Are you talking net-net price, as in to buy and trade-in value? If so, they are likely to be about even, or more costly for the Fusion and Sonata. And are they the same car. Will they both look as good and drive as good five years down the road? Does the Fusion come with Stability Control?
It is hard to put a finger on the actual price. You could use Intellichoice website, which I used for the price when I went to the Honda dealership. My guess is that Sonata may deep discount the most, though Ford has to be pretty desperate by now, and may match Hyundai. But then again, not all the same features. Loren
Ford has Duratec derivatives that do exactly that - wind to 6500 with gas turbine smoothness, have big fat torque curves, and make you want to do it again and again. They're the 2.5/3.0 liter engines used by Jaguar. These are beefed internally, have VVT, solid lifters, triple stage mainfolding, and are high compression. They make enough suds to get a heavy AWD X Type automatic to 60 in 7.1 seconds and give it a top speed of 150 MPH (in Europe). US versions are electronically limited to 121 top end.
Ford has Duratec derivatives that do exactly that - wind to 6500 with gas turbine smoothness, have big fat torque curves, and make you want to do it again and again.
Do these engines (or derivatives) make the Fusion engine better? Not in the least. :confuse:
Accord V6, with automatic, 0-60 6.6 seconds, with sweet Honda engine singing all the way.
Its tough to beat a Honda engine. Add in all the ergonomics and tactile Honda feel with a huge dose of reliability and its tough to beat even a 5-6 year old designed Accord.
All the other cars in this class have redone their versions recently (maybe not the Mazda) and Honda can still outdo them. When the 08 Accord arrives Honda will, once again, set a new standard that all others will be compared to.
3.0L Duratec, and it's not as smooth as one would expect, and much noisier than any Japanese or Korean OHC V6. My point exactly, and not a reason to 'bash' Ford (or Mazda) products, more to point out that those particular cars could be improved so much with some heart transplants. Maybe the new DT 3.5 will help with the problem, but I'm not sure that it will acutally find its way under Fusion hoods. Putting the engine in a lower volume high priced Lincoln is one thing, getting it into the Fusion/Milan/6 may be more than Ford can handle from a production capacity standpoint.
I didn't say it was, the GM comment meant to point out that they have started to get rid of many of those old 50s vintage pushrods in favor of that new 3.6 which is all those things you seem to value. Keep in mind that the Honda V6, is still SOHC, and is unarguably vastly superior (in terms of HP and refinement) than the DT3.0. IT IS NOT all about the number of valves or cams you have, VVT etc - there is more to it than that, it's called refinement.
Its a balanced, rotating assembly. They all make some noise. What is a big difference is the amount of research that goes into insulating the driver from these vibrations. Even the older Hondas have very advanced, active engine mounts designed to dampen the vibration of the engine and mute sounds from the engine compartment (of course these fail over time and are somewhat costly to replace). Additionally, the exhaust note can be engineered as well. Cars like the Miata had extensive research put into optimizing the exhaust note. I don't understand why Ford doesn't sweat the details a little more with respect to NVH and all of these complaints will go away. Improved motor mounts and some additional insulation should solve the problem. Its funny though, I don't mind some mechanical noise. I think that is one of the reasons I like the Subaru so much. I feel part of the driving experience as opposed to isolated from it.
keeping this on topic, and comparing my wife's Altima VQ 3.5 then to the DT in the Fusion or any other Ford so saddled and disregarding the HP/torque differences. The Altima will rev freely and quickly right up to redline so much so that you almost have to be careful not to bounce off the rev limiter - the Fusion/6, well, you end up just kinda gritting your teeth as the engine strains to meet your demands, the engine is much louder and feels strained. I'm relatively sure it is a function of engine design and balance and engineering expertise, is probably going to need overhead cams, and some sort of method to keep an engine operating at peak efficiences in the higher rev ranges - otherwise known as VVTi (Honda/Nissan/GM 3.6/Hyundai) different than just VVT or CVVTi (Toyota). In essence, the DT has the basic ingredients, but somehow the cake was burned coming out of the oven. I think it is a shame that when Ford, in this case, was making money hand over fist back in the late 90's, that they didn't spend any of it on developing a competitive V6.
I'm relatively sure it is a function of engine design and balance and engineering expertise, is probably going to need overhead cams,
The DT 3.0 is an overhead cam motor. While I think you have the right idea of improving breathing at high RPM, I think your mental model of how variable valve timing technologies work is a little skewed. The i-VTEC in the Accord operates only on the intake. There is a low and high RPM mode, and some component in the rollers allows for additional variation (which is different then the double cam version which allows the cam to operate 25 degrees out of phase). This second system is similar to Toyota's VVTL-I which controls both lift and duration. The Porsche system (vario-cam) I believe primarily affects cam timing with respect to when the valves open, but not the lift and duration. I am ohly familiar with the earlier versions of Vario-cam so its very possible and likely they have modified their system as well.
The Altima will rev freely and quickly right up to redline so much so that you almost have to be careful not to bounce off the rev limiter - the Fusion/6, well, you end up just kinda gritting your teeth as the engine strains to meet your demands, the engine is much louder and feels strained.
I will not put down the VQ in any way, shape or form, since I agree it's a great engine, but the V6 in my 6, IMO, may be louder (due to less sound-deadening), but it's NEVER felt "strained" to me, whether it's on the open highway, or passing on a two-lane. Drop it a gear, hit the gas, and it goes, just as well as the VQ.
In terms of refinement, both the VQ and DT don't come close to Honda though...
I didn't say it was, the GM comment meant to point out that they have started to get rid of many of those old 50s vintage pushrods in favor of that new 3.6 which is all those things you seem to value. Keep in mind that the Honda V6, is still SOHC, and is unarguably vastly superior (in terms of HP and refinement) than the DT3.0. IT IS NOT all about the number of valves or cams you have, VVT etc - there is more to it than that, it's called refinement.
