Midsize Sedans 2.0

zzzoom6 · November 2007

Rumor has it that the new engine is going to be the same 3.7 that the CX-9 has which is around 270 hp and torque. If the North American Mazda6 turns out to be like the Euro version with less weight than the current version while also increasing rigidity by some 20%, the new mazda6 could be very entertaining. That's Mazdaspeed power while using regular gas. But I do wonder whether they will be able to control this much power without torque steer and whether they will offer a manual transmission with the AWD version. We should know for sure in the next couple months...

As far as the current v-6 in the Mazda6, I find that the amount of power is plenty entertaining even in a straight line. I think it was MotorTrend who tested the v-6 Mazda6 in the mid-6 second range. Thing is, from a standing start, the Mazda6 leaves quite a bit to it's competitors, but it revs up quickly and willingly and once into it's powerband, it accelerates quite briskly. Certainly plenty enough to pass slower moving traffic with lots of time to spare.

Most auto mags find that the v-6 is not at the top of the class but is still quite good and does not detract from the fun-to-drive nature of the Mazda6. Automotive.com, for example writes, "The 3.0-liter V6 in the 6s greatly increases the fun. Like the four-cylinder, it has continuously variable valve timing (VVT) for its intake camshaft; but on the V6, this feature seems to be used more effectively, providing better low-down torque along with a willingness to rev, with good gas mileage and a nice set of sounds from the air intake and the dual exhausts. The Mazda V6 doesn't feel like it has as much low-rpm torque as the Toyota and Honda V6 engines, but it loves to rev and it's a lot of fun to drive."

So of course, the Mazda6 excels in the curves where a composed chassis shows it's strengths. And the Mazda6's near top in class brakes both keep the driver out of trouble but also allows the driver to keep the car's momentum a little longer before needing to slow down. So while all this in a family car is far from necessary, it certainly is entertaining and it may even let you release some tension from the duties of the average work day. And considering a new Mazda6 v-6 can be had in my market for 6k less than an Accord v-6, some may find it worth considering.

mz6greyghost · November 2007

Would you, and your car like to be alone? If it were a Porsche or a Ferrari, maybe I could understand. But not a Mazda. Please.

This from a Honda owner? What?

ts an CamCord thing. How could you get attached to that? Cars that have a soul facilitate a much more rewarding relationship.

Couldn't have spoken it better myself. Some people actually ENJOY their time behind the wheel every day, and having a car that's fun-to-drive is simply icing on the cake. I'll take that over a coma-inducing CamCord anytime.

baggs32 · November 2007

Some people actually ENJOY their time behind the wheel every day, and having a car that's fun-to-drive is simply icing on the cake. I'll take that over a coma-inducing CamCord anytime.

I'll second that! Problem is, you still have to follow them once in a while which is almost equally coma-inducing. :sick:

mickeyrom · November 2007

The only thing I have against the so called CamCords is that there are soooooo many on the road and they have that great resale value.My Optima on the other hand is quite unique so it's hard to get bored with it.However...it's resale value is horrible,so one can get one cheap.( why is that?)I rode in an Accord a few weeks ago, and I will admit it's a little more comfortable than my KIA and the leather feels a bit softer,and the sound system is more high tech...but for the thousands less it costs,it's a good trade-off.

captain2 · November 2007

and there you guys go harping on what's cheap - when the truth is that's what's 'cheap' (over any normal period of ownership - 5 years or less) is NOT the 6 or the Fusion or the Sonata - it is those cars that actually tend to cost more initially - like the Camcordima. Truth to the adage: you get what you pay for .And I guess since the 6 is so cheap to buy that I should be willing to accept an inferior powertrain - 4 cylinder or 6 cylinder. Those substandard engines are one the reasons that the Camcordimas cost LESS to actually own than any 6, Fulan or Sonata.

akirby · November 2007

Is there a point to the question? Or are you unaware that AWD isn't offered in these cars in America?

