2025 Mazda CX-90/2025 Mazda CX-70
Prices As Tested: CX-90 @ $59,700 CAD/CX-70 @ $62,300 CAD
Colours: Machine Grey Metallic (CX-90)/Soul Red Crystal Metallic (CX-70)
When the Mazda CX-90 came out for the 2024 model year I was impressed. It was a polished piece of engineering that elevated the mid/full sized offering from the company. It also offered a third row that, while not ideal, worked when you needed it to. In the meantime, you could always just fold said third row in to the floor and make use of the extra space. Imagine my surprise then when the CX-70 showed up not long after. It is effectively a CX-90 without the third row. This gives you a bit of extra in-floor storage that isn’t taken up by the third-row seats but otherwise it offers little advantage over the CX-70. Add to this there are no cost savings in choosing the CX-70 (in fact, it costs a bit more in equivalent spec with it’s three row sibling) so it left me with a question – what exactly is the point of the CX-70?
When you start working your way through the builder tool on the Mazda website it becomes even clearer how close these vehicles are in every measurable way. Exterior dimensions, drivetrain and option groups are identical or very close. Price points are equally consistent. Despite pounding my head against my office wall, I couldn’t come up with one good reason why you’d buy the CX-70 over the CX-90. There’s nothing inherently wrong with the CX-70, it’s a great car. However, when you factor in the loss of that third row (no matter how rarely you might use it) and how little the two cars differ, I just can’t fathom a reason one would opt for the CX-70. Folding the third row effectively makes the CX-90 identical to the 70… I just don’t understand.
If you dig real deep, I’m sure you could find very specific differences in things like trim bits, interior colour and minor features that differentiate these two cars. To the average buyer however, I don’t think that really matters. The normal car buyer is going to look at the the two cars, compare prices and obvious equipment and pick the CX-90 because of the increased utility.
I’m not being a negative nelly as related to the CX-70. It’s a great car as I’ve said. I just don’t think it’s necessary. I’ve been wrong before as I wasn’t sure if there was room in the market for both the CX-5 and the CX-50 and they’ve both sold really well. I guess I should leave the door open for the idea that Mazda might know more about their customers than I do. Imagine such a thing.
