MM Review/Test-Drive : 2024 Mazda CX-90



















IN A NUTSHELL: Typical Mazda sport-orientation for those with a fairly large family.


I received a request from outside of CL for an evaluation of the latest 2024 Mazda CX-90, although I’ll share my opinions on it here in Car Chat with anyone in the forum that is interested in one.


OVERVIEW:

The CX90 is Mazda’s largest U.S.-market SUV, although, like most SUVs today, it uses a car-based crossover frame and design. It currently sits at the top of the Mazda SUV line-up, including the CX-30, the CX-5, the CX-50, and the CX-90….although a local Mazda dealership told me today that a new CX-70 or equivalent may (?) be in the works to replace the old CX-7 that was discontinued several years ago. It put into production, it would slot in between the CX-90 and the CX-50. Even so, the CX-90 is not a particularly large crossover on the outside, and, by today’s standards, can probably be considered medium-sized, along with many other competitors in this size-range.



TRIM-VERSIONS:

In the U.S. market, eight different gasoline versions are offered. Turbo Select Models start at $39,595, Turbo Preferred at $43,445, Turbo Preferred Plus at $45,900, Turbo Premium at $48,900, Turbo Premium Plus at $52,950, Turbo S at $51,750, Turbo S Premium at $56,450, and Turbo S Premium-Plus at $59,950. All gasoline versions come with an in-line 3.3L Skyactiv turbocharged in-line six, with 280 HP at 5000-6000 RPM, 332 ft-lbs. of torque at 2000-3500 RPM, and a Sport-Shift 8-speed automatic with paddle-shifters on the steering wheel. Yes, you heard that right, a traditional in-line six….Mazda being one of the very few automakers still offering that engine-configuration in the American market. All gasoline versions come with the RWD-biased i-ACTIV All-Wheel-Drive. There are three different extended-range/Plug-in-Hybrid versions…..PHEV Preferred at $49,945, PHEV Premium at $54,400, and PHEV Premium-Plus at $57.450. All hybrids use a non-turbo in-line 4 and a 68-Watt electric motor for a total of 323 HP at 6000 RPM and 369 ft-lbs. of torque at 4000 RPM…..slightly different power figures depending on regular or premium fuel. Hybrids use the same 8-speed automatic and All-Wheel-Drive system as the gasoline versions.


VERSION REVIEWED:

A gas-powered Turbo-Preferred in Gray with black interior, as I felt that the lower-trim versions gave the best values, although they lacked a few nice features like cooled/ventilated seats and a 360-degree camera-view. It listed for $46,215, although Mazda’s end-of-year incentive (which was part of the factory-sticker) knocked off $1000, for a list of $45,215.



EXTERIOR:

I generally like the handsome, fairly conservative styling of the CX-90, although the grille, like on many newer vehicles, is a little large for my tastes. The lines are tasteful, and, while the D-pillars are large enough to block at least a little of the rear-quarter vision, visibility is not seriously compromised like on some other over-styled crossovers. The doors are not classic Thunk-Solid when closing, but are solid-enough feeling not to give a feeling of cheapness. Mazda has a reputation for recently doing some excellent paint jobs, and the gorgeous Soul Red Crystal will knock your socks off. Most of the exterior sheet metal feels decently solid, although the hood has a light, tinny feel and shuts with a cheap-sound/feel. Some of the exterior trim-strips have a muted finish rather than bright chrome.



UNDERHOOD:

The aforementioned hood may feel cheap, but it has two nice gas struts to hold it up….no fumbling with an awkward prop-rod. An enormous gray plastic cover completely obscures the longitudinally-mounted in-line 6, but also has something the salesman showed me.......a little trick, and something I haven’t before. A small twist-off cap lever in front of the cover instantly unclips it, and you can easily remove the whole cover to get to many engine-components. Nifty feature….wish more vehicles had it. The battery, though, is in a terrible place…back on the far left, hidden behind another smaller black clip-off plastic cover, and partially-hidden under the firewall. Doing jump-starts (which can be risky for today’s computer-equipped vehicles to start with) is even more difficult with a design like this. The relatively few dipsticks/fluid-reservoirs/filler-caps are generally easily marked and accessible. Unlike most hybrids, there is little difference underhood between the gas and hybrid version, since the electric motor is not readily visible, except that the hybrid uses a different battery.



