Last post on Dec 04, 2012 at 10:46 AM
You are in the Mazda6
What is this discussion about?
Mazda MAZDA6, Future Vehicle, Sedan
#948 of 2226 Alright, Enough...
Aug 24, 2008 (6:39 pm)
I've got to dispell a few things here that are just plain wrong and misguided.
First, I'm a master certified Mazda Salesperson and inventory manager at my dealership. Been with Mazda for almost three years, had two first gen mazda 6's and wife has a cx-7.
Okay, here we go...
A. Fuel Economy. Mazda owners. Raise you hands. Okay, what's the 2009 standard EPA rating on your car? (I'm just gonna use hwy numbers because that's what most people care about and I don't feel like doing this twice) 2.0 mazda 3: 30 MPG Highway (yes, they took away another), Cx-7? 22 hwy (AWD). Mazda5: 27 hwy. Last numbers on a first gen 6? 28 hwy. What do all those numbers have in common? Oh, that's right, they are widely inaccurate. Every mazda3 owner I know of get's at least 33 mpg hwy, and most i model people get 35-38. CX-7's get about 25. Mazda5's 30 and first gen 6's 30+. Oh, and all of these numbers are going 65-70, not 60. For some godforsaken reason, Mazda's just do plain terribly on the EPA tests, but more than make up for it in real life. Check out Consumer Reports MPG numbers on a mazda3. They're identical to a civic, even with more power. Now trust me, as a salesperson, it makes me furious. I have to tell every customer that "EPA numbers are A and B, but in real life most people get C and D. For some reason...." The prime reason why? Mazda doesn't build a car around gas mileage. The civic and corolla are cars engineered to maximize those epa numbers. I invite you to tell me a single advantage either has versus a mazda3 other than that. *listens. Hears pin drop* Exactly. As for the new6? Well, my dealer trade run (yeah, first one I sold I had to get from another dealership....) turned in a fuel econ of 30 for the trip there, city included. On just a freeway test (get cruise set to 65, reset trip comp) I got 35 through hills. On flat surfaces, a lot more. Just give the fuel econ time people. You're going to hear some absurd numbers come out on the 4cyl. As for the V6, I'll end up settling at about 27 hwy from what I've seen early on.
B. Steering. Honestly, I don't think some of you have driven the car, or you haven't driven a brand new first gen 6 in a long time. I still drive them everyday. The steering feel on the 4 cyl is almost exactly the same, and the v6 is, if anything, heavier. You want to know why it feels lighter? Well, it's really simple. They shaved off about 3 feet from the turning circle! So, with the same amount of effort, since they didn't change the amount of turns of the steering wheel lock to lock, the car turns about 8% more quickly. Trust me, I've almost hit things on the lot, not because the car is bigger, but because it turns so much tighter. I expect one reaction, and get another. That is why it feels "lighter". Anyone who thinks they're 2005 Mazda6 with 50k on it is going to have the same steering reponse and weight as a 2008 with 10 miles on it is delusional.
c. Sun visor. As someone suggested, there aren't little cheep plastic extenders. The entire visor moves outward and lines up perfectly with the rake of the windshield.
D. Convenience pack. okay, I only recently figured out the point of this. It wasn't for penalizing people who wanted leather or anything like that. It was to give people in hot climates, and those who wanted a little bit more sportiness without leather an option. The conv pack basically gives you most of the GT options for 1500 dollars less. You get Auto Xenons, Bluetooth, Blind spot, autodimming outside mirrors, rain sensing wipes, duel zone auto ac, and ground illumination and the half/half seats. No full leather, no heated seats, no memory seats, and contrary to what Mazdausa says, no heated outside mirrors (unless they just leave the icon they have on the GT off, which makes no sense). All for 1600 dollars. Wow, what a rip off. Not. So if someone in florida, california or NV wants a fully loaded car, but dreads leather, oh, wow, on a mazda6 they can pretty much get that, and they don't have to buy heating options they don't need.
