Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

2009 Mazda6

1161719212244

Comments

  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    I'll second that about no car in this segment being that much better then another to trade a perfectly good 5 month old car and taking a $4,000 hit. Heck, I see no point in trading my 05 and taking a $500 hit for anything in this segment.
  • microrepairmicrorepair Member Posts: 508
    Here's a review/road test of the Mazda6 from Winding Road online car magazine.. They have mostly good words for it...

    http://windingroad.nextautos.com/windingroad/200810/?folio=86

    :D
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    I like this part....

    "With all this added size and content, you would expect for the 6's driver engagement and tossability factor to suffer, and you would be right...but the narrowest of slivers."

    I would agree with that...
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Now comes the 2nd gen Mazda6...It has better looks(subjective but I haven't heard anyone say different)

    Well now you have, I like the old one's looks better :P

    (caveat: this is based only on photos of the new one)
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Caveat: I haven't heard it didn't look better from anybody that has seen it in person. Stop by Darrows and take a look. It looks pretty nice and not quite as muscular looking as some pictures would make it look. Actually appears very streamlined to me.

    I do, however, like the looks of the 1st gen almost as well.
    Little more classic in sporty way.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    I've been getting calls and emails from Darrow about it, actually. But, I'll probably not see it until I get an oil change in Oct. (at different dealership)...unless I get an offer like $25 or $50 to take a test drive or something like that.

    But, is true that zoom-zoom live is coming back, only in honor of the new 6 it is now going to be called just zoom live :D;) ...just having some fun there, don't take it too seriously.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    If I was really interested in an Aura this would be quite a deal.

    Of course, practical shoppers can take five-grand off their Saturn Aura XR sedan and end up paying just $21,634.28 for the privilege.

    The Malibu is only about $2000 grand off MSRP for the employee price. Seems odd when they are so similar.
  • chikoochikoo Member Posts: 3,008
    Shouldn't a car that cost at least $10-$20,000 more handle better and feel better?
    How about HP numbers? BMW never scores tops in that segment if you compare it to a Nissan. But it is still revered.

    In my opinion, if you want a sporty car, go for the Mazda3. If you want a family car with some style and zoom, go for the 6. for the 1st gen 6, how many people brought the car because it handled so good? Was it anywhere near a real RWD? No.
  • chikoochikoo Member Posts: 3,008
    The Altima V6 "recommends" premium. There are numerous people that have reported using regular 87 octane unleaded, and it works fine.

    Really? :P

    Of course. It will work just as fine. Except that you will not get the "Stated" performance numbers, which made you (the customer) to say the Nissan V6 is better than the Mazda.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Ok Ok I never said it wasn't revered. Don't know why you're so hung up on BMWs. I certainly didn't say Mazda compares to or should be compared to a BMW. I was just pointing out that it seems a lot of people compare the handling to it sometimes.

    Quite the contrary, I said the Mazda6 shouldn't be compared to a Beemer because it is a front wheel drive family sedan and cost $10-20,000 less.

    But to answer your question, I was one of those people that bought the 1st gen Mazda6 because it handled very well.....quick steering, flat cornering etc but NOT a BMW. I have no idea how many people bought the 1st Gen for this reason and neither do you.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    I was one of those people that bought the 1st gen Mazda6 because it handled very well

    That was a key thing for me too. I wanted that, a comfortable seat and sufficient telescoping of the wheel to suit me. The good looks and bargain price were a bonus and tipped me to the 6 over it's cousins from Ford and Mercury. The Accord lost me with it's too light steering. Several reviews have refered to overly light steering in the new 6. Too me the current one is already a bit light.

    Edmunds was one of the reviews of the original version that compared it to a BMW. writing:

    Steering performance from the power-assisted rack and pinion setup is exemplary, with drivers citing the likes of the BMW 3 Series as a comparison.

    Of course, now edmunds says they hate the original... :confuse:
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Yeah, the 1st gen does have very light steering. Took me some to get used it. If the new is lighter than the 1st gen, I might have a major problem with it. I hope it was just a reviewer that hadn't driven a 1st gen in awhile.