INTERIOR:

The interior of the CX-90 is generally a pleasant place to sit in and drive, although the seat-cushions in both the front and back are a little firmer than I would prefer. Several different colors of both Leather and Leatherette are available, depending on the CX-90 trim-version.....my test-vehicle had the Black Leather. The upholstery seems well-done and of high quality. The sunroof and its housing compromises some headroom for taller persons, but, at the lowest seat-cushion height in front, I had adequate room at 6’ 1” and a cap on. The padded materials and brushed-metal trim inside were well-done, well-fitted, and of nice-feeling quality……Mazda has recently gotten a reputation for not cutting corners inside. The stereo is quite good, as expected in this class. Most or all of the expected electronic functions expected today are available in the video-screen, except that the camera on the Preferred Trim-version lacks the 360-surround feature that I find quite useful when parking….you have to go to a higher trim-level to get that. The video screen itself has a somewhat vertical tacked-on look in the middle of the dash…but, even there, again, Mazda didn’t necessarily cut corners…it is as solidly attached as a rock, and doesn’t have the loose or creaky feel of some similar type of attachments. The steering wheel is a nice design, well-covered in leather, and feels comfortable to use. The dash-graphics and gauges are clear and easy to read, although the scroll-options in the video screen aren’t the easiest to decipher and use. The third-row seat, in back, like in most crossovers, is generally useful only for children or small adults….don’t try and stuff any NBA players back there LOL. But, even then, I’ve sen lots worse in terms of third-row-seat room. All in all, a generally nice interior.



CARGO AREA:

Because of the CX-90’s fairly conservative styling, the cargo area in back is reasonably well-shaped and roomy. The hatch-lid, of course, has the usual power-lift/lower buttons. Built-in strap-pulls on the back of the small third-row seats drop-fold both the headrests and the seats themself down for added space….the headrests flip back up when needed. A carpeted floor-cover panel unclips, pulls up, and jacking-tools for the full-size temporary spare tire are in a molded-foam compartment under the cover. Lift up the tool-compartment, and the temporary-spare itself is underneath, although it fits in somewhat tightly. The whole cargo area is generally well-finished for the price, with black carpet trim and what is usually expected in a vehicle of this price-class….although my test-vehicle did not seem to include a cargo-cover panel to hide contents in back from prying-eyes. Tinted windows, of course, also make some of those things less-visible.



ON THE ROAD:

On the road, the CX-90, though primarily a family-vehicle, exhibits a noticeable amount of the sport-orientation and driver-input that Mazdas have a reputation for. The engine warms to operating-temperature fairly quickly, even with the heater-fan blowing (which normally takes heat out of the engine to heat the cabin or defrost the windshield as the engine warms). The turbo in-line six produces enough power for most normal driving…certainly more than I typically use on a daily-basis. As is common in this class, there are several different drive-modes, with console-controls. The 8-speed automatic transmission generally shifts smoothly and quietly…the conventional fore/aft console-lever(with a side-motion for Park) is used for forward/reverse, and manual downshifting/upshifting with the steering-wheel paddles. The turning-radius is quite small for a vehicle this size (actually not much more than my own subcompact Buick Encore GX)……which, of course, helps with maneuverability and parking. Wind and engine-noise are generally well-controlled, and road-noise even on coarse surfaces is acceptable for my tastes, with the admittedly brand-new tires on my test-vehicle. Steering effort seems sport-oriented, and has a noticeable firmness, particularly at very low speeds and/or when turning in tight quarters.Although of course this is no Miata, handling and steering are generally responsive, and there is less body-roll than one would expect from a fairly large crossover. Ride comfort is acceptable to my tastes and not bad at all, but generally just a tad stiffer than I would prefer…..I tend to like soft suspensions and tires. The brakes have adequate stopping power, but the pedal is somewhat softer and more spongy-feeling than I like…my own Encore GX has a much firmer pedal with immediate response.



