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

What is this discussion about? Mazda MAZDA6, Sedan

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)

Outline

Messages Page 23 of 23: 1; ...; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; Prev; Next; Last

#221 of 229 Re: [moparbad] by socal2006 Aug 23, 2008 (7:17 am)
Replying to: moparbad (Aug 22, 2008 11:32 am) To be fair, the NA 09 6 only increased weight by some 45 lbs. (according to an article I read). That's a very acceptable increase considering size and power gains. However, I would've preferred the Euro 6. Decreased weight while adding size. I don't buy that they couldn't have stuffed the 3.7 into the Euro 6. It's a fairly large midsize sedan, not a Miata. I could be completely wrong of course... I just have a hard time believing that. I think my major issue with the new 6 is not how the new car ended up. I understand the reasons for increased size, softer handling.. etc. But, what they could've had with the Euro6 is increased size, decreased weight, better mpg, better styling, better handling (simply due to decreased weight). All this without spending a dime in new R&D. The NA 09 6 would've been great 3-4 years ago, but with fuel prices the way they are, I doubt it'll make much of a splash. Replies to this message: aviboy97 (Aug 23, 2008 8:30 am) m6user (Aug 23, 2008 8:39 am) aviboy97 (Aug 23, 2008 9:12 am)
#222 of 229 Re: [m6user] by jeffyscott Aug 23, 2008 (7:52 am)
Replying to: m6user (Aug 23, 2008 5:26 am) I emailed them asking about this, I'll pass on the response. Replies to this message: m6user (Aug 23, 2008 7:56 am) jeffyscott (Aug 23, 2008 9:44 am) m6user (Aug 23, 2008 7:24 pm) and 1 more...
#223 of 229 Re: [jeffyscott] by m6user Aug 23, 2008 (7:56 am)
Replying to: jeffyscott (Aug 23, 2008 7:52 am) Thanks. I've always wondered how they came up with these avg numbers. Replies to this message: jeffyscott (Aug 23, 2008 9:44 am) m6user (Aug 23, 2008 7:24 pm) jeffyscott (Aug 25, 2008 6:33 am)
#224 of 229 Re: [socal2006] by aviboy97 Aug 23, 2008 (8:30 am)
Replying to: socal2006 (Aug 23, 2008 7:17 am) Considering that the Euro/JDM Mazda6/Atenza is really not much larger then the 1st gen Mazda6/Atenza, it would be pointless to bring it over here. Mazda themselves said that the 1st gen was just too small to compete in the American mid sized market. As much as I love my Mazda6, it just does not appeal to the masses in this segment, thus not competitive. Mazda wanted to be a serious player, they needed a bigger more refined vehicle. They seemed to have given us that. On a side note, the Mazda3 looks to get slightly bigger. Maybe those who like the 1st gen Mazda6 might want to take a look at the 2010 Mazda3 when it debuts in late January 2009. Replies to this message: m6user (Aug 23, 2008 8:39 am) aviboy97 (Aug 23, 2008 9:12 am)
#225 of 229 Re: [aviboy97] by m6user Aug 23, 2008 (8:39 am)
Replying to: aviboy97 (Aug 23, 2008 8:30 am) When you say the new 3 debuts in Jan. of 09. Is that when we'll see it at the auto shows or actually be able to buy it. If its the latter, that is only about 5 months out and I would think we'd have some decent info on it by now like drivetrains/rough dimensions etc. Leftlanenews says it won't hit showrooms till summer 09. Your thoughts? Replies to this message: aviboy97 (Aug 23, 2008 9:12 am)
#226 of 229 Re: [m6user] by aviboy97 Aug 23, 2008 (9:12 am)
Replying to: m6user (Aug 23, 2008 8:39 am) I know a lot more then Leftlane. Unfortunately, I cannot comment just yet. The car will be here in January/February 2009 as a 2010 model.
#227 of 229 Re: [m6user] by jeffyscott Aug 23, 2008 (9:44 am)
Replying to: m6user (Aug 23, 2008 7:56 am) Okay, I figgered it out. The problem is using mpg rather than gpm. The EPA uses 55% city and 45% highway driving to get the combined figure. If you drive 550 miles at 21 mpg that will use 26.19 gal, next drive 450 miles at 30 mpg and you use 15 gal. Combined usage is then 41.19 gallons for 1000 miles or 24.3 mpg. Now I'm off to email EPA and say "nevermind". Replies to this message: m6user (Aug 23, 2008 7:24 pm) jeffyscott (Aug 25, 2008 6:33 am)
#228 of 229 Re: [jeffyscott] by m6user Aug 23, 2008 (7:24 pm)
Replying to: jeffyscott (Aug 23, 2008 9:44 am) Hey, I'm impressed. I guess it makes sense. So 1 more mpg on either end would have had them at 25 or rounding up to 25 avg. It was obvious that it wasn't 50/50. So somone that drives 75% highway should show a significantly better average. Interesting and thanks. Replies to this message: jeffyscott (Aug 25, 2008 6:33 am)
#229 of 229 Re: [m6user] by jeffyscott Aug 25, 2008 (6:33 am)
Replying to: m6user (Aug 23, 2008 7:24 pm) Oh, I knew it was 55/45 (not 50/50), but the issue is you can not use the mpg numbers directly to figure out the mixed mileage. Even at 50/50, if you average the 21/30 mpg numbers you get 25.5. But if you drive 500 miles at 21 mpg and 500 at 30 mpg, you will use a total of 40.48 gallons and thus get 24.7 mpg.