Okay, just checking as in the past some on that other discussion seemed to confuse the old Vulcan V6 with the Duratec. I guess I somewhat misunderstood your point as I got the impression you were saying the DT3.0 should be grouped with 1950s pushrods. And actually, I am not real concerned about the number of valves. etc., etc...
Anyway, I'm driving the 4 cyl Ford/Mazda engine. It seems fine to me, sounds good to me at all times and I have not felt there is any problem with reving the engine to redline. The one minor thing I have noticed is I feel some vibration in the steering wheel when stopped in "D"...I'll find out when I go for my first oil change if this is normal or not. I don't remember feeling this on my test drives, but that does not necessarily mean it was not there.
Car mags frequently suggest that one vehicle is "more or less refined"than another ! Now posters easily suggest that one engine is "more or less refined" than another . What exactly are we trying to describe when using this phrase to compare engines ? is it willingness to rev; NVH ( noise, vibration, harshness ); something else ?? Who`s willing to take a stab at defining this a bit better ?
While I agree with the most of what you are saying, I can't help but wonder if you aren't using the name Sedona, when you possibly mean the Sonata. :confuse:
Actually, it's a question that deserves some serious debate. What are the qualities of a vehicle in this class that any of you would define as "refined"? Indeed that is a term that is freely bandied about - let's quantify it in tangible terms. The badging itself has nothing to do with it.
IOW, define the characteristic itself - not the badge.
Very interesting thread. Good question as to what Refined actually means, if anything. IMHO when a mag. road tester says refined he is saying there have been improvement made over the years it has been in production. These improvements make the car, engine, trans, A/C unit or whatever, more efficient, quieter, smoother, closer fit, etc. Whatever, it means it meets the consumers desires better than last year. So refined means better, more useful, cheaper... That's my opinion (at this time and I reserve the right to change my opinion in the future :shades: )
Oh, I would agree that it needs to be defined by those who use it...it's just that my impression has been that the bandying has mostly amounted to my tongue-in-cheek definition.
One of the things I really liked about the older Accord (don't have enough experience with the newer ones to comment) was the tactile feel of the buttons and knobs. Every control had a positive engagement and damped feedback.
I contrast this to the Contour, which had less satisfying controls which had hard clicks, although it too, had very positive engagement. The function was there, it just didn't feel as good. I also liked how easy to use the audio systems were in both of those cars.
The controls on the Legacy feel very Honda-like, with that damped engagement feeling. It doesn't have the control layout of the older Honda though, and I have to look down activate some features in the Subie (this might be because I don't drive it as much).
I think I can summarize refinement for me as the perception of quality in the things I touch when I'm in the car, so that is why I tend to concentrate on switches and controls.
I don't mind a bit of drivetrain noise, I like knowing there is an engine up there, so that's not a big issue with me, nor do I need the interior cabin to be a library or mortuary.
I'm happy to offer my take on the qualities that make an engine refined or not.
Using my Honda 2.4L inline 4-cylinder as an example of what I consider to be refined... Its as smooth at redline as at 1,000 rpm. Hold the RPMs anywhere in between and it always sounds and feels like it is meant for just that purpose; no vibration, and the tone from the engine and exhaust is nothing but pleasing. It never even gives you the impression that you are working it harder than it wants to. Going to high RPMs is sort of like switching from "Low" to "High" on my favorite 240-mph electric leafblower, in that it feels like just another setting available for normal use; no drama involved, just a louder "whoosh" and more performance when needed. Throttle it up and it lightly growls, then just sings... and you want to do it again. It is a great motor especially considering its in an inexpensive, practical sedan.
Now, a motor that is not refined has none of the above qualities. In fact, in many ways it will be opposite. It may be perfectly acceptable under normal conditions, but push it and the sounds are harsh and displeasing, and/or you can almost feel the motor is out of balance, thrashing or vibrating. It doesn't feel like it was made to rev that high. These engines make you feel guilty when you take them to redline, like you are damaging the motor based on how it sounds or feels through the controls. Floor it once, and you'll think "I don't need to do that again unless I have to." The impression is that the engine is tearing itself apart to get at those high revs.
When driving that DT30 Fusion, I enjoyed the performance, and please don't think I am "bashing" or "hating," but I wanted to lift off the throttle well before redline. It did not feel nearly as "refined." This, to me, takes away some of the enjoyment of putting an internal combustion engine through its paces.
To me refined refers not to previous iterations of that make. I use it in comparison to other vehicles.
If I think car A is more refined than car B, the sum of its qualities is better than it's competitor. A lot of it will be subjective (interior and exterior appearance, the feel of the controls, handling, etc). Some of it isn't (acceleration, noise, etc). It's really how good a end product it is as a whole from the smallest detail on up.
Do the door handles flex when you pull on them? Does the cup holder block the shifter? Does the steering wheel block the instrument cluster? Does the steering communicate to the driver what the car is actually doing? Do potholes make you wonder if parts of your car are falling off?
I love this. You say "that the Honda V6, is still SOHC, and is unarguably vastly superior (in terms of HP and refinement) than the DT3.0" You say that with a tone, to me anyway, that the Honda V6 is a superior power plant than, everything? I know that is not what you say, just the way it sounded when I reread it. That is a fine opinion and I am not saying you said anything wrong or that can be argued. You believe strongly in the, quality?, refinement?, efficiency?, superiority?, of the Honda engine(s). I have owned I4's Turbo I4's, I6's V6's H6's, V8's V10's OHV, SOHC, DOHC, 2v/c, 4v/c, 1.2L, 2.L, 2.6L, 3.0L, 3.6L, 5.0L 5.3L, 5.7, 6.2L, and 8L cars/trucks. They all had superior something to something else and performed their assigned tasks very well for a long time (except for the aluminum Vega engine). So what is your opinion comparing the Honda V6 to Cadillac (GM) 3.6 DOHC VVT V6 (DI 300 H-P version)? Lexus IS 3.5 DOHC VVT V6 (306 H-P)? How about the Audi new Diesel engines?
