SUV Comparison: 2025 Volvo XC60 T8 vs Mazda CX-70 PHEV | Reviews

Article content

About 15 years after the technology debuted, the consensus seems to be that we call the plug-in hybrid (PHEV) version of a car the “fev.” The usefulness of PHEVs is often hotly debated, especially by pure battery-electric enthusiasts, as you arguably have all the maintenance of a combustion engine and limited electric range. In reality, PHEVs are more like hybrid-plus, providing the fuel-saving capability of a hybrid along with a short pure electric range for the morning commute. No need to hunt for fast chargers, just plug it into a regular wall socket and let it charge overnight.

Here are two family-sized two-row crossovers equipped with PHEV technology, and they make for unlikely but interesting rivals. Mazda has been working hard to elevate its brand perception, aiming to rise above the crowd by offering more style and a luxurious feel. Volvo managed to pull off this trick already, transitioning from boxily stolid to Scandinavian chic ages ago. It’s also slightly amusing to note that both vehicles use some combination of X and C in their name: CX-70 and XC60.

The 2025 Mazda CX-70 is basically just a CX-90 with the third row of seats excised in favour of slightly more cargo area. The mild-hybrid inline-six version has four separate trim levels, including the very swishy Signature at the top of the range, while the four-cylinder PHEV variant is limited to two. This example is the GT model in a very fetching copper colour. With minimal options, it costs $63,650 before freight and taxes.

Volvo’s 2025 XC60, here subtle in white, is considerably more expensive. Pricing kicks off at $82,750, and with optional 21” wheels, massaging seats, and a premium stereo, the as-tested price is $92,005.

While the Volvo XC60 and the Mazda CX-70 might not be priced and sized quite close enough to be commonly cross-shopped, it’s worth looking to see if Mazda’s managed to repeat Volvos upscale move here. Let’s unplug them from the wall and hop in for a drive.

What powers the plug-in hybrids?

Both of these cars have similar drivetrains, featuring four-cylinder engines paired with electric motors and a lithium-ion battery pack. In the XC60, the combustion engine is a 2.0L turbocharged four-cylinder, the lithium-ion battery pack holds 18.8 kWh worth of charge, and the transmission is an eight-speed automatic. Total power output is a very healthy 455 hp with 523 lb-ft of torque, making this innocuous-looking Volvo crossover something of a Crouching Sweden Hidden Viking type of machine.

In contrast, the PHEV system in the CX-70 is not a performance booster, but the more efficient option. Here, the four-cylinder engine is not turbocharged, and displaces 2.5L. The battery pack is only slightly smaller than the Volvo’s, at 17.8 kWh, but without the aid of forced induction for the combustion engine, total power is down to 323 hp and 369 lb-ft of torque.

Toggle full screen modePrevious Gallery Image

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

10. 

11. 

12. 

13. 

14. 

15. 

16. 

17. 

Next Gallery ImageToggle gallery captions

View All 17 Photos

1 of 17

All 17 Photos for Gallery

Function Not Available

Full Screen is not supported on this browser version.

You may use a different browser or device to view this in full screen.

OK

With more power in a smaller package, the Volvo is easily the quicker of the two here. In fact, shockingly so, as it accelerates with the kind of vigour you’d expect, coming as it does from a lineage of hot Volvo wagons. It is seriously quick, and feels pretty close to one of the company’s Polestar performance machines.

The CX-70 is no slouch, however. We’ll touch more on the handling and driving experience in a bit, but it’s perfectly quick enough for such a large vehicle. Accelerating to highway speeds takes a little over a second more than the XC60, and the gasoline engine can be a little noisy when taxed, but it doesn’t feel like much of a performance downgrade versus the inline-six option. However, the shifting is not entirely polished.

How fuel efficient are these PHEVs?

Officially, the CX-70’s fuel consumption is rated at 9.9 L/100 km in the city, and 8.7 L/100 km on the highway. The Volvo XC60 rates 8.5 L/100 km across the board. More power yet less fuel usage? Let’s take a look at the main reason for this situation.

Tipping the scales at 2,146 kg, the XC60 is no lightweight. However, the CX-70 outweighs it by almost 200 additional kilograms. Because it is so close to the larger CX-90 in design, the CX-70 has the fuel-efficiency of a three-row crossover, rather than a two-row. It’d be interesting to see how much thriftier this engine setup would be in the likes of the smaller CX-50.

As it stands, the Volvo sips just that much less fuel, and has a greater battery-only range of 58 kilometres as compared to the Mazda’s max of 42 km. In practice, however, plugging in regularly resulted in the CX-70 returning impressively close to its highway mileage in mixed use. That’s excellent for a larger crossover.

Practicality of the Mazda CX-70 vs Volvo XC60

Here the CX-70 wins back any points lost in efficiency because its cargo space can only be described as cavernous. With a total of 1,122L behind the second row, it offers more than double the amount of space than the XC60 does (468L). In fact, that’s almost as much room as the XC60 provides with its rear seats folded down.