Of course I'm aware that those cars don't offer AWD. THAT WAS THE POINT.

captain2 · November 2007

the point was: if Mazda is going to get their 'zoom-zoom' back at least with its current crop of powerplants then the 6 would have to lose about 600 lbs. and presumedly would be closer to the size of the RX8 (which really doesn't have a rear seat for anybody other than kids) and that car is only about 400 lbs. lighter. As far as Ford's 'new and improved' 3.5 or 3.7, yes the HP would certainly solve the problem, but WHY didn't Mazda do this at the same time they are discontinuing the 270hp Speed6 - or is this simply a case of 'Fordspeak' at its best? The 6 is not really a high volume car so it would seem easier to have done this with the 6 as opposed to the higher volume Fulan which apparently will NOT benefit from the larger engine. Relative to what Nissan (and Honda) were doing as far back as 2002/03, the 'zoom-zoom' is going to be something about 7 years late at least as far as the V6s are concerned (if it happens at all) and who knows what happens with the 4 bangers which also leave some serious HP on the table.

imidazol97 · November 2007

The constant spin about how much better, or cheaper, or more expensive the Camry or Accord are to own gets boring in this midsize discussion. Even Consumer Reports is facing reality that they have regressed to the mean and most cars vary little in realiability. JDPowers has data also.

Can we just hear about the features and quality of each car without constant jumping in by the fan club for Honda and Accord. The 03 Accord was the beginning of the regression for Accord with all its problems. The 07 has shown it clearly after the previous model's styling "lack of grace" for the Camry. So lots of people buy them anyhow. They're good cars and people like them.

There are many other good cars. Can we hear about those?

captain2 · November 2007

The constant spin about how much better, or cheaper, or more expensive the Camry or Accord are to own gets boring in this midsize discussion
I agree but the facts are that it is not 'spin' look it up here on Edmund's or Intellichoice. And BTW your constant ragging on what is purportedly the Camry's lagging reliabilities are getting boring in this forum and most importantly has nothing to do with that car's actual cost to own - which I think is what we were talking about ( is something like a Mazda6 really a better buy just because the mfgr. is having to float big discounts on them).

jeffyscott · November 2007

While the cost differences may be smaller for those who trade frequently, cars such as the Mazda6 do still cost less over a 3 or 5 year ownership period. I've compared the Accord to the Mazda6 in 4 cylinder automatic form a number of times...I'll do it again with the 2008s...

The 2008 Maxda6i sport value has invoice of $19,671 and a $1000 cash to dealer incentive (or discount financing). So one could easily buy one for $18,671. The expected resale value according to edmunds is $11,558 after 3 years and $8755 after 5. So net 3 year cost is $7113 and for 5 it is $9916. (I had to use the 2007 for resale, as they have not yet put up 2008 figures)

The 2008 Accord LX-P has invoice of $20,720. Its resale, per edmunds, is $12,744 after 3 years and $9553 after 5. So net cost is $7976 for 3 years and $11,167 for 5.

So in this comparison the Mazda6 will cost around $250 to $290 per year less. If we want to account for every penny, we can add about $70 per year to that, as that is what one can earn right now on the $2070 initial cost difference. So that puts the difference at $320 to $360.

Since most people buy cars on credit, a perhaps more realistic comparison is the Mazda6 for $19,671 financed at 3 years 1.9% (that is the alternative to the $1000). The total payments come to $20253, so net cost is $8695.

For the Accord I'll assume 6.5% for 3 years, this puts total at $22,862 and net is $10,118.

So in this case the Mazda6 costs $1423 (or $474 per year) less. In percentage terms the Accord costs 16% more, based on this estimate.

jeffyscott · November 2007

Yes intellichoice...maybe a beter name would be ignoramachoice. This is the site that gives a target price of $19,320 for a 2007 Mazda6 that invoices at $19,076 and has a $2500 rebate. Anyone can buy that car for $16,576 or less.

So yes, I guess if you pay $2744 more than even the feeblesest non-negotiator could get by simply emailing 2 or 3 dealers, then you probably will do better buying an accord or camry.

captain2 · November 2007

cars such as the Mazda6 do still cost less over a 3 or 5 year ownership period.
well, since I'm not one to keep a car more than about 3 or 4 years, please SHOW ME some sort of support for that because I think that the Intellichoice/Edmund's costs are projected over a 5 year time period. I would suggest to you that there isn't a soul on this forum that wouldn't prefer to save a few grand on a car if that car is a good alternative to something more expensive and it holds that advantage over time. As they say in Missouri - show me?

imidazol97 · November 2007

>purportedly the Camry's lagging reliabilities are getting boring in this forum

I will keep posting the facts.

