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

[Noto]

mazda is doing it the mazda way, thank you very much.

and yet again, a total lack of understanding...

I'm merely contemplating about the hypothetical fuel economy that Mazda could achieve if they held strongly to the SkyActiv mantra of making more efficient of extant technology.  I AM NOT BASHING MAZDA, I AM NOT SUGGESTING THEY MUST USE A CVT - just imagine if Mazda got into ACTUAL diesel economy territory with a gasoline engine, and imagine if Mazda got into ACTUAL hybrid territory with a skyactiv diesel done to pure efficiency.

I only complain about Mazda's powertrains when they're cold, but once warm, they're a pleasure to drive and I wouldn't change it.  I will ponder into the hypothetical though.

[libraman]

mazda is doing it the mazda way, thank you very much.

and yet again, a total lack of understanding...

I'm merely contemplating about the hypothetical fuel economy that Mazda could achieve if they held strongly to the SkyActiv mantra of making more efficient of extant technology.  I AM NOT BASHING MAZDA, I AM NOT SUGGESTING THEY MUST USE A CVT - just imagine if Mazda got into ACTUAL diesel economy territory with a gasoline engine, and imagine if Mazda got into ACTUAL hybrid territory with a skyactiv diesel done to pure efficiency.

I only complain about Mazda's powertrains when they're cold, but once warm, they're a pleasure to drive and I wouldn't change it.  I will ponder into the hypothetical though.

I think that your entire premise that CVTs are more efficient is flawed. Why does the Nissan Quest with its CVT get worse mileage compared to the Honda Odyssey, which uses a 5 or 6 speed depending on the model. In Consummer Reports tests the Odyssey got 31 highway miles per US gallon while the Quest got 24. 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

The overall fuel economy for the Quest and Odyssey was identical and only 1mpg difference on the test loop. The Odyssey has cylinder deactivation which helps in steady state cruising and the Quest does have 12 extra horsepower.

First column is the Odyssey, second is the Quest.

[Solstice2006]

From reports the CVT plays 3% to 5% better fuel efficiency compared to a conventional automatic.  These factors will change all the time, as CVTs are evolving with different materials, so are conventional automatics, with more gears, and the ratios.  Look at the 2013 Altima, and the 2013 Camry, EPA gives them the exact same fuel economy.  You can't just through a CVT transmission and expect to get better fuel efficiency, you have to have an efficient V6 to begin with.  I would have to say the Toyota V6 is one of the most, then Honda, with GM and Nissan being 3rd.  GM makes an efficient V6, but depends the application, because half the time the curb weight of the vehicle is excessive, so you loose the efficiency.  Fords naturally aspirated V6 was crap!

[Noto]

You can't just through a CVT transmission and expect to get better fuel efficiency

Exactly.  So, for the last time, my point was not that Mazda should just throw CVTs in all their vehicles, but rather I WONDER what fuel economy a SkyActiv vehicle could get IF it had a CVT that was OPTIMIZED in the same SkyActiv way.

So let's recap for all the idiots here that just don't seem to be able to comprehend:
1) Mazda is doing well
2) Mazda is making very efficient cars
3) CVTs are typically more efficient than conventional automatics
4) Mazda prefers to work with existing technology rather than trying to make new hybrids, etc.
5) If Mazda were to work its magic on a CVT, it would HYPOTHETICALLY be more efficient than existent CVTs.
6) If Mazda were to make a vehicle that is light, aerodynamic, having a CVT, and reduced friction (with all the added engine goodies of direct injection, high compression, etc), I WONDER what the fuel economy could be - I would expect very high and very usable.

If you think again that I am suggesting that Mazda uses CVTs exclusively, you need to enrol in Grade 3 elementary again to learn how to read...you clearly made it through only because your teacher felt bad for you.

[mixmanmash]

You can't just through a CVT transmission and expect to get better fuel efficiency

Exactly.  So, for the last time, my point was not that Mazda should just throw CVTs in all their vehicles, but rather I WONDER what fuel economy a SkyActiv vehicle could get IF it had a CVT that was OPTIMIZED in the same SkyActiv way.

So let's recap for all the idiots here that just don't seem to be able to comprehend:
1) Mazda is doing well
2) Mazda is making very efficient cars
3) CVTs are typically more efficient than conventional automatics
4) Mazda prefers to work with existing technology rather than trying to make new hybrids, etc.
5) If Mazda were to work its magic on a CVT, it would HYPOTHETICALLY be more efficient than existent CVTs.
6) If Mazda were to make a vehicle that is light, aerodynamic, having a CVT, and reduced friction (with all the added engine goodies of direct injection, high compression, etc), I WONDER what the fuel economy could be - I would expect very high and very usable.