don't know if it 'skewed' or not, but not too many years ago we would put grind cams in our engines that effectively would hold intake valves open longer and in a slightly earlier part of the piston stroke, this would allow the engine to suck some more gas (improving breathing), in the process producing more HP and obviously improving 'efficiency. The downside, of course, that loping idle becuase the engine would be less efficient at low rpms. So now we have VVT which is effectively a cam shift that occurs at higher engine speeds that does effectively the same type of thing except that it can also be 'programmed' to occur as deemed necessary by engine loads, fuel octanes etc. - (the Honda VTEC, I believe) The Toyota system takes it quite a bit further, allowing for continuous adjustment on both the intake and exhaust sides again in response to computer readings - allowing for not only some HP, but also effectively 'flattening' out of the torque curve, as well as improved emissions. (CVVTi in their lingo). The DT 3.0 if I'm not mistaken, is mechanical shift only on the intake side and does nothing about lift duration. If this suppostion is correct, don't know if this could conceivably be why the engine is so reticent to rev and/or is relatively HP challenged. You sound like a man that could answer that?
Does the " L " chose from 2 or 3 lower gear selections?
I'm not entirely sure but I recall someone posting that the manual states just that. When in "L" the tranny decides which gear is best, between 2 or 3 gears, given gas pedal placement, speed, etc. Someone who has actually used it could maybe let us all know how that works?
A stick can be fun, but not around town. I prefer a stick on a sports car, preferably RWD. For FWD, from now on, I will stick with automatics.
I'm the opposite for the most part. Cars we've owned with sticks include a '96 Civic EX, '98 ZX2, '04 Mazda6 S, and currently an '06 Mustang GT. The only one I hated driving in city traffic, which I do on a daily basis, was the Civic because it had zero low end power. As long as the car has some power and I don't have to rev it up to move a few feet I'm happy. The 6 was FWD and an absolute blast to drive.
FWIW I did test drive the Mazda6 i with a stick and the V6 with the manumatic. The i was like the Civic to me and the manumatic was useless because it shifted too early IMO. Plus there was the whole bored left foot sydrome associtated with it.
Honda continues to build about the best smaller engines on the market but what I was doing was comparing one of the best to perhaps one of the worst. In response to an argument that seemed to imply that that DT in question must be a good or current engine simply because it has 24 valves or multiple OHCs, and/or a rudimentary valve timing system. Those specific engines you mention, the Toyota 3.5, the GM 3.6 are fine examples or the state of the art and in that respect are 'better' (if better, is defined as more current technologically) than the design that Honda is currently using. You forgot BTW the VW 3.6, the MB 3.5 and about every BMW inline 6 ever produced. Point taken, you can point to a whole bunch of engines over the years (the GM 3.8 and more V8s than you can count?) that has served their purposes well, but there remains a vast difference in how a Honda/Nissan/Toyota/Hyundai engine feels and sounds relative to that DT we were talking about) that is not exactly related to how much power each happen to put out.
PS I fully expect that it'll be Honda that shortly comes out with some engine superior in almost all respects even to the Toyota 2GR-FSE you mentioned.
When driving that DT30 Fusion, I enjoyed the performance, and please don't think I am "bashing" or "hating," but I wanted to lift off the throttle well before redline.
Did you drive the 2.3L I4? If so, did you have the same impression of that engine?
When driving that DT30 Fusion, I enjoyed the performance, and please don't think I am "bashing" or "hating," but I wanted to lift off the throttle well before redline. It did not feel nearly as "refined." This, to me, takes away some of the enjoyment of putting an internal combustion engine through its paces. Thank you, exactly what I'm talking about, with many of the other cars in this group, you don't have the time to "want to lift off the throttle"
Did you drive the 2.3L I4? If so, did you have the same impression of that engine?
Yes I have driven the 2.3L I4: normally aspirated in a 2006 Fusion SE manual, and then turbocharged and direct-injected in a 2006 Mazdaspeed Mazda6.
In normally aspirated form, I noticed a slight "buzziness" to the sound, not entirely displeasing because it reminded me of the 2.2L I4 I had in my first car, a 1991 Mazda 626. Also, when accelerating through the gears, I'd let off the gas completely and push in the clutch, and the RPMs would always jump up by 500. The manual shift knob was huge, and the lever action wasn't very precise (not unlike my 1998 626 ES-V6). As I mentioned before, the Ford/Mazda 2.3L (at least in the midsizers) feels a notch slower than the Camry 2.4L, which is a notch (or two) below the Honda 2.4L. Performance/acceleration numbers seem to bear this out. I'm sure it's more fun in a Mazda3 or Focus. Bottom line, I wouldn't call this motor "unrefined," it was quite happy to buzz along. I just wanted more grunt from my 4-banger.
In turbo form, the motor was a real hoot. Tons of torque, but power started to drop off above about 4,800 RPM. I liked it very much, and would have purchased it, but even heavily discounted to around $24,000 it was a little more than I wanted to spend, even before I figured up the insurance!
Yes, the SE is a v-6. Our price was $16651 + $189 doc fee plus ttl (6% sales tax) OTD 18,189.
This was from a high volume dealer about 100 miles away. The local dealer was only discounting the car $500 and had a $210 higher doc fee and throws in $500 advertising for good measure. The dealer we bought from had an internet price of $1800 below INVOICE. There was a general $1,000 rebate and another $1,000 rebate if financed through Hyundai Finance (5.9% for 60 months)We also qualified for the owner loyalty rebate of $500. Our price for the car, before doc + ttl, was $4300 under invoice or $5429 below MSRP.
The resale value game is a shell game. Trade-in value or retail value of a used car? I just saw Enterprise rent-a-car offering a comparably equipped '06 Sonata with 14,692 miles for $17,999 and they say, "blue book retail value" of $20,690. Enterprise is a "no haggle" price.
