Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2009 Mazda6

1293032343574

Comments

  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    The day that Ford/Mazda comes up with anything under the hood (4 cylinder or 6 cylinder) that can even approach the combination of power,efficiency, reliabilities, and refinement of what you find under the hoods of Camcordimas - is correspondent to the day that the sun rises in the west and Ford (as well as a few other mfgrs. I can think of) has learned to build smaller engines.

    That one tickles me too.

    While the Accord and Camry have had the best track record over a period of time, Nissan has only recently gotten on board. I would put the Mazda6 and Altima on par in terms of reliability. Yeah, Nissan has had a better V6 out much longer, however Mazda has arrived with a very powerful ,very smooth V6. The Nissan 3.5 V6 is hardly more efficient then Mazda's 3.7. They are 1mpg apart in EPA estimates. Better late then never....

    I guess he should check out the economy sedan thread. There seems to be a consensus that Mazda's 4 bangers in the Mazda3 are some of the smoothest in the segment.
  • bobgwtwbobgwtw Posts: 187
    Very informative post. Thanks for the info & opinions. Hope you will post mileage figures for us.
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,842
    What is the difference between the 2.3L 4 cyl. in the Mazda3 and the 2.3L 4 cyl. in the Mazda6?

    aviboyI guess he should check out the economy sedan thread. There seems to be a consensus that Mazda's 4 bangers in the Mazda3 are some of the smoothest in the segment.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,689
    Took a look at several 2009 Mazda6's at my local dealer today. On first glance it looks BIG--like a bigger class of car. Exterior is very distinctive with its bulges and swoopy roofline. The rear reminds me of a Lexus E class for some reason. The front looks a little too plasticky; I actually prefer the nose of the Mazda3. Very roomy (deep) trunk--but a little hard to reach in and use all the space. Much more nicely trimmed than, for example, an Accord's trunk--the lid is lined, and the gas struts won't crush luggage.

    I really can't say I like the dash better than on the current 6. It looks OK and the HVAC dials are smooth and intuitive. But I'm not a big fan of faux aluminum trim on dashes. For some reason I thought the shifter surround looked cheap. Again, maybe just my dislike for the faux aluminum.

    The driving position (power seat) was comfy and the seat (leather/cloth combo) felt fine for the short time I was in it. There's LOTS more rear legroom now, although my toes were squeezed under the driver's seat. The leather/cloth mix was interesting--kind of like in the Sonata SE except the cloth covers only 1/2 of the center of the seat. I wonder though if it was a cost-cutting move more than anything else. If there's that much leather, I'd just as soon have it ALL leather. The cloth interior didn't impress me. The grey cloth on the i Touring looked pedestrian (almost Buick-y) and also looked like it would soil easily. I liked the black cloth on the i Sport better, even though I generally don't like black interiors.

    Overall quality of materials seemed on a par with others that are at top of this class, e.g. Accord and Sonata. Although I noticed more use of padded surfaces, e.g. on the doors, than on some other new designs. Another nice touch was that the plastic wheel covers on the i Sport looked almost like the alloys on the Touring, enough so that I had to look carefully to see that they were in fact just covers.

    I didn't drive the car because I'm not going to buy one anytime soon and the sales rep didn't offer a test drive, so I didn't want to waste his time. But from my viewing and sitting it seems the new 6 is squarely in the thick of the mainstream mid-sized car wars now, and should be much stronger competition for the Camcordnatamas.
  • The reason for only offering the half-leather in the Touring model is because they know that many people have to have full leather which forces them into the Grand Touring model at a higher price.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,961
    Swung into a larger Mazda dealer today(Sunday, dealer closed) and they had 18 2009 Mazda6 on the lot . 16 outside and 2 in the showroom. Every color offered was there. I thought the white and sangria red were the sharpest. Did not care for the grey, bright blue, the light blue, or dark cherry so much. Silver and black looked good but not my favorites.

    I thought the leather/cloth treatment looked good. I don't think it was a cost move as it probably cost just as much to switch the sewing process than the cost of a small amount of additional leather. I think it was just a decision to move from cloth, to cloth/leather to leather in the different models.

    Since the Sonata SE was the most recent mainstream midsize manufacturer to do this cloth/leather treatment(to my knowledge) could it be possible that Mazda copied Hyundai????
  • kapaaiankapaaian Posts: 39
    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.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,961
    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.
  • kapaaiankapaaian Posts: 39
    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.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    The Nissan 3.5 V6 is hardly more efficient then Mazda's 3.7
    really :confuse:
    - 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.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    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.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    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.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    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.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    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.
  • m6userm6user Posts: 2,961
    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.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    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.
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    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.

