Ford Escape vs Mazda CX-70

What's the difference?

The Ford Escape PHEV is a good option for a customer who knows they’ll live within the parameters set by the car. That’s the case with any plug-in hybrid, really, so in that regard, this new model is hardly a standout.

And it isn’t particularly outstanding in any other way either. I personally would have appreciated it if Ford had decided to add the plug-in powertrain to the Vignale flagship model instead - that model is more about luxury than sportiness, and would better fit the character of this powertrain in my opinion.

It’s a decent addition to the brand’s SUV range, and a welcome one to the segment, though it won’t be on its own for long.

For mine, the CX-70 is the pick of Mazda's premium SUV range, and if you can survive without a third row of seats, it's significantly cheaper than its CX-90 twin, too.

Note: CarsGuide attended this event as a guest of the manufacturer, with travel, accommodation and meals provided.

I haven’t really warmed to the “I wish I was a hatchback” styling of the Escape, which has a softer-edged look to it than most of its rivals. I mean, compared to a Hyundai Tucson or Toyota RAV4, the Escape looks like a blob.

That mightn’t be an issue for you, and it’s hardly a reason not to buy the car, but I was also a bit disappointed that there’s no real specific highlights to make you realise you’re buying the PHEV model, which - at $15,000 more than the equivalent petrol version - should have something to differentiate it other than the addition of a small badge and the additional filler cap on the front quarter panel for the plug.

Even a different set of wheels would have sufficed. Alas, it’s an identical looking Escape to the petrol. That means the ST-Line trimmings, such as black highlights on the grille and bumper, side skirts, a rear spoiler, and those 18-inch wheels and lowered sports suspension.

The interior, as mentioned in the pricing section, does have a few changes over the petrol version, but they’re hardly game-changing additions.

Yes, the Mazda premium SUV range can look a little same-same, but Mazda insists there are critical differences.

That said, if you can immediately spot the difference between the CX-70 and CX-90 without taking a peek inside, you're doing better than me, given it is the same exact dimensions as Mazda's three-row flagship.

Sure, Mazda talks about things like this design being a “passion pursuer” that serves up "dignified performance” – all of which sounds utterly ridiculous – but the less marketing-speak version is that it looks like a shapely large SUV that ditches the boxy dimensions of a proper 4WD for a more sleek and swooping profile.

Inside, it's a plush and premium-feeling space, with lovely cabin materials, plenty of tech, and plenty of space.

The Ford Escape looks like it has all the bits to make a midsize SUV buyer happy. And while a fair few of the boxes are ticked, there are some elements that could be better. 

The big party trick is that the second row is on rails, so you can slide it forwards or backwards to improve the space for receipt occupants or improve your boot space. The maximised cargo area is 556 litres to the ceiling, while if prioritise second-row occupant space there is easily enough room for a 182cm / 6’0” adult to fit behind someone of a similar size.

In the boot there are remote levers for the second row seats to fold down, a 12 V outlet, and a soft parcel shelf which is easy to remove, too.

During my time with the car I had the seats slid back as far as they go to maximise cabin space, though I did test out whether it was worth having them forward and the boot space was appreciably better especially for a pram and some baby stuff.

The second-row is a 60:40 split for the backrest, with the smaller portion on the driver’s side. That may sound trivial, but we had our baby seat set up behind the passenger, and had to move it to the driver’s side when we picked up a large parcel as it wouldn’t fit with the smaller portion folded down. There are dual ISOFIX child seat anchor points for the outboard positions, and three top-tether hooks.

The boot space is good too, considering it has some extra hardware to contend with under the body, there is also a space-saver spare wheel under there which is nice. However, there is no dedicated hidey hole for the charge cable, and it doesn’t come in a nice stowable bag either - just a plastic ziplock thing. 

Perhaps the biggest letdown of the interior is the fact that you still get the tiny little tablet-style 8.0-inch touchscreen media display, despite there being a big 12.3-inch digital instrument cluster. The two screens almost look at odds with one another, and what’s even more frustrating is that the driver information screen cannot be configured to include the energy flow screen that you see on the smaller tablet style unit. 