If you think again that I am suggesting that Mazda uses CVTs exclusively, you need to enrol in Grade 3 elementary again to learn how to read...you clearly made it through only because your teacher felt bad for you.

Lol.  You missed point 7 Below:

7) And in the process of adding a CVT, sap any fun the car had out of it.

[Solstice2006]

Noto, wonder's what the fuel efficiency would be in a Mazda with a CVT,

I WONDER why Noto cares?  As people who drive Mazda's don't want CVTs!

Are we all idiots here ?  Because it seems he can't take the hint...

[dkaz]

Manual transmission > DCT/Skyactiv Auto > Conventional Auto > CVT

[libraman]

The overall fuel economy for the Quest and Odyssey was identical and only 1mpg difference on the test loop. The Odyssey has cylinder deactivation which helps in steady state cruising and the Quest does have 12 extra horsepower.

First column is the Odyssey, second is the Quest.

Yeah. I wonder if CR made a mistake with the overall for the Honda becasue I think it is supposed to be the average of the other 3 numbers.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

The overall fuel economy for the Quest and Odyssey was identical and only 1mpg difference on the test loop. The Odyssey has cylinder deactivation which helps in steady state cruising and the Quest does have 12 extra horsepower.

First column is the Odyssey, second is the Quest.

Yeah. I wonder if CR made a mistake with the overall for the Honda becasue I think it is supposed to be the average of the other 3 numbers.

I don't get it either. I think someone "dun goofed".

[mixmanmash]

Manual transmission > DCT/Skyactiv Auto > Conventional Auto > CVT

This is correct.  In some cases, I think Skyactiv Auto > DCT.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I tagged along with a friend to look at the Mazda6 GT.

I've got to say first off that Mazda had better step up on their sales training. The salesdud proceeded to drive us around on what he referred to as the "Mazda Experience" test loop. He said the route was "dictated by Mazda Canada", as if Mazda Canada has a VP of Routes. He did panic braking, emergency lane changes, banged over rough roads for a half hour before my buddy had the chance to drive. We were both ticked off. If it was my test drive, I would have told him to take me back to the dealership.

As for the car, the handling is very good, the brakes are very effective and acceleration is adequate. There was a fair bit of engine, road and wind noise, much more than in some other vehicles in this category. When revved out, the engine seemed to get gruff, but that could have been due to us having tried the V6 IS a few minutes before hand.

The interior was relatively plain, but was well put together and the materials were good. The seats fit me fine. Plenty of room in the backseat when the front seat was adjusted for me. The rear windows narrow quite a bit, but that's not unusual these days. Headroom all around was more than adequate for me. One thing I did notice while riding in back was quite a bit of wind noise from either the door seal or the c-pillar.

The MMI with the control puck was a PITA  to use. A touch screen would have been much simpler. The nav screen was underwhelming. Overall the system didn't work as well as the system in the IS250 we had tried earlier in the day. It wasn't even close to being as easy to use as MFT or the best in class uConnect in Chryslers.

Overall, I was left with mixed feelings. The car looked beautiful, it worked very well, but the relatively high noise level, poorly executed MMI and dismal "Mazda Experience" would probably have me looking elsewhere.

[mmret]

I've got to say first off that Mazda had better step up on their sales training. The salesdud proceeded to drive us around on what he referred to as the "Mazda Experience" test loop. He said the route was "dictated by Mazda Canada", as if Mazda Canada has a VP of Routes. He did panic braking, emergency lane changes, banged over rough roads for a half hour before my buddy had the chance to drive. We were both ticked off. If it was my test drive, I would have told him to take me back to the dealership.

He must have took you for a sucker

[Jaeger]

If Mazda can find a way to get better than "adequate" acceleration from this car (and not from a low-revving, slow-revving oil-burner) they will be at the head of the list for my next purchase.

[Solstice2006]

If Mazda can find a way to get better than "adequate" acceleration from this car (and not from a low-revving, slow-revving oil-burner) they will be at the head of the list for my next purchase.

Have never had a salesperson drive me anywhere, they would indicate which way the highways were, or less busy areas, but never a dictated route.  Adequate means different things to different people.  Its faster than Camry, Accord, and Altima, in the 4 cylinder category of course.  The MMI is definitely not class leading, just like Ford had problems with the MFT, and slowly it has improved, hopefully Mazda can improve on this.  As for the noise, part of the price you pay for the lightest vehicle, and best fuel economy without a CVT.