Thank you, exactly what I'm talking about, with many of the other cars in this group, you don't have the time to "want to lift off the throttle"
Now, I certainly don't think the Fusion is slow when you get the V6. The DT30 may not like to rev high, but that 6-speed automatic is pretty good for a slushbox, and it makes up for it (I've always like Aisin-built trannys, had one in a Cherokee that was bulletproof). Once out of first gear, the transmission kept the motor on the boil. As I mentioned, it just didn't seem very "refined" (see previous definition) when doing so. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'd prefer that it be smoother as opposed to more eager to rev, because overall not that slow of a car. 7.2 seconds?
Most V6's these days are quicker. The Mazda6 with the same motor and equipped with a manual isn't quicker because it only has 5 speeds versus 6 in the Auto. Some of the faster four cylinders in this class (Accord, Altima) can keep up when equipped with manuals. Decent performance.
Can't really use much more than that around here. My wife wants a new Mustang GT. I drove one for a couple of days last year. This was the drill: gas it in first to get going good, short-shift, give it some gas in second. You're now going 10-15 mph over the speed limit. Shift to 5th. Otherwise, I'd get in a lot of trouble. Insurance was too high on it to begin with.
The parallel you draw to reground cams with lumpy idles is a pretty good analogy to the high end cam profiles. It basically improves high end breathing, but does so without affect the low end torque and drivablilty. The original VTEC of the early 90s was variable cam timing, while later versions also affected lift (there is a component on the roller). I believe they can now do duration as well (i-vtec). Toyota skipped the early versions and showed up late with timing, duration and lift. Remarkably, the next leap might be GM with getting rid of the cam altogether. Again, the parallel to the lumpy cams is also seen in the aftermarket as a number of companies make "vtec controllers" that vary the rpms where they activate, etc.
The Mazda6 with the same motor and equipped with a manual isn't quicker because it only has 5 speeds versus 6 in the Auto.
Have any 0-60 times to back that up?
I've driven the manual (my personal ride) and auto-equipped (test drives) V6-model 6's, and I can tell you firsthand, the manual will beat it out of the gate every time, as long as the person behind the wheel knows how to properly operate three-pedaled cars. The auto is a 6-speed simply for better fuel economy (actually better than the manual on the highway, IIRC, according to the EPA.)
Most V6's these days are quicker. The Mazda6 with the same motor and equipped with a manual isn't quicker because it only has 5 speeds versus 6 in the Auto.
The number of gears isn't the issue, its the final drive ratio and the individual gear ratios, as well as top speed in gears. Manual transmission cars that are geared super short are slower because they have to be in 3rd to hit 60, while some of the taller cars can do 60 in 2nd. The time to shift is a factor here (I know don't get started on DSGs and what not, take it to the manual trans forum).
I didn't say the Fusion or the 6 were slow, acceleration is a function of HP and at 200+ HP they both will be reasonably quick although slower than most of the other V6 cars in this group. If the Fusion, for example, is going to get to 60 in 7 seconds, it's more about how it feels and sounds when you ask it to really do it. Manuals will almost always be quicker and more economical than autos simply because there are less mechanical losses. More speeds in the tranny is fashionable right now but is more likely to improve FE than improve acceleration, it kinda depends on how the gear ratios are matched to the operating characteristics of the engine and how wide the engine's torque curve is. The bigger Avalon 5 speed is every bit as quick as the 6 speed Camry and the FE ratings are also the same, somewhat a testimony to the flexibility of the engine they now share.
yes that's exactly what I mean, and certainly 'refinement' issues extend beyond the engine compartment and into places like vehicle balance, braking systems and suspension designs - that last one being a place where the Fusion and the 6 both do very well.
Unrefined = Crude, rough, unsatisfying, not pleasing.
Displeasing or unsatisfying is a subjective connotation. I think the Accord felt more "refined" than the Legacy but wasn't as fun to drive. The Subie shakes when you turn it on (not like a vibration but you can feel the torque of the starter as the car kicks over) and it makes engine noises when you floor it or rev it. The Honda's handling is also "more refined" in that it pretty much understeers no matter what. The Subie will under or oversteer depending on where your foot is.
I left the BMW/MB/Audi/Opel/etc. off because of availability or price. No point in comparing the power train in a $45-75K cart with those in the $20K arena. I have been watching the American LeMans Series and am stunned by the performance and dominance of the Audi TDI. A turbo-diesel is blowing the rest of the field off the courses. Maybe next decade we will all be driving Diesel/Hybrids.
Have any 0-60 times to back that up? ...I can tell you firsthand, the manual will beat it out of the gate every time"
mz6greyghost and lilengineerboy,
Fusion V6 6A is just over 7 seconds to 60, correct? I'd assume the Mazda6 V6 6A would be pretty much the same (basically same chassis, motor and transmission, roughly the same weight). Now the Mazda6 V6 5M doesn't break into the 6's does it? I've always read they are in the low 7's.
I found this on Consumer Guide, regarding the 2006 models: "The i versions are acceptably peppy with manual transmission, sluggish with automatic. V6s lively, but need high rpm for maximum punch. Test manual s sedan did 7.5 sec 0-60 mph." Even if you can flog one barely under 7, that's still not really much faster than the 6A at just over 7. We're talking 10ths of a second.
I could be wrong. My 1998 626 ES-V6 was good for 7.2 0-60. It only had 170hp (by the old standards) but was light by todays standards and geared very, very low (5th gear at 80mph was 4,000 RPM!). I miss that car... The Mazda6 added horsepower, but also several hundred pounds, and isn't geared that low.
Now the Mazda6 V6 5M doesn't break into the 6's does it? I've always read they are in the low 7's.
It used to when the V6 produced 220 HP. C&D clocked their long term V6 MTX at 6.4 seconds. The latest iteration of the 6 with V6 has fewer horses than those of the first year or two though. I don't know what the current time is to 60 with the slightly de-powered engine.
