Isuzu MU-X vs Mazda CX-70

What's the difference?

The MU-X has plenty of appeal as a daily driver – dependable and it’s a proven 4WD wagon.

Does the 2.2-litre engine add anything substantial to the mix?

Well, it's better than the 1.9-litre, that's for sure, and there's a lot to like about this MU-X in terms of its off-road capability, driver-assist tech, standard features and all-round driveability. And, while the LS-T lacks the top-shelf polish of the X-Terrain, it’s still an appealing potential purchase.

But the 3.0-litre option is better because while the 2.2L is very effective off-road and general day-to-day driving, it lacks grunt and has to work that much harder and is that much noisier under load than the 3.0-litre in most driving scenarios, including 4WDing.

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.

In terms of appearance, the MU-X remains largely unchanged from the most recent iteration. And that’s a good thing. It’s blocky enough to be recognisable but sleek enough to remain inoffensive. Worth noting the door handles, window trims, front fender accents, roof rails, and side steps on the LS-T are gloss black.

Inside, nothing much has changed (other than a newly-introduced idle start/stop button) and, as such, the MU-X retains a low-key familiarity that makes it a comfortable space. Generally, design-wise, the MU-X more than holds its own against the likes of the Toyota LandCruiser Prado and Ford Everest.

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 interior has a familiar and practical feel about it and the cabin is an easy space in which to become comfortable. Controls are easy to locate and operate and charging options are numerous – a mix of USB-A, USB-C (front and second row) and 12V.

Storage places include recesses for the bits and pieces from your pockets, a deep-ish centre console, as well as dual cupholders up front, cupholders in the rear fold-down centre armrest and bottle holders in the doors. There are also cupholders either side of the third row.

The MU-X has physical-button options to activate some functions (including to switch on the audio system, to adjust volume and access sat nav).

Seats are comfortable and supportive through all three rows – yes, even the third row is roomy enough to prevent whining from whoever is back there.

My camera guru/photographer/sergeant-at-arms, Glen Sullivan, reminded me that the third-row seats don’t have ISOFIX or top-tether points for child seats. Thanks, mate.

The cargo area is 311 litres with all three rows in use, 1119L with the third row flat and 2138L with the second and third rows stowed away.

The rear cargo area has a cargo cover, tie-down points, a 12V power outlet, a storage space under the rear cargo area floor and a space for tools inside the driver’s side rear cargo wall. The MU-X’s full-size spare (bravo!) is attached to its undercarriage.

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.

This MU-X has a 2.2-litre, four-cylinder, turbo-diesel engine, producing 120kW at 3600rpm and 400Nm between 1600-2400rpm and it’s matched to an eight-speed automatic transmission.

Worth noting the 3.0L MU-X has a six-speed auto and produces 140kW (at 3600rpm) and 450Nm (1600-2600rpm) while the outgoing 1.9L MU-X has a six-speed auto and produces 110kW (3600rpm) and 350Nm (1800-2600rpm).

While the 3.0-litre has always been unstressed in most driving scenarios – even low-range 4WDing – the 2.2-litre feels underpowered. More about that in the ‘Driving’ section below.

The MU-X has a part-time 4WD system which includes a dual-range transfer case (with high- and low-range 4WD) and a rear diff-lock. The driver is able to shift from 2H (two-wheel drive, high-range) to 4H (4WD high-range) while on the move up to speeds of 100km/h. The diff-lock may only be engaged when the vehicle is in 4L (4WD low-range).

The MU-X also has a switchable terrain mode system which tweaks the engine, transmission and traction control to suit the driving conditions. 'Rough Terrain' mode, like a steroids-enhanced off-road traction control, is king of these modes when you’re off the bitumin.

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.

Official combined cycle (urban/extra-urban) fuel consumption for this MU-X is 6.7L/100km. The 1.9L MU-X offers 7.4L/100km while the 3.0L offers 7.6L/100km.

Actual fuel consumption on this test was 8.7L/100km.

The MU-X has an 80-litre fuel tank, so, going by that on-test fuel consumption figure, you should be able to get a driving range of about 920km. But remember, your fuel consumption may be completely different to mine because chances are you'll have friends, family pets, sporting equipment, camping gear, the whole kit and caboodle on board. I've only been carrying vehicle recovery gear, MaxTrax, and a first-aid kit, so I haven't had a huge amount of weight on board.

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.

Before we launch into the off-roading section of this test, it’s worth noting the MU-X has always been decent on-road; composed, reasonably refined (for a 4WD wagon, anyway) and comfortable. And thankfully, with the 2.2-litre engine, not all of those characteristics have been thrown out the window.