The question is, of course, do you actually need all this room? The XC60 is a little small when compared to direct rivals like the BMW X3, but the space is still useful, and has a handy cargo-net pocket on the left perfect for keeping smaller groceries from rolling around the trunk. In the CX-70’s huge trunk, there’s a tendency for items to slide forward, making for a bit of a reach when you open the hatch. It’s not ideal, and you’ll get your pants dirty on the rear bumper.

Comfort and Convenience

Volvo should receive some sort of award, up to and including the Nobel kind, for its heated steering wheel. First, it’s heated all around the rim, a hot water bottle for your hands on a cold winter day. Second, it’s powerful, radiating warmth like a plate you’ve just taken out of the oven. Last, and perhaps most importantly, you don’t have to turn it on every time – it stays on.

This feature doesn’t seem like the biggest deal, but it gives the XC60 some character. This kind of everyday convenience is the sort of thing that makes people say, “Oh, I like Volvos because they always do that.” By contrast, the CX-70 only heats your hands at the 3-and-9 position, because it is a company run by engineers and that is the correct way to hold a steering wheel. It’s also not quite as hot, and you have to switch it on every time. Sometimes, it’s the little things.

Beyond this, you cannot fault Mazda for creating an interior here that feels nearly as upscale as the Volvo’s. The CX-70 is a bit more businesslike than the XC60’s wood trim and crystal gearshift, but the quality is very good and everything feels nice to the touch. The XC60 has slightly nicer seats, but then Volvo seats have always been the ones that not even Mercedes-Benz could outdo.

How is the ride and handling?

Mazda usually offers a more fun-to-drive experience than you’d expect in a practical car, and so it is with the CX-70. It never really sheds the feeling of its size or weight, but the chassis is competent and it rides well, especially considering the 21” wheels. The turning circle is also surprisingly excellent.

The XC60 rides a little stiff, but the surprise is how light on its feet it feels for a vehicle that weighs as much as a Ford F150 Crewcab. The combination of electric torque and forced induction shove cover up any initial inertia, and the XC60 scoots along quickly. In feel, it’s very Volvo-like in a way that’s distinct from a BMW or Audi product. Performance in the German brands tends to be a little more taut and unforgiving, but the Swedes build cars that would still be quick over roads roughed up by winter conditions. I’d put the slight stiffness here down to the 21” wheels, and leave those off the options list.

Technology in the Mazda vs Volvo

Mazda’s take on infotainment is a bit unusual, in that it’s trying to buck the trend where everything is based around touchscreens. Instead, in the CX-70, you get a rotary controller that handles things in much the same manner as BMW’s old iDrive system.

Thing is, a brief test-drive of this technology might frustrate you, but the more time you spend with it, the more you think that Mazda’s engineers might be right. Even when using Apple CarPlay (or Android Auto), the rotary controller becomes nearly as no-look usable as the volume knob that’s also located between the seats. It won’t please everyone, but it actually works. Also, you don’t get those smeary finger marks on the screen.

Volvo’s set up is based around Google software, and has some nicely chunky buttons to back everything up. The standard menus have a bit of a learning curve if you don’t want to use CarPlay or Android Auto, but if you do, then it’s just the standard touchscreen interface you’re used to.

The Volvo’s premium audio system is by Bowers & Wilkins and it is very good. It does also cost an additional $3,750, par for the luxury brand segment, but I’m not sure it’s actually any better than the CX-70’s standard 12-speaker Bose stereo. Audiophiles will hear the difference, the rest of us won’t.

Safety Features

A large part of Volvo’s identity has long been about safety, but the truth is that many brands have caught up in terms of both passive and active safety measures. The XC60 rates a top safety pick from the IIHS, but so too does the CX-70.

Both vehicles have collision mitigation and blind spot monitoring. The Mazda also has a cross-traffic alert (albeit one that’s a bit on the overly sensitive side). A 360-degree camera with sensors might not seem an obvious safety enhancement, but it does make parking safer and both vehicles have one.

Final Thoughts

On its own merits, the CX-70 is an unusual vehicle. It functions perfectly well, but its capabilities are less impressive than they are in the nearly identical CX-90. Having three rows of seating, even if you only use the back seats in a pinch, is handy enough that you can overlook a hefty feel and a little more thirst at the pump.

The XC60, on the other hand, shows Mazda how you do brand identity. It is quick without being showy, has an interior built around comfort, and has many thoughtful touches that will win fans and keep them. It feels distinct from other brands, in a good way.

The CX-70 is a perfectly competent crossover PHEV, but there’s little to recommend it over the more-useful CX-90. It does the job of holding its own as a more upscale experience than you’d expect from a mainstream brand, but I’d like to see a Mazda PHEV in a nimbler package, the better to showcase what the company is all about.

Sign up for our newsletter Blind-Spot Monitor and follow our social channels on X, Tiktok and LinkedIn to stay up to date on the latest automotive news, reviews, car culture, and vehicle shopping advice.