I've heard that it's not so much "de-powered" as just using different metrics to measure power - specifically using SAE standards.
To those who keep calling the Mazda 6 engine "antiquated", "rough", and "thrashy", perhaps the less-exagerated way of putting it is "not as smooth" or "not as quiet" or "not as efficient" as some other engines in this class. Remember, this engine/car continues to garner awards like most desired by editors of Edmunds in 2007, sportiest car by consumers digest in 2007, and one of the most desireable cars in Esquire magazine for 2006. Given these awards, it can't be as bad as you describe... As an analogy, since the Accord is slightly behind the Sonata in JD Powers reliablity reports, perhaps you'd say the Accord is junk? I'd say that this is also an exageration that doesn't stand to reason. Ok, the 6's engine isn't the best, the newest, the quietest, the most efficient, or even the most desireable... but it's still a good enough engine that propels the Mazda 6 to garner a great deal of respect by many auto journalists (who arguably are some of the most passionate people when it comes to cars...after all they have dedicated their livelihoods to that passion!).
As a sidenote, I've spent quite a bit of time with the Subaru boxter engine. With a turbo, that thing makes the legacy exhilarating. But since it's relatively quiet on the inside, it hides how clackity that engine is. Perhaps because the older 6's (I think the 06's and newer are a bit quieter than my 05) didn't have as much sound deadening material as the legacy, it makes the duratec sound less refined than others because you can hear more of it. Personally, I find reving the 6's engine up quite rewarding and not at all objectionable... so to each, their own.
As to the 2.3 engine that the 6 has, Motor trend described that engine as follows: "Mazda's four-cylinder version of the 6--the i--is a willing partner on these curvy roads: a free-revving 2.3-liter, 160-horsepower inline-four joined to a snicky five-speed manual and a driver-focused cockpit, all wrapped in far-spicier-than-vanilla bodywork.... Like its Camry and Accord competitors, the 6i is no rocket off the line, but once the tach tops 3000 rpm, the DOHC powerplant comes on strong, delivering an enthusiastic pull. The standard five-speed manual is one of the most positive shifters around, though we long for another cog. And, yes, you can heel/toe downshift in this family car.
The 6 is a joy on curvy roads, quickly taking a set with minimal understeer and negligible bump steer--not something you expect to find in the four-cylinder midsize-sedan category. Mazda thoughtfully includes grippy and supportive bucket seats in the open-feeling interior, which is designed with large, strategically placed knobs, dials, and switches."
So yeah, the 6's engines aren't class leaders. But they don't deserve to be dogged either. In the end, they are solid components that don't detract from those who value a vehicle that is both comfortable and fun.
I have often read about how the MZ6 has "only" 220 hp. My how times have changed. When the Taurus SHO came out in 1989 it had 220 hp and was lauded as an extremely fast sedan; 140 mph top speed. Now almost any sedan can be had with more than 220 hp. Where are we using all this extra horsepower? With gas prices being where they are, it would seem that increased gas mileage would be more important than winning the hp wars.
Yes, they apparently have. The version used in the Fusion and the Mazda 6 makes more horses and torque than the earlier 3.0 liter version of the engine used in the Ford Escape when it initially hit the market. My daughter had one. I've also ridden in one of the new ford vehicles with the 3.5 Duratec. Performance seemed quite good, and, I noticed no undue NHV when the owner got on it a bit. Do you honestly think that Ford's Premier Automotive Group, Mazda, and domestic Ford aren't sharing engineering info on ways to improve their offerings to the marketplace?
The thing is, many of the high-horsepower cars are getting some of the best mileage estimates (compare the Altima 4-cylinder to the rest of the 4-cylinder class, it has best economy AND acceleration.) The Camry V6 is the same way.
Awkwardly however, the vehicles that are lower on power also seem to offer less fuel economy, with the exception of the GM 3.5L pushrod, which does quite well for an engine of its size economywise, although power is only modest.
There are other exceptions as well. Chrysler's 2.7 and 3.5 V6 engines get exceptional fuel economy as well. I've owned both sizes and used them for business travel. My last two, both Sebring 2.7 sedans, consistently got 30 - 32 MPG running 75 on interstates. I also have owned a Dodge intrepid 2.7 and a Chrysler LHS with the 3.5 - both got exceptional mileage for as big as they were. I've also owned 2 Accords, both 4 bangers with manuals, and, neither of them delivered the fuel economy that the Chryslers do. My all - time fuel economy champ remains a 1975 Oldsmobile Starfire with a 3.8 V6 with a two barrel and a 3 speed automatic. The car consistently gave me 38+ MPG. Think [non-permissible content removed] cars are reliable - the Olds went over 250K, and, didn't die until a guy ran a red light and totaled it.
Do you honestly think that Ford's Premier Automotive Group, Mazda, and domestic Ford aren't sharing engineering info on ways to improve their offerings to the marketplace?
When will these improvements be realized in the Fusion? When the competition is yet another two or three steps ahead of them.
I've also ridden in one of the new ford vehicles with the 3.5 Duratec. Performance seemed quite good, and, I noticed no undue NHV when the owner got on it a bit.
How does the performance of the 3.5 Duratec make the 3.0 Duratec better?
Comments
It is hard to put a finger on the actual price. You could use Intellichoice website, which I used for the price when I went to the Honda dealership. My guess is that Sonata may deep discount the most, though Ford has to be pretty desperate by now, and may match Hyundai. But then again, not all the same features.
Loren
Regards:
OldCEM
Do these engines (or derivatives) make the Fusion engine better?
Not in the least. :confuse:
Its tough to beat a Honda engine. Add in all the ergonomics and tactile Honda feel with a huge dose of reliability and its tough to beat even a 5-6 year old designed Accord.