Since you mentioned the CR dropping the recommendation for the Camry I looked back through and don't find I'd mentioned that in this discussion. I have pointed out other short-comings like rental/fleet sales to bolster sales. It is a hard fact to accept that CR has lowered rating because of problems.

If you want to talk about ownership costs you must include the hard packs the local dealer puts on the sale of their cars because they are considered by some as the only car they can buy and therefore they must buy. That increases the purchase cost despite any discounts allegedly made. A pack of $999 for mudflaps and couple of other options with a mandatory documentation fee of up to $600 on a sticker in the showroom and who knows what other packs are added after the customer feels commited to a price before they get to the final line. Those don't happen at the dealer for other brands because their customers feel less mandated to purchase the car with high reliability.

Add on the extra service they mandate under threat of warranty not being honored and you are up to a higher cost of ownership despite the --current, at last-- higher resale value if the owner sells straightout. Tradein values probably run into the "it's 3 years old and there's not much value to them" when the salesman evaluates the trade-in.

jeffyscott · November 2007

please SHOW ME some sort of support for that

Uhh, I just did that at length in the post you responded to...read past the first sentence, it's post number 7168...hope that helps.

captain2 · November 2007

and while I'll agree that Intellichoice (or Edmunds) can not and do not forecast whatever 'special' is running any given week - it is also true that if the market price is overstated by $2744 (your example) so is the resale value overstated - by a similar amount. Therefore the gross dollars lost (and the cost-to-own) remain about the same. The bottom line is that as soon as Mazda has to start offering $2500.00 rebates - that the chances are that the earlier buyers of that car that didn't perhaps receive the benefits of Mazda's largesse also took a $2500.00 hit. It is never good to see anything you bought go on 'sale' especially if you expect to sell it later. And yes, the 07 Accord was sold for awhile at some very 'un-Honda-like' prices (to make room for the 08s) and those folks that bought that car earlier in the year took a hit as well. Economics 101.

captain2 · November 2007

as often noted in this forum - repairs costs for the most reliable of these cars vs. those repairs for the worst are NOT much different if we are considering new cars purchased and kept 3 to 5 years. There is negligible impact, therefore, on 'cost to own' as none of these cars should have any large repair costs. Again, we are talking cost to own here - not how bad you think that Toyota's reliability is getting.

aviboy97 · November 2007

As far as Ford's 'new and improved' 3.5 or 3.7, yes the HP would certainly solve the problem, but WHY didn't Mazda do this at the same time they are discontinuing the 270hp Speed6 - or is this simply a case of 'Fordspeak' at its best?

Originally, the new Mazda6 was supposed to be a 2008, but, Mazda pushed back the launch date here in NA. The new Mazda6 is out in Europe and Japan. The Speed6 was only slated for a 2yr-12,000 unit production run. Since the Speed6 was also built in Japan, in the same factory in Hofu that is now building the new Mazda6 for Japan and Europe, Mazda cannot continue to build it, for they no longer produce that body style. Many think, Mazda will introduce a new Mazdaspeed6 once they finalize r&d. But, for now, they are concentrated on the regular production Mazda6, in which, according to Mazda, this is very big for them for it's showing the "evolution" of the first car to emphasize the "zoom-zoom" philosophy.

captain2 · November 2007

Originally, the new Mazda6 was supposed to be a 2008, but, Mazda pushed back the launch date here in NA. I undertsand your point about The new Mazda6 is out in Europe and Japan.
Hmm - 'supposed to' and 'pushed a launch date back', etc. etc. Is this Mazda speak or Ford speak?. Correct me if I'm wrong - The 'good' V6s (in the 6) are not available anywhere yet (in Europe Japan or the US), true? And nobody knows yet what's going to happen to the poor Fusion (engine wise), true? Why should I believe Mazda/Ford when they can't seem to do anything they promise (except close plants) , I believe the HP deficit in the Fusion was 'promised' to be fixed for the 2008 MY, true?

jeffyscott · November 2007

Sorry, but no. Intellichoice has target price of $19,320 and depreciation at $11,232 leaving resale of $8088. If you take another $2744 off of that it would be $5344. You are not going to buy a 5 year old Mazda6 in good condition with a normal amount of miles on it for $5344, the $8088 looks to be pretty close to reality.

