Howdy, Stranger!

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





2009 Mazda6

14546485051110

Comments

  • 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: 2,898
    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.