynamics. Mazda's solution, a full size 70 with a trailered antique sports car.
Empty nesters with hobbies rejoice!
At 9:15 mark, showing 3 competitors, X5, Rx, and Grand Cherokee, all 6-8" shorter than the Cx70 makes the point exactly. Cx70 is too long to compete with these cars. Mazda was lazy here. They even announced a shorter Cx80 for Europe that they could have made in a 2 row version.
Yeah, it's like they only carried out 75% of the original plan.
How does it not compete? It’s a two row SUV which is a very specific search for certain people. They decided to be the best in a segment and beat them in price by TENS OF THOUSANDS of dollars. 😆 and it looks cooler than the 90.
@MarshallJames-dh3gi Because any 3rd row can be folded down and if it were shorter it would be lighter, handle better and cost thousands less. This is closer in size to the X7 than the X5. Not to mention the 15" size gap to the Cx50.
Looked at both yesterday. The CX-90 has better rebates and % rates than the CX-70. Since I do not need a third roll. Makes better since just get a CX-90 with better financing (aka lower costs) than a CX-70. If the rebates and rates where the same I would go for a CX-70.
70's now have 0% 36 mos, 1.9% 60 mos. (not sure what for 72) and a $1,500 rebate. Got one last week.
Empty nesters Or young millennials with dual income and 2 dogs and no kids!
Its not the biggest* 2 row.... its the longest.. not taller or wider than competitors
Still waiting for all these clever youtude, just one to review the 70&90 trunk with the privacy rollershutter cover on.
Seems everyone is so excited about the drop down mechanism of the rear seats.
Not a single youtude bothered to pull the rollershutter so we can see how the parcel shelf look like closed.
The car didn't have one on the first drive so......
@@brianroskelly2177 it's right there on 4:45
@@lanla6838z Oh oops. Wait for a full review then. Gotta keep you on your toes.
@@brianroskelly2177 yeah pls do both CX70&90 for comparison. The 90 will obviously be shorter but the 70 has quite a bit of trunk to cover.
I know on the CX60 the cover hooks on to the tailgate.
The problem is, none of the changes outside the loss in practicality of the bench seat are out of the realm of a wrap job or handy owner who gets the right black bits from a pick and pull or from Mazda.
Sure, if you want to spend hours or thousands…..
The car is nice in design except the rear of the car!! It looks like someone's brain got bigger!!
I think this is great, and if the 79 came out first and the 90 later, we’d all be saying why isn’t the 90 bigger
Ive seen other videos about the CX-70. Why Mazda chose such a depressing location/landscape for their newish SUV?
I think it was pretty nice! Did you see my shot at 8:52?
It's interior is also identical to the CX60.
Edsel
It is a mommy mobile. It looks like a minivan. If they wanted something sportier, they should have actually made it sportier rather than removing a row, change some colors, and mailing it home.
Mazda should and never get rid of that red paint. I love it to this day even though I don’t have a master anymore and it’s got to be their number one seller.
Why do people think they need a third row. Your kids will out grow it fast. I can see it for the cargo alone