    I never minded the Accord's steering that much. I have test driven Accords about every three years and I never had a warm fuzzy with their auto trannys. Each time I expected to be wowed and each time I really walked away shaking my head because I wanted to like it but felt the trannys felt like rubber bands. Although the '08 I drove was pretty decent transmissionwise. I couldn't get over the size, looks and I don't like the way they package the equipment.

    So Edmunds started the BMW comparison thing, huh! They might both corner fairly flat but that's the end of that story.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Yes took me a while to get used to it too. I liked the heavier feeling Fusion steering better when I did test drives. I was coming from a Contour.

    Did I read somewhere that Mazda has or will go to electrical power steering? or maybe that was Ford??? My wife's Jetta has electrical and it is lighter than the 6 at low speeds but much. much heavier at higher speeds. I wonder if there can be more variability like that with electrical. VWs system is also adjustable, you can supposedly have them set it lighter or heavier, I think there are 4 or 5 settings.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    just for your own info - the actual HP difference between using premium vs. regular in most of these engines is very nominal - so much so that the average driver is not likely to tell the difference, performance wise or FE wise. A good example of this would be the regular fueled Camry V6 at 268hp vs. the same engine in the premium fueled ES350 at 272hp. There is much more a difference in the lack of sophistication that would require 3.7 liter of Ford V6 to almost put out as much HP as the smaller 3.5 liter VQ. Or you can compare it in another way, at the same displacement (in the G37) the Nissan engine is well over 300HP!
    The day that any Ford/Mazda engine can even approach the efficiencies, sophistication and/or refinement of something like the Nissan VQ is a long long way off. The VQ has pretty much defined the V6 in this segment for the last 15 years and about the only thing that even approaches (surpasses?) it in this group happens to be manufactured by Toyota.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    Did I read somewhere that Mazda has or will go to electrical power steering?

    I haven't read that anywhere. It seems that more and more cars are going that way to reduce the power drain on the engine ie mpg enhancement. Didn't realize that about the Jetta. That's kind of slick actually and I like the fact the steering at speed is heavier on the Jetta. The Mazda's light steering is really nice at slow speed but on the freeway it can be a little too easy to move around if not careful IMO.
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    Here we go again...

    There is much more a difference in the lack of sophistication that would require 3.7 liter of Ford V6 to almost put out as much HP as the smaller 3.5 liter VQ. Or you can compare it in another way, at the same displacement (in the G37) the Nissan engine is well over 300HP!

    Let's see...
    3.5L V6 in the Altima: 270 HP, 258 LBS-FT torque (on premium fuel)
    3.7L V6 in the Mazda6: 272 HP, 269 LBS-FT torque (on REGULAR fuel)

    "Almost" as much HP? Not quite... Besides, why buy a car that recommends premium fuel and only fill it with regular? If you're too cheap to buy premium fuel for the car, then you shouldn't bother with it in the first place. As for the G37 comparison, there isn't one, since it's also tuned differently for a RWD lux-performance sedan, compared to a FWD midsize family sedan. Two different classes, two different types of vehicles.

    The day that any Ford/Mazda engine can even approach the efficiencies, sophistication and/or refinement of something like the Nissan VQ is a long long way off. The VQ has pretty much defined the V6 in this segment for the last 15 years and about the only thing that even approaches (surpasses?) it in this group happens to be manufactured by Toyota.

    "Long way off"? When are you going to get out of the stone age and join the rest of us? Having been exposed to both the 3.5L VQ (in the Altima) and the 3.7L (in the CX-9, and in the 6) within the past year, there's virtually no difference between them from behind the wheel. Both idle smoothly, are quiet at speed, and can put the power down without any drama. In fact, in the new 6, it was hard to tell if the 3.7L was running when parked unless you looked at the tach. I'll admit to not experiencing the Toy V6, but then again, I don't want to fall asleep behind the wheel (which pretty much EVERY Toy does to me these days). :)

    Go ahead and keep bashing Ford/Mazda based on outdated beliefs and "info", I enjoy the comic relief they bring.
  • webwarmillerwebwarmiller Member Posts: 20
    As an owner of an '09 iGT, I can confirm that the steering is very light. It doesn't feel as if the weighting varies very much with speed either. IMO, this is the biggest thing Mazda sacrificed with the new 6. The pedal feel is excellent especiallly with the brake pedal. The suspension, while softer over bumps and such, feels very buttoned down when you push it into corners or accelerate hard out of them.

