When I wrote that making a plug-in hybrid is a lot harder than you think, Mazda was on my mind. The company is struggling to electrify, in part because it’s small and only has so many resources, but also because of how central lightweight, affordable cars are to its identity.
But as Mazda faces the same tightening emission standards and consumer preferences that other brands have dealt with, it’s trying the same solutions: Hybrids. As the CX-90 and CX-70 plug-in hybrids (PHEVs) show, that’s easier said than done.
The company’s first U.S.-market plug-in hybrids got off to a rocky start. Teething issues with the early CX-90 PHEV in 2024 prompted journalist complaints (especially about its transmission), consumer headaches and a spot on Consumer Reports' “Least Reliable SUVs of 2025” list.
Like I said: making a great hybrid is tricky business. While making a compelling EV is hard enough, first-time hybrid designs have to mesh two disparate power sources in a way that feels natural to the consumer. Get it wrong, as Mazda did, and the result is herky-jerky at best, and unreliable at worst.
Gallery: 2025 Mazda CX-90 PHEV
But the company has done a lot of work to fix this problem. It’s updated its PHEVs and refined their tuning, making them nicer to drive and, ideally, better suited for long-haul ownership. I sampled both to find out if Mazda has ironed out the kinks.
(Full Disclosure: Mazda loaned me both a CX-70 and a CX-90 for this review. Both vehicles arrived with a full tank of gas.)
I came away with mixed impressions. Mazda certainly has improved its hybrid system, yet the CX-90 and CX-70 themselves are not vehicles I would recommend.
2025 Mazda CX-90 PHEV Specs
Driving experience
It may be confusing that I’m talking about the CX-90 and CX-70 as if they are the same vehicle. But they are.
With less budget to create a full-fledged lineup of SUVs than its competitors, Mazda opted for an odd strategy. It cut the third row out of the CX-90 and started selling it as a separate model. Bizarrely, the company dropped the base trim, too, so the CX-70 comes better equipped but with a higher starting price than its three-row twin: $51,400 for the base CX-90, $55,855 for the better-equipped CX-70.
For simplicity’s sake, I’m going to focus on the CX-90. They drive exactly the same, and if you’re buying something the size of a three-row SUV, you might as well get three rows.
Regardless, you’re going to be piloting something ginormous. And while Mazda has long enjoyed a reputation for making fun-to-drive cars, it can’t outsmart physics. A CX-90 PHEV weighs 5,243 pounds, and you can feel all of them. On a switchback mountain road, it’s not a fun thing to drive, even if it handles securely. Mazda has tried the old trick here of making the steering extra heavy to make it feel “sporty,” but there’s no feel there.
There’s also too much weight to manage, and the car’s attempt to blend electric propulsion and internal combustion occasionally falters, making it hard to drive smoothly. I blame the transmission. The eight-speed automatic has been the subject of plenty of debates, customer issues and technical service bulletins to address issues with it. It’s better than it once was, and mostly fine around town, but it’s not smooth enough to make the driving experience pleasant. (Mazda did not reply to my request for comment on the CX-90’s transmission issues.)
The engine is also gruff-sounding when you work it hard, and it sometimes revs higher than you’d expect given the load.
Even the driver aids get in the way of a smooth experience, especially on back roads. There are multiple layers of land-departure mitigation, and even after turning two such systems off, I still found the car nudging me around on windy roads.
In highway driving, the CX-90 was better. Yet it’s still stiffer than other three-row SUVs, so it’s not exactly a cushy cruiser. That’d be ok if the reward was a truly great driving experience, but for such a ho-hum SUV on backroads, I’d expect a more supple cruiser.
Range & Efficiency
The CX-90 can go 26 miles on its 17.8 kilowatt-hour battery alone on the Environmental Protection Agency’s cycle, per Mazda. I believe it. That roughly tracks with what I experienced, though you’ll blow through your miles quickly if you’re on a high-speed freeway in EV mode.
Unfortunately, getting more granular on efficiency is challenging given the information available to the driver. Mazda shows miles per gallon and miles per kilowatt hour on the same display, but by nature as one goes up the other falls. If your battery is depleted, you’ll burn up a bunch of fuel while getting a bajillion miles per kWh. In EV mode, that reverses.
On balance, the EPA cycle says the CX-90 will get 56 miles per gallon equivalent (MPGe), factoring in the electric system. That’s a tick worse than you’d get in a Volvo XC90 plug-in, but acceptable. In general, the value proposition will depend more on your commute distance than the CX-90’s efficiency. If you go less than 20 miles a day and can charge at home, it should be all-electric most of the time. If you have a longer commute and don’t take a crazy number of road trips, consider electric options.
Interior
A spirited driving experience is not the main selling point for a family SUV. You know this, I know this. I wish Mazda did. Because not only is the CX-90 PHEV just-ok to drive, it’s also got a weird interior for its role.
It makes a good impression, sure. The interior looks great, especially in lighter tones, and everything feels premium. The seat surfaces are nice and the plastics are high-quality. Yet when it comes to usability, Mazda has always felt out of its depth making larger vehicles. The company just doesn’t do a great job of turning more space into usable compartments and features.
