By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
These are nice, but they need to lower the car a bit :-)
http://www.avtoin.com/zeneva2002/slike/Mazda%206%20SW.jpg
"...looks as stylish as an A4, rides and handles like a Ford Mondeo, and performs as briskly as a VW Passat."
"...only real giveaways to the fact that we're not sitting in a fine new all-rounder from a prestige European car maker are the shiny alloy look centre console..."
"...we'd go so far as to suggest that the wagon is the most desirable of the three body styles."
"...for this class of car there's an astonishing amount of room in the rear seats, making a Mondeo feel cramped..."
"Charging at up to 120mph dished up nothing but comfortably quick transit..."
"Stacks of room in the back seat, too..."
"Any traces of wind noise at high speeds - were quashed by the kick-[non-permissible content removed] Bose sound system..."
"...more than a pinch of inspiration from German counterparts [in the interior], from quality plastics and clear controls, to carefully considered metal finishes."
"...it acted quite unlike a front-wheel-drive car."
"A revelation from the people that brought us the 626. Great chassis, communicative steering, nice engines and transmissions..."
"...try before a Vectra."
Also, a few interesting comments about the new JDM/Euro Accord to be known on these shores as the Acura TSX:
"Styling, though, is tame." and "...the Accord is absolutely middle of the road dynamically."
I've been one to say that the TSX would be the more direct comparision to the Mazda6. Based on all these comments, sign me up for my own 6-hatch...
The two engines were the TDI (wagon) and the 2.3L I-4 cylinder (5-door). The comment about "charging to 120 mph" was about the 2.3L during a road trip through the Alps.
as for the 4cyl vs V6: why in the world anyomne spends thousands more for a V6 when a 4scyl car is plenty?
The 2.3 is a large 4cyl engine and should drive as well as the 6. Frankly I prefer 4cyl cars to V6s: more fun to drive from an engine that needs to stay revved to have go; a litle noise from the engine is good in my books.
Dinu
http://www.mazdausa.com/mazda6/mz6_main_html.asp
And saw something that might be of interest and very exciting to some of us here. On the top right corner, in the upper navigation frame, the last item is termed "Build/Order/Status", and upon moving the mouse there, it changes into "Coming Soon"
Could this mean they plan to allow buyer's to configure one the way they want to, or do you think its just a fancy title for the configuration tool all car manufacturers now have on their website? The 'Build" may imply the latter, but "Order" and "Status"?
Have they finally gotten smart enough and somehow figured out a way to keep potential buyers happy, thrilled even?
Dinu
Dinu
You don't need to spend thousands more.
I came across a comparison by a Polish magazine of the Mazda6, Nissan Primera, Renault Laguna and Opel Vectra. All of these cars were equipped with 1.8L engines. Several things from the article: the Mazda is hard to control when driven at the limit, and the fuel economy is pretty bad (around 9.8L/100km). Some good things, precise steering, good engine, huge interior and trunk space. As for the performance, 0-100km/h in 10.5s, to 130km/h in 17.7s. This was the quickest out of the whole group. As for braking, 39.6m (about 120ft) form 100km/h, which is actually second worst, the Nissan had 37.1m. Noise levels were 68dbA at 100km/h and 70 dBA at 130km/h, the quietest car was the Opel (65 and 69 dBA for the same speeds). But at the end of the day the Mazda was declared the winner. They called it a Japanese car with a European character.
its amazing how people pee and moan about occasional maintainance costs (and extra two dollars every three months) for an oil change and when was the last time you replaced a plug wire. A tune up on a 6 cylinder will cost you what 40 bucks more? And considering most engines now can do 30,000 60,000 or even 100,000 mile intervals......what a crock.
When I say what a crock, how can you make a big deal out of those costs when you are most likely making a car payment of several hundred each month? Stop moaning about the extra quart of oil. Change your oil at 3,000 miles. Now the parts costs could be a littel more on a 6 cylinder if something goes wrong but hey if your driving a new car nothing catastrophic should go wrong anyways.
Of all the recent cars I've had 4,6, and 8......the normal maintainance I have done has all been about the same cost.
Dinu
Dinu
As far as why we need the V6, some of us are hotrodders. It's fun to accelerate up a hill rather than fight to maintain speed. We'll have to see how much faster the V6 is, what the fuel economy penalty is, and what ill effects it has on handling.