    Making the car quieter is a bit of a catch 22....and the car is VERY quiet. The reason is that sound has an affect on feel just as smell has on taste. For many, the ultra quiet cabin will make the car feel like its a lot less sporty than it truly is.

    So, after a full week of ownership, here are some of my thoughts.

    1. The steering, as mentioned above, is over-boosted......hopefully this is something that can possibly be dialed back. This WILL be a major turnoff to a lot of people accustomed to Mazdas. It does have a solid on center feel and is very accurate.....it's simply over-boosted.

    2. There are ZERO little nooks/crannies to put your cell phone/mp3 player etc. Yes, there's the storage space under the center armrest, but it's a single bin with a little tray in it. I wish the top of the armrest lifted up to have one of those little 1-2" deep spaces, but no dice. There's a TINY hinged door cubby to the lower left of the steering wheel, but it is too small for anything but loose change. The starter's push button takes the spot where most cars have a small cubby as well. Also, the back of the center console (the part that faces the rear seats) is nothing but a flat wall.....most cars might have a extra 12V outlet and/or a cubby there. In short, you are limited to the glove box and center armrest...that's it.

    3. The center armrest in the forward position, covers up one of the drink holders. Not a big deal to me, but is worth mentioning.

    4. The blind spot monitoring system actually works very well. It isn't grannified either. It only comes on when getting over really would be dangerous and not when there's still plenty of room. It's also very good at NOT picking up vehicles that are 2 lanes over. I initially thought (upon reading about it) that it was nothing but a gimmick, but it really is a nice feature.

    5. The smart keyless system/push button ignition is GREAT. I never have to get the key out of my pocket. I walk up to the car, simply pull the handle and all the doors unlock (this is configurable to have all or just the driver's door unlock.) Upon exit, you simply push this little button on the outside handle to lock all the doors. The Key fob's can individually be programmed to automatically adjust the driver's seat to a desired memory position upon approaching the car.

    6. The BOSE stereo sounds excellent. I'm not usually a fan of BOSE, but I can't say much bad about the system in the 6. The only thing is that the max volume isn't as loud as some other systems I've heard. It think this might be a system safety feature in the sense that BOSE has electronically limit the max level to the level just below where the amp would start to clip. At max volume the stereo still sounds excellent with zero breakup or bottomming out of the subwoofer. Perhaps I'll test the max volume later today with my SPL meter.

    7. Mazda needs to illuminate ALL the button on the doors. Only the window buttons for the driver and passenger door are illuminated. I found it odd since there are plethora of illuminated buttons on the dash...more than any car I've seen. They've got the wiring in the doors, how hard is it illuminate the other 3-4 buttons?

    8. The 8 way power seat along with tilt/telescoping steering wheel should allow just about anyone to find an ideal driving position.

    9. There's something I don't like about the dead pedal. It's either too small or slightly off in placement...might be a casualty of the exterior design (front wheel arches) intruding into the cabin.

    10. The sunglass holder in the overhead storage is actually large enough to hold wrap around style sunglasses. Most aren't deep enough.

    11. The manumatic is 'correct' in the sense that you pull back to go up a gear and push forward to go down a gear. I'm still amazed how many companies get this backwards. The manumatic is also on the correct side of the gate....the driver's side.

    12. The bluetooth is easilly set up and works as well as any car I've ever been in. It also has bluetooth music capability which might appeal to some.

    I'll be happy to answer any specific questions if anybody has any. There really isn't much on the web out there......
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    That's a great, down and dirty and comprehensive review! Thanks for posting it. I've been waiting for something like this.

    Sorry to hear about the light steering. That may have an affect on my future purchasing decision. Have you drive a 1st gen Mazda6 lately? I would be really interested in how they compare. Before someone tells me to just go drive one, you're right I should!

    Another thing that was very interesting is the "no place to put cell phones etc.". That's a major item in todays world and something that I would miss. I sometimes use a cupholder in the console but in cars with adjustable armrests I find that that I usually adjust them up(short arms) which, like you said, would cover one of the cupholders. There is no cubby right in front of the shifter?

