Topic: 2025 Mazda CX-70

[Blueprint]

In reference to Blueprint, being discussed over here :

https://www.autos.ca/forum/index.php?topic=121697.msg1668682#new

Thanks! I was finding the crickets here funny...

[sailor723]

CX-5 is around 180" long, CX-50  185 and the CX-90 is variously listed as anywhere from 200.7 to 202 (euro vs NA bumpers maybe?)

It seems to me that there is plenty of room in their model lineup for a mid sized entry in the low 190's.

[Blueprint]

They even kept the cupholder and armrest space for the 3rd row.  Like, wtf.

The 3rd row 60/40 bench is already used in some trims of the CX-90 (more availability of the bench in the US vs Canada), so it's basically not installing the 3rd row and bolting in the insert and cover - a strictly bolt-on operation. All other parts like the rear cabin "walls" are the same as you point out (wondering if the USB-C outlets are still there...).

At this point, you almost wonder why they went to the trouble of making different bumper covers for this "model".

[JohnnyMac]

I feel like we all had super high hopes for the CX-90 & CX-70, especially with the 6 cylinder engine, but after it got into the hands of reviewers it fell short of all our expectations.  Not to mention there has been a few teething issues with early CX-90 options. 

I get why Mazda didn't make a shorter version for the CX-70, it's 1,000% due to the cost of having a completely different model.  It's exponentially cheaper to just rejig the interior a bit and call it the 70.  But as everyone has stated, why exactly would one choose the 70 over the 90 when all you have to do with the 90 is fold the seats down and you have a 70.  Seems to make more sense to just buy the 3rd row and keep them folded down until you need to use them. 

[sailor723]

I feel like we all had super high hopes for the CX-90 & CX-70, especially with the 6 cylinder engine, but after it got into the hands of reviewers it fell short of all our expectations.  Not to mention there has been a few teething issues with early CX-90 options. 

I get why Mazda didn't make a shorter version for the CX-70, it's 1,000% due to the cost of having a completely different model.  It's exponentially cheaper to just rejig the interior a bit and call it the 70.  But as everyone has stated, why exactly would one choose the 70 over the 90 when all you have to do with the 90 is fold the seats down and you have a 70.  Seems to make more sense to just buy the 3rd row and keep them folded down until you need to use them.

Exactly!  Even the underfloor storage looks to be so far forward from the hatch as to be very inconvenient to use.  Really don't see much reason for this thing to exist. 

[Blueprint]

I feel like we all had super high hopes for the CX-90 & CX-70, especially with the 6 cylinder engine, but after it got into the hands of reviewers it fell short of all our expectations.  Not to mention there has been a few teething issues with early CX-90 options. 

I get why Mazda didn't make a shorter version for the CX-70, it's 1,000% due to the cost of having a completely different model.  It's exponentially cheaper to just rejig the interior a bit and call it the 70.  But as everyone has stated, why exactly would one choose the 70 over the 90 when all you have to do with the 90 is fold the seats down and you have a 70.  Seems to make more sense to just buy the 3rd row and keep them folded down until you need to use them.

The shorter model already exists - the Euro CX-60, and has been on the market for two years now. Certification costs, yes, but no product development per se.

[OliverD]

I guess we'll have to see how the pricing shakes out. Seems to me they kinda followed the Atlas/Atlas Cross Sport model by making the 70 have "sportier" styling (hence the black trim and red interior).

[Blueprint]

This pic shows that the CX-60's narrower width comes from the straight fenders, track and wheel specs. Cabin appears to be the same. It still would have worked here.

[OliverD]

Or maybe they're leaving the door open to sell the CX-60 here too? Who knows.

[JohnnyMac]

I feel like we all had super high hopes for the CX-90 & CX-70, especially with the 6 cylinder engine, but after it got into the hands of reviewers it fell short of all our expectations.  Not to mention there has been a few teething issues with early CX-90 options. 

I get why Mazda didn't make a shorter version for the CX-70, it's 1,000% due to the cost of having a completely different model.  It's exponentially cheaper to just rejig the interior a bit and call it the 70.  But as everyone has stated, why exactly would one choose the 70 over the 90 when all you have to do with the 90 is fold the seats down and you have a 70.  Seems to make more sense to just buy the 3rd row and keep them folded down until you need to use them.

The shorter model already exists - the Euro CX-60, and has been on the market for two years now. Certification costs, yes, but no product development per se.

Is it made at the same factory as the CX-90? 

[Blueprint]

I feel like we all had super high hopes for the CX-90 & CX-70, especially with the 6 cylinder engine, but after it got into the hands of reviewers it fell short of all our expectations.  Not to mention there has been a few teething issues with early CX-90 options. 