All the other cars in this class have redone their versions recently (maybe not the Mazda) and Honda can still outdo them. When the 08 Accord arrives Honda will, once again, set a new standard that all others will be compared to.
Mr. Captain2 - Is the 24v V6 DOHC w/VVT in the Fusion/Mazda6 a "pushrod" engine?
My point exactly, and not a reason to 'bash' Ford (or Mazda) products, more to point out that those particular cars could be improved so much with some heart transplants. Maybe the new DT 3.5 will help with the problem, but I'm not sure that it will acutally find its way under Fusion hoods. Putting the engine in a lower volume high priced Lincoln is one thing, getting it into the Fusion/Milan/6 may be more than Ford can handle from a production capacity standpoint.
Exactly what are the things that cause refinement? What parts in the motor have to be there?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Even the older Hondas have very advanced, active engine mounts designed to dampen the vibration of the engine and mute sounds from the engine compartment (of course these fail over time and are somewhat costly to replace).
Additionally, the exhaust note can be engineered as well. Cars like the Miata had extensive research put into optimizing the exhaust note.
I don't understand why Ford doesn't sweat the details a little more with respect to NVH and all of these complaints will go away. Improved motor mounts and some additional insulation should solve the problem.
Its funny though, I don't mind some mechanical noise. I think that is one of the reasons I like the Subaru so much. I feel part of the driving experience as opposed to isolated from it.
The DT 3.0 is an overhead cam motor. While I think you have the right idea of improving breathing at high RPM, I think your mental model of how variable valve timing technologies work is a little skewed.
The i-VTEC in the Accord operates only on the intake. There is a low and high RPM mode, and some component in the rollers allows for additional variation (which is different then the double cam version which allows the cam to operate 25 degrees out of phase). This second system is similar to Toyota's VVTL-I which controls both lift and duration.
The Porsche system (vario-cam) I believe primarily affects cam timing with respect to when the valves open, but not the lift and duration. I am ohly familiar with the earlier versions of Vario-cam so its very possible and likely they have modified their system as well.
I will not put down the VQ in any way, shape or form, since I agree it's a great engine, but the V6 in my 6, IMO, may be louder (due to less sound-deadening), but it's NEVER felt "strained" to me, whether it's on the open highway, or passing on a two-lane. Drop it a gear, hit the gas, and it goes, just as well as the VQ.
In terms of refinement, both the VQ and DT don't come close to Honda though...
Okay, just checking as in the past some on that other discussion seemed to confuse the old Vulcan V6 with the Duratec. I guess I somewhat misunderstood your point as I got the impression you were saying the DT3.0 should be grouped with 1950s pushrods. And actually, I am not real concerned about the number of valves. etc., etc...
Anyway, I'm driving the 4 cyl Ford/Mazda engine. It seems fine to me, sounds good to me at all times and I have not felt there is any problem with reving the engine to redline. The one minor thing I have noticed is I feel some vibration in the steering wheel when stopped in "D"...I'll find out when I go for my first oil change if this is normal or not. I don't remember feeling this on my test drives, but that does not necessarily mean it was not there.
IOW, define the characteristic itself - not the badge.
So refined means better, more useful, cheaper...
That's my opinion (at this time and I reserve the right to change my opinion in the future :shades: )
I contrast this to the Contour, which had less satisfying controls which had hard clicks, although it too, had very positive engagement. The function was there, it just didn't feel as good. I also liked how easy to use the audio systems were in both of those cars.
The controls on the Legacy feel very Honda-like, with that damped engagement feeling. It doesn't have the control layout of the older Honda though, and I have to look down activate some features in the Subie (this might be because I don't drive it as much).
I think I can summarize refinement for me as the perception of quality in the things I touch when I'm in the car, so that is why I tend to concentrate on switches and controls.
I don't mind a bit of drivetrain noise, I like knowing there is an engine up there, so that's not a big issue with me, nor do I need the interior cabin to be a library or mortuary.
Using my Honda 2.4L inline 4-cylinder as an example of what I consider to be refined... Its as smooth at redline as at 1,000 rpm. Hold the RPMs anywhere in between and it always sounds and feels like it is meant for just that purpose; no vibration, and the tone from the engine and exhaust is nothing but pleasing. It never even gives you the impression that you are working it harder than it wants to. Going to high RPMs is sort of like switching from "Low" to "High" on my favorite 240-mph electric leafblower, in that it feels like just another setting available for normal use; no drama involved, just a louder "whoosh" and more performance when needed. Throttle it up and it lightly growls, then just sings... and you want to do it again. It is a great motor especially considering its in an inexpensive, practical sedan.
Now, a motor that is not refined has none of the above qualities. In fact, in many ways it will be opposite. It may be perfectly acceptable under normal conditions, but push it and the sounds are harsh and displeasing, and/or you can almost feel the motor is out of balance, thrashing or vibrating. It doesn't feel like it was made to rev that high. These engines make you feel guilty when you take them to redline, like you are damaging the motor based on how it sounds or feels through the controls. Floor it once, and you'll think "I don't need to do that again unless I have to." The impression is that the engine is tearing itself apart to get at those high revs.
When driving that DT30 Fusion, I enjoyed the performance, and please don't think I am "bashing" or "hating," but I wanted to lift off the throttle well before redline. It did not feel nearly as "refined." This, to me, takes away some of the enjoyment of putting an internal combustion engine through its paces.
If I think car A is more refined than car B, the sum of its qualities is better than it's competitor. A lot of it will be subjective (interior and exterior appearance, the feel of the controls, handling, etc). Some of it isn't (acceleration, noise, etc). It's really how good a end product it is as a whole from the smallest detail on up.
Do the door handles flex when you pull on them? Does the cup holder block the shifter? Does the steering wheel block the instrument cluster? Does the steering communicate to the driver what the car is actually doing? Do potholes make you wonder if parts of your car are falling off?
