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 7:33 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)
Not earthshaking to me. The design is ok-I think the Accord and Malibu look as nice. And even if they give it all the CX-9's toy's it'll still be inferior in that category to the also just as nice looking Altima.
|
|
|
The issue is not whether consumers of mid-size family sedans will be unfazed by $4/ gallon gas prices. In Chicago and San Fran the prices are already at $4.70 for premium unleaded. Many project $5 per gallon by November. This lack of foresight and preparedness for future economic events is what has put American consumers perpetually into debt. Look at the economics of the demographic group that the Mazda6 is marketed to. The average two parent/ two child family household in the US earns $80K per year. After income taxes $57,600 remains. With an average monthly mortgage, real estate tax, insurance and utility costs relating to housing approximate $2000 per month or $24K per year. Estimate another $12 K for food and clothing. Car payments (for two cars), insurances, maintenance at $750 per month comes to $9000 per year. That does not include vacations or any private school tuitions. Nor any ballet lessons, football leagues, or music lessons for the kids. The total minimum household expenditures for that family is $45K. Conservatively estimated. This equation is missing one thing however: gasoline costs. If the average driver in that household is accumulating 12K miles per year, at an average of 20 mpg (combined city/ hwy) the household is consuming 1200 gallons of gasoline a year. At $5.00/ gallon which gasoline may will reach one year from now at the present rate of increase (assuming no new taxes are imposed to repair our crumbling roads or to fund mass transit) That household will have to expend $6000 per year. At $6.50 per gallon that gasoline sells for in Europe that household expenditure would jump to $7600. That leaves the household as much as $6000 to as little as $4000 to pay for all the other incidentals that were not included, or to invest for retirement or to pay down credit card debt or to just plain save for a rainy day. At this rate few Americans will ever be able to save enough to retire while young enough to enjoy old age without debt. This will be the end result just to say they drove a mainstream family sedan car that ran 14 second quarter mile times. Cars using currently available technology are available in all the other non-oil exporting nations of the world that consume 1/2 the fuel that the Mazda6 3.7 does. In Europe this car is being offered with diesel engines that provide combined mileage of 45 mpg. This summer, while I will be vacationing in southern Europe, I will be renting a Peugeot 207 with a 1400 cc gas engine. Though it produces only 95 hp the car weighs 700 lbs. less than my Infiniti G35. Even with gasoline there selling for $6.50 per gallon, I estimate it will still cost me 40% less to operate the Peugeot for the month than my G35 (based on fuel cost alone). And I doubt the car would be significantly less satisfactory to drive there than my G35. Living in an oil importing nation, Americans need to embrace an attitude towards family cars with large engine displacements as being an anachronism something akin to cigarettes. Imagine, just forty years ago anyone who suggested that smoking in public would be banned would have been labeled a heretic. The Rip Van Winkles that Americans have become do need to awake from complacency and fantasy if we wish to lead the world in anything but military power and space exploration for much longer. You cannot lead the world in any industry when only 300 million out of 6 billion (5%) are willing to consume our goods. |
|
|
Replying to: albook (May 23, 2008 11:58 am) It does have all the CX-9's toys, except the rear view camera and dvd entertainment system. How is the 2009 Mazda6 "inferior" to the Nissan Altima? Please explain
|
|
|
|
|
I have mixed feelings about the 2009 Mazda 6. I like the styling, the rear interior improvements in space/comfort, and the improvement of the interior, as well as the increase in power. But there are still some things that I miss about the old one: 1. The 2009 Mazda 6, while stylish, no longer looks unique. The old one felt unique and sort of screamed "sports sedan". This one simply says "stylish family sedan".....it has become another Accord/Camry/Altima, albeit a (probably) slightly sporty one. I would have like the 2009 Mazda 6 to remain the slightly quirky car the current one is. 2. Why is there no manual with the V6? I understand the economic reasons (low demand), but the whole point of the zoom-zoom campaign is to cater to enthusiasts. 