Business

2026 Mazda CX-70 vs. CX-90: Should You Pay More for 3-Rows, or Stick With Two?

By Kristen Brown Autoblog

Updated July 4, 2026 1:16 PM

Typically, when an automaker offers a two-row and a three-row version of a midsize crossover, they follow a highly predictable recipe. The two-row model is usually chopped down-shorter, lighter, with a tighter wheelbase that makes it a bit easier to squeeze into standard suburban parking spots or maneuver through a crowded downtown garage. Think Honda Passport versus Pilot, or Volkswagen Atlas Cross Sport versus the standard Atlas. It's a formula that has worked for decades because it gives buyers a distinct choice in physical footprint.

But Mazda threw out the traditional automotive rulebook here. With the CX-70 and CX-90, they utilized the exact same large-vehicle platform, stretched across the exact same 122.8-inch wheelbase. From the front bumper to the exhaust tips, they occupy the exact same physical footprint on the asphalt. The CX-70 isn't a smaller vehicle by any stretch of the imagination. It's literally a CX-90 with the third-row seats deleted and a sportier wardrobe. If you park them side by side in a driveway, you quickly realize they are structural mirror images of one another. Is one, then, theoretically better than the other? Yes, depending on who you ask. Let's explore this for a bit.

We already know they're the same size, but let's talk about it anyway

When you dive into the dimensions, these structural twins become even harder to tell apart on paper. Because they share a body shell, both vehicles also share the same suspension architecture, meaning they track down the highway with the same composed, upscale ride quality. The longitudinal engine layout pushes the front wheels further forward, giving both SUVs remarkably athletic handling dynamics for their size, virtually eliminating that sloppy, top-heavy cornering sensation common in large family haulers.

The interior data points continue to mirror each other almost perfectly. Because the cabin structures are identical, the headroom (39.7 inches), rear legroom (39.4 inches), and shoulder room (58.1 inches) in the first two rows don't change by a single millimeter, whether you choose the 70 or the 90. Total maximum cargo volume with all rear seats folded flat stays effectively identical as well, hovering right around 74 to 75 cubic feet depending on the specific option boxes checked. For a shopper trying to decide based purely on performance metrics or front-seat comfort, it's a complete wash.

The third row is literally the only difference. Here, passengers have 31.4 inches of legroom to use, and that's… Not much. Therefore, I can only recommend the CX-90 to people who rarely have people back there, and only plan to use it when little Timmy wants to bring a friend over to play Minecraft and the other seats are taken. For adults, it's definitely not a comfortable spot to be in, despite the cupholders, dedicated A/C vents, USB-C charging ports, and porthole-style window.

Both the CX-70 and CX-90 have the same engines to choose from

When it comes to what's powering these twins, Mazda kept things perfectly synchronized. You might expect a two-row model to feature a smaller base engine, but both the CX-70 and CX-90 offer the same trio of sophisticated, rear-wheel-drive-biased powertrains. The standard setup for both is a silky-smooth 3.3-liter turbocharged inline-six, pushing out a confident 280 horsepower and 332 pound-feet of torque on regular unleaded fuel. It's an engine architecture usually reserved for high-end European luxury brands, giving both SUVs an effortless, premium feel when you step on the gas.

If you crave a bit more muscle, both models allow you to upgrade to the high-output "Turbo S" variant of that same inline-six, which cranks things up to a hefty 340 horsepower and 369 pound-feet of torque on premium fuel. For the eco-conscious crowd, both nameplates also offer a Plug-in Hybrid (PHEV) powertrain that marries a 2.5-liter four-cylinder engine with an electric motor to generate a combined 323 horsepower. Because the hardware is a mirror image, you get the same standard all-wheel-drive grip, the same slick eight-speed automatic transmission, and an identical 5,000-pound maximum towing capacity on both vehicles when properly equipped.

Both are perfectly suited for families

Where these two vehicles actually diverge is how they choose to utilize that massive interior footprint. The CX-90 is explicitly optimized for people moving, giving you the choice of a second-row bench or captain's chairs to comfortably fit up to eight passengers. Like I said before, the third row is admittedly a bit tight for tall adults on a cross-country road trip, but it is an absolute lifesaver for parents dealing with bulky rear-facing car seats, neighborhood carpools, or visiting grandparents. It treats the vehicle's rear half like an adaptable passenger lounge. It's worth noting, too, that the doors on both are large and open wide-making loading and unloading kids or installing car seats insanely easy.

On the flip side, the CX-70 uses that missing third row to maximize pure cargo utility and everyday convenience. Because there is no extra bench to worry about, Mazda added handy remote-folding buttons near the tailgate to instantly drop the second row forward without making you walk around to the side doors. More importantly, they cleverly repurposed the empty floor cavity where the third row would normally fold away into deep, hidden under-floor storage compartments. This is a massive win for parents or adventurers who want a dedicated space to tuck away strollers, muddy hiking gear, or shopping bags completely out of sight.

You're obviously going to pay more if you get the third row

When it comes to the window sticker, navigating the math gets a little tricky for the average consumer. Because Mazda does not offer the CX-70 in the lowest, entry-level base trim packages that you can find on the CX-90, its starting price can actually look significantly higher on paper when you browse a dealership lot. However, when you compare identical, spec-for-spec trim levels side by side, the three-row CX-90 commands roughly a $1,000 to $1,500 premium for those extra seats. You are essentially paying a small, direct subscription fee for that third row.

If you're a visual learner, here's what the price ranges look like:

Mazda CX-70: $42,250–$56,870
Mazda CX-70 PHEV: $44,250–$47,450
Mazda CX-90: $40,830–$59,100
Mazda CX-90 PHEV: $50,695–$58,700

Final thoughts: You just have to decide whether or not you really need a third row

Ultimately, deciding between the two comes down to an honest assessment of your daily life and how you plan to use the vehicle over the next few years. You should stick with the CX-70 if you are certain you don't need that extra seating capacity and you lean toward a darker, sportier look with tons of hidden trunk utility. It saves you a bit of upfront cash, keeps you from carrying around heavy, unused hardware, and gives you a layout that feels dialed in for daily errands, weekend camping trips, and luggage-heavy airport runs.

But if you have small kids, plan to grow your family, or frequently find yourself volunteering for soccer carpools and group road trips, paying the small premium for the CX-90 is a no-brainer. Even if that third row stays folded flat ninety percent of the time, having that passenger flexibility in a vehicle that takes up the same amount of garage space is incredibly smart. It acts as a cheap insurance policy for a busy family, ensuring you will never outgrow your vehicle just because an extra friend needs a ride home from practice.

This story was originally published July 4, 2026 at 1:00 PM.