Our Long-Term Mazda CX-90 Turbo S Concludes 40,000 Miles with a Disappointing Driving Dynamics Assessment
After more than a year and accumulating over 40,000 miles on its odometer, our long-term Mazda CX-90 Turbo S has reached the end of its extensive evaluation period. This journey, intended to uncover the true character and everyday livability of Mazda’s ambitious three-row SUV, has concluded with a surprising and somewhat disheartening assessment: despite a specification sheet that hinted at considerable potential, the vehicle’s driving dynamics ultimately proved to be a significant letdown. This revelation comes after prolonged exposure to varied conditions, daily commutes, and longer road trips, revealing a chasm between expectation and real-world experience that persisted throughout its tenure.
From the moment the CX-90 Turbo S arrived, there was an undeniable buzz surrounding its introduction. Mazda had clearly signaled its intentions to move further upscale, positioning the CX-90 as a premium offering with a focus on sophisticated engineering. The “Turbo S” designation itself, coupled with the promise of a powerful inline-six engine and a new, longitudinally mounted engine architecture, fostered high expectations. On paper, this hardware configuration suggested a vehicle poised to deliver an engaging and refined driving experience, one that would stand apart in the competitive three-row SUV segment. We anticipated a blend of spirited performance and Mazda’s hallmark driver-centric focus, wrapped in a practical, family-friendly package. This initial optimism was rooted deeply in the perceived quality and advanced nature of its underlying components.
The allure of impressive-seeming hardware often creates a powerful first impression. The specifications of the CX-90 Turbo S painted a picture of a capable and even athletic family hauler. The engine, for instance, promised robust power delivery, theoretically translating into effortless highway cruising and confident acceleration when needed. Paired with what was understood to be a newly developed platform designed for enhanced rigidity and sophisticated suspension geometry, the stage was set for a driving experience that would elevate Mazda beyond its conventional rivals. These technical merits, in isolation, suggested a foundation upon which truly satisfying dynamics could be built. There was a sense that Mazda was genuinely striving to infuse a driver’s car ethos into a larger, more practical form factor, a challenging but exciting proposition.
However, the cumulative experience of 40,000 miles shattered many of these preconceived notions. The extended period of evaluation is crucial precisely because it allows for the subtle nuances of a vehicle’s character to emerge, nuances that might be overlooked during shorter test drives. What became apparent over time was a consistent disconnect between the theoretical capabilities suggested by the hardware and the actual sensation behind the wheel. The initial excitement gradually gave way to a pervasive feeling of unmet potential. It wasn’t a matter of catastrophic failure or glaring defects, but rather a persistent lack of the nuanced refinement and engaging feedback that we had come to associate with Mazda’s best offerings, especially those bearing a “Turbo S” badge.
The letdown in driving dynamics manifested in several key areas, creating an overall impression that fell short of the high bar set by its specifications. This wasn’t a case of outright poor performance, but rather a failure to coalesce into a cohesive, enjoyable, or confidence-inspiring experience over the long haul. The distinct elements that comprise driving dynamics, when assessed individually and collectively over thousands of miles, simply didn’t come together as expected:
- Steering Feel: Despite what appeared to be robust steering components, the feedback to the driver often felt vague and somewhat disconnected from the road. The precision and responsiveness often found in other Mazda models, which contribute significantly to driver engagement, seemed largely absent here, making the vehicle feel less agile than its hardware might suggest.
- Ride Quality and Body Control: While the suspension was clearly engineered for capability, the execution sometimes struggled to strike the right balance between comfort and composure. Over various road surfaces, the ride could feel either overly stiff and jarring for a family SUV, or conversely, exhibit an unexpected degree of float or body roll in scenarios where more composed control was anticipated.
- Powertrain Integration: The powerful inline-six engine, a centerpiece of the Turbo S appeal, often felt less refined and integrated than expected in day-to-day driving. While capable of delivering strong acceleration, its interaction with the transmission and overall throttle response sometimes lacked the seamlessness and immediate gratification one would hope for from a premium-aspiring powertrain, leading to moments of frustration.
- Braking Performance: While undoubtedly capable of stopping the vehicle safely, the tactile feel and linearity of the brakes often left something to be desired. A confident, progressive brake pedal is fundamental to feeling connected to a vehicle, and in the CX-90 Turbo S, this crucial element often felt less intuitive than ideal, requiring more conscious effort to achieve smooth stops.
The challenge of producing a truly dynamic three-row SUV is considerable, balancing the demands of family utility with the desire for a spirited driving experience. While some compromise is inherent in such a vehicle, the CX-90 Turbo S, with its premium aspirations and “Turbo S” badging, created an expectation that it would transcend these compromises more effectively. Instead, the persistent shortcomings in its dynamic character suggested that the engineering efforts, while impressive on paper, did not fully translate into a cohesive and rewarding driver experience. The vehicle consistently felt like a collection of impressive components that, when assembled, didn’t quite achieve the synergistic magic expected from a brand renowned for its driving pleasure.
In conclusion, our long-term test of the Mazda CX-90 Turbo S over 40,000 miles underscores a critical lesson: impressive specifications and advanced hardware alone do not guarantee a satisfying real-world driving experience. The expectation fostered by its powerful engine, sophisticated platform, and upscale positioning ultimately gave way to a persistent sense of disappointment in its driving dynamics. While the CX-90 Turbo S is undeniably a well-equipped and functional three-row SUV, its inability to deliver on the promise of engaging and refined dynamics meant it ultimately came up short in an area where Mazda traditionally excels, leaving us with a lingering feeling of unfulfilled potential.
Source : https://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/a45873287/2024-mazda-cx-90-turbo-s-reliability-maintenance/