That means you can’t watch what’s happening between engine, electric motor and battery, or a combination where you might expect to see that - instead it can only be seen in illustrative form on the smaller central screen. Big issue? Maybe not, but if you’re an eco-conscious customer who wants to know what their car’s high-tech powertrain is doing, while also wanting to use sat nav, or Apple CarPlay or Android Auto, or change the radio station… Well, you’re out of luck.

There is a much more basic and rudimentary display on the driver info screen that shows a small icon of an engine and battery and illuminates them when each part is in use, but really, Ford should have used the real-estate of the big driver info screen better. Toyota, Kia and Hyundai know how to do it better.

The material quality is okay, but it certainly doesn’t feel like a very special environment.There are rubberised liners on the doors which don’t look terrific or feel fantastic, and why there are soft plastic elbow pads, and up high on the dashboard, it is not of the most pristine quality. 

Storage is pretty good. There are bottle holders in the doors and two cupholders in the centre console, and the storage nook in front of the shift dial houses a wireless phone charger and two USB ports, plus a 12-volt plug. There is a strange little shelf section in front of the centre console bin, which is not fantastic in terms of size. There are rear bottle holders in the doors, map pockets and a flip-down arm-rest with cup holders.

That rotary dial shifter which does take a little bit of getting used to. Unlike some others, there is no ‘P’ for park button - instead you have to dial it all the way left. 

The CX-70 measures a substantial 5120mm long, 1994mm wide, and 1745mm tall, and it rides on a 3120mm wheelbase.

It will tow 2.5 tonnes no matter which engine you choose, and the expansive boot will swallow between 589 litres and 2015 litres, depending on how you configure the backseat.

All of that space translates to a hugely airy backseat experience, with the second row able to be fixed in a position that either prioritises leg room or boot space.

With the former, you've got tons of space in the second row. I'm 175cm, and my knee and leg room was ample, with only the intrusive tunnel that runs down the middle-centre of the cabin eating into leg room for the middle passenger.

There are also air vents and temp controls, twin USB charge ports, seat heating in the window seats and swathes of very nice materials.

The boot is massive, too. I can't even reach the back of the rear seats when I lean into it, and Mazda says it will swallow smaller surfboard or SUPs without needing to resort to roof racks.

Under-floor storage adds a bit more security for precious items, too.

We'll drill down on this a little more in the practicality section, but it's important to note here that the CX-70 is the same size as the CX-90 – both are 5120mm long, 1994mm wide and 1745mm high — which means the only real difference between the two models is the third row of seats in the CX-90.

And, as it turns out, that's a very expensive pair of chairs. The CX-70 starts with the GT trim at $75,970 before on-road costs for the petrol or $77,970 for the diesel, and then climbs to the Azami trim, which is $82,970 or $84,970.

The CX-90, though, is $82,577 or $85,785 for the GT, or $91,461 or $93,030 for the Azami.

That makes the CX-90's third row at least a $6600 option, but as much as an $8000 upgrade. Mazda has made moves to address this, with a drive-away "plate clearance" that closes that gap, but we suspect those offers will become permanent fixtures to make the jump from 70 to 90 less ferocious.

Anyway, Mazda has thrown just about everything they've got at the CX-70. The GT kicks off with plenty of high-end gear, including 21-inch black alloy wheels, adaptive LED headlights, a panoramic sunroof and a handsfree powered tailgate.

Inside, there are twin 12.3-inch screens with Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, a 12-speaker Bose stereo, leather seats that are heated front and rear, three-zone climate control and a heated steering wheel.

The Azami then adds things like ambient lighting, black Nappa leather seats, which are now ventilated in the front, footwell lighting, body-coloured wheel arches and lower cladding and body-coloured door handles.

The Escape PHEV is the only model in the range to get a 2.5-litre petrol engine, which runs on the more efficient Atkinson cycle, and has a continuously variable transmission feeding power to the front wheels - that’s right, this Escape is 2WD/FWD.

The tricky bit is that it also houses a clever electric motor and generator, which is teamed to a 14.4kWh battery pack - which is big for a plug-in hybrid car. 

