Mazda CX-70: Why you’d get one over a nearly identical CX-90

We suspect that the Mazda CX-90 is, for nearly all of our enthusiast-minded — not to mention highly intelligent and super good-looking — readers, the best three-row SUV on the market today. Think Mazda handling. Now add an inline-six and rear-wheel-drive. The CX-90 is every bit as glorious as you imagine that combination to be. The two-row CX-70 was supposed to be all that and more so, because everyone assumed it was going to be shorter, lighter, and even more tossable. But as we saw at the CX-70’s static reveal, it’s essentially identical to the CX-90, just without the third row. They even cost the same. Nevertheless, there are the smallest of differences, and here’s why you might want to choose the CX-70 anyway.

The Boring Old Specs

Let’s get the requisite info out of the way. The CX-70 and CX-90 have the same sheetmetal, and beneath the skin they’re identical. Both ride on Mazda’s RWD Large Platform chassis. Both have three engine options:

• PHEV: 2.5-liter inline-four and 68kW electric motor plug-in hybrid making a combined 323 horsepower, 369 lb-ft of torque on premium fuel (319 hp on regular fuel)
• Turbo: 3.3-liter hybrid turbo inline-six making 280 horsepower, 332 lb-ft of torque
• Turbo S: 3.3-liter hybrid turbo inline-six making 340 horsepower, 369 lb-ft of torque @ 2,000-4,500 rpm on premium fuel (319 hp, 369 lb-ft @ 3,500 rpm on regular fuel)

Thou shall find no CVTs here. All have 8-speed automatic. Obviously, for enthusiasts the straight-six is the one to get. We’ve heard good things about the 280-horse variant from Mazda engineers, but Mazda has not made one available for testing. We’ve only had the chance to drive the 340-horse version, and it’s a firecracker.

Driving Impressions

It drives just as brilliantly as the CX-90 we tested last year. Acceleration can be described as just short of blistering, which is still bordering on irresponsible for a midsize SUV (it’s not even considered full-size in today’s skewed classifications). No one will ever feel like they’re struggling to merge or pass.

What’s far more impressive is how it handles, with a double-wishbone front suspension and multi-link rear. It blows the CX-9 that it replaces out of the water, and sticks to the road even better than the smaller and lighter CX-5. The steering is direct and precise — not as direct and precise as a Miata’s, but the fact that one can even make that comparison speaks volumes. The body rolls far less than the CX-9 or CX-5’s.

This is perhaps the best test of all for any car: when heading up (and back down) a long, winding, touge-style mountain road, do you feel nervous or excited? In a normal, boaty SUV the reaction is trepidation because you know it’s going to take a lot of work to maneuver the beast through the hairpins. Perhaps there’s a bit of frustration too, that you’re not in a more fun car. With the CX-70, any worries evaporate, replaced by the same eagerness you’d feel if you were behind the wheel of a sports car.

The fact that Mazda has made an SUV of this size and weight drive like it does feels like a violation of the laws of physics. Both the CX-70 and CX-90 measure 200.8 inches long, 84.9 inches wide. Both have 122.8-inch wheelbases. The CX-70 Turbo and Turbo S weigh 4,709 and 4,863 pounds, respectively. The CX-90 Turbo and Turbo S weigh 4,709 and 4,899 pounds, respectively.

Mazda CX-70 and CX-90 Differences

In short, the two cars have the exact same dimensions. Only the CX-70 Turbo S saves about 36 pounds of mass. Other than the number of seats, that’s difference number one.

The second difference, which may matter to JNC readers who are towing project or race cars, is the CX-70’s trailer hitch view. A useful feature for lining up the tow hitch with trailer tongue, it displays on the center screen a top-down view of the hitch from a camera on the liftgate. This feature is found on the CX-70 Turbo Premium Plus and higher trims, but is not available on the CX-90 in any trim yet.

Both the CX-70 and CX-90 have a towing mode that tightens up the center diff to dampen the yaw and thus help stabilize the steering when pulling a trailer. The standard towing capacity is 3,500 pounds, but CX-70 Turbo Premium trims and up have a towing package that includes a larger transmission cooler, upping capacity to 5,000 pounds.

As a side note, in Asia and Europe the similar CX-80’s towing capacity is 2,500 kg (5,512 pounds) and a Mazda spokesperson confirmed that the equipment is exactly the same, so it seems Mazda is sandbagging the figure in the US knowing that some owners will ignore the limit. Of course, we were just stoked to see that the trailer used in Mazda’s tow demo was the 1967 Cosmo Sport from Mazda North America’s heritage basement.

The third difference is cosmetic. With the CX-70, Mazda was aiming for a sportier look, so it has a revised front fascia with better looking “intakes” flanking the sides. There’s also more blacked out trim in areas where the CX-90 would flash chrome. Finally, there are three colors available on the CX-70 that aren’t offered on the CX-90: Polymetal Gray, Melted Copper, and Zircon Sand.

Finally, beneath the cargo floor the CX-70 has some additional storage compartments where the CX-90’s seats fold into. And that’s it for the differences.

So, Why?

That’s the million dollar question. Why would Mazda come out with two cars with two different model names, when the main difference is the number of rows? Most companies simply offer the third row as an option without changing the model name, like with the BMW X5. At most, they might add a suffix to the name, like the Lexus RX350 and RX350L.

The answer we got from a Mazda spokesperson is that Mazda found in their research that having a CX-90 with two different seating configurations was confusing to the customer. As a small company, they’re trying to cover as many bases as they can without spending a lot of money developing different models. The CX-90 is meant to appeal to large families, while the CX-70 is meant to appeal to buyers with a more active lifestyle. And for those customers, Mazda can brag about the CX-70’s cavernous cargo hold.

You might think companies listen to customers, but by customers, they often mean dealers, who are really the ones buying the cars. And dealers want things they can easily explain to customers as they shovel these things out the showroom doors. They’re also competing against every other brand’s dealerships, whose cars are getting ever larger. It’s not a satisfying answer, but few questions have them these days.

Ultimately, we’d probably choose the CX-70 because we’re more likely to use the Trailer View Mode than a third row. Also, we think the revised nose looks better, and 36 pounds is 36 pounds. It’s disappointing that we can’t get a lighter car on Mazda’s brilliant FR platform, but the CX-70 is already a better curve tackler than many sedans and a more fun driver’s car than a massive SUV has any right to be. On top of that, the interior is as nice as any luxury branded SUV that costs $10,000 more. It could use a diet but it still has Mazda DNA, and that’s a pretty good deal for enthusiasts these days.