Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Sedans Mazda6 Article Comments - 2009 Mazda 6 First Drive and Full Test
229 messages, Last post on Aug 25, 2008 at 6:33 AM
You are in the Mazda6 Forum. Your Hosts are pat & karens
First Drive: 2009 Mazda 6 - First Impressions: With most of its major flaws fixed, the 2009 Mazda 6 is easily one of the most impressive sedans in the midsize class. (more)
Full Test: 2009 Mazda 6 s Grand Touring - Bottom Line: Manages to keep some of the zoom-zoom athleticism despite pandering to the Accord/Camry market.(more)
|
|
|---|---|
|
Replying to: m6user (Aug 22, 2008 8:11 am) Yes, but fewer and fewer buyers want V6s, anyway. People are going to 4 cylinder engines in droves. I read that a year ago about 1/3 of all buyers (that's buyers of any car, not specific to the 6) bought a 4 cyl, now it is over 1/2.
|
|
|
Replying to: jeffyscott (Aug 22, 2008 9:00 am)
|
|
|
Replying to: m6user (Aug 22, 2008 8:11 am) EPA actually rates the 09 and 08 Mazda6 MPG at exactly the same 24 mpg for the 4 cylinder automatic models. EPA lists annual fuel costs $2339 for both the 08 and 09 Mazda6 4 cylinder automatic EPA states ZERO difference in fuel cost and combined mpg. Same story for the the 08 and 09 Mazda6 V6 versions, EPA rates the combined mpg and fuel cost exactly the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: moparbad (Aug 22, 2008 9:51 am) ...With a substantial increase in overall HP, torque, and a more-linear performance curve throughout the entire rev range. Considering I exceed the current city/highway ratings of the 3.0L V6 by at least 3-5 MPG overall, I can't see why I won't with the new V6 either. More power and flexibility for the same costs for fuel? Fine by me... 
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: m6user (Aug 22, 2008 9:20 am) More than half of all new cars and trucks purchased in June had four-cylinder engines, reports the Power Information Network. A year ago, barely a third of new-vehicle buyers chose four-cylinders. Of course, part of this is just because people are buying more small cars and fewer trucks and SUVs. But the take rate for 4 cylinders, where there is also a V6 option has increased, a couple of specifics cases were mentioned: 70 percent of Ford Fusion buyers are choosing a four-cylinder engine, Farley says, up from 57 percent a year earlier. Hyundai has discovered that shoppers want four-cylinder engines in their mid-sized sedans. In June, 64 percent of all Sonatas sold at retail had four-cylinders. Eighteen months ago, only a third of all Sonatas had four-cylinder engines.
|
|
|
Replying to: moparbad (Aug 22, 2008 9:51 am) The avg mpg is good for comparison it rarely varies by more than 1 mpg in midsizers it seems. Plus city driving can be so different per driver and locale that I don't put much emphasis(credence) in it. Wouldn't the cost of gasoline affect that fuel cost? I would think, since gas went up so much, the epa must have adjusted their cost per gallon for the 09 ratings. If so, that would explain better mpg, same cost.
|
|
|
Replying to: jeffyscott (Aug 22, 2008 10:20 am) |
|
|
Replying to: m6user (Aug 22, 2008 10:33 am) MPG is the same according to EPA for both 08 and 09, for both 4 cylinder and V6 for the reason that EPA uses combined MPG when computing annual fuel cost. No, cost of gasoline is not the reason the annual cost is the same as EPA uses $3.74 gallon as the cost for both the 09 and 08. EPA has a "compare" function if you care to see it yourself. EPA The power increased in the 09's, so did the weight. I'd prefer to have lower weight, higher mpg and the same power or more power. Euro Mazda6 is over 200 lbs lighter than North American Mazda6. 2902 lbs Euro 6 3258 lbs NA 6 and this is for the 4 cylinder with MT
|
|
|
Replying to: moparbad (Aug 22, 2008 11:32 am) Now how the epa came up with the same avg when one side of the equation went up 7% I have no idea. I agree that the estimated avg mpg is 24 and the $ are same based on that estimated average. I was just referring to highway numbers because that is what I am most concerned about. You may be more concerned about the avg mpg.....that is fine.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: m6user (Aug 22, 2008 12:02 pm)  . Rounding off does not explain it, because even 20.5/29.5 with the 55%/45% combined would be 24.55, which should round to 25. For 2008 (all cars are not listed for 2009 yet) an Accord at 21/31 also has 24 combined as does a version of Rav4 with 21/27. Cars with 24 combined have ratings of 20/29, 20/30, 20/31, 21/27, 21/28, 21/29, 21/30, 21/31, 22/27, 22/28, 22/29, and 23/27 in 2008.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Sedans Mazda6 Article Comments - 2009 Mazda 6 First Drive and Full Test
New? Join Now!
Forum Tools
Search Forums
Browse by Vehicle
2010 Mazda MAZDA6
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