You say "that the Honda V6, is still SOHC, and is unarguably vastly superior (in terms of HP and refinement) than the DT3.0"
You say that with a tone, to me anyway, that the Honda V6 is a superior power plant than, everything? I know that is not what you say, just the way it sounded when I reread it. That is a fine opinion and I am not saying you said anything wrong or that can be argued. You believe strongly in the, quality?, refinement?, efficiency?, superiority?, of the Honda engine(s).
I have owned I4's Turbo I4's, I6's V6's H6's, V8's V10's OHV, SOHC, DOHC, 2v/c, 4v/c, 1.2L, 2.L, 2.6L, 3.0L, 3.6L, 5.0L 5.3L, 5.7, 6.2L, and 8L cars/trucks.
They all had superior something to something else and performed their assigned tasks very well for a long time (except for the aluminum Vega engine).
So what is your opinion comparing the Honda V6 to
Cadillac (GM) 3.6 DOHC VVT V6 (DI 300 H-P version)?
Lexus IS 3.5 DOHC VVT V6 (306 H-P)?
How about the Audi new Diesel engines?
I'm not entirely sure but I recall someone posting that the manual states just that. When in "L" the tranny decides which gear is best, between 2 or 3 gears, given gas pedal placement, speed, etc. Someone who has actually used it could maybe let us all know how that works?
A stick can be fun, but not around town. I prefer a stick on a sports car, preferably RWD. For FWD, from now on, I will stick with automatics.
I'm the opposite for the most part. Cars we've owned with sticks include a '96 Civic EX, '98 ZX2, '04 Mazda6 S, and currently an '06 Mustang GT. The only one I hated driving in city traffic, which I do on a daily basis, was the Civic because it had zero low end power. As long as the car has some power and I don't have to rev it up to move a few feet I'm happy. The 6 was FWD and an absolute blast to drive.
FWIW I did test drive the Mazda6 i with a stick and the V6 with the manumatic. The i was like the Civic to me and the manumatic was useless because it shifted too early IMO. Plus there was the whole bored left foot sydrome associtated with it.
PS I fully expect that it'll be Honda that shortly comes out with some engine superior in almost all respects even to the Toyota 2GR-FSE you mentioned.
Did you drive the 2.3L I4? If so, did you have the same impression of that engine?
Thank you, exactly what I'm talking about, with many of the other cars in this group, you don't have the time to "want to lift off the throttle"
Yes I have driven the 2.3L I4: normally aspirated in a 2006 Fusion SE manual, and then turbocharged and direct-injected in a 2006 Mazdaspeed Mazda6.
In normally aspirated form, I noticed a slight "buzziness" to the sound, not entirely displeasing because it reminded me of the 2.2L I4 I had in my first car, a 1991 Mazda 626. Also, when accelerating through the gears, I'd let off the gas completely and push in the clutch, and the RPMs would always jump up by 500. The manual shift knob was huge, and the lever action wasn't very precise (not unlike my 1998 626 ES-V6). As I mentioned before, the Ford/Mazda 2.3L (at least in the midsizers) feels a notch slower than the Camry 2.4L, which is a notch (or two) below the Honda 2.4L. Performance/acceleration numbers seem to bear this out. I'm sure it's more fun in a Mazda3 or Focus. Bottom line, I wouldn't call this motor "unrefined," it was quite happy to buzz along. I just wanted more grunt from my 4-banger.
In turbo form, the motor was a real hoot. Tons of torque, but power started to drop off above about 4,800 RPM. I liked it very much, and would have purchased it, but even heavily discounted to around $24,000 it was a little more than I wanted to spend, even before I figured up the insurance!
This was from a high volume dealer about 100 miles away. The local dealer was only discounting the car $500 and had a $210 higher doc fee and throws in $500 advertising for good measure. The dealer we bought from had an internet price of $1800 below INVOICE. There was a general $1,000 rebate and another $1,000 rebate if financed through Hyundai Finance (5.9% for 60 months)We also qualified for the owner loyalty rebate of $500. Our price for the car, before doc + ttl, was $4300 under invoice or $5429 below MSRP.
The resale value game is a shell game. Trade-in value or retail value of a used car? I just saw Enterprise rent-a-car offering a comparably equipped '06 Sonata with 14,692 miles for $17,999 and they say, "blue book retail value" of $20,690. Enterprise is a "no haggle" price.
Now, I certainly don't think the Fusion is slow when you get the V6. The DT30 may not like to rev high, but that 6-speed automatic is pretty good for a slushbox, and it makes up for it (I've always like Aisin-built trannys, had one in a Cherokee that was bulletproof). Once out of first gear, the transmission kept the motor on the boil. As I mentioned, it just didn't seem very "refined" (see previous definition) when doing so. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'd prefer that it be smoother as opposed to more eager to rev, because overall not that slow of a car. 7.2 seconds?
Most V6's these days are quicker. The Mazda6 with the same motor and equipped with a manual isn't quicker because it only has 5 speeds versus 6 in the Auto. Some of the faster four cylinders in this class (Accord, Altima) can keep up when equipped with manuals. Decent performance.
Can't really use much more than that around here. My wife wants a new Mustang GT. I drove one for a couple of days last year. This was the drill: gas it in first to get going good, short-shift, give it some gas in second. You're now going 10-15 mph over the speed limit. Shift to 5th.
The original VTEC of the early 90s was variable cam timing, while later versions also affected lift (there is a component on the roller). I believe they can now do duration as well (i-vtec). Toyota skipped the early versions and showed up late with timing, duration and lift.
Remarkably, the next leap might be GM with getting rid of the cam altogether.
Again, the parallel to the lumpy cams is also seen in the aftermarket as a number of companies make "vtec controllers" that vary the rpms where they activate, etc.
Have any 0-60 times to back that up?
I've driven the manual (my personal ride) and auto-equipped (test drives) V6-model 6's, and I can tell you firsthand, the manual will beat it out of the gate every time, as long as the person behind the wheel knows how to properly operate three-pedaled cars. The auto is a 6-speed simply for better fuel economy (actually better than the manual on the highway, IIRC, according to the EPA.)