As for the V6, no it isn't necessary. But, straight line accelleration is really what counts here and the V6 is likely to be tops, especially with an available 5spd. manual. They also tend to be a little quieter at highway speed. I'll drive both and see.
...and the hatch lists for 500 pounds less than the sedan...
I've always had oil changed in my own car every 5,000 miles without concern. I go 5,000 because 1) its easy to remember, and 2) I end up with lots of stop and go at 25,000 miles per year.
Interesting etymology of the word, and a surprising root/source - I sure didn't know about it before!
http://www.bartleby.com/61/66/S0216600.html
I follow the manufacturer's schedule, and keep all receipts, in case of problems down the road.
http://www.4car.co.uk/special/motorshow6/main.jsp?pg=3&id=196
Honda Accord EX I4 model: $29,810 over 5 years.
Honda Accord EX V6 model: $33,240 over 5 years.
The V6 costs about $3,430 more to own over 5 years than a comparable 4 cylinder accord. The cost differences include initial cost, depreciation, financing, insurance, fuel, maintenance & repair. Now to me, that extra money is not worth it since I hardly ever try to beat someone from a traffic light, or ever have problems merging in modern 4-cyclinder cars. The Accord's V6 and I4 mileage may differ less than Mazda6 since they're both Honda engines and they both get better fuel mileage than average I4 & V6. But I doubt the Ford Duratec V6 in the Mazda6 can compare to the Mazda designed 2.3 4cylinder. This will mean the Mazda's V6 and I4's mileage difference may be even bigger. So difference in cost ownership may be even higher for the new Mazda6, maybe around $4,000.
In addition to the financial comparison I made above, a 4cylinder sports sedan will handle better than a V6 equipped sedan using the same platform. The I4 will be lighter, contributing to more balanced handling. And then there are the environmental reasons for driving a 4cylinder, less pollution and emissions.
To me, I'm getting the same car in terms of styling, reliability, safety, and handling, but paying $4,000 extra in order to get to 60mph 1-2 seconds faster? No thanks, I'd like to consider myself a smart consumer.
From the points I mentioned above, simple comparison is not enough between I4 and V6 engines. But I'll stop here as to not get into a long debate about I4 and V6 engines. Buy what you will, but just get all the facts straight beforehand.
Rich
The way I see it, offhand, the differences between the 4 and 6 are:
fuel: maybe $200 a year
insurance: negligible in my case, but may vary if you're younger.
tag/taxes: negligible
maintenance: Minor differences down the line in favor of the 4 may be negated by the longevity. Too little info to say for sure, though. A 4 certainly has to work harder than a 6 to make its power. Over time, those extra revs may wear the engine out faster.
Initial cost: Not sure, but with options equal, some have said the difference is about $1200. I would assume this would be recouped at resale time.
Interest: at 6%, you're talking about $72/year for the cost of the additional money invested.
Overall, you're not talking a huge difference, percentage-wise. What IS cheaper is to buy the car you want and NOT have to trade yours in early because you aren't satisfied. I've found that to be the costliest item of all over the years. While I think the 4 is certainly adequate, it may be missing that extra punch that makes driving satisfying, especially with the auto trans.
I can see a more compelling cost reason for choosing a smaller engine on German cars like BMW's, where going from one 6 to a slightly larger one can cost you $5,000, or from a 6 to an 8 can cost $10,000.
Finally, my opinion is that if $500 or so of annual costs makes a big difference to you, you're probably buying too much car for your budget anyway. Way too many Americans are living on the brink with debts that they can handle now, but will have to default on if they miss a paycheck or two. In this economy, I wouldn't be rushing out to max out my credit line.
Round 1: To own. Ford wins just ahead of Mazda, Volvo (all with 4+) leaving Audi (3+) and BMW/Alfa Romeo (1+) behind.
The Ford wins due to the fact that it was cheaper than the others, despite a higher gas consumption.
Round 2: To drive. Saab gets 5+, with Mazda on second with 4+ (as all the others but BMW, that got only 3+). They state that Mazda is so good that it's only a matter of taste if you prefer it in front of BMW, Audi, Saab or Volvo.
