The long-term review of the 2025 Mazda CX-70, after 11 months and over 20,000 miles, revealed a surprising and frustrating issue: the development of persistent rattles. Initially, the vehicle felt solid and quiet, leading the reviewer to believe they were fortunate, especially after encountering numerous online complaints from fellow CX-70 and CX-90 owners about similar rattling noises. However, this changed abruptly when rattles began to emanate from both B-pillars, particularly noticeable over speed bumps and broken pavement, a common occurrence in Los Angeles.

These rattles became more pronounced at higher speeds, and their presence was confirmed by Buyer’s Guide director Zach Gale during a road trip, although he found them less annoying than the primary reviewer. The emergence of these issues was particularly disappointing given Mazda's long-standing reputation for superb build quality and thoughtful engineering. The reviewer, a former owner of a trouble-free 2015 Mazda3, noted that the problems experienced with both the long-term CX-90 plug-in hybrid and the CX-70 gas model were not isolated incidents, as online forums are rife with reports of hybrid powertrain quirks and persistent cabin rattles.

Despite its elegant proportions, interior design, and near-luxury appeal, which often garnered compliments, the growing list of issues ultimately overshadowed the positive aspects. The constant rattles and other small annoyances felt out of character for a vehicle that projects an image of refinement. On paper, the CX-70 possesses all the attributes of a great SUV, boasting features like great horsepower. Yet, in practice, it unfortunately falls short of the promise and expectations built around the Mazda brand, leaving owners feeling frustrated when their trust in reliability is challenged.

The specific model under review was the MotorTrend's 2025 Mazda CX-70 3.3 Turbo S (Premium). Over its 12-month/21,625-mile service life, the vehicle had a base price of $53,905 and an as-tested price of $56,120, including options such as a towing set ($900), Zircon Sand paint ($450), paint protection film ($450), a carpet set ($325), and a roadside assistance kit ($90). It achieved an EPA combined fuel economy of 25 mpg (23 city/28 highway) with a combined range of 462 miles, and an average fuel economy of 24.1 mpg, costing an estimated $0.20 per mile in energy. Notably, there were no costs for maintenance, wear, or damages, and the vehicle spent no days out of service without a loaner. However, beyond the rattles, another annoyance was the instruction that the spare tire is not supposed to be used on the rear, and a recall was issued regarding a potentially inaccurate fuel gauge.