Believe it or not, you haven’t seen this car before. It’s the new 2025 Mazda CX-70, and if you’re thinking it looks an awful lot like the CX-90 crossover we first saw last year, you aren’t wrong. Think of this as Mazda’s take on a large two-row crossover, emphasis on large. It’s here to provide a little showroom diversity and to court the small handful of buyers who wouldn’t, under any circumstances, buy a three-row crossover.
Everyone expected the Mazda CX-70 to be a wider version of the CX-60 two-row crossover sold in Europe, Asia, and other regions that aren’t North America. Nope. Instead, the CX-70 is essentially a two-row CX-90, a three-row crossover we’ve seen before. This thing:
Now, the CX-90 is pretty great, but it’s also pretty big. Those expecting a smaller two-row crossover are going to be disappointed. Compared to the popular Mazda CX-5, and even the existing two-row CX-50 in Mazda’s lineup, the CX-70 is a different beast entirely. Sure, the new car’s longitudinal platform has something to do with it, but the CX-5 and CX-50 are compact crossovers while the CX-70 is huge.
To differentiate the CX-70 from the CX-90, Mazda’s pasted on the sportiness, or perhaps the stereotypical American sportiness, with hexagonal grille mesh, fake vents accompanying real air curtains in the front bumper, rakish wheel designs, and more faux vents in the rear bumper. I wonder how many Pontiacs there are in Hiroshima? The really amazing takeaways are simple — one, this thing still looks leagues better than much of the competition, and two, the CX-70 is nearly indistinguishable on the outside from a three-row CX-90. Indeed, Mazda has confirmed that the CX-70 is “the same basic size as [CX-]90,” although the CX-70 is “a teeny bit lighter” due to the lack of third-row seats and third-row HVAC.
Yes, Mazda’s positioning this thing as a sports bus, although without details on engineering changes, the tweaks we can see are largely cosmetic. We’re talking about an optional red leather interior and dark red trim contrasting the CX-90’s top-spec off-white leather and wood. It looks a bit like of set of Etnies I used to have as a child, but that’s the appeal.
Mind you, ditching the third row comes with an upgrade in cargo flexibility, namely a massive cubby area beneath the cargo area’s false floor that Mazda claims is somewhat weatherproof. In the words of a Mazda USA representative, “you can put cool drinks back there and ice, and it’s not going to ruin it.”
As for powertrains, you get exactly the same choices you do in the CX-90 — a 3.3-liter turbocharged mild hybrid inline-six, and a 2.5-liter four-cylinder plug-in hybrid powertrain. Expect performance figures to be, in Mazda’s words, “directly comparable” to those of the CX-90, from power to fuel economy to PHEV electric range.
Unsurprisingly, because the CX-70 is essentially the same vehicle as a CX-90, it gets a ton of available kit, from a Bose stereo to heated and ventilated rear seats to wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. New to the CX-70 is a neat active safety feature called unresponsive driver support, which will put out a series of warning chimes if it detects a period of no input through the pedals and/or steering wheel. If those chimes go unattended to, the CX-70 will slowly bring itself to a halt, hopefully before any mayhem occurs. It’s a promising idea, even if coming to a stop in a live lane of traffic seems sketchy.
The Mazda CX-70 looks good, but also seems like a head-scratcher. How many people would go with it when the CX-90 is almost the same vehicle with an extra row of seats? Normally, three-row and two-row vehicles different enough to have their own model names have substantially different bodystyles, like the Volkswagen Atlas and Atlas Cross Sport, or the Jeep Grand Cherokee L and shorter Grand Cherokee. Instead of chopping out noticeable length, Mazda claims to be positioning the CX-70 as a psychological play for customers who, for whatever reason, don’t want a third row of seats. Still, more choice is a good thing, and it shouldn’t be terribly difficult for Mazda to adjust production depending on demand. Expect pricing and full specifications for the 2025 Mazda CX-70 to be released in about a month, when we’ll see just how much like the CX-90 it really is.
Now has anyone seen a Cosmo around here?
(Photo credits: Griffin Riley)
Support our mission of championing car culture by becoming an Official Autopian Member.
-
The 2024 Mazda CX-90 Aims A Sweet Inline-Six Directly At The Lexus RX
-
2024 Mazda CX-90 PHEV Review: A Big SUV Takes A Big Swing At Luxury
-
The Inline-Six 2024 Mazda CX-90 Somehow Has 11 Trim Levels. We Broke Them Down For You
-
Bose’s Solution For Big Bass Sound In The FD Mazda RX-7 Looked Disturbingly Like Your Guts
-
The Legendary ‘MacGruber’ Mazda Miata Is Up For Auction, So It’s Time To Find Out What Provenance Does To A Car’s Value
Got a hot tip? Send it to us here. Or check out the stories on our homepage.
“It’s a promising idea, even if coming to a stop in a live lane of traffic seems sketchy.”
Can we stop casually throwing shade at these harm reduction systems? If a driver is unresponsive…. Not controlling the vehicle…. I damn sure want that vehicle brought to a safe stop rather than let it careen into things, exit the roadway, etc.
Next time you’re driving… take your hands off the wheel and see how long it takes for your car to exit the lane. “Seems sketchy” indeed.