OVERALL:

If I had a substantial family, I could easily live with this vehicle as a daily-driver…although I am single, and, for several different reasons, prefer something smaller and easier to park in short spaces. The CX-90 has a lot to offer, has a reasonable price at least in the lower-trim versions, has an in-line-six engine design you don’t see much of today, and has a number of other things going for it. It is slightly more sport-oriented than I would like, but that is a minor issue to me, and probably would be to most drivers. The 5/60 powertrain and 3/36 general warranty is not as long as that of many luxury-brand vehicles, but is comparable to that of most mainstream brands today. Some of the paint jobs are excellent. So, all in all, there are lots worse ways to spend one’s automotive dollar….particularly if there is a Mazda dealer close by, as you generally won’t find one on every street corner like you will with Ford, Chevy, Toyota, Hyundai, and Kia. As I write this, Mazda is also offering factory-incentives on this vehicle.

And, as Always, Happy Vehicle-Shopping.

MM

 

i appreciate you writing up a review but i wish you could be specific.

if you 'generally like' the styling, what does that mean? how about saying specifically what you like and don't like?

what 'benchmark' does not classic mean, a 1965 buick?

i've never known ANYONE to look under hood when buying a car.

even if they do they have no idea what they're looking at. it's either uncovered snakes and spaghetti pipes, wires, brackets, etc. or it's mostly covered up by slabs of plastic.

relatively few compared to what? what's 'missing'?

'enough' and 'normal driving' is subjective and since you're not the intended customer, it doesn't really matter how it compares to what you 'typically use'.

not surprising since it's rwd vs fwd.

what's 'reasonable' and what was the pfice of the one you tested? a window sticker pic would be good!

 

Honestly that's the one part of MMarshall's reviews that I just gloss over because I know that he and I have very different driving styles and definitions of "enough" power.

 

the exterior styling is getting old, it's basically the same design as the CX5, CX9 from 10 years ago. such a shame, because the powertrain and chassis are all new, RWD based too. also the Mazda emblem is kind of meh, does a retro Mazda logo exist in Japan? why not update the logo.

 

I really like these. I'd consider one if I were in the market. I'm seeing more and more of them around. Other than being a bit tight, I really think they did a great job on the interior.

 

This one was actually answered:

 

I had a 2012 CX-9 and they do not look alike at all.....

 

Well, I am not a classic aggressive driver, but that does not mean that I always drive like Grandma. Second, I live (and test-drive) in a relatively congested area that demands caution and common sense. There's a BIG difference between most of Utah/Nevada and the D.C. Suburbs.

 

In the past, you have complained that I was TOO long and specific.



Although styling is subjective, to me, it has tasteful, fairly conservative lines.....which is something that I like and respect, for several reasons. One of them is that, all else equal, conservative, two-box designs enhance interior space-efficiency. Another is that fairly large, squarish windows enhance outward visibility. Another is that something like this is far easier on one's eyes than, say, a crossover like a Nissan Juke, Toyota CH-R, or Nissan Murano. One thing that I don't particularly like, though (and I mentioned it in the write-up) is the grille...I've never liked largish, glaring grilles that are now the rage with many automakers.



Actually, in my youth, I owned TWO 1965 Buicks. As for door-solidness, IMO, there are many benchmarks. Yes, as you note, the GM Bodies by Fisher back in the 1960s were one of them. So is the Mercedes G-Wagon that was in production from the late 1970s until recently. So were most Mercedes products up until the late 90s. So were most Honda/Acura products from the 1980s through the 2000s. So were a number of others. You may disagree with this one, but Hyundai and Kia doors, from the mid-2000s up until their latest-generation models, shut firmly/precisely and with a solid thunk.



