Topic: Day-by-Day Review: 2014 Mazda6 GT; Day 1

[whaddaiknow]

Can we stay on the topic please?
James, you seem to like the new 6. I too find it handsome and classy.
When you say the power is adequate for any family, how would you compare it to the V6's of 10 years ago? I bought a new '02 Camry V6 in '02. That thing had 180hp and I though it moved well (not a rocket, but smooth and more than adequate for any situation). Do you find the power and torque curve linear more or less? Any flat points? Is it peaky maybe? How is power down low?
Thanks

[wing]

Power down low is great, it has 185lb/ft at just 3,250!  It is very equal to the older V6s, very smooth, linear and effortless.

[Black Hatch]

I hate the fact that I can't stand waiting for the diesel version of this car!

On average, I'd say I have to agree with you....no...wait...that's a different thread...

Looking at the pics, and damn that's one sexy car.  Does it look as stunning in real?  The arse looks great, http://www.autos.ca/galleries/2014/index.php?level=picture&id=832 the side profile is smokin', http://www.autos.ca/galleries/2014/index.php?level=picture&id=849 gorgeous wheels...the nose though, I might need to see in real to make a proper judgement call.  But, based on pics alone (of the 6) and having seen several 2002 Tau...new Fusions on the street, it makes the Fusion look like a blob of shi7.
(almost like the old Taurus better.)

Wow that is uncanny how the new Fusion looks like the ol' Taurus.

[Solstice2006]

Power down low is great, it has 185lb/ft at just 3,250!  It is very equal to the older V6s, very smooth, linear and effortless.

I am sure it performs similar to the old V6 in the first generation Mazda6.  Was a decent V6, but not a very efficient one. 

[Jaeger]

Sharp looking ride, but the weaksuace motor would be a deal-breaker for me.  No doubt it is entirely adequate for the proverbial 'average family' but for the (comparatively smaller) group of buyers who have preferred their Accords and Camrys with V6 motivation, it will be decidedly less than adequate.  This thing may look like its going a hundred miles an hour standing still, but a beige Camry will blow its doors off and suck out the headlights in the vortex as it passes by.  Of course racing isn't the point of mainstream family sedans, but uplevel power has had its appeal for a percetage of buyers in this segment for a good long while.

"Need" doesn't define all - "want" very much comes into the equation, even in this pragmatic segment.  It's why a long list of options are offered, almost none of which are "needed" for the vehicle to fulfill its family-hauling role.  Mazda has left power off the options list.  I can't see how that will work to their advantage when nearly all their competitors haven't.

[Jaeger]

Looking at the pics, and damn that's one sexy car.  Does it look as stunning in real?

A guy in my neighborhood just got one in red.  Pretty damned slick-looking ride, I'd say.  Strong argument to be made for best-in-class style, in my entirely subjective opinion.

[Solstice2006]

Sharp looking ride, but the weaksuace motor would be a deal-breaker for me.  No doubt it is entirely adequate for the proverbial 'average family' but for the (comparatively smaller) group of buyers who have preferred their Accords and Camrys with V6 motivation, it will be decidedly less than adequate.  This thing may look like its going a hundred miles an hour standing still, but a beige Camry will blow its doors off and suck out the headlights in the vortex as it passes by.  Of course racing isn't the point of mainstream family sedans, but uplevel power has had its appeal for a percetage of buyers in this segment for a good long while.

"Need" doesn't define all - "want" very much comes into the equation, even in this pragmatic segment.  It's why a long list of options are offered, almost none of which are "needed" for the vehicle to fulfill its family-hauling role.  Mazda has left power off the options list.  I can't see how that will work to their advantage when nearly all their competitors haven't.

I understand lack of a V6 is a deal breaker for some.  And this be their flagship model, one would expect a turbo 4 or V6.  I think Mazda is in a tight spot, limited resources, 3 engines recently redesigned, the two Skyactiv engines, and the diesel, a new plant being made in Mexico.  Maybe once the dust has settled, and a mid cycle update is due for the Mazda6, a turbo 4 will be offered.  Who knows what the future will hold...one thing is for sure, Mazda always walks to their own beat.

[Jaeger]

Looking at the pics, and damn that's one sexy car.  Does it look as stunning in real?

A guy in my neighborhood just got one in red.  Pretty damned slick-looking ride, I'd say.  Strong argument to be made for best-in-class style, in my entirely subjective opinion.

If the 6 came with the same power as your beautiful blue Sonata Turbo, which would you choose?

I'm a power junkie myself, but the diesel would be tempting.  Would love to see big mpgs from a big car.

I'd have to drive both - I certainly did check out everything in the segment (including some above and below) before getting my Sonata.  The 6 is a sweet looking ride though. If it were available with uplevel power it would be a strong contender.  Most of the newer entries since that purchase (heck - almost everything is now newer than the Sonata - Altima, Camry, Accord) just don't float my boat in terms of aesthetics.  But they all offer V6 power.

Wing applauds the 6's 185 lb.ft. @ 3250.  But I am now used to around 269 lb.ft @1850-4500.  That's a difference you can feel, all day every day.  I'm not willing to take that much of a step down in power.

[Solstice2006]

Y’know, with “SkyActiv” this and “SkyActiv” that, I was really hoping for some incredible numbers when it came to my fuel economy for the week. It is not like the Mazda6 did horribly, and it is a mid-sized sedan shod with winter tires. What did I average? Well I eked out 7.7 L/100 km over the course of the week, which by itself is excellent

Not sure why the author thought he could beat the Nissan Altima.  He isn't the first one to have driven the Mazda6.  Many test drives, have shown it has home in 2nd place after the Nissan Altima, but ahead of the Honda Accord.  I would assume the Mazda6 would win, if it used the a CVT like the Accord and Altima.  Also, not sure of the mileage of this tester, but after 10,000km, and using all-season tires, with a little warmer weather, something like 7.3L would probably by the average.

After a 4 day review I would expect to hear a little bit more about the features that are exclusive to the GT trim.  "As I mentioned, my GT tester is loaded with every option — unfortunately including the automatic. But it includes some impressive features like blind spot detection, radar cruise control, dual-zone climate control, navigation and leather seating"

But nothing about the automatic, or the blind spot detection, radar cruise control, or the navi.

[wing]

Sorry, I guess I should mention... they work...

I've driven so many vehicles with these features, they feel common place.  They work the same as other vehicles, but IMO are just features for the sake of features.

Only so much fits in an article and there are too many features to discus.

Oh but the Nav is annoying, Tom Tom system, everytime you open it, it asks you if you would like to record your use or not. 

[safristi]

Isn't TOM TOM politically incorrect as well as being geographically incorrect....

[mixmanmash]

Y’know, with “SkyActiv” this and “SkyActiv” that, I was really hoping for some incredible numbers when it came to my fuel economy for the week. It is not like the Mazda6 did horribly, and it is a mid-sized sedan shod with winter tires. What did I average? Well I eked out 7.7 L/100 km over the course of the week, which by itself is excellent

Not sure why the author thought he could beat the Nissan Altima.  He isn't the first one to have driven the Mazda6.  Many test drives, have shown it has home in 2nd place after the Nissan Altima, but ahead of the Honda Accord.  I would assume the Mazda6 would win, if it used the a CVT like the Accord and Altima.  Also, not sure of the mileage of this tester, but after 10,000km, and using all-season tires, with a little warmer weather, something like 7.3L would probably by the average.

After a 4 day review I would expect to hear a little bit more about the features that are exclusive to the GT trim.  "As I mentioned, my GT tester is loaded with every option — unfortunately including the automatic. But it includes some impressive features like blind spot detection, radar cruise control, dual-zone climate control, navigation and leather seating"

But nothing about the automatic, or the blind spot detection, radar cruise control, or the navi.

I don't think a 0.2 L/100km difference is very much at all.  For that difference, I'd pick the car that is more fun to drive.  I think when it comes to such a low difference, the cars need to be driven under the same exact conditions, at the same time to be able to exactly see the fuel consumption.

[Solstice2006]

I wonder if that's what the EPA does, to get more accurate numbers than the NR CAB...

[Noto]

Many test drives, have shown it has home in 2nd place after the Nissan Altima, but ahead of the Honda Accord.  I would assume the Mazda6 would win, if it used the a CVT like the Accord and Altima. 

I think the point is that Mazda touts their technology as 'amazing' and a total re-invent of the internal combustion engine and its associated mechanicals...but Subaru, Nissan, Honda, etc. are showing that a proper transmission can do far more for fuel economy than the entire "SkyActiv" treatment.  Just think what a SkyActiv CVT could do...

Don't get me wrong - I'm ALL for SkyActiv - I think reducing weight, friction, and drivetrain losses are the ideal!!!  I just think that it's something of an oxymoron to try to get the best efficiency from extant technology, and then use a less-efficient transmission.

The problem is that Mazda's touting SkyActiv as an alternative to using hybrids - it's an advertising game.  To keep the "fun to drive" they won't use a CVT, but in the real world, a proper CVT is the efficient way to go, even if auto enthusiasts don't like them.

Just look at Subaru with the new Forester - same FB25 engine, vehicle actually got heavier (~50lbs), yet it now gets 5MPG better on the highway (thanks to a reduced cd to 0.33) and 3MPG better in the city with the only change being the introduction of a CVT over the 4EAT.

My $0.02.  I think Mazda's done an amazing job, but to truly beat the fuel economy game, they should at the very least consider a CVT - maybe with PROPER pre-set ratios to simulate a traditional automatic (a la Subaru S.I. Drive) to maintain the driving fun.

[mixmanmash]

I wonder if that's what the EPA does, to get more accurate numbers than the NR CAB...