Round 3: Comfort. I'll tell you right away: again this is not the strong side of the 6 in tests. Mazda gets beat up because of high road noise (we've seen tests that tells the opposite here, where they actually measured.) But Mazda also gets criticized for a bit rough ride. Grades: Saab and Volvo 4+, Ford, Audi and BMW 3+, Alfa 2+ and Mazda...well...1+ (sigh). [a personal remark here: this is silly and just because they didn't find anything to complain about - the car isn't as noisy as they say]
Round 4: Space. Despite that Mazda has as large interior space as Ford Mondeo and also a LARGER trunk, the paper places Ford ahead of Mazda. Both gets 4+ though with Saab 3+ and the rest of the cars getting 2+ only.
Round 5: Safety. It's strange that they keep comparing cars that have been tested in Euro-NCAP with those that weren't and keep giving lower grades to those that weren't. That punishes Mazda here. Saab and Volvo gets full score (5+), Audi, Ford and BMW 4+, Mazda 3+ and Alfa also 3+.
Round6: Feeling. Well, no surprise is that BMW, Saab and Volvo (the two latter which are swedish car makers - GM/Ford owned though) scores a full 5+. Alfa, Audi and Mazda (in that order) gets 4+ and Ford 3+. They like the Mazda (but thinks the Alu-look interior is a bit youthish) but again punishes the Mazda for high noise and a bit rough ride.
Another thing the paper says about the Mazda6 is that they find the headlights insufficient. "When it gets dark outside, the lack of headlights become obvious. The Xenon lights are half-good but the headlight with projection technique is useless. Perhaps the worst I've seen in a modern car". Well, that's harsch.
Mada gets an overall score of 3+ (Alfa 2+, Audi 4+, BMW 3+, Ford 4+, Saab 4+ and Volvo 4+). Mazda's final verdict: "Fast, safe with a sporty body and 166 hp, Mazda6 can fight the prestigeous brands - and do it well. The new Mazda6 is fast, safe and has fine handling and engine. Large interior space and big trunk.
If I count the number of +'es:
Saab 9-3 26
Volvo S60 24
Mazda6 20
Audi 20 (same as Mazda6, still Audi got a better over-all score)
BMW 18
Alfa 16
I still like the hatch and am waiting for one. I saw one at the Paris auto show. The utility is great. The rear seats fold down just by pulling a lever near the rear of the car. They are spring loaded.
The other issue with the hatch (and estate) will be body rigidity. Without that brace at the bottom of the c-pillar and in front of the trunk, there is opportunity for major flexing. Adding bracing adds weight (on top of the heavier hatch door). The lesser rigidity could mean more rattles and noises over the long term.
However, I think these are legitimate trade offs for the utility provided by the hatch. Anyone tried to take a computer monitor or TV home in one of these sedans with a short trunk lid like the Mazda6, '03 Accord or my current Contour? Folding seats don't help when you can't get the item through the apertures.
I totally agree about sedan trunks. I tried to put a computer monitor in a Taurus once, not the current model but the one before it with the loopy styling and the trunk that sloped way down. I couldn't believe a car that big couldn't fit that box in its trunk. I've wanted to get a hatchback ever since. We already have a station wagon (Subaru) that my wife usually drives, so I can't see myself buying a second one. I don't care much about image, but two station wagons seems over the top.
Nice pictures of a red hatchback at the MazdaAtenza forum: http://www.goonish.com/atenza/read.php?TID=437
Don't forget that the 4 cyl 6 has more power than many v-8's from not too long ago. My Grandparents had an '84 Cadillac with a 4.1 liter V-8 that had 135 hp. It was not a hot rod, but nobody at the time complained that it was too slow. Now all of a sudden people feel they need over 200 hp in a light weight midsized family sedan. The Mustang GT had 175 hp with a V-8 when it reemerged from the performance doldrums in the mid 80's, and it was considered a rocket ship at the time.
The car companies are playing us with a horsepower arms race, and many are falling for it. Even when a 1.8 liter 4 cyl Passat can go 140 mph bone stock (and many other 4 cyl family sedans are close) I still hear people say they could never have a 4 because it can't keep up on the highway. Absurd!
Remember it is all about profits, and they make more money on the more expensive cars, so they will always market them in a better light, treating the base models as the stepchild (I was looking at an Accord brochure and noticed that every picture in the thing was of an EX v-6). Kinda like SUV's - almost nobody would buy them if they weren't told they needed them by auto marketing.