The 2007 Mazda6 had a $2000 rebate pretty much right from the start (as of November 2006). The rebates on the 2007 Mazda6 did not vary much at all throughout the sales year.

jeffyscott · November 2007

The Mazda6 never had a V6 available anywhere but in the US.

captain2 · November 2007

I find having a car that can corner to be more rewarding than one that can go fast in a straight line
while I happen to agree with you, personally I would suggest to you that that 'straight line' capability is what most drivers will find more useful whether its passing a semi on a 2 lane or merging on the highway that happens to be moving at 80! That old DT engine does leave about 50hp on the table.

aviboy97 · November 2007

Hmm - 'supposed to' and 'pushed a launch date back', etc. etc. Is this Mazda speak or Ford speak?.

Unsure. Could be a combo of both?

Correct me if I'm wrong - The 'good' V6s (in the 6) are not available anywhere yet (in Europe Japan or the US), true?

Only NA got the V6 in the Mazda6. Everywhere else in the world got 4cyl gas and diesel engines, or the 4 cyl turbo. North America will be the only region to get a V6 this time around as well. Remember, gas prices everywhere else in the world are 10 times worse then we have it here.

Rumor has it that the North American Mazda6 will also have Mazda's Active Torque-Split AWD system, as late availability.

Why should I believe Mazda/Ford when they can't seem to do anything they promise (except close plants)

What has Mazda promised that was not delivered? What plants has Mazda closed? You keep forgetting that Mazda does run their company differently then Ford does. They have two different CEO's, they are two different companies. They are not the same. Saying they are states ignorance.

I believe the HP deficit in the Fusion was 'promised' to be fixed for the 2008 MY, true?

I never heard that. What does the Fusion have to do with the upcoming Mazda6?

captain2 · November 2007

exactly - so the original poster can talk all about 'the new 6 available in Europe and Japan' but it is still an underpowered vehicle relative to what is available in THIS country meaning V6s. Ever since the MX5/Probe days back in the late 80s and early 90s the Mazdas have always had 'Ford' Vulcan and DT V6s - something that I contend has hurt the Mazda6 ( and 626) in the showrooms. It sure has kept me away.

akirby · November 2007

I believe the HP deficit in the Fusion was 'promised' to be fixed for the 2008 MY, true?

The Fusion was never targeted for any new regular engines for 2008. The hybrid was targeted for the 08 model year when it debuted 2 years ago but that got pushed back to 09 (next fall).

While Ford has had a history of delayed product launches and being slow to market, a lot of the current delays are a direct result of improved management reversing earlier bad decisions.

As an example, the 09 Fusion was supposed to get an improved 3.0L engine instead of the 3.5L due to supply issues. It has now been confirmed that the 3.5L engine program will be accelerated (more plants converted sooner) and the 3.0L improved engine has been all but cancelled (except maybe for the Escape). This may delay things a bit but the end result will be right.

You can't expect Ford's new management to fix 10 years of mismanagement in just over a year.

baggs32 · November 2007

I agree with akirby on this one. I think I was the one who originally reported the rumor of the PIP Duratec30 being slated for the Fusion and Escape. That has since changed and sources on other forums are confirming the D35 for the Fusion in '09 along with a facelift and new interior (Still the PIP D30 for the Escape though as the D35 does not fit apparently). Other engine choices for '09 that are being thrown around include the new 2.5L I4 and a TwinForce I4 making near 280 HP with excellent FE. Those engines along with the gen II hybrid system and the D35 do give the consumers a lot to choose from when shopping for a Fusion.

I'm not sure why they would offer the TF in anything but an SVT though. Seems like it would steal sales from the D35 copies as it should have more power and better FE than the V6.

robertsmx · November 2007

While folks like to talk endlessly about V6 which makes for a fine marketing statement, the reality lies with success of I-4 power. That fact has long been ignored by GM, Ford and Chrysler.