E. Engines. HP/ liter is such a meaningless point, I almost forgot. First, anyone who says mazda doesn't know how to get HP/liter needs to remember that they have the normally aspirated engine with the most power per liter period. Second, the 3.7 (and 3.5) has been lauded by everyone everywhere. The only complaints it get's in Ford Products are for the crappy tranny it's mated to. Read up on the Mazda6 tranny. It is just as advanced as a CVT in many ways. Active adaptive. And yes, if you run regular in something that says premium recomended, you get worse MPG AND Performance. Try it in a CX-7. Run regular, get 22 mpg. Run Premium, get 25+. That's also the bloody point. Does anyone know here what octane is/does? Basically, it's a rating of fuel's resistance to combust from pressure, not the spark. That's why turbo's usually need it. You compress more fuel and air, the gas is more likely to go off early and screw things up. So the vaunted Nissan 3.5 is basically using a higher compression ratio coupled with the higher octane to fit 3.7 or 3.8 liters of normal pressure into a 3.5. So no, it's not more efficient. That is also why in the Lincoln MKS, the 3.7 is able to put out just a little bit extra power than the 6. It just raises that compression ratio and asks for premium like every other luxury car. So all the test numbers for the Nissan go out the window without premium, and the 6 whoops it around the track even more.
F. Sportiness. Get a grip. The Mazda still feels better than the Altima. No, it's not a Mazdaspeed6 which is I think what all the enthusiast were hoping for. Here's what it is. It is the car with the second most interior volume, with (thus far) the best track numbers for V6 and second best 4 cyl (to a turbo 4), it has the biggest trunk, by far the most available features, and doesn't sacrifice anything. When I sell the things, I don't even bring up Camry or Accord unless they do. And when they do, I say it actually is closer to a 2008 acura tl. Cept the 6 has more stuff for a few g's less.
So in summation, is it a Mazdaspeed? No, that'll come in 2011, but it is the sportiest, quickest, most complete and future proof mid size non-luxury car on the market, bar none.
#949 of 2226 Re: Alright, Enough... [kapaaian]
Aug 24, 2008 (8:05 pm)
Boy, I'm glad you got that off your shoulder....must have caused quite a lean. You've made some very good points even though you're coming across a little immature.
I feel your frustration as I and others have made some of the very same points over the past few weeks. If you had bothered to read the posts with an open mind and not focused strictly on the three or four constant detractors that are so upset with the demise of the 5 door and the V6 manual that it's obvious they can't be objective, you would have realized this.
I do disagree with your assertion that Mazdas in particular do better than the EPA numbers. Many, many cars get over the EPA mpg ratings. Just about any car I've had domestic or foreign has done it. I read countless testimonies of the same on these forums and I can't understand how you could have missed them. So it's not just Mazdas that can outrun the epa numbers. If you're using that as a sales pitch....it's a curve ball.
#950 of 2226 Over the years...
Aug 25, 2008 (3:03 am)
That is true in regards to all cars EPA numbers. But between the 2007 and 2008 model years, the formula or manner in which they tested the vehicles changed. That's when the rating for city on a Prius changed from 60 to 48 for instance. The EPA numbers prior to that were pretty accurate on Mazdas actually or at least quite a bit closer. Just based on experience with various car lines, under the new system, most cars do get what they're rated at now, or a little worse, while Mazda's (at least the 4 I mentioned. Not big enough samples on the others.) consistently do better. I'm sure there are other car lines like that, but the primary car's we get compared to around here are Hondas (since we have a Honda store too), Acuras and Toyotas.
Immature, nah. Just was too late when I did that. And by no means am I saying the car is perfect either. I for one don't get the loss of dual exhaust on the 4 cylinder, and I too mourn the loss of the V6. I just hope those are both victims of bringing the car to market as soon as possible.
#951 of 2226 Re: Altima uses premium [aviboy97]
Aug 25, 2008 (6:06 am)
The Nissan 3.5 V6 is hardly more efficient then Mazda's 3.7
- if engine efficiency is a combination of delivered fuel economy AS WELL AS HP per unit engine volume then the Nissan (and Toyota engines FTM) deliver 77 HP per liter while the Ford/Mazda engine checks in at 73 and further the Ford engine is also about 10% behind in FE (17/25 compared to 19/27) - this all makes the brand new 3.7 about 15%in total LESS EFFICIENT than the much 'older' Nissan VQ or the not quite as old Toyota 2GR - AND we haven't even begun to consider the whole issue of engine refinement yet.
#952 of 2226 Re: Over the years... [kapaaian]
Aug 25, 2008 (6:23 am)
Check out Consumer Reports MPG numbers on a mazda3. They're identical to a civic, even with more power.
Not quite identical, but close enough, april auto issue has civic at 28 mpg and Mazda3 at 27.