The number of gears isn't the issue, its the final drive ratio and the individual gear ratios, as well as top speed in gears. Manual transmission cars that are geared super short are slower because they have to be in 3rd to hit 60, while some of the taller cars can do 60 in 2nd.
The time to shift is a factor here (I know don't get started on DSGs and what not, take it to the manual trans forum).
refined = a car that is a pleasure to push a little
or
unrefined = a car that 'screams' in protest when you do.
Yes, the better V6s are generally found with those labels on it you don't like or maybe you would consider taking a new Aura XR out on a test drive.
refined = a car that is a pleasure to push a little
or
unrefined = a car that 'screams' in protest when you do.
By push do you mean push the gas? Or is there some element of how it corners in there too? Does interior accommodations play any role in that?
Unrefined = Crude, rough, unsatisfying, not pleasing.
Displeasing or unsatisfying is a subjective connotation. I think the Accord felt more "refined" than the Legacy but wasn't as fun to drive. The Subie shakes when you turn it on (not like a vibration but you can feel the torque of the starter as the car kicks over) and it makes engine noises when you floor it or rev it.
The Honda's handling is also "more refined" in that it pretty much understeers no matter what. The Subie will under or oversteer depending on where your foot is.
I have been watching the American LeMans Series and am stunned by the performance and dominance of the Audi TDI. A turbo-diesel is blowing the rest of the field off the courses.
Maybe next decade we will all be driving Diesel/Hybrids.
mz6greyghost and lilengineerboy,
Fusion V6 6A is just over 7 seconds to 60, correct? I'd assume the Mazda6 V6 6A would be pretty much the same (basically same chassis, motor and transmission, roughly the same weight). Now the Mazda6 V6 5M doesn't break into the 6's does it? I've always read they are in the low 7's.
I found this on Consumer Guide, regarding the 2006 models: "The i versions are acceptably peppy with manual transmission, sluggish with automatic. V6s lively, but need high rpm for maximum punch. Test manual s sedan did 7.5 sec 0-60 mph." Even if you can flog one barely under 7, that's still not really much faster than the 6A at just over 7. We're talking 10ths of a second.
I could be wrong. My 1998 626 ES-V6 was good for 7.2 0-60. It only had 170hp (by the old standards) but was light by todays standards and geared very, very low (5th gear at 80mph was 4,000 RPM!). I miss that car... The Mazda6 added horsepower, but also several hundred pounds, and isn't geared that low.
It used to when the V6 produced 220 HP. C&D clocked their long term V6 MTX at 6.4 seconds. The latest iteration of the 6 with V6 has fewer horses than those of the first year or two though. I don't know what the current time is to 60 with the slightly de-powered engine.
To those who keep calling the Mazda 6 engine "antiquated", "rough", and "thrashy", perhaps the less-exagerated way of putting it is "not as smooth" or "not as quiet" or "not as efficient" as some other engines in this class. Remember, this engine/car continues to garner awards like most desired by editors of Edmunds in 2007, sportiest car by consumers digest in 2007, and one of the most desireable cars in Esquire magazine for 2006. Given these awards, it can't be as bad as you describe... As an analogy, since the Accord is slightly behind the Sonata in JD Powers reliablity reports, perhaps you'd say the Accord is junk? I'd say that this is also an exageration that doesn't stand to reason. Ok, the 6's engine isn't the best, the newest, the quietest, the most efficient, or even the most desireable... but it's still a good enough engine that propels the Mazda 6 to garner a great deal of respect by many auto journalists (who arguably are some of the most passionate people when it comes to cars...after all they have dedicated their livelihoods to that passion!).
As a sidenote, I've spent quite a bit of time with the Subaru boxter engine. With a turbo, that thing makes the legacy exhilarating. But since it's relatively quiet on the inside, it hides how clackity that engine is. Perhaps because the older 6's (I think the 06's and newer are a bit quieter than my 05) didn't have as much sound deadening material as the legacy, it makes the duratec sound less refined than others because you can hear more of it. Personally, I find reving the 6's engine up quite rewarding and not at all objectionable... so to each, their own.
As to the 2.3 engine that the 6 has, Motor trend described that engine as follows: "Mazda's four-cylinder version of the 6--the i--is a willing partner on these curvy roads: a free-revving 2.3-liter, 160-horsepower inline-four joined to a snicky five-speed manual and a driver-focused cockpit, all wrapped in far-spicier-than-vanilla bodywork.... Like its Camry and Accord competitors, the 6i is no rocket off the line, but once the tach tops 3000 rpm, the DOHC powerplant comes on strong, delivering an enthusiastic pull. The standard five-speed manual is one of the most positive shifters around, though we long for another cog. And, yes, you can heel/toe downshift in this family car.
The 6 is a joy on curvy roads, quickly taking a set with minimal understeer and negligible bump steer--not something you expect to find in the four-cylinder midsize-sedan category. Mazda thoughtfully includes grippy and supportive bucket seats in the open-feeling interior, which is designed with large, strategically placed knobs, dials, and switches."
So yeah, the 6's engines aren't class leaders. But they don't deserve to be dogged either. In the end, they are solid components that don't detract from those who value a vehicle that is both comfortable and fun.
Regards:
OldCEM
Awkwardly however, the vehicles that are lower on power also seem to offer less fuel economy, with the exception of the GM 3.5L pushrod, which does quite well for an engine of its size economywise, although power is only modest.
Regards:
OldCEM
When will these improvements be realized in the Fusion? When the competition is yet another two or three steps ahead of them.
I've also ridden in one of the new ford vehicles with the 3.5 Duratec. Performance seemed quite good, and, I noticed no undue NHV when the owner got on it a bit.
How does the performance of the 3.5 Duratec make the 3.0 Duratec better?