3. The article mentions "modest handling limits". Does this mean the class-leading handling/sportiness of the current generation has been reduced in the new model? I really, really hope not! The current-gen was described as a poor man's BMW....now the 2009 model is being compared to an Audi A6? If the 2009 Mazda 6 has lost its sharp handling, why should one not buy an Accord instead and get the better resale value that comes with it? Oh dear.... I also have some concerns: C1. The 4-cyl, while remaining competitive, is still not near the top of the pack. 170 hp/167 lb-ft is good, but compare it to the Altima's 175 hp/180 lb-ft. The Altima is also more economical as well! It sounds like I'm being picky, but let's not forget that the current 3.0L V6 (which everybody is now bashing for being underpowered) was actually competitive when it was released in MY 2003. At 220 hp/192 lb-ft, it was more powerful than the Camry and Sonata, although less powerful than the Accord and Altima. C2. While I'm impressed by the 3.7L class-leading torque, I feel Mazda should have provided a 3.5L that would have given up 10 to 20 lb-ft and instead provided about 2 mpg fuel economy improvement. Even in the V6 department, fuel economy still matters. C3. Like Jeffreyscott, I'm disappointed with the manual transmission's lower fuel economy, especially considering it's a 6-speed. Why, oh why Mazda, would you gear the manual so short? I understand you wanted more acceleration, but you should have at least made the manual equal the auto's fuel economy! Of course, (ignorant) people are going to say "these days manuals don't get better fuel economy" reducing the demand in manual transmissions even further, eventually leading them to be unavailable for those of us who want them! Mazda are assuming once again that manual transmission fans like me don't appreciate fuel economy! Finally, I have a few issues with the tone of this article. Ed Hellwig makes it sound like the current Mazda 6 was a terrible car, when in truth it was (correctly) hailed by the automotive press as a terrific car, albeit one with a few practical issues like a tight rear seat and slightly less refinement. I don't remember reading anywhere that the current-gen had a dull or cheap looking interior.....suddenly it's being dissed as having had a dull and cheap interior! The car consistently made Editor's choice and Edmunds and Top 10 at CAR AND DRIVER. Admitting the current-gen's so-called faults is one thing but making it seem worse than it is is another.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: aviboy97 (May 23, 2008 1:23 pm)  I want to know too... What what I see, subjective-wise, this new Mazda6 is far better than Altima...
|
|
I wish Mazda would study up and get better grades on the EPA tests. I'm not talking about real-world fuel economy - my experience with a Mazda6s Grand Touring (6 speed auto) has been surprisingly good at 28+ mpg in a 40% suburban and 60% bumper-to-bumper crawl on the highway for a 25 mile each way daily commute. What I'm complaining about is that on paper, Mazdas seem to require more fuel to operate than the competition and in my experience this is not true.
|
|
|
Replying to: albook (May 23, 2008 11:58 am)
|
|
|
I see lots of RX-8 in the new Mazda6 design. Mixed in with a little bit of Solara. Which, as far as contemporary Japanese automotive design goes, is a good thing. Which begs the question where does the RX-8 stand in the Mazda line-up when first the MazdaSpeed 6, then the MazdaSpeed3, which are supposed to be higher performance mass produced compact and mid-size family sedans, offer more power than the RX-8? Mazda will tell you the RX-8 is not exclusively about power. It's about balance. More horsepower, to combat greater weight, is no great advance in automotive technology. It doesn't necessarily make the car better to drive. For the same reason airlines are queuing up for the next generation commercial aircraft, such as the 787 and the A350 which are all about saving weight and reducing fuel gulping power? Just as Ford, (majority owner of Mazda), is readying to bring its lighter, more fuel efficient Euro market cars to the US in 2010, why couldn't Mazda have produced for America (at Flat Rock) the "rest of the world Atenza" (Mazda6 in UK) which is 500 lbs lighter and more economical than the new Mazda6? |
|
|
Replying to: avelectro (May 23, 2008 2:53 pm) |
|
|
Replying to: unixxus (May 23, 2008 2:58 pm) Does it hurt your feelings that not everyone is praising the new Mazda6 and do you feel that critics are Mazda haters? I am a longtime fan of Mazda vehicles and I own multiple Mazda's including a Mazda6 and I am very disappointed with the new 6. It is too big. It is too heavy. Fuel efficiency is too low. No hatchback. IMO it is becoming a "me too" midsize car like the Altima, Accord and Camry and there are fewer reasons to differentiate a 6 from it's competitors than previously. It is a fact that handling is negatively affected by higher weight and this 6 is a pig compared to the previous one. As to the oohing and aahhing over the new V6 I could care less as I would be happy if Mazda did not offer a V6 and would follow the same philosophy that they do outside of the US. |
|
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
2011 Mazda MAZDA6
Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
Today's Chats