    I enjoyed your comments. I believe however, the current MKS is rated to run on regular, but will overperform a bit on premium. At least that's what I have been told.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    just upping HP ratings doesn't make anything a 'new' engine - that's really really stretching any sane definition of 'new' - the DT Ford/Mazda has been around for getting up near 20 years and debuted first in 2.5 liter form. The basic engine was 'purchased' from Porsche, something not many know. The Toyota 2GR first came out in the 05 Avalon and shortly thereafter in many other things well BEFORE the Camry. The 240hp VQ Nissan engine in the 02 Altima and the Honda SOHC V6 around since 03 at 240hp (as a 3 liter) when the DT of the same size was a mind boggling 200hp or so.
    The old antiquated GM 3.8 has been around in one form or another since the 60s - in multiple renditions and power ratings but surely not a 'debut' unless we are talking about 1964. The Mazda 3.7 DT is what is, apparently, a bored/stroked Ford 2.5/3.0/3.5 and NOT a 'new' engine' by any reasonable definition in 2009.

    PS the Honda V6 you seem to want to diss has some problems with its implementation of variable displacement systems BTW and nothing really to do with the engine itself - which is arguably one of the best and most powerful V6s in the last 10 years or so despite its rather archaic SOHC architecture.
  • nvbankernvbanker Posts: 7,285
    The Mazda 3.7 DT is what is, apparently, a bored/stroked Ford 2.5/3.0/3.5 and NOT a 'new' engine' by any reasonable definition in 2009.

    Are you sure? I believe the 3.7L is a bored/stroked Ford 3.5L, but that 3.5L has to be a completely new motor - if not, why did it take Ford 2 years longer than usual to get it right and bring it out? Wards loves it - which would be odd for them to do were it just a bored 3.0L.......
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Posts: 3,855
    The Mazda 3.7 DT is what is, apparently, a bored/stroked Ford 2.5/3.0/3.5 and NOT a 'new' engine' by any reasonable definition in 2009.

    Except that it appears that the 3.5 in an entirely new engine, despite the name.

    The Duratec 35 is a 3.5 L (3496 cc/213 CID) V6 that began production in fall 2006 and is the first member of the all-new Ford Cyclone engine family.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Duratec_engine

    New Engine Family. The engine that will be built at Lima--which was code named "Cyclone"--will bear the name "Duratec 35"

    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KJI/is_10_115/ai_n6010896
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    The term "duratec" is simply code name for Ford's dual overhead cam engine. That's it.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    I think you are a bit behind in your reading. The Mazda 3.7 had gotten nothing but rave reviews for over a year now, since its introduction in the CX-9.

    "- 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 "

    The big question is "if". Really, what is the big deal if the engine is bigger, more powerful and yet has very very similar FE to the smaller engines. I have yet to see your point, You are also taking into account the Nissan V6 with a manual transmission compared to the Mazda automatic. It does not work that way. The Nissan V6 CVT is 19/26. The CVT is supposed to offer superior FE over a geared automatic. The Mazda6 V6 6-speed auto gets 17/25. The difference is so small. Lets be real here.

    The only advantage I see with Nissan's VQ series engine is they use a more advanced VV-T system, which is something Mazda is behind on. Currently, Mazda is working on one that changes both intake and exhaust valves, as opposed to just the intake valves.

    What matters most is what is in the vehicles now, not what was in them in the past. If you wanna go that route, that's fine by me. Lets go back to the mid 80's when Nissan Maxima had a 3.0L V6 that had an output of 157hp and Ford Taurus had a 3.0L V6 with 182hp. Please, this history arguement is just plain stupid.