The electric motor is capable of 96kW of power, while the petrol engine can produce up to 112kW. All told, the combined system output is pegged at 167kW, though there is no peak torque output figure. Even so, that amount of power is a sizeable number for any midsize SUV, even if this particular one weighs in at more than 1800kg.

Speaking of weight, the PHEV is the least capable towing vehicle in the Escape range. It has a maximum braked towing capacity of 1200kg, where all the others can tow up to 1800kg. Unbraked capacity is unchanged, at 750kg.

You can have one of two engines in the CX-70, with the cheapest being a 3.3-litre, six-cylinder turbo-petrol, producing 254kW and 500Nm. There's also a 3.3-litre, six-cylinder turbo-diesel, making 187kW and 550Nm. Both are equipped with a 48-volt mild hybrid system to marginally reduce fuel use.

All models are AWD, and pair with an eight-speed automatic transmission.

Beware the PHEV fuel consumption figure. That’s a great thing to keep in mind if you’re shopping for one of these cars.

That’s because the combined cycle official figure only takes into account a mix of conditions across 100km of driving. That’s right - only the first 100km. So the best case scenario, for a car that is designed to use its battery to run emissions free until it runs out, before sparingly using the petrol engine to keep going.

As such, it is no surprise that the official combined cycle fuel consumption is just 1.5 litres per 100 kilometres, with CO2 emissions claimed at just 33g/km. That takes into account the WLTP battery range of 56 kilometres stated on Ford’s website.

For reference, I completed my test of the car with a total of 462.7 kilometres travelled, of which, the trip computer stated 292.3km was fully electric. Meaning the remaining 170.4km was driving using petrol.

The indicated energy efficiency was 20.0kWh/100km, which isn’t great against a claimed EV driving efficiency figure supplied by Ford, of 14.8kWh/100km to 15.6kWh/100km. 

While the indicated fuel consumption average was 3.1L/100km, so more than double the windscreen sticker’s indicated economy. 

However, when I did the maths, I used a real-world average of 3.9L/100km of petrol ($36.15 worth of petrol) and 43.2kWh of electricity (meaning a cost of $9.82 based on the NSW average energy price of $0.2274c/kWh).

So, to do 462.7km I paid $45.97. I think that’s okay, but bear in mind I included several longer trips (Sydney to Glenbrook, Glenbrook to the Southern Highlands and back, and Glenbrook to Sydney and back). 

As is always the case, if your intended operation for a PHEV is to use it primarily for urban running within its EV range capabilities, you will be better off than if you push it beyond and use the petrol engine excessively.

For reference, the fuel tank size is 45 litres, which is 12L less than the petrol-only versions. It can run on E10, but only if you can find E10 that is also 95RON premium unleaded.

If you wish, there’s also an app called Ford Pass Connect, which allows you to monitor your car’s state of charge, adjust its start and finish times for recharging and even works as a key for the car to allow remote access, too.

Worth noting the maximum charge rate on a 10-amp plug at home is 2.3kW, while on public charging (which typically runs a higher amperage rate) the max rate is 3.7kW.

Petrol-powered cars will sip 8.1L/100km on the combined cycle, while the diesel drops that to 5.4 litres.

Both models get a 74-litre tank, meaning a theoretical driving range of around 900kms in the petrol, and almost 1400kms in the diesel.

Being the ST-Line grade, you - like it or not - have to deal with the lowered ride and sportier suspension, which makes this car ride a bit more firmly than you might want.

I found the suspension to be the biggest detracting element in terms of the drive experience – the suspension picked up a lot of the small inconsistencies in the road surface and transmitted them into the cabin. It was fidgety a lot of the time, and on road surfaces with very poor quality, it could be a bit uncomfortable.

The steering was also bit too tuned for sportiness for a car that doesn’t really need to be quite so aggressively angled that way. It took a bit of getting used to – it was somehow both twitchy on centre but not quite as responsive across the radius of lock to lock as I’d thought it might be, given the initial steering response.

