Author Topic: Day-by-Day Review: 2014 Mazda6 GT; Day 1 (Read 19720 times)

Patrick_D1 · « **Reply #40 on:** April 08, 2013, 01:55:02 pm »

Quote from: stodge on April 08, 2013, 11:20:58 am

Quote from: Force on April 08, 2013, 11:03:42 am
Quote from: stodge on April 08, 2013, 09:46:32 am
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.

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

Missed the part about different maps - my bad!

Blueprint · « **Reply #41 on:** April 08, 2013, 02:09:24 pm »

YMMV.

See Haney Louka's Altima test drive - 10 l/100km in the cold on snow tires, mostly urban driving.

The guys I work with just published a test drive of another Mazda6 GT press car, and they got 8.1 l/100km out of it (50% freeway, 30% rural, 20% urban, according to the writer). I'm lobbying to get that same car for a 1000km two-way trek to my Maine cottage on the super-smooth New England interstates. At 120 km/h-ish, my Ody gets 9.8-10.0 on that same trip, the White Mountains not helping (fantastic scenery, though!).

Solstice2006 · « **Reply #42 on:** April 08, 2013, 02:32:23 pm »

Quote

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.

Your right Mazda will do fine without your advice. And it wouldn't matter if the Mazda6 had a V6, with AWD, and a wagon, and you could choose CVT or Auto or Stick across the board. Because in the end, Honda, Toyota, and Nissan have bigger market share, and the old reliability card and resale value card to play. Which is fine for the average consumer, who don't want something different.

I don't think Mazda ever said their Skyactiv technology was better than other companies. Mazda is all about finding balance, the sore point of the 1st gen was the fuel economy, now that has been fixed. For this gen, the styling is there, handling is above average, and fuel economy is above average, and it's fun to drive... Mazda will never have a CVT...unless their target market asks for it!

dkaz · « **Reply #43 on:** April 08, 2013, 02:44:06 pm »

Quote from: NoTo on April 08, 2013, 01:52:42 pm

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.

You hate Mazda, we get it. lol.

I drove a CVT for the first time with the Accord and to be honest I didn't notice anything terrible about it compared to other automatics, I mean to me all automatics are terrible and I'd rather drive a manual lol. The Mazda 6 had nice quick shifts while the Accord didn't shift at all, but in the end they both did the same thing. The only automatic I have a fond heart for, and I'm serious here, the Ford Focus's DCT. It really felt like I was driving an automated manual.

libraman · « **Reply #44 on:** April 08, 2013, 03:18:04 pm »

CVT does not necessarily equal better fuel economy in real world tests. There have been many instances where the regular automatics have been just as efficient or more so. Manuals still rule from an efficiency standpoint despite the government numbers.

I believe Mazda revamped their automatics as part of the SKy Activ technology. See http://www.mazda-news.eu/2011/06/02/skyactiv-drive-automatic-transmissio

whaddaiknow · « **Reply #45 on:** April 08, 2013, 03:35:56 pm »

Quote from: Solstice2006 on April 08, 2013, 02:32:23 pm

Your right Mazda will do fine without your advice. And it wouldn't matter if the Mazda6 had a V6, with AWD, and a wagon, and you could choose CVT or Auto or Stick across the board. Because in the end, Honda, Toyota, and Nissan have bigger market share, and the old reliability card and resale value card to play. Which is fine for the average consumer, who don't want something different.

I don't think Mazda ever said their Skyactiv technology was better than other companies. Mazda is all about finding balance, the sore point of the 1st gen was the fuel economy, now that has been fixed. For this gen, the styling is there, handling is above average, and fuel economy is above average, and it's fun to drive... Mazda will never have a CVT...unless their target market asks for it!

Bullcrap.
It's all over their commercials. If this is not a claim of superiority then I don't know what is.
Taken right from Mazda:

The 2013 Mazda Cx5 with Skyactiv technology is our latest big hit with Hybrid Crushing Fuel Economy in an SUV with up to 50 MPG, the right SUV for today's market

CRUSHING - no less.

Solstice2006 · « **Reply #46 on:** April 08, 2013, 04:52:14 pm »

Quote from: whaddaiknow on April 08, 2013, 03:35:56 pm

Quote from: Solstice2006 on April 08, 2013, 02:32:23 pm

Your right Mazda will do fine without your advice. And it wouldn't matter if the Mazda6 had a V6, with AWD, and a wagon, and you could choose CVT or Auto or Stick across the board. Because in the end, Honda, Toyota, and Nissan have bigger market share, and the old reliability card and resale value card to play. Which is fine for the average consumer, who don't want something different.

I don't think Mazda ever said their Skyactiv technology was better than other companies. Mazda is all about finding balance, the sore point of the 1st gen was the fuel economy, now that has been fixed. For this gen, the styling is there, handling is above average, and fuel economy is above average, and it's fun to drive... Mazda will never have a CVT...unless their target market asks for it!