The EPA numbers prior to that were pretty accurate on Mazdas actually or at least quite a bit closer. Just based on experience with various car lines, under the new system, most cars do get what they're rated at now, or a little worse
I do not buy that at all, I think all cars will get the EPA figures when driven in the way EPA drives them and all cars will get CR numbers when driven in the way CR drives them. I get about the new EPA highway numbers in my normal commute, which is mostly suburban highways (not freeways). I get well above the EPA highway numbers and about the CR highway numbers when driving on the freeway, because the EPA numbers are not based on steady cruising on the freeway as CRs are. I never get as low as CR city figures, because I do not drive in as urban an environment as their test is designed to simulate.
It was a good move for Mazda to go to the VW style extendable sunvisors in the new 6. I'd be happy to even have the cheap plastic extenders in my 2007.
#953 of 2226 Re: Altima uses premium [m6user]
Aug 25, 2008 (6:38 am)
never said they were necessarily bad, in its last iterations the 3.0 DT eventually became quite a solid (if otherwise unremarkable) engine, The 'new' 3.5/3.7s? Just 5 years or so too late - and still slightly 'behind' the class leaders.
#954 of 2226 Re: Alright, Enough... [kapaaian]
Aug 25, 2008 (7:07 am)
While I am a fellow Mazda employee, Master Certified I may add...I have to disagree with you about the FE in the CX-7. My father in law had to get rid his CX-7 because he could not get better then 21 highway, going 65mph.
I will agree with the FE in the Mazda3 and Mazda6. Most everyone I talk to gets better then their EPA estimates.
Oh, about that 2011 Mazdaspeed6...it's not gonna happen. Don't get your hopes up.
#955 of 2226 Re: Altima uses premium [captain2]
Aug 25, 2008 (7:35 am)
Let's see how late the 3.7L really is....
Toyota Camry 3.5L --------debuted 2006 (269hp)
Hyundai Sonata 3.3L------debuted 2006 upgraded 2009 (237hp-249hp)
Honda Accord 3.5L--------debuted 2008 upgrades 2009 (268hp-271hp)
Nissan Altima3.5L---------debuted 2003 upgraded 2005-2007 (245hp-250hp-270hp)
Ford Fusion 3.0L-----------debuted 2005 (221hp)
Chevy Malibu 3.6L----------debuted 2008 (252hp)
Mazda6 3.7L-----------------debuted 2009 (272hp)
As far as I can see, looks like everyone was behind Nissan in this department. Once exception is that in 03-05 Honda had similar hp out of a 3.0L. 2007 really marked with Nissan became a high hp player with the 3.5L. Mazda is not 5 years late here...I still don't see how Mazda is behind here. They are just off 1-2 mpg's behind Nissan and their 3.5L. Lets not talk about Honda, because it is well documented that their 3.5L has numerous owners very upset with constant "shutters" and sub par FE.
#956 of 2226 Re: Over the years... [kapaaian]
Aug 25, 2008 (7:48 am)
The EPA numbers prior to that were pretty accurate on Mazdas actually or at least quite a bit closer
It was mainly pre-2008 epa numbers I was referring to. I have an 07 Mazda6 I4 auto and on the freeway get about 31-33 depending on how much of a hurry I'm in but usually around 65-70mph. I believe that if I were to really try for mpg I could hit 33-34 mpg at 55mph but would be impeding traffic too much. The 2007 epa rating was 28 mpg highway.
Like I said, I've owned over 35 vehicles and since inception of the epa mpg ratings system I can't remember any that I didn't consistently beat the hwy mpg. I don't drive like I have an egg under the acclerator either.
I don't believe for a minute that Mazdas are the only one or even one of a few brands that, especially since the 2008 criteria revision, get substantially better hwy mpg than others.
#957 of 2226 Re: Over the years... [m6user]
Aug 25, 2008 (8:14 am)
I too easily exceed the new EPA highway ratings in freeway driving, but EPA ratings are not based on freeway cruising at steady speeds. They stop and start several times in the new EPA "high speed" test and even in the old standard highway schedule they have changing speeds. But then again the raw EPA numbers for highway driving are reduced by a fudge factor...so what they actually measure is quite a bit higher than what goes on the window sticker.
CR highway figures are, I believe, based on steady freeway speeds and I think they tend to pretty closely match what I get in that type of driving.