    The smart key sounds great but I'm still a little hesitant on the technology(reliability). Why couldn't they just have replaced the ignition(on the steering column) with the smart key and free'd up some room in the dash. Maybe the electronics behind the pushbutton are too big for the steering column?

    The other things you mention sound pretty nice. I'm not real concerned about the few buttons not being illumunated but understand your point....why not.

    Again, thanks and look forward to another review from you after a little more time with it.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Thanks for you detailed impressions.

    Do they not have storage pockets in the front doors?

    While you indicate the center arm rest covers the cup-holder when moved forward, that sounds like an improvement over the non-moveable one it had before. I think the best use of the back wall of the center arm rest would have been to have A/C vents there, like my wife's Jetta does.

    I've noticed an annoying lack of lighting of some buttons on my 2007, also. I'm not even sure which ones as I don't really drive at night much.

    Your description of the dead pedal sounds about like the one in the prior version. It is not very good, but then most others aren't that great either. Again, this is something VW gets right in my wife's Jetta, the dead pedal is huge and my size 11.5 shoe fits very comfortably.

    One of the biggest minor annoyances to me with my 2007, is that the sunvisor does not extend to block sun in the side window. Did they fix that?
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    read my post - what I said was that the Ford/Mazda 3.7 is not as efficient power per unit volume - and used the 300hp + version of the Nissan engine as an example of what that engine would be if the VQ was as large. The Ford DT in its 3.5 liter form is 263/249 short of the 270/258 for the VQ. Compare apples to apples'. But, of course you miss the point of the post - if you want to rag on the Nissan for saying something like 'premium fuel is recommended for best performance' (something that is true for almost every car made) then you should also note that there is no discernable drop-off in that performance etc. using the 87 octane - maybe 4 or 5 HP and an equal amount of torque.
    Nissan has long dominated this class (since 2002) V6 wise, still does, and will continue to. 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.
  • webwarmillerwebwarmiller Member Posts: 20
    Yes, I've driven a LOT of 08 mazda 6's.....they are my rental of choice from Hertz. The steering is a good deal heavier in the last generation and the suspension a little firmer. With that said, I don't feel that the suspension handles any worse than the '08....it just seems to absorb road irregularities better while still allowing the car to remain pretty flat through corners. I would change the steering weight if I could, no doubt. BTW, the turning radius of the '09 is EXCELLENT....more like RWD drive that doesn't have to worry about CV joints.

    An no, no cubby of any sort in front of the shifter with models that have the push button start. I mentioned the lack of cubbies because most people forgot to think about this type of thing when going on test drives and such.....when you live with a car you start to notice them.

    The location of the push button actually works very well...it falls right where you hand goes when you get in the car or when you put the car in park and need to shut off the engine. There is still an standard ignition in the normal place on the steering column...it is covered with a removable cover and there's a key inside the remote keyfob. This is helpful if you valet or if your key fob's battery were to go dead.
  • webwarmillerwebwarmiller Member Posts: 20
    Yes, there are your standard pockets in the front doors, complete with bottle holder. However, like most cars in this class they aren't lined with anything and are just HARD plastic. Anything placed in them will slide all about. I wish the car mfg's would spend an extra $50 or so to line them with just about anything... I owned an '05 Protege5 and ALL the cubbies were barren plastic. I bought a sheet of nitrile rubber off Ebay and made my own litte rubber liners for EVERYTHING...cubbies, cupholders, and glovebox.

    There's no doubt that rear AC vents woud have been the best use of the rear of the center console. I guess Mazda didn't figure they were needed as their competitors don't have them either.

    Nope, the sunvisors do NOT extend. I found this odd seeing that the owner's manual mentions that they DO. I forgot to mention this to the dealership the other day when I went to pick up some of the all weather floor mats.....

    FWIW, the dead pedal in my '03 Protege5 was perfect....
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    (something that is true for almost every car made)

    You almost had me listening to you until you said that.
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    read my post - what I said was that the Ford/Mazda 3.7 is not as efficient power per unit volume - and used the 300hp + version of the Nissan engine as an example of what that engine would be if the VQ was as large.