First, if so, then that's something beyond your (or my) control. Second, if I shop with them, they usually do....or I do for them. Third, performance-car buyers usually do...they want to see that engine. Fourth, although I don't consider myself in the same class as an expert like Alex Dykes, my creed, like his, is.....when you review, don't do it half-a**.

Any vehicle owner without serious physical disabilities should be able to easily open the hood and check vital underhood points.



For one thing, many vehicles do not have a transmission dipstick any more. In the CX-90, for instance, it is difficult or impossible to even see the transmission itself, much less a dipstick. And, if that isn't bad enough, some Porsche models (such as the Boxster for some years) have the engine itself completely hidden....only the dealer can access it.



Yes, there is some truth to that. But I can only sample vehicles for a limited amount of time, on certain road conditions. I do the best I can under the circumstances I face....and try as many different conditions as I can.


Still, IMO, quite impressive for a crossover this size...this is not a Toyota Yaris.



Price/version already covered in the write-up. Sometimes, though, tinted rear windows prevent a good image of the sticker, and my I-Phone is an older 7 model, and the camera is probably not as good as the latest ones. Sometimes, if available, I DO include the sticker.

 

Ever hear of the term...."Oldie but Goodie"?....or, "If it Ain't Broke, Don't Fix it"? While I agree that one should not necessarily cling to the past just for sake of clinging, changing something just for the same of change is not always the answer, either. Look at all the criticism that Lexus got, for example, with their spindle-grilles, and Acura with their parrot-beak grilles...which were both a clear break from the past.

 

Other than the third-row-seat, perhaps the tightest part of the interior was tall people sitting under the sunroof. At 6' 1" and a cap, I fit in OK, but I had to lower the driver's seat cushion nearly all the way to do it.

Actually, I used to be around 6' 2".....I think I shrunk around an inch or so as I got older, which, for many people, is normal.

 

Good review. I've seen a couple of these on the road and for the most part, I like the exterior styling as it looks updated and upscale. Something about the headlights bothers me, there's a small gap and the first one I saw I actually thought maybe the lens had been broken.

 

I just had a CX-90 as a rental and there was some wtf moments involved. Mazda just loves shooting themselves in the foot.

-The third row is too small. You think they would’ve learned their lesson with the CX-9. The problem continues when you fold the third row, as it reveals a much smaller cargo hold than many would expect in this class. And don’t blame RWD, the Explorer manages to have more room.
-Odd option packaging. Why would I need to get a Turbo S just to have the side mirrors tilt in reverse?
-Poor interior storage space. There is no excuse for the lack of storage in this vehicle. Those with small kids will be driven crazy. Even finding a spot to securely place your cell phone was a challenge in the front, given the door pockets are placed far forward.
-Highway ride was far too busy. This is bothersome as the handling isn’t as good as the firm ride would suggest it is.

 

I take a different view on space and 3rd row. When my kids were smaller, I mostly needed the 3rd row for carpool, and if the kids were cramped for short rides, or on the handful of occasions when I had to take adults - so be it. And it's even rarer that I need max cargo capacity - I'm not buying a car because it has the most cargo space just because I might need it on some occasion. I want a car with the best all-around package.

I don't know if the CX-90 is the best all-around package - I'm out of the 3-row SUV market. But if I was in the market, I'd seriously consider it and I'm not sure that any of these complaints would dissuade me. I agree on the fact that certain features shouldn't be reserved for top trims, but I'd probably end up with a top trim level anyway.

 

Third-row seating is usually not intended for large adults..at most, children or small adults. I noted that in the write-up.


First, did your rental have the 45-series tires on the upper-trim version?...or don't you remember? My test vehicle (a Preferred model) had 55s....they can make a noticeable difference. All else equal, more sidewall usually gives a softer ride.

Second, were the tire pressures correct? Too much air in the tires can also stiffen things up. Tire PSI should be checked when the tires have been sitting for at least 3 hours.....out of the sun.