Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Options
Popular New Cars
Popular Used Sedans
Popular Used SUVs
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
It's those vehicles that bring the Mazda brand image down.
Most people don't even know the B-Series truck even exists. It is ridiculous to correlate the B-series with negative brand image for Mazda.
Mazda has a long history of selling compact trucks. Mazda heritage includes the REPU in 194-1977 with rotary engine. REPU is still sought out by enthusiasts.
Mazda BT-50 is sold globally with the exception of North America. It is a nice truck with good quality and it fits with Mazda brand. It would be a welcome addition to Mazda in North America.
It would be great if Mazda would develop a small SUV or Crossover to compete with Tiguan, RAV4, CRV size vehicles instead of using Ford's Escape.
Mazda6 is a decent effort. My criticism is that it is too large, too heavy, too expensive and there is no hatch or wagon. I simply prefer the Japanese and European versions of the Atenza/Mazda6 compared to the one offered in U.S..
Rumor is the CX-5 is coming...built off of the Ford Kuga platform (from Europe of course) Check out the Mazda Kazamai concept unveiled at the Moscow show. Add two doors and tone down the styling.
Dave
I hope other professional reviews come up with higher than epa averages for the Mazda6 V6 as well as customer "real world" feedback. It would make me more comforatable in considering the purchase of it. However, the vast majority of people still look at and compare vehicles by the EPA ratings and I still believe it was a mistake to from a marketing standpoint not to place more emphasis on being more competitive in that area.
Before anyone starts beating their chest....let's wait to see other examples of this much better fuel economy we can gather.
Mazda does have a crossover that competes with the Tiguan, RAV and CRV, It's called the CX-7. It's less expensive then the Tiguan when comparably equipped and the CX-7 has far more power and more features.
Good luck on your purchase. I've had a CX-9 for a year now and I'm perfectly happy so far with it. Especially every time when I get to drive it on the back roads :-) I know it's too early to talk much about in terms of reliability, but no problems what so ever till now. Both my sales dealer and the service dealer (two different ones) have been quite friendly.
Jeff are you are dealer? Just curious.
It wasn't a question of me having been unlucky, there are lots of Mazda customers in the same position as me, why do you think CR took years before they even rated the Mazda6 average, or are they just imagining things?
So who makes a reliable transmission? Is there such a thing?
If you look at the reliability history, you will see the 4 cyl engine has been flawless, and had a few tranny issues in 05.
It got an average rating because there are owners who have had no issues, and some who have had more then their fair share. Think of it as inconsistance. Mazda has stated that was a major priority, and have implemented better quality control measures to eliminate that.
The v6 block is common among Ford products. It is the head which is different between the Ford Taurus, theMazda6 and the Jaguar. I remember in2003 when Mazda came out with their 3.0 Duratec V6, it was better than the 3.0 v6 Duratec used in the Jaguar in terms of refinement :shades:
Just to clarify Jatco means "Japanese Automatic Transmission Company" Sorry to be a stickler!
2nd, I don't work for Mazda or Ford or any car dealer/maker. I understand where you are coming from, if I had issues with my Charger I would be upset too. It's much easier to say get over it when it doesn't happen to you (I'd probably be in the Charger forum pressing the issue as well, ). As has been noted though Mazda has been getting better with reliability on the 6 and hopefully it is even better on the redesign. It won't be know for sometime but it seems as though Mazda has been noting the better quality in the press releases so hopefully it holds true.
Oh gee, is that an assumption? Maybe you're the only one on here that doesn't work for Mazda and this is all a conspiracy. I have had great luck with many brands and also had some very bad examples of those same brands. I don't assume the brand is terrible unless I have had several of the same brand and had bad luck with all of them. You seem to make a lot of assumptions about the quality of materials going into Mazdas and like to accuse anybody that disagrees with you that they are just too emotional about their cars to have an objective discourse with you. Have you ever considered that you might be the emotional one because of a lot of bad things that went wrong with one car. Every single brand has it's lemons and a lot of people have worse horror stories than yours.
CR recommends many of the Mazda vehicles and has for several years....probably a larger percentage of their total model offerings are recommended than a lot of other manufacturers.
Give us a break please.
The transmissions made by ZF tend to be very good. My 335i has the ZF 6HP which is the best auto I ever owned. They tend to be used for higher HP RWD European cars, like BMW's. The V8 version of the Genesis also uses a ZF tranny.
Had the ZF 5HP on my 04 Passat and it had no issues. VW went with the Aisin on their B6 Passat which gets a lower score according to CR on Minor Transmission Repair.