But there appears to be an end in sight. For the first time, GM seems to be paying more respect to the power of four-cylinder engines, expecting more than half of Malibu to be equipped as such. I also remember reading that Aura will get the I-4 as well. Honda expects 50% of Accord sales to be EX/EX-L trim, then there are LX/LX-P trims. Clearly, V6 is expected to be a niche. Just see how many Camry V6 or Altima V6 you can spot on the road. Usually, if I-4 is good enough, people will overlook V6. Besides, saving an mpg or two wont go out of fashion. In fact, it will be very much in fashion. Hence the rush to improve EPA ratings by hook or by crook (whether it all translates to reality, remains to be seen).

captain2 · November 2007

well , let's see here - if you really don't think that Ford's financial problems do effect Mazda's ability to to fulfill its promise for a better V6 in the 08 6 (you said so yourself) OR if you don't think that the 6 and the Fusion are close to identical mechanically then I guess the marketing people did their job. I personally have owned a number of Mazdas and even a Probe and have always thought that Mazda has been a good product that has been hurt by Dearborn.

robertsmx · November 2007

Of course I'm aware that those cars don't offer AWD. THAT WAS THE POINT.

And that wasnt the point of discussion around AWD. You might want to revisit "facts". I'm not interested in discussing Ford's commercials.

ergsum · November 2007

You forgot the most important thing about having "zoomzoom" handling in Michigan - pothole avoidance!

captain2 · November 2007

and one would think that with $5 gas on the horizon that even more of these engines will be 4 bangers. When was the last time that 'Detroit' made a good 4 banger, anyway? While they may be paying some attention to things like that now (as you contend) - which 'Detroit' 4 bangers are you going to consider equal to the 'Japanese' efforts today (or in the near future)?

thegraduate · November 2007

I think the Ecotec 2.4L must be pretty good. It's not as sweet sounding as a Honda though!

robertsmx · November 2007

Four cylinder engines have always been a challenge for GM/Ford/Chrysler. It also shows in their reluctance to compete with entry level cars with smaller and more fuel efficient engines. They will usually slap bigger engines to make up for it and sell power.

For most part, they still believe in bragging about V8 (and to a lesser extent, V6). The priorities are messed up.

On the marketing front, even if a V6 manages to deliver as good mileage as an I-4 (the Malibu/Aura V6, based on history, wont be a candidate for it), people perceive differently. It could be from experience though, because more often than not, what we compare is EPA rating, and not real world fuel economy.

My recent research into certified used RAV4 revealed some of that. 100% of relatively new RAV4 (from up to 2 years old) were V6 powered. I couldnt find a single I-4 powered RAV4 in my area. It only indicates to me that many bought V6 powered version looking at EPA rating but were either disappointed or scared to keep it home. They cant be fleet returns either because, based on my experience, virtually all fleet RAV4 have four bangers.

Another interesting option on the horizon is diesel. And with $5/gallon, it is only going to get more interesting. And at least one from Detroit (Bob Lutz) is downplaying it and considers it a ridiculous option. IMO, we're looking at history repeating itself.

aviboy97 · November 2007

if you really don't think that Ford's financial problems do effect Mazda's ability to to fulfill its promise for a better V6 in the 08 6 (you said so yourself)

I never said why the launch of the new Mazda6 was not on par with the rest of the world, because I do not know. No one does. You are forgetting that Mazda makes it's own money, and spends it own money. Do we really know if Ford's financial status effects what Mazda does in Japan?

According to rumors, the only real difference from the Euro/Japanese Mazda6 will be the V6 engine. Now, is Mazda going to use the 3.7 sourced from Japan, or the 3.5 sourced from the U.S.? We don't know. Also, did Mazda push back the launch of the 6 so it did not clash with the Accord? That is another rumor. If that were true, it's a good thing they did that. In this segment, you want to make the biggest splash upon arrival. The Accord most certainly did that. Then there is the AWD speculation. With the CX's selling strong, and demand increasing, AWD systems are scarce.

if you don't think that the 6 and the Fusion are close to identical mechanically then I guess the marketing people did their job