Having said all that, I threw it through a couple of twisty corners and there was a nice handling balance from the chassis and decent grip from the tyres, but I did notice that - being front-wheel drive, with all that power going through the front tyres, there were some instances of it scrabbling for traction, notably on wet roads and looser surfaces but also out of offset driveways.

Other gripes included brake pedal response that was quite abrupt and very sensitive to stopping inputs.

Now, let’s consider the driving modes.

There are different drivetrain setups depending on what you plan to do. EV Auto does the thinking for you, dipping between EV, hybrid and petrol modes. EV Now prioritises electric driving. EV Later saves your battery charge for when you think you’ll need it. And EV Charge means you’ll use petrol power to drive, and also to replenish the battery pack.

The throttle response was decent in EV mode, and in hybrid mode it is nice and quiet, and it drives in a very smooth way unless you really plant your foot hard, then it can be a bit vocal - but less raucous than a RAV4 under full throttle. 

The transition between the different drive modes was relatively seamless, as it will readily go between petrol or electric as required, and the four-cylinder is mostly hushed enough so that you won’t hear it too much, especially if you’re driving at higher speeds when it does.

Indeed it was relatively quiet for the most part, though the tyre noise was quite excessive at higher speeds on very coarse-chip surfaces. And in those instances I noticed I could feel the road surface through the steering wheel and the suspension, as it was quite jittery at times.

There is a low speed warning sound that is omitted below about 25km/h and it was quite handy while driving in enclosed car parks - no more accusations of creeping around silently at the shops.

Further, there are multiple drive modes, including Normal, Eco, Sport, Slippery, and Snow/Sand Assist, all of which are designed to make different situations easier to deal with. They will adjust engine transmission and steering response as well as stability and traction control limitations. I kept it in Normal, though a dabble in Sport showed that you’re allowed a bit more aggression from the powertrain in terms of acceleration.

Interestingly, the CX-70 has been tagged as the expected smallest seller of Mazda's premium SUV range, but I reckon it just might be the pick of the bunch.

Every one of the CX-0 models (60, 70, 80 and 90) all get slightly different suspension tunes, and while you can find harsh edges in the other models, the CX-70 feels utterly composed and refined, at least on the smooth-ish roads of our launch test route.

Perhaps most surprising, though, is the CX-70's ability to hold its own on a properly twisting road. We expected lots of weight transfer and the high-pitched sounds of tyres screaming out in pain, but instead found Mazda's massive SUV served up grip, composure, and very little in the way of sea-swell-style body roll.

The two big six-cylinder engines also feel perfectly suited to a vehicle in this space. There's tons of power whenever you need it, and solid levels of refinement in terms of engine noise or diesel rattles.

For mine, the petrol engine is the pick though, feeing just a little smoother than the diesel option. The latter can feel a bit jerky at slower speeds, whether that's the power delivery or the gearbox, and it doesn't seem to happen with the petrol engine.

The biggest caveat, though, is that we haven't driven the CX-70 in its natural environment, the city and suburbs, so while it largely shone on flowing country roads, how it performs on roads like the ones near your place remains a bit of a mystery.

The CX-70 hasn’t been ANCAP tested, but it does arrive with a pretty stacked safety offering, including a 360-degree-view camera, blind-spot monitoring, front and rear cross-traffic alert, and a total of eight airbags, including a knee airbag for the driver.

As with the rest of the Ford range, you get a five-year/unlimited kilometre warranty on the car, while the battery pack has its own eight-year/160,000km warranty plan.

And just like most other models in Ford’s range, there is a lifetime capped-price servicing plan, with the first four maintenance visits (due every 12 months/15,000km, whichever occurs first) incurring a $299 fee, which is cheap for the class.

You also get up to seven years of roadside assist if you service your car with Ford’s dealers.

Servicing is not particularly cheap in the CX-70, and the service intervals, at least in the diesel, feel a little short, too.

Buy that one, and you’ll be visiting the dealership every 12 months or 10,000kms, and the first five years of ownership will cost you $3298.

Petrol cars require servicing every 12 months or 15,000kms, and five years will set you back $3436.

The CX-70 is also covered by Mazda's five-year, unlimited-kilometre warranty.