What we need is more education about these systems and more drivers aware that cars can brings themselves to a safe stop. So the next time a car stops in an unexpected place, we think about helping our fellow motorist.
Maybe this topic needs a deep dive into the different systems, protocols, and real-world outcomes.
I am liking this, but doubtful they will give me what I am looking for which is more rear leg room. I am a sedan driver, being tugged towards a strong 5 seat SUV/CUV, assuming that the drive characteristics and fuel economy are not too bad. We already have a big 3 row, the Atlas, in the driveway. A PHEV 5 seat SUV is a nice option and because it didn’t move down a size, I might be able to fit. Sure, at 6’4″ I can cram into a CX-5, but it isn’t comfortable and there is zero rear legroom. The CX-90 is still tight in the back when adjusted for me up front but might be passable. By not sloping the rear, I would still get all of the storage area. I would prefer this to start a few thousand less than the 90 but I doubt there will be a big delta. Cars like the Volv XC90, Explorer, CX-90, etc are all on the smaller side of the mid-size 3 row segment, third row only really works for kids just out of a car seat and until maybe12-13 years old. Even then, if you fill the seats, the cargo area is limited to zilch so it isn’t a good road tripper either. I get that the 90 at least has an extra set of seats if needed but then again, the 70 should have a bench that can fit 3 across in a pinch, still useful.
Surely a person who doesn’t want a third row would rather have a car that doesn’t *look* like it has a third row…? Who’s paying $50k to show up to the golf course or restaurant or whatever in something that looks like they just dropped the kids off at school??
With the liftover height being the same, I imagine the rear cargo floor is in exactly the same spot, which means the added cargo room is all under-floor, where you can’t access it without unloading all your junk anyway. So what is it really useful for? If they used that space instead for a giant extra battery to give it twice as much electric range, I would find that much more useful than a random, oddly shaped underfloor plastic storage bin.
If I didn’t need the third row, but I wanted the big Mazda anyway, I would just get the CX-90 because it would work exactly the same for all intents and purposes, while probably having better resale value.
Maybe they could put a full-sized spare tire in that new-found space?
Mazda is apparently phobic of selling mid sized vehicles in the U.S. Market and now has four soft-roaders crowded into the compact and full size classes while its giant CX-60 sized hole remains.
It’s not just Mazda though, as maybe Automakers have decided there’s not enough profit in non-luxury 2-row midsizers so the market is shrinking: Murano, Edge, Passport, and Blazer are the only 2024 models that come to mind and both the Ford and NIssan are afterthoughts.
Mazda offers the most bewildering array of SUVs here in Australia
CX-5
CX-60
CX-70
CX-80
CX-90
The CX-70 and 80 are confirmed for Australia, but yet to go on sale. It will be interesting to see how the prices overlap on these.
I would have thought the CX-50 would be a good entry for the Australian market, but now that I think about it I don’t think they offer the CX-50 in any RHD markets. Plus the CX-5 is already still a top 10 seller so it’s safe.
The CX-50 would appeal for sure in Oz, but as you say unfortunately its not available in RHD.
Something must have went wrong because this is embarrassing. They should have made this a tier of the CX-90 and reintroduced the CX-70 when it was ready to actually compete.
Assuming the CX-70 is noticeably cheaper than the -90, this guy. What do I need a third row of seats for? I’d much rather have permanent mega, wagon-like cargo space without compromise.
TBH I doubt the removed 3rd row and hvac ducting will lower the price more than a grand, if that.
Having sold my 3 row suv for a Tesla Model 3, I gotta say thats a criminal amount of storage space under the trunk floor, especially when you consider that there was once a 3rd row. What else would you ever do with that pickle ball set if not for the clever design of a CX-70? I dont expect a cavernous hole like EVs have, but just wow.
CTRL C
CTRL V
– 2nd row
print
As dumb as it is to bother being a separate model, I prefer this solution over “coupe-ifying” the design a la Atlas Cross Sport, my new champion for ugliest mainstream vehicle now that the Equinox is being redesigned.
If you’re going to drive a gigantic hulking mass of a vehicle, it makes sense that it would do it’s best to hold people, stuff, or both. I think it’s a bit silly that a system for the third row couldn’t be designed to just have it be removable? But whatever.
I was hoping for something the size of a Lincoln Nautilus or regular RX350 (not L) or Volvo XC60, but by the same token having commonality with the CX-90 isn’t a terrible plan. The dark trim is a plus. Mazda is a small manufacturer, so I’m glad they’re willing compete in this niche.
It’s still ony list for next possible vehicle, along worth the aforementioned XC60. Luxury PHEV crossover is right in my intended wheelhouse in a few years.
Everyone seems distracted by the length of this, but the real story is that it is still not wide enough. There is soooo much room in American lanes that are going underutilized. This should be at minimum 96′ wide. /S
Mazda H1
I was really hoping for a model between the CX90 and the CX50, with greater plugin range and shorter wheelbase/shorter length- something similar to how BMW positions the X5 and X7, essentially a RWD based CX5 sized vehicle.
This doesn’t really fit the bill for me, it’s just too long and big for what I’m looking for, and I’m really disappointed because this was on my short list.