I get why Mazda didn't make a shorter version for the CX-70, it's 1,000% due to the cost of having a completely different model.  It's exponentially cheaper to just rejig the interior a bit and call it the 70.  But as everyone has stated, why exactly would one choose the 70 over the 90 when all you have to do with the 90 is fold the seats down and you have a 70.  Seems to make more sense to just buy the 3rd row and keep them folded down until you need to use them.

The shorter model already exists - the Euro CX-60, and has been on the market for two years now. Certification costs, yes, but no product development per se.

Is it made at the same factory as the CX-90?

Yes, both are made at the Hofu plant in Japan.

[PJungnitsch]

OK, that decision makes even less sense now

[OliverD]

I still don't entirely understand why Mazda has both the CX-5 and CX-50 considering they are so close in size, and now this. It's all a bit perplexing.

[bridgecity]

I still don't entirely understand why Mazda has both the CX-5 and CX-50 considering they are so close in size, and now this. It's all a bit perplexing.

Agreed.  Two compacts that are essentially the same size, and two mid-size that are exactly the same size.

[Great_Big_Abyss]

I still don't entirely understand why Mazda has both the CX-5 and CX-50 considering they are so close in size, and now this. It's all a bit perplexing.

Agreed.  Two compacts that are essentially the same size, and two mid-size that are exactly the same size.

The CX-50 at least is markedly different from the CX-5 that it is a unique vehicle.  Wider, more aggressive styling, with 'off-road' vibes, whatever that means.  Also, different suspension and steering. 

[OliverD]

I still don't entirely understand why Mazda has both the CX-5 and CX-50 considering they are so close in size, and now this. It's all a bit perplexing.

Agreed.  Two compacts that are essentially the same size, and two mid-size that are exactly the same size.

The CX-50 at least is markedly different from the CX-5 that it is a unique vehicle.  Wider, more aggressive styling, with 'off-road' vibes, whatever that means.  Also, different suspension and steering.

And at least in Canada, only available in higher trims that makes the price of entry much higher than the CX-5's.

[JohnnyMac]

OK, that decision makes even less sense now

That was my thinking.  Maybe if they were produced in different plants I could maybe see the cost associated with switching the line for the smaller style.

[PJungnitsch]

I still don't entirely understand why Mazda has both the CX-5 and CX-50 considering they are so close in size, and now this. It's all a bit perplexing.

Agreed.  Two compacts that are essentially the same size, and two mid-size that are exactly the same size.

The CX-50 at least is markedly different from the CX-5 that it is a unique vehicle.  Wider, more aggressive styling, with 'off-road' vibes, whatever that means.  Also, different suspension and steering.

It's like there's two entirely different product development teams at Mazda

1) We want a slightly more off roady CX-5
OK, we need a whole new body/chassis/suspension!

2) We want a new model that slots between the CX-5/50 and the CX-90
OK, we can unbolt the rear seats, and....uh....new emblems!

[Blueprint]

I still don't entirely understand why Mazda has both the CX-5 and CX-50 considering they are so close in size, and now this. It's all a bit perplexing.

Agreed.  Two compacts that are essentially the same size, and two mid-size that are exactly the same size.

The CX-50 at least is markedly different from the CX-5 that it is a unique vehicle.  Wider, more aggressive styling, with 'off-road' vibes, whatever that means.  Also, different suspension and steering.

It's like there's two entirely different product development teams at Mazda

1) We want a slightly more off roady CX-5
OK, we need a whole new body/chassis/suspension!

2) We want a new model that slots between the CX-5/50 and the CX-90
OK, we can unbolt the rear seats, and....uh....new emblems!

 

[Great_Big_Abyss]

I still don't entirely understand why Mazda has both the CX-5 and CX-50 considering they are so close in size, and now this. It's all a bit perplexing.

Agreed.  Two compacts that are essentially the same size, and two mid-size that are exactly the same size.

The CX-50 at least is markedly different from the CX-5 that it is a unique vehicle.  Wider, more aggressive styling, with 'off-road' vibes, whatever that means.  Also, different suspension and steering.

It's like there's two entirely different product development teams at Mazda

1) We want a slightly more off roady CX-5
OK, we need a whole new body/chassis/suspension!

2) We want a new model that slots between the CX-5/50 and the CX-90
OK, we can unbolt the rear seats, and....uh....new emblems!

Also, manufacturing.  The CX-50 is built in Alabama.  CX-5 is still built in Hiroshima.  (perhaps that's why there's a constant soft glow coming from my driveway at night - I'm also wondering if my vasectomy was strictly necessary)(also - another correlation, after the 'snip', that's when I got rid of the Tundra, and got the CX-5.  Coincidence...?)