Take the dashboard and center console. There’s a spot for your phone on the wireless charger, two cupholders and that’s it. There’s nowhere to throw the keys or your wallet without setting off the metal-detecting fault light for the wireless charger—which never seems to stop blinking. The cupholders are too small for a bottle, and the door panels aren’t great. The center console is small, and there are no additional cubbies.
That motif of poor usability continues throughout. Whether you opt for the CX-90 with three rows or the CX-70 with two, you won’t get a flat load floor. I’d likely blame the switch to a rear-wheel-drive architecture, an outlier in a segment that has gone front-wheel-drive-based for packaging reasons. That may also explain why the third row is cramped, and not a realistic option for many adults beyond quick errands.
Sure, the CX-90 still has plenty of space. You’ll hardly find a modern three-row that can’t fit an apartment’s worth of crap in the back. But with 14.9 cubic feet of space behind the third row and 40.0 cubic feet behind the second, the Mazda manages to be toward the back of the pack when it comes to hauling either passengers or cargo. That battery has to go somewhere, I suppose.
Infotainment, Tech & UX
The Mazda CX-90 supports Apple CarPlay and Android Auto. This concludes the praise I will be giving it in the infotainment and tech sections.
The second car I ever reviewed was the then-new 2017 Mazda CX-5, and its technology felt outdated then. Eight years later and using broadly the same infotainment system, the CX-90 is unacceptably dated for a flagship product that debuted last year.
The entire system is run on a short and wide 12.3-inch infotainment screen. It is a touch screen, though you’d hardly know it. Touch controls work when you are using smartphone projection, and also when the car is stopped. Any time you’re in motion or in Mazda’s native system, you’re forced to use a rotary clickwheel. Think 2013 BMW iDrive, but less sophisticated.
Navigation using the built-in system is, therefore, essentially unusable. The only way to input text is by using its rudimentary voice-control system or the rotary controller. All letters are laid out alphabetically around a circle, and you have to rotate around to click one at a time. That’s already indefensible, but you can’t even use it to find businesses or parks. You have to use a 2010-esque “POI search” where you refine by category first. Was the park I was looking for in sports and activities, government or outdoor? The answer is: Who cares, the Mazda couldn’t find it anyway. At least searching took a while!
The odd aspect ratio of the screen also means the rearview camera has a bizarre aspect ratio, stretching the whole field of view unnaturally and making it tough to judge distances. Charging and efficiency info is spare and hard to parse. The digital gauge cluster is also, in theory, customizable, but you get almost no choices for what to put there.
It’s all just too dated, too sloppy and too annoying. I understand that technology is not the core part of Mazda’s identity—I’ve owned a few Miatas, and recommended plenty of CX-5s. But the company still needs to find a way to take software far, far more seriously if it wants to exist in 10 years.
Safety & ADAS
The CX-90 comes standard with adaptive cruise control, blind spot monitoring and forward collision braking. It also offers lane keeping, though the system was not particularly sophisticated. And given the weird jargon in the Mazda menus, it was not particularly easy to turn it off.
The CX-90 received a five-star overall safety rating from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, with four stars for its overall performance in front crash tests. The CX-90 is an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety Top Safety Pick+, that organization’s highest honor.
Pricing & Trims
The CX-90 PHEV starts at $51,400, far above the $39,500 starting price of the standard six-cylinder CX-90. Both numbers include delivery. But PHEVs come better equipped: Even the base Preffered model comes with leather, a moonroof, heated front seats and all the safety stuff.
Step up to the $56,355 Premium Sport version and you get a panoramic moonroof, 21-inch wheels and stop-and-go support for the adaptive cruise control system. The $59,405 Premium Plus version—which I tested—gets nicer leather, second-row captain’s chairs and cooled front seats.
There are no major option packages, but most of the colors cost an extra $595.
Verdict
That leaves us with two questions. Do I recommend the CX-90 in general? And: Is the plug-in hybrid worth the extra cost? On both counts, I have to say not really.
The CX-90 is designed to be a family hauler, and by most metrics, it’s the worst in its class at hauling families. It has a bad third row, a bad cabin layout with not enough small-item storage and a small cargo hold for its class. Its interior looks nicer, but it does not feel designed for the rough-and-tumble life of small kids and pets. Its technology is unacceptably behind the times, and its value proposition isn’t great.
That value proposition gets worse when you step into the $50,000 PHEV, a product that isn’t smooth enough to be any company’s flagship. It may save you some gas money but—unless you can get the tax credit through the leasing loophole, which is likely to go away—you probably won’t make your money back before getting rid of the vehicle. Buyers looking for an electric option are better off with a Kia EV9, while hybrid buyers should probably stick with a Toyota Highlander or Hyundai Santa Fe.
Like I said: Making a good hybrid is hard. Mazda learned some hard lessons with its first attempt here in the U.S., and I’m sure it’s next generation will get better. But until the company refines the CX-90’s powertrain and wholly replaces its ancient tech suite, you should steer clear.
Contact the author: Mack.Hogan@insideevs.com.