The current 2003-2008 Mazda6 and Ford Fusion are very similar. Same Mazda platform, and engine choices. The D23 is a Mazda design, and the D30 is Ford's. Tranny's are different as well as suspension/materials/design. The up-comming Mazda6 uses a Volvo platform, recently used in the new Ford Mondeo in Europe. If you have not seen the Mondeo, you need to take a look. Whatta car that is. In Europe, Ford's have a strong reputation for reliability and quality.

captain2 · November 2007

Grad- think you will have a hard time finding anybody that doesn't know that Honda makes and has made the best small engines for many years. I was thinking more about a comparison of that Ecotec (or Hyundai's/Chrysler's 'world engine'/Ford-Mazda's 2.3s) you mentioned to the Nissan and Toyota 4 bangers which are not shabby either. I wouldn't even think of comparing a Honda engine (4 banger) to pretty much anything else made on this planet - their expertise in building a small engine is legendary and why they make such good lawnmowers

!

jeffyscott · November 2007

Not sure what your point is, do you expect Mazda to put a V6 in the new 6 for the rest of the world, where no one wants this?

To me rather than underpowered engines in the rest of the world, I would say that only in the US do over-powered FWD family sedans sell.

As was pointed out the majority of buyers of the two (maybe 3?) most popular midsize sedans have found the 150-170 HP 4 cyl to be adequate for the job. You have a fixation on V6 and HP that most buyers don't seem to share, in the end.

mz6greyghost · November 2007

This topic just keeps getting funnier (and more ignorant) as it keeps moving along!

personally I would suggest to you that that 'straight line' capability is what most drivers will find more useful whether its passing a semi on a 2 lane or merging on the highway that happens to be moving at 80!

I happen to drive a lot of two-lane roads and highways as part of my commute and with weekend jaunts. Not once, and I'll repeat, NOT ONCE has my V6-equipped Mazda6 let me down when I needed more power, both in the instances you just described, and in thousands of other situations when I needed to get up and go. 50 HP may mean something on paper, but where it counts ON THE ROAD, the difference is negligible at best.

Ever since the MX5/Probe days back in the late 80s and early 90s the Mazdas have always had 'Ford' Vulcan and DT V6s - something that I contend has hurt the Mazda6 ( and 626) in the showrooms. It sure has kept me away.

No. What's hurt the Mazda6 in showrooms is the fact that it's 9/10th the size of the behemoth CamCords. Since the vast majority of this segment buys I-4's and avoids the V6, AFAIC the V6 is not an issue, nor will it be when the '09 model debuts.

I personally have owned a number of Mazdas and even a Probe and have always thought that Mazda has been a good product that has been hurt by Dearborn.

As proven on this forum about a thousand times now, MAZDA AND FORD ARE TWO DIFFERENT COMPANIES. Different philosophies, different management teams, etc. And also as repeated before, Mazda WOULD NOT EXIST had it not been for Ford purchasing a share of their stock and investing some much-needed $$$$. It's not a marketing "scheme", it's no joke, or "Fordspeak", its FACT. Whether or not you choose to believe it is your choice, but don't bash something that you obviously know nothing about and are too ignorant to understand fully.

captain2 · November 2007

According to rumors = Ford/Mazda speak.
of course the 'new' Mazda6 would be based on some sort of Volvo platform - Ford already did that with the S80/500-Taurus - not that platform sharing is necessarily bad or unusual - if the platform is good enough - the majority of Nissan/Infiniti models are all based in some degree on what they call the 'FM' platform, and quite successfully. From what I understand Ford Europe is the only wholly owned Ford subsidiary that actually makes money (Rover?) . I don't know much about the Mondeo as I also understand that it is not destined for the US but I do read that it is a helluva car...

mz6greyghost · November 2007

The up-comming Mazda6 uses a Volvo platform, recently used in the new Ford Mondeo in Europe.

Besides your dealer connections, where else did you get this info. A number of other sources, including automotive journalists across the pond, say that the '09 6 is based on a revised version of the current platform.

link here

akirby · November 2007

You might want to revisit "facts". I'm not interested in discussing Ford's commercials.