Bullcrap.
It's all over their commercials. If this is not a claim of superiority then I don't know what is.
Taken right from Mazda:

The 2013 Mazda Cx5 with Skyactiv technology is our latest big hit with Hybrid Crushing Fuel Economy in an SUV with up to 50 MPG, the right SUV for today's market

CRUSHING - no less.

HAHA, you only take the extremes that apply to your side (not sure where Crushing comes from, but I will take your word for it)

In the below link, it describes the Skyactiv as being 15% more efficient than their previous 2.0L engine, which is true. So why aren't they allowed to advertise their accomplishments. How many Hyundai commercials have you seen that we have been lied to? And the Ford Hybrid investigation, as to it's fuel economy claims.

Been a little while since Mazda has been in the spotlight for the better, can't think of any review that has not said the Mazda (cx-5 or 6) is not a good alternate to a Honda (CRV or Accord), so what's wrong with that? There is no loser, many good choices, which is great for the consumer...

dkaz · « **Reply #47 on:** April 08, 2013, 05:15:30 pm »

"Hybrid Crushing Fuel Economy" was in their commercials around the time the CX-5 was released.

The CX-5 is slightly more fuel efficient on the highway than an Escape Hybrid. Just ignore the fact that the Escape Hybrid is way more fuel efficient than the CX-5. lol.

wing · « **Reply #48 on:** April 08, 2013, 08:34:52 pm »

I tired using the nav today. What a useless pos. It has voice commands bit doesn't key you use them while driving... Duh

And it got messed up and despite being set to English was talking to me in Spanish.

Then i gave up and tried using the map but it was useless as didn't show the names of cross streets.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

Black Hatch · « **Reply #49 on:** April 08, 2013, 08:48:30 pm »

Quote from: Autos_Editor on April 03, 2013, 06:00:52 am

James takes a break from luxury cars to test one of our favourite family sedans. Will it stand up under his scrutiny?
Read More...

James, hows does the new Mazda6 (if you consider the GT as the luxury model) compare with the other luxury cars that you have recently drove?
Enough difference to tell that this is an economy car?

Also how come the Nissan Altima gets a 5 star for fuel economy and the Mazda6 only gets a 4 star?
Is 0.2L/100km difference really worth 1 star?
http://www.autos.ca/car-test-drives/day-by-day-review-2013-nissan-altima-sv/4/

Toyota Camry was 8.5L/100km and it got a 4.5 star!?!?!
http://www.autos.ca/toyota/day-by-day-review-2012-toyota-camry-xle/4/

Quote from: NoTo on April 08, 2013, 01:52:42 pm

Quote from: Blueprint on April 08, 2013, 12:22:12 pm
See the various test-drives of Passats with the TDI ... impressive numbers! The recent Camry Hybrid added some scoot to its frugalness, too.
Quote from: stodge on April 08, 2013, 11:20:58 am
Quote from: Force on April 08, 2013, 11:03:42 am
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.

The Accord and Altima will outsell the Mazda6 regardless if they change to CVT or not. Mazda is NOT a big name in the USA.
They tried playing that game with the 2nd generation Mazda6 (big car, big engine) and saw how badly that went.
Instead they have to go for a different audience... the audience that like driving cars
Which was what Volkswagen/Pontiac advertised not too long ago "Built for Drivers"?

Plus some people may still see the past Ford-affiliation stigma.

Quote from: DKaz on April 08, 2013, 05:15:30 pm

"Hybrid Crushing Fuel Economy" was in their commercials around the time the CX-5 was released.

The CX-5 is slightly more fuel efficient on the highway than an Escape Hybrid. Just ignore the fact that the Escape Hybrid is way more fuel efficient than the CX-5. lol.

What is the diesel CX-5 fuel economy? Is it better than a hybrid?
Besides we know how how well hybrids vs BMWs do with fuel efficiency at a race track

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/24/2445.asp

wing · « **Reply #50 on:** April 08, 2013, 09:01:58 pm »

The Camry was good... In 2011 when I reviewed it.
I should have giving the altima 4.5

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

Black Hatch · « **Reply #51 on:** April 08, 2013, 09:06:53 pm »

Quote from: wing on April 08, 2013, 09:01:58 pm

The Camry was good... In 2011 when I reviewed it.
I should have giving the altima 4.5

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

You reviewed the Camry in Feb, 2012

wing · « **Reply #52 on:** April 08, 2013, 09:09:30 pm »

Thought it was Dec 2011. Well things have moved along apparently.

I should also forget the trains because I do then by feel on the day. So you can't really compare them a year later

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

pcsp · « **Reply #53 on:** April 08, 2013, 09:21:51 pm »

Just a minor correction to NoTo's comment that the Altima weighs more than the Mazda 6. The Altima is the lightest mid-size vehicle at 3120 lbs. The 6 (auto) is 3223 - over 100 lbs. more. Both vehicles have achieved substantial gains compared to the class average in previous years. Both vehicles are also lighter than many bloated sub compacts. The Altima is even lighter (projected) than the soon to be here Fiat 500L!!!

