Notes: mazda CX-50 & CX-70
June 8, 2026
Rory CarrollFor years, my go-to recommendation for a small car was the Mazda 3, and my go-to recommendation for a mid-size crossover was the Mazda CX-5. Both of them felt like affordable, reliable, efficient options that prioritized a fun driving experience. It’s been a long time since I’ve driven a Mazda and I’ve been pleasantly surprised to see Mazdas selling well while moving up market, a strategy that I had my doubts about.
Mazda CX-70
I know the difference between a car that is not for me and a car that I would not recommend to someone else. The CX-70, is, somewhat shockingly, in the latter category. It looks great, the interior is very solid. There’s nothing disqualifyingly awful about the UI/UX. But the transmission programming is really bad.
It feels like the torque converter is too slow to engage and the transmission is unsure of what it’s supposed to be doing. The experience is just lurchy and inconsistent. It takes so much effort to stay in the powerband that I think the average consumer would notice it. The engine itself is…somewhat lacking in refinement, which doesn’t help.
The steering is good but the lane-keeping is way too aggressive. Driving on snow-covered roads at speed was nerve-wracking as I waited for the system to introduce jarring and unexpected steering inputs that were more “induce a slide” than “gently correct course.” Turning it off was more of a process than it should have been.
I really enjoyed sliding the CX-90 around in the snow earlier in the winter, and I was expecting a similar experience from the CX-70, seeing as how it’s basically just a two-row version of the CX-90. But driving it in the snow and on dry pavement, its faults were apparent, and I think you’d be in the same boat with a CX-90. I believe this stuff is mostly a software/calibration issue, and thus fixable, but it should be fixed.
Mazda CX-50
The CX-50, with its little bulldog stance, looked really promising as a way to spend some time sliding around on snow-covered roads, but it was not to be.
I spent a long time trying to defeat the traction control because if there’s a crossover that looks like it wants to go sliding around in the snow, the CX-50 is it. Unfortunately, that’s not possible unless you’re willing to remove a fuse, which I don’t usually do with borrowed cars. Usually when there’s no way to turn things all the way off, I assume that there’s some fundamental flaw with the car’s handling that would render it unsafe without the electronics. I don’t imagine Mazda would let a car out of the factory with dangerous handling characteristics, but it really does render the CX-50 less compelling for me (and about 38 other consumers).
With a conventional automatic transmission that isn’t exactly eager to slingshot you up the road, it’s not quick. But otherwise, it’s all there. But, the CX-50 looks great, carries kids and skis fine, and is ultimately a worthy alternative to the CR-V and the RAV4 (provided you don’t need or want a hybrid; the CX-5 Hybrid isn’t due until 2027ish). That’s what’s really being offered here and I don’t think the average person will care that it’s not drift-enabled.
One response to “Notes: mazda CX-50 & CX-70”
-
I want to like both of these and I want them slammed with TE37s. But also, it seems like Mazda is turning its back on Zoom Zoom.
Recent Posts
All Posts
June 5, 2026
June 4, 2026
June 4, 2026
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.