    I did read your post, and I'm still calling it false. I have no doubts that the 3.7L would gladly produce 300+ HP in the 6, but it doesn't. Why? FWD and something called "torque steer". Ask GM about putting 300+ HP to the front wheels and the resulting torque steer that was saddled with the Impala SS and the (now dead) Grand Prix.

    Now, read MY post. Again, a RWD is tuned entirely different than a FWD midsize sedan.

    The Ford DT in its 3.5 liter form is 263/249 short of the 270/258 for the VQ. Compare apples to apples'

    Well, since the 3.5L Ford engine isn't used in the '09 6 (nor in the Fusion or Milan), but the 3.7L is, I guess I really am comparing apples to apples, because THEY'RE THE CURRENT OFFERINGS IN THE MIDSIZE SEDAN CLASS.

    if you want to rag on the Nissan for saying something like 'premium fuel is recommended for best performance' (something that is true for almost every car made)...

    Wrong again! There are more than a few engines that actually do better on 87 octane, because they're specifically tuned to run on 87 octane. Check out the Altima 2.5 owners that complain about reduced gas mileage and hesitation on premium fuel. Same with 3.0L 6 and Fulan owners.

    ...then you should also note that there is no discernable drop-off in that performance etc. using the 87 octane - maybe 4 or 5 HP and an equal amount of torque.

    ...Which is still short of what the 3.7L does on regular fuel.

    Nissan has long dominated this class (since 2002) V6 wise, still does, and will continue to. 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.

    LOL... Man, that's hilarious! It make's my Friday stuck in the office go that much faster. :)
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Nope, the sunvisors do NOT extend. I found this odd seeing that the owner's manual mentions that they DO.

    Is it possible the entire visor moves rather than having an extender? I had this same apparent issue with my wife's VW, I had read the visors extended but there was no extendable part to the visor...which was what I was looking for. Finally discovered that when the visor was moved to the side window the entire visor pulled out on a rod.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    Man, that's hilarious! It make's my Friday stuck in the office go that much faster
    guess I'm happy to provide you some comic relief - BUT if that statement is so outrageous I do have a challenge for you - I challenge you to name even one smaller V6 (or 4) engine manufactured/developed by what used to be the Big 3 that is in any way outstanding or remarkable from any perspective you might choose - yes there are a very, very few. It's not just Ford by any means - Detroit in general has never known how to build smaller engines, and is one of the primary reasons why those mfgrs are no longer real players in the sedan market segments.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    current technologies like the CVVTi systems will allow truly current engines to adjust themselves (thru predetonation detection) to adjust valve timing openings continuously so that they can effectively use that extra octane. This is true, to some extent, with both the Nissan VQ and the Toyota 2GR as well as some of the better 4 bangers. Heck even my wife's new 1.8L 4 banger in her Matrix does this. I believe that you'll find that the Ford DT VVT system is a simple high rpm shift of valve timings, and yes if you want to tell me that a 20 year design called a DT runs better specifically and only on regular - I guess I'll amend my statement to 'something that is true of almost any car made with any sort of current technologies'.
  • m6userm6user Member Posts: 3,181
    To my knowlege, just because modern engines can adjust valve timing to the octane of fuel doesn't mean they operate better, faster etc with premium if they were designed for regular. I'll be the first to admit I am not an engineer or mechanic though.

    I have no afinity for Ford engines nor do I think they are necessarily bad. I just think overly broad statements from someone that should know better should be questioned. :D
  • patpat Member Posts: 10,421
    get so caught up in the broad statements about engines that we forget we're specifically talking about the new Mazda6 here. ;)
  • chikoochikoo Member Posts: 3,008
    I challenge you to name even one smaller V6 (or 4) engine manufactured/developed by what used to be the Big 3

    Do engines made by Ford owned Mazda count in this?
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member 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 Member Posts: 187
    Very informative post. Thanks for the info & opinions. Hope you will post mileage figures for us.
  • moparbadmoparbad Member Posts: 3,870
    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 Member Posts: 18,949
    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.
  • webwarmillerwebwarmiller Member Posts: 20
    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 Member Posts: 3,181
    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 Member 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 Member Posts: 3,181
    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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 3,181
    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 Member 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 Member Posts: 7,239
    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 Member 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 Member Posts: 7,239
    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 Member 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
Sign In or Register to comment.