Black Hatch · « **Reply #54 on:** April 08, 2013, 09:22:47 pm »

Quote from: wing on April 08, 2013, 09:09:30 pm

Thought it was Dec 2011. Well things have moved along apparently.

I should also forget the trains because I do then by feel on the day. So you can't really compare them a year later

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

I like your reviews especially since they have ratings for each.

It would be a nice tool if you could compare those rating side by side for similar vehicles
like this
http://www.autos.ca/forum/index.php/topic,80995.msg843966.html#msg843966

Noto · « **Reply #55 on:** April 08, 2013, 10:58:25 pm »

My bad about the weight - chalk one up to me working off memory and not checking before posting. Apologies.

Still, I post one large *sigh* to all who misunderstood my earlier post.

1) I don't hate Mazda. Not at all. I don't like the claustrophobic feeling of the backseat of the '6 as a mid-size sedan, but I don't HATE the car. I would consider it if I were in the market for a mid-size...

2) Suffice it to say that I was questioning the logic of the SkyActiv method of making extant technology more efficient by using technology that is less efficient (6-speed) than another offering (CVT, or even an 8 or 9 speed autobox).

In fact, my entire point was a nod to Mazda for refining what they've got rather than making bogus 'tech' like Subaru's XV hybrid (yes, I'm Subaru bashing - a 15hp electric motor does not make sense when the system weighs 300lbs more). I was pointing out that Mazda, if they adopted a CVT, could hypothetically make the BEST CVT this world has ever seen with their SkyActiv mantra.

Speculative, of course, but I believe that if they were to plop an efficient tranny in with the rest of their efficency engineering, it could meet the real world efficiency of most hybrids.

And since many of you decided to misunderstand my point from before, let me conclude by saying "Go Mazda Go." Does that help?

Julie · « **Reply #56 on:** April 08, 2013, 11:34:40 pm »

^ Mazda has come up with a Sky-Activ auto tranny which combines the smoothness of a conventional automatic at low speeds with the fast shifts of a dual clutch at higher speeds. It's getting positive reviews. Perhaps that is where they chose to focus their efforts, rather than on CVT technology (which isn't exact winning over driving enthusiasts...)

Noto · « **Reply #57 on:** April 09, 2013, 11:01:47 am »

But that's exactly it - winning over "enthusiasts".

The Forester's high-torque CVT seems to be winning over some. Many love the combination of Nissan's 3.5L with the CVT in the Murano. There are some great applications of CVTs, and as they become more mainstream, their 'deficiencies' will become less pronounced.

The average consumer is not an auto enthusiast. If you poll every single person in Canada on their car purchasing decisions, less than 10% would choose "I prefer a conventional automatic over a Continuously Variable Unit" - in fact, probably only 5% will understand what that even means.

What consumers see, care about, and use in their decision can vary widely. Still, fuel economy and style are right up there. That's why Kia/Hyundai have come so far - great styling, reasonable prices, and 'promise' of fuel economy have trumped brand recognition and perceived reliability.

Mazda is getting great fuel economy sticker numbers, but the competition is either not far off or is even matching it. My suggestion was that the SkyActiv treatment on a CVT with a chassis and engine that were designed from the bottom-up as SkyActiv (Mazda 6 or CX-5) would likely get better fuel economy.

Imagine the sticker of a Mazda 3 SkyActiv CVT getting 32/43MPG. That's a gain that Subaru has proven to be doable with only a tranny change. Tell me that someone would still buy a Prius over that to save 3MPG for the cost premium?

safristi · « **Reply #58 on:** April 09, 2013, 11:55:02 am »

I've been in this "melange" of Machina.........from Merc to Mazda and beyond(ce) see....and I have chosen....there will be Major TV spots and announcements on all SOCIAL Democrats WEB sighs

..stay tooned and PAY PAL is MY friend....

dkaz · « **Reply #59 on:** April 09, 2013, 02:13:24 pm »

Mazda has failed everytime they tried to be Toyota/Honda/Nissan. Time will tell if the 3rd gen 6 will have the same magic the 1st gen had. BTW, my brother is far from a driving enthusiast but even he hates the way CVTs behave unless it's in a hybrid vehicle. He'd rather have a conventional automatic.

My wife started delivering papers, I feared for my Skyactiv 3's fuel economy. It hasn't suffered and I am really impressed. With frequent stop and go, she averages 8.1L/100km. Last night I drove 25km each way to go meet a friend, 5.5L/100km average. My overall average in my Skyactiv 3 is about the same as the 2008 Corolla I used to have, except it's a way better car. More fun to drive, safer, etc. I'm looking forward to Mazda putting the 2.5L Skyactiv into the 2015 Mazda 3 GT.