Volkswagen T-Cross vs Mazda CX-70

What's the difference?

There are so many new little SUVs out there and it might be easy to think they’re all the same - a tiny cheap SUV is just a tiny cheap SUV. But I’m convinced the Volkswagen T-Cross isn’t like the others.

Yes, it’s tiny and relatively cheap, but it can do more than most of the others from the storage and space it offers to the value-for-money and its level of refinement. Then there’s the way it drives - which can’t in my books be matched by any of its rivals.  

The sweet spot in the range is the entry grade Life. At $35K drive-away the value is best and with no difference in engines between the grades there are no huge reasons to step up higher in the range unless you have the money.

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

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.

The T-Cross is Volkswagen’s smallest SUV at 4.1m long and even though it’s closely related to the little Polo hatchback it looks more like a mini version of the Tiguan.  

It might be tiny and relatively affordable but it has Volkswagen’s premium looks and sharp styling, with creases in the panels so crisp it looks like somebody just ironed it.

This update has brought new front and rear bumper designs, and new styling to the LED running lights and tail-lights. That’s typically how car companies do exterior design updates, inside the styling changes are pretty minimal, too.

There’s new dashboard design and new media screen, but again the design and quality feels refined and high quality, which I can't say goes for a lot of this car's rivals.

The entry-grade Life misses out on the cross design tail-lights of the Style and R-Line, and gets hubcaps rather than alloy wheels like the other two grades.

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.

You really should take a look at my video to get an idea of how good space and storage is in the T-Cross. I’m tall at 189cm but I can drive with plenty of elbow room and legroom. The front seats also have really long bases which offer great under-thigh support, too.

Legroom in the back is great for the class and I can sit behind my driving position without my knees touching the seatback, while headroom is excellent, too. The second row also slides on rails to increase the boot side which is enormous for the class at 455L.

The second row doors also have large apertures making entry and exit easier.

Cabin storage is great with giant door pockets in the front and back, a wireless phone charger with four USB-C ports (two in the front and two in the second row).

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 T-Cross has a 1.0-litre three-cylinder engine which sounds tiny and it is, but it's turbo-charged and the 85kW/200Nm it produces is plenty of grunt to move this little SUV which at just under 1.3 tonnes is relatively light. 

All grades in the T-Cross line-up have this same engine and there’s no high-performance variant, although the R-Line has selectable drive modes. Every T-Cross is front-wheel drive with a seven-speed dual-clutch auto transmission. 

This three-cylinder is a mighty little beastie with a growly tone to it. There is some turbo lag during stop-start city driving, but it’s so eager to play that if it was a dog it’d be a Jack Russell with every intention to chase anything it sees but no idea how small it is.

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.

Smaller engines use less fuel than larger ones and the 1.0-litre three-cylinder in the T-Cross is little and Volkswagen says over a combination of open and urban roads it uses 5.6L/100km.

That’s fuel efficient but these days larger SUVs with hybrid systems are achieving the same low consumption. Toyota’s Yaris Cross is available with a hybrid system and will use about 3.8L/100km.

Volkswagen doesn’t have a hybrid version of the T-Cross, but it should, especially given these little cars will spend more time in urban environments where fuel consumption will generally be higher.

That said, most tiny SUVs don’t have hybrid systems so that makes the Yaris Cross exceptional while the T-Cross is about average.

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.

Quite possibly the best little SUV to drive for this price and size, the only drawback is that there’s a touch of lag in the time it takes the power to arrive at low speeds in stop-start traffic, but that can be remedied by putting the transmission in 'Sport' mode.

The steering is light and accurate, the visibility is excellent thanks to the big windows and raised ride height, the pedal feel under your feet is great and the brakes are responsive.

The car feels stable, planted and secure whether it's on a motorway, or a winding country road, while the little 1.0-litre engine is a champion that keeps punching with a throaty growl that matches its enthusiasm.

The seven-speed transmission is superb and changes gears fast, while the paddle shifter lets you take control to keep the revs high.

These little SUVs aren't sports cars but some are so underwhelming to drive it feels like performance was never thought about while developing the vehicle.

But the T-Cross made me grin until my face hurt on the steep winding hairpin filled roads we tested it on at its launch. 

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 T-Cross is covered by Volkswagen’s five-year unlimited kilometre warranty.

Servicing is recommended every 15,000km or yearly and while there’s no capped price servicing you can buy a five-year plan for $2800, which equates to $560 per workshop visit.

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.