    Plain and simple, Mazda has put a very smooth, powerful V6 in the Mazda6 that makes this car more then competitive.
  • richt5richt5 Posts: 43
    Had the oil changed today in my Speed6 --- Ed Morse in Port Richey Fl. Took out a 2009 Mazda6 i4 grand touring--5 speed automatic. Drove it for about a half hour ,the sales person was a good Guy . Drove on secondary roads and highway. This would be a car for my wife , who now has a 2006 i4 touring .Direct comparison to the 2006 is.The 2009 is somewhat quieter, not as much as I expected-- but good.The 2009 has better pickup and the 5 speed auto was more responsive than the 2006. Even though the 2009 is larger , it drives like the 2006-- which is good. The interior is nice, especially in this price range -- maybe one step ahead of the 2006.I believe the seats are more comfortable-- and Im not extra large or heavy . Looks of a car is an individual type thing -- I like it-- If you dont like it dont buy it. Also the a/c seems improved, here in Florida its a necessity -- better than the 2006. The overall fit and finish is very good , as is my 2006--- which is good. As we all know there are numerous additional fetures , but my point is on the basic car and its good. The base 2009 model is a good deal , especially if some incentives come later on. Maybe the one change I would make is put on different tires. Even though the stock tires wear like iron , they make a lot of noise, which undermines the feel of quality of a really good car---anyway thats my put. Did not talk about pricing.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    actually a good question - is the 3.5 a bored/stroked 3.0? Each share the same architecture - 24 valve DOHC with somewhat simple VVT and an apparently identical external appearance and size although the 'new' 3.5/3.7 is fitted for direct injectors unlike the 3.0. Ford (and Mazda FTM) seems to manage to do everything late possibly due to financial constraints and Ford has obvious marketing reasons to try to convince us that is is a truly new 'ground up' new engine. I am not so sure. Ward's JDP and other 'awards' are suspect if only because those organizations are in it for the money and some of the 'refinement' issues with the old Duratech are also resurfacing with the 'new' 3.5 in some reviews I have read.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    the 3.7 may be assembled by Mazda but it is still a Ford engine... recent reviews by both CR (on the Taurus) and MT (on the Edge) shouldn't have to say things like 'still behind the class leaders' and/or 'rough and unrefined' respectively. Remember that Ford for what ever financial problems it has had getting the engine in production still had a lot of good examples to follow from Nissan, Toyota, Honda, and even Hyundai. Even the GM 3.6 is technologically more advanced than the DT. The 3.5/3.7 should be class leading, given how late it is in terms of availability. Mazda and Ford shouldn't be behind on anything at this point.
    Did recently shop the AWD crossovers and actually found the CX9 to be a pleasant surprise, but like its bethren about 10% worse in FE when compared to something like a Murano. The CX was definitely selling for a whole lot less money however.
  • blueguydotcomblueguydotcom Posts: 6,257
    It's funny that some reviewers call the V6 rough. After nearly two years of driving a 1.6 liter turbo built by Peugeot that 3.7 felt smooth even at WOT. Guess it's all perspective. The chassis felt far more isolated than the current gen Altima too. Weird though, as I find the 3.5 VQ to be a really coarse engine...

    Different strokes...
  • kapaaiankapaaian Posts: 39
    Uh. The Murano is a lot smaller than a CX-9. It's missing an entire row in fact...
  • sedmundsedmund Posts: 93
    I've driven the 2007 Infiniti G35. My CX-9's engine feels definitely more refined and smoother than that of the G's. The G's was in fact one of the roughest V6 engines I've driven.
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Posts: 1,230
    This just gets better and better...

    the 3.7 may be assembled by Mazda but it is still a Ford engine...

    ...In block and basic architecture ONLY. Mazda has their own heads and other internals, as well as their own tuning.

    Even the GM 3.6 is technologically more advanced than the DT.

    I'd hope so, since you said yourself that the DT has been around for nearly 20 years, but the new 3.5/3.7L, as pointed out before, is a "DT" in name only. If you'd actually do some research, instead of deluding yourself, you'd discover this. Let me reference post #961 since you obviously missed it:

    The Duratec 35 is a 3.5 L (3496 cc/213 CID) V6 that began production in fall 2006 and is the first member of the all-new Ford Cyclone engine family.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Duratec_engine

    New Engine Family. The engine that will be built at Lima--which was code named "Cyclone"--will bear the name "Duratec 35"


    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0KJI/is_10_115/ai_n6010896


    Thanks to Jeffryscott for finding this.

    Did recently shop the AWD crossovers and actually found the CX9 to be a pleasant surprise, but like its bethren about 10% worse in FE when compared to something like a Murano.

    Well, since the Murano is considered midsize, and the CX-9 a large crossover, a 10% worse FE isn't so bad, with the extra row of seating, larger size and cargo capacity, and more HP that the CX-9 offers...
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Posts: 3,159
    "Well, since the Murano is considered midsize, and the CX-9 a large crossover, a 10% worse FE isn't so bad, with the extra row of seating, larger size and cargo capacity, and more HP that the CX-9 offers..."

    8 more hp and 22 ft-lbs is quite a power difference.
Sign In or Register to comment.