But you can't go by what CR tells you. My wife had a 1991 LeBaron Conv. with their infamous 4 speed and the Mits V6. No problems at all. When it came time to buy a Dodge Caravan in 1996, I followed CR's advise and bought it with the good old recommended 3-speed and the Mits V6. Tranny blew at 9 month old. :mad: Got Dodge to buy it back :lemon: and replaced it with a 97 with their infamous 4 speed and the 3.8 engine. No issues with that one, had it for about 70k. Replaced it with a 2001 Odyssey which needed a new transmission around 55k. :sick: Did not like the Honda Reliability and replaced it with a 06 MPV at around 90k.
Name one midsize family sedan in this class that has those features for 2009 with a starting MSRP around the same price as the Mazda6 i and s Grand Touring. I'm not talkin full-size or near-luxury sedans, I'm talking midsize family sedans which have similar MSRPs to this new Mazda6. The only car in this class that had these features off hand was the Passat 2.0t Lux and VR6 models, which have been discontinued for MY2009. Other than that, you'd have to step up to a Maxima SV with Sport or Premium pkgs., an Acura TSX or TL or a Azera...basically something in another class. The Mazda6 is neither full-size nor near luxury...so thus many of its features are indeed class exclusive.
When you factor in discounts, I can understand, but I'm more than sure you'll be able to get a Mazda6 at a discount price eventually, which would make it even cheaper than the "V6 sedans around $30K" that you mentioned
The last flash update of the ECU mostly eliminated the problem...it has recurred only once. After the update it seemed like rpms would drop more slowly after stopping.
That said the A/C is not all that great, our '97 Ford Windstar is much colder as is my wife's '05 Jetta. I have to leave it on recirculate more than I think should be necessary.
heardread a few othersYes, I have 05 Mazda 3. I really hope the AC has been given an upgrade on 6. Thanks for the answers.
btw I also hope that there are active headrests on the front seats on Mazda 6. I just dont recall reading about them on any of the reviews of the 6, so just curious..
Do you know if the $400 rebate for S-plan (ie 400 off dealer invoice) is supposed to be available in New England area? Also the invoice price of Edmunds for GT V6 with Bose for the 2009 Mazda6 including destination is $450 less than my dealer's. Any idea why this could be?
Thanks in advance.
Also are you still required to pay the dealer doc fee under s-plan? I know many other plans from other manufacturers that only allow a $75 fee (such as gm supplier discount)
thanks
I reset the computer as soon as I got on the highway. I also set the cruise control at 70mph and had the a/c on a low fan setting. During my 222 mile trip, the Mazda6 recorded a 31.3mpg average for the whole trip!. About 215 miles of the trip were highway. This was an 09 Mazda6 that also had no miles on it, and was not broken it. I was a bit surprised. I wonder if it's possible for the FE to go up after the engine is broken in? Possibly to 32 or 33 mpg highway?
S-plan rebate would apply to a lease.
I can't access new england programs. They are outside of our region which is how programs are done. Early on, I can't imagine there being big differences across the country however as it being a new car, there aren't differences in taste.
RE: Biker4: 70 mph is ideal for fuel economy? Wow, considering that most companies cars supposedly get their best fuel economy at 55, and the drop off is supposed to be steep over that for every 5 mph, I'd be really intrigued to see what you'd get from something like an accord with it's hearty .31 cd vs. the 6's .27.
BTW, rpm's were at 2,500 at 70mph. It was also very easy to pass when needed. The engine responded very well. The ride was also very very quiet. I was very impressed. The more and more I drive these, the more and more I want one.
I also caught a few people glaring with a "what the heck is that?" look on their face....in a good way.
I am getting more intrigued by the new Mazda6. I got the $1000 rebate through email, plus I can use s-plan. If I would get one, I would probably step up to the V6. To me I would probably be spending an extra $20/month in gas vs my 3 now (I regularly get 30-31 mpg). The extra refinement and power would make up for that added cost. (of course the monthly payment would go up a bit too :sick: ). Quite tempting, but I may just wait to see what the new 3 will be like...anyone have updated info on it (when it will be out, specs etc?)
I can easily obtain 35 mpg in my 2007 Mazda6 i automatic given the conditions described. 33 mpg for an entire tank from pump to pump including some city driving has been replicated many, many times on trips.
If 2009 truly has better fuel economy than previous 6 as many have stated (not me), then it should obtain at least 33 mpg on highway.
I have looked in the Accord FE threads, and it varies. Many get 31-32, some a little more, some a little less.
*cackles*
Does anyone know what the V6 turns at 70?
Obviously the lower the better !!!