Chances are they still do lab testing where they can control wind, temperature, etc.  It's just the parameters of their lab testing that are different.

[mixmanmash]

Many test drives, have shown it has home in 2nd place after the Nissan Altima, but ahead of the Honda Accord.  I would assume the Mazda6 would win, if it used the a CVT like the Accord and Altima. 

I think the point is that Mazda touts their technology as 'amazing' and a total re-invent of the internal combustion engine and its associated mechanicals...but Subaru, Nissan, Honda, etc. are showing that a proper transmission can do far more for fuel economy than the entire "SkyActiv" treatment.  Just think what a SkyActiv CVT could do...

Don't get me wrong - I'm ALL for SkyActiv - I think reducing weight, friction, and drivetrain losses are the ideal!!!  I just think that it's something of an oxymoron to try to get the best efficiency from extant technology, and then use a less-efficient transmission.

The problem is that Mazda's touting SkyActiv as an alternative to using hybrids - it's an advertising game.  To keep the "fun to drive" they won't use a CVT, but in the real world, a proper CVT is the efficient way to go, even if auto enthusiasts don't like them.

Just look at Subaru with the new Forester - same FB25 engine, vehicle actually got heavier (~50lbs), yet it now gets 5MPG better on the highway (thanks to a reduced cd to 0.33) and 3MPG better in the city with the only change being the introduction of a CVT over the 4EAT.

My $0.02.  I think Mazda's done an amazing job, but to truly beat the fuel economy game, they should at the very least consider a CVT - maybe with PROPER pre-set ratios to simulate a traditional automatic (a la Subaru S.I. Drive) to maintain the driving fun.

Mazda is balancing fun to drive with fuel economy.  I think they succeeded.  0.2L/100 km difference is hardly anything to be concerned about.  The better solution than a CVT is a 8 or 9 speed automatic.  You now have so many gears that it's close enough to a CVT, without being a CVT.  My wife has a CVT equipped vehicle.  I hate the CVT after spending many hours behind the vehicle.  It saps any fun out of the drive.

[Patrick_D1]

Why don't manufacturers that use a CVT transmission program it with 6 or 7 preset shift points and give drivers the option to have it shift like a normal automatic? They could also offer several maps, one for economy, one for sport etc.

Giving a CVT pre-set shift points outside of the "manual" mode defeats the purpose of having a CVT.

[JRM]

Good for Mazda for doing something other than a CVT for better fuel economy.  I hope they stick with autos.  My experience with a '10 Outback and '10 Rouge were not good and were deal breakers for me, when I was looking for a new wagon.  The droaning and wind up toy feel did not make for a very engaging driving experience.  The paddles on the Outback did nothing to help it either.

[Blueprint]

Looking at the pics, and damn that's one sexy car.  Does it look as stunning in real?

A guy in my neighborhood just got one in red.  Pretty damned slick-looking ride, I'd say.  Strong argument to be made for best-in-class style, in my entirely subjective opinion.

If the 6 came with the same power as your beautiful blue Sonata Turbo, which would you choose?

I'm a power junkie myself, but the diesel would be tempting.  Would love to see big mpgs from a big car.

See the various test-drives of Passats with the TDI ... impressive numbers! The recent Camry Hybrid added some scoot to its frugalness, too.

[Noto]

See the various test-drives of Passats with the TDI ... impressive numbers! The recent Camry Hybrid added some scoot to its frugalness, too.

Giving a CVT pre-set shift points outside of the "manual" mode defeats the purpose of having a CVT.

Not really - I think they could use the preset shift points as a sports mode. You could revert to CVT during stop/go traffic.

But you see, this is my point - Mazda is touting that they are after fuel efficiency, but they are being matched or surpassed by other companies NOT using their "SkyActiv" treatment.  Mazda put a lot into marketing and advertising that the SkyActiv would BEAT other traditional fuel economy numbers and , but it's not.  It's meant to go after the likes of the TDIs and the Hybrids.  If the Altima weighs more, has similar (but lower) power output, and doesn't have the gains from reduced internal friction, then how is it capable of matching the fuel economy numbers within a few tenths of a litre?  It's just showing that SkyActiv isn't delivering as promised.  It's good, but it's not better.

All of this is to say that if they followed their own logic of optimizing the efficiency of extant technologies, then they should also be using CVTs with the OPTION to use a "sport" mode with pre-set ratios like Subaru's SI drive - that way, if you want the fun to drive factor, it's there, and if you want the highest efficiency (as most shoppers do), then it's there.  Best of both worlds.  Downside?  They don't have a CVT and R&D to get one isn't exactly free.

If you want the most market share, it's logical to appeal to the widest audience.  Have the most frugal fuel economy numbers for thousands less than a diesel or hybrid with no need to find special gas stations or lose trunk cargo space...

Look, Mazda's doing just fine without my advice, but you'll see that the new Accord and Altima will both outsell the Mazda6 and they have CVTs.