It is quite noisy, especially under pressure when you have to do some heavy acceleration or when you have a bit of gear on board. When it has to work that bit harder than it usually does, it can become quite noisy. Admittedly, the 3.0-litre MU-X is also quite gruff, but there's an edge to the roughness in the 2.2-litre that is very noticeable on road.

This MU-X is quite sluggish off the mark, exhibiting a disconcerting lag under heavy throttle from a standing-start. And it’s far from the most dynamic vehicle to drive. But it has a tractability about it that manages to mostly negate these flaws.

Otherwise, the new eight-speed auto deserves credit as it’s slick and smooth in application and feels right at home in this wagon.

Now to off-roading. The MU-X is still very capable. In fact, even with the 2.2-litre engine, it remains one of the better-performing 4WD wagons straight out of the dealership, in terms of pure off-road capability.

The 3.0-litre MU-X is not the torquiest in this segment, but it offers ample pulling power available across a wide rev range – count on peak torque between 1600rpm and 2400rpm – and it delivers that pulling power in an even-handed fashion. The 2.2-litre MU-X has to work harder than its stablemate, and it’s noisier and harsher.

However, those characteristics don’t take away from how effective this MU-X is because it offers impressive off-road performance. It still has a decent amount of low- and mid-range torque, which makes dirt-road cruising and low-speed 4WDing easy.

The MU-X has part-time 4WD with high- and low-range 4WD gearing, a rear diff lock and overall it retains all of that off-road capability the 3.0-litre MU-X has been renowned for – so you don't lose any efficacy there.

The line-up’s off-road traction control system, which once was a bit patchy in its effectiveness, has gone through a couple of phases and it’s been recalibrated/tweaked over the years and it is much better now.

Of course, the MU-X also has Isuzu’s much-vaunted Rough Terrain mode (a form of early-acting off-road traction control which converts lost grip into torque for the wheels with grip), and it is smooth and effective, giving the driver better overall control in challenging terrain.

Some of this MU-X’s listed off-road angles appear shallower than the 3.0-litre MU-X’s – approach: 23.9 (3.0L = 29.2), departure: 26.4 (3.0L = 26.4) and ramp-over: 19.6 (3.0L = 23.1) – but, even if that is the case, it has very similar driving characteristics in low-speed, low-range four-wheel driving to its 3.0-litre stablemate.

If you drive with control and consideration, you shouldn't have any trouble tackling light to moderate 4WDing in this MU-X. It could even, if push comes to shove, handle challenges that may be considered by some to be on the edge of hard-core 4WDing – for a showroom-standard 4WD wagon anyway.

Ground clearance is 235mm and wading depth is 800mm, so there’s an adequate amount of clearance to work.

The MU-X – with a turning circle of 11.6m and a kerb weight of 2130kg (3.0L = 2185kg) – feels quite nimble on bush tracks.

This wagon’s wheel travel – how far the axle can move up and down relative to the chassis – has more than an adequate amount of flex, stretching its tyres close, if not all the way, to the dirt.

A noticeable trade-off is its 20-inch wheel-and-tyre combination, which is best suited to sealed surfaces and so are far from ideal for dirt-track touring. There’s an easy remedy, though. Buy a set of decent all-terrain tyres on 17- or 18-inch rims to replace the showroom-standard 265/50R20 Highway-Terrain tyres. If you are using your MU-X, avoid dropping pressures too much because you’ll risk sidewall pinches and punctures on these low-profile road tyres.

In terms of packability: the 2.2L MU-X has a listed payload of 670kg, whereas the 3.0L version offers 615kg.

The 2.2L MU-X can legally tow 750kg (unbraked trailer) and 3500kg (braked), so theoretically you can tow the same load as a 3.0-litre MU-X. But, as mentioned, the 2.2-litre engine feels underpowered, even in general day-to-day driving, so with a load and/or towing that’s an added burden.

For reference, the 2.2L MU-X has a listed gross vehicle mass of 2800kg and gross combined mass of 5900kg.

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.

The MU-X has a six-year/150,000km warranty and seven years of roadside assistance. Unlimited km in the warranty would be welcome.

Service intervals are scheduled for every 12 months or 15,000km, whichever occurs soonest.

Capped price servicing covers the first five scheduled services for MY24 and later vehicle models (up to 5 years/75,000km – whichever occurs first) – at a flat price of $469 for each service.

Isuzu Ute Australia has a nationwide network of more than 160 dealer sites.

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.