Midsize Sedans 2.0

Replying to: maxamillion1 (Jul 15, 2008 4:31 pm)

When I moved to Chicago, I'd never seen so much snow in my life!
 
Well, anyone under the age of about 26, who has lived in Chicago for their entire life could say the same thing. They would probably actually have to be at least 30 years old to remember the last winter with as much snow (1981). To have driven in as much snow, a Chicagoan would have to be over about 42.
 
2007-08 had about double the average snowfall.
 
http://home.att.net/~chicago_climo/chisnow.gif

Replies to this message:
• maxamillion1 (Jul 16, 2008 9:30 am)

Replies to this message:
• mz6greyghost (Jul 16, 2008 7:38 am)
  • thegraduate (Jul 16, 2008 8:02 am)
    • jeffyscott (Jul 16, 2008 9:13 am) and 1 more...
    • mz6greyghost (Jul 16, 2008 9:56 am) and 7 more...
  • moparbad (Jul 18, 2008 5:24 am)
    • jeffyscott (Jul 18, 2008 7:27 am) and 5 more...

Replying to: thegraduate (Jul 16, 2008 7:12 am)

Replies to this message:
• thegraduate (Jul 16, 2008 8:02 am)
  • jeffyscott (Jul 16, 2008 9:13 am)
    • maxamillion1 (Jul 16, 2008 9:46 am)
  • mz6greyghost (Jul 16, 2008 9:56 am)
    • thegraduate (Jul 16, 2008 10:24 am) and 6 more...
• moparbad (Jul 18, 2008 5:24 am)
  • jeffyscott (Jul 18, 2008 7:27 am)
    • igozoomzoom (Jul 19, 2008 11:06 pm) and 4 more...

Replying to: mz6greyghost (Jul 16, 2008 7:38 am)

I can understand the economy comment, but when Mazda went to redesign the 6 2+ years ago, fuel economy wasn't as big an issue as it is these days.
 
It wasn't an issue years before that with the Accord and Camry redesigns, but they seem to have paid attention to the possibilities. I'd say that fuel economy has been on the minds of buyers since gas topped $2, and has weighed heavily in purchasing decisions since Hurricane Katrina (Sept 05 at $3 a gallon). Oh well - what's done is done; I won't dwell on that topic for everyone's sake!
 
Plus, I constantly exceed the current EPA numbers with the V6, and I don't see why I won't with the new 3.7L, all with more power and torque at my disposal.
 
Just as you could probably do with any other car's EPA estimates. I beat the estimates in my 2.4L 4-cylinder sedan (and I'm talking the OLD estimates) by a solid 3 MPG, 6 MPG if you look at the new numbers of 21/31 vs 24/34 when I got the car. I also beat them in our old 2000 model 3.5L minivan. It's my driving style and speed that is the cause of it.
 
I'd bet, for example if you beat the Mazda's estimate by 10%, you could the Camry as well (or any other midsize model), since your driving style is (for the sake of keeping it simple I'll keep the wording simple) 10% better than the EPA's estimate. The only difference is that the starting number for the Camry is notably higher. The difference is still there, whether you beat EPA numbers or not.
 
Oh yeah, and thanks for the answer to my original question ; I hadn't read that bit of info - good for Mazda for making it standard now.

Replies to this message:
• jeffyscott (Jul 16, 2008 9:13 am)
  • maxamillion1 (Jul 16, 2008 9:46 am)
• mz6greyghost (Jul 16, 2008 9:56 am)
  • thegraduate (Jul 16, 2008 10:24 am)
    • jeffyscott (Jul 16, 2008 12:58 pm) and 4 more...
    • auld_dawg (Jul 16, 2008 1:54 pm)

Replying to: thegraduate (Jul 16, 2008 8:02 am)

2009 Camry, I4 automatic is rated at 21/31, the 2009 Mazda6, I4 auto is rated at 21/30. Accord does not yet have 2009 numbers, but 2008 is 21/31.
 
So what is the issue with fuel economy for the Mazda6.

Replies to this message:
• maxamillion1 (Jul 16, 2008 9:46 am)

Replying to: jeffyscott (Jul 16, 2008 4:56 am)

Replying to: jeffyscott (Jul 16, 2008 9:13 am)

Replying to: karpediem (Jul 15, 2008 8:07 pm)