Just because you can't comprehend the "facts" about how Ford's AWD system works doesn't mean it's a "commercial". The system works as advertised by sending torque to the rear wheels to help handling and to help prevent slip from occurring under certain conditions. End of discussion. Move on.

akirby · November 2007

Haven't you noticed that the people who complain the most about Ford (and Mazda) are the ones that know the least about them?

captain2 · November 2007

If Ford and Mazda are different companies then why are they producing cars that except for a few inches and some suspension bits are otherwise identical?. Or FTM, why, if they are different companies, does Mazda seem to have the same sort of problems getting a competitive V6 in the car? I don't know for a FACT (as you say) what kind of financial condition that Mazda was in back in the late 80s when Ford commissioned them to build the new Mustang (later became the Probe) , the only thing that seems to be apparent to this Mazda fan is that Ford ( and perhaps its financial problems) is 'holding back' what used to be an innovative car mfgr.

aviboy97 · November 2007

According to rumors = Ford/Mazda speak.

I have gathered rumors from forums, magazines, and from what my rep's at Mazda have hinted to. I really only take what my rep says seriously. I cannot get any of my Mazda hierarchy to spill the beans on what they plan to do, officially. Does this mean they don't know what going on? No. It just means they are not ready to let everyone know what they are up to. What's wrong with that? Every company does that.

captain2 · November 2007

OK I'll bite, akirby, than you tell me what I have said in the last several posts that is inaccurate -outside of that contradictory information that you might glean from that unimpeachable source - the FoMoCo press releases. A challenge if you will....

backy · November 2007

Yes, Aura gets an I4 for 2008. Another example of increased emphasis on I4s in mid-sized cars is the availability of an I4 on the Sonata on all trim lines for 2008, even the top-end Limited. The power increase for the I4 planned for early next year (2009 MY) should help increase the popularity of the I4 Sonata vs. V6 even more. Also, with increased emphasis on I4s and fuel economy, that could bode well for the "upsized" compact sedans like Elantra and Sentra that have mid-sized interiors, but only I4 engines.

aviboy97 · November 2007

If Ford and Mazda are different companies then why are they producing cars that except for a few inches and some suspension bits are otherwise identical?.

Other then the Escape/Tribute, B-Series/Ranger, which are identical? The Fusion and Mazda6 are similar, but not identical. Really, nothing else in the line are even close to identical! Other then platform sharing, which is done between "global partners", there are no similarities. Nissan/Infinity share platforms with parent company, Renault, which no one ever seems to talk about. I have not heard many good things about that company, but, people here seem to stay away from that debate because Renault does not import to the US anymore.

captain2 · November 2007

this bit of 'info' came from 'aviboy' #7191, but it does make some sense given that Ford is already borrowing from Volvo for other products.

captain2 · November 2007

Renault (the French government?) did dump a few billion into Nissan back in the 90s,it effectively was Carlo Ghosn (the man in charge at the time), the money, and the 2002 Altima (FM platform) that helped Nissan develop what supposedly is THE most profitable product line of any mfgr. (in terms of profit/unit - not overall (I think Toyota has that sewn up)) and a lot of that has to do with that platform/drivetrain sharing that we were talking about.
As far as Renault cars go, I seem to remember some pretty sorry vehicles with that name (or cars built by Renault and imported by somebody else) - Nissan OTH something quite different.

captain2 · November 2007

then all you would have to do is take your 6 back for trade (or advertise it in the paper) and see how close to reality it is, wouldn't you? Have heard many trade-in horror stories from 6 owners - especially the ones that paid the premium for the Speed6. The fact that the 07 6 had a 'built-in' $2000.00 rebate would indeed serve to stabilize resale prices and reminds me a bit of how Buick markets their cars.

captain2 · November 2007

I think we're on the same page - maybe a frightening prospect in itself

and also agree that Detroit may miss the boat if they don't get on the small 4 cyl (or V6) diesel bandwagon - the future is not likely going to be in skirting EPA FE requirements with cheap to produce but costly to operate E85 vehicles. Wonder how many folks out there bought that 'Flex-fuel' on the trunk and then have never had any occasion to use it!

akirby · November 2007

outside of that contradictory information that you might glean from that unimpeachable source - the FoMoCo press releases.

Why don't YOU point out where FoMoCo press releases provide contradictory information?

Midsize Sedans 2.0

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles