Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/22 for details.
Options
Comments
Well the lack of an ATX hurt the MPS6 in that regard as we all know. Still, it was a great effort by Mazda and I just hope they have the guts to try again with the next gen.
The beauty of this system is that it doesn't only transfer power between front and back but also left and right. Thus gives the vehicle better cornering ability.
1998 626 V6- 170hp, 2990lbs, 17.5lbs/hp
2006 Mazda6 s- 220hp, 3320 lbs, 15 lbs/hp
2009 Mazda6 s- 260?hp, 3550?lbs, 13.5 lbs/hp
The beauty of this system is that it doesn't only transfer power between front and back but also left and right. Thus gives the vehicle better cornering ability.
As I understand it, the system actually slows the inside rear wheel and accelerates the outside rear wheel to push the nose of the car into the corner even harder.
What exactly are these "restrictions"? Consider that the 2.3L 4-cyl is a Mazda-designed engine that Ford uses in their products, and NOT vice-versa. As for the V6, Mazda didn't have the capital on their own to develop one from the ground up back in '01-'02, especially considering that the V6 is only offered in the US and Canada, and not in other markets.
That's something I'd like to know too. Without Ford I doubt we'd even be talking about a Mazda vehicle right now.
Mazda has been given free reign over chassis development as well. The 6, RX-8, CX-9, and CX-7 are unique to them too. Ford has taken their platforms and done their thing with them but Mazda did do all of the ground work. This next 6 is not a re-badged Fusion and from what I've gathered actually shares more with the Euro Mondeo or vice versa.
The 3, Tribute, and Mazda5 were all done jointly (3 and 5 included Volvo too) but I don't think Mazda was restricted in any way during their share of the development.
I'm also wondering what the "limitations" captain2 referred to are as well. The 6s is competitive or class leading in all performance categories. The only "limitation" I see is in the back seat which is being addressed.
http://www.aa1car.com/library/stability_control.htm
electronic stability control has improved the emergency handling on the vehicles we have tested
http://autos.yahoo.com/consumerreports/article/safety_checks.html
you've got to be kidding - the lowest HP combined with subpar FE in any of the V6s and not a whole lot better than that with the 4 bangers either? IMO the only thing worse than the DT3.0 are possibly some of those pushrod GMs - a situation that even they seem to be able to address in the XR and 08 Malibu 3.6s.
In terms of chassis design and development, Mazda has certainly done a good job with the cars/SUVs you mention - a good thing too - because otherwise the Fusionados would have little to talk about. If the Mazda chassis is as good as it is, then it deserves engine(s) every bit its equal.
I probably should have said track performance categories as it does lose out a bit on FE, NVH levels, and interior volume. However, when it came out it's track performance was bested by none. The only one I'm not quite sure of is the 0-60 because it was clocked at 6.5 seconds but the Accord may have been a tenth or two faster. Now it's a bit slower than two or three other sedans, but that will most likely be addressed with the next one.
You keep harping on the Duratec30 like it's some dinosaur. It might be in some other applications but in the 6 it is pretty advanced and smooth. Have you ever driven a Mazda6 V6?
Obviously, we are talking about professional driving. A wannabe (like me) would probably go around a corner faster with ESC than without, due to lack of experience in reaching the absolute limit of handling capabilities without losing control. This is assuming that the ESC is minimally invasive, meaning it allows some fun and only steps in when really needed.
I know that was directed at captain but you have been making me even more curious about driving a Mazda6 V6. I remarked earlier that after driving the Fusion V6 6A, I beleived the main reason it felt quick was more because of the 6-speed Aisin transmission, and not because of the motor. I'd like to see myself what the Mazda treatment does for the DT.
I'm determined to drive a Mazda6 V6 manual, but I think the local Mazda dealer knows me after having driven a Miata and a Mazdaspeed6 and not buying, and they now seem reluctant to give me any attention. I can't say I blame them
Having owned my 6 V6 for close to three years, and test-drove both the Fusion and Milan a few times, I can tell you from experience that they're two different beasts. The 6-speed auto is a very good transmission, no doubt about that, but the DT comes alive for me when I drive it with the 5-speed manual. I'll bet it's partly from the VVT programming that's unique to Mazda, and partly from the manual, but the DT is nothing to sneeze at under the hood of the 6.
I'm determined to drive a Mazda6 V6 manual, but I think the local Mazda dealer knows me after having driven a Miata and a Mazdaspeed6 and not buying, and they now seem reluctant to give me any attention. I can't say I blame them Maybe we can go under the pretense of it being for my wife?
It's worked for me.
Actually, my local Mazda dealer has been very generous (and patient
Okay, I will.
All I can tell you is that after owning an Escape and a Mazda6, both with the DT30, the version in the 6 was way smoother and quieter. There was noise but it was from the exhaust which was given a sport tune to sound throatier. I liked that sound but others could be put off by it.
I have also driven my father's old '96 Sable and his current '06 Zephyr. The Sable's DT30 was a bit rough by today's standards but the Zephyr wasn't all that bad. Better sound insulation might have helped the latter. I'd have to say the DT30 in the 6 is still the smoothest of them all though. And it had almost no sound insulation IMO.
Keep in mind that I can't hear myself think in my Mustang when accelerating. Just so you have an idea of my sound tolerance.
Maybe we can go under the pretense of it being for my wife?
Or you can wear a fake mustache. :shades:
And yes I owned several of those older Mazda/Ford products I referenced (an RX2, an 808, a Probe (a Mazda design originally intended to be a Mustang), and a GLC) and thought they were among the most underrated vehicles of that time - but then again, that was largely before the Ford infection hit the engine compartments. Put the Honda V6, the Nissan VQ, the Toyota 2GR, the GM 3.6, or the Kia/Hyundia 3.3s in a 6 (or a Fusion) then you would really have something IMO. Or you could let Mazda have its way with blown 4s, premium gas, and likely more suspect durability, the net result also a big improvement.
That's not how everyone feels though. I never really paid attention to the sound all that much until we began discussing it.
and sure, put a MTX on a car that 90% of buyers in this class want ATs and I would guess you might be able to pull 6.5s in a 6.
In all fairness though, the MTX has been a popular choice in the 6s since it was introduced. It's the one sedan in this class where the MTX still sells well. Mazda lots were filled with ATX equipped copies in it's first year of sales because Mazda highly underestimated the demand for the MTX. I actually had to wait until the '04 model came out to get an MTX.
Did you have a V6 in that Probe? I ask because that was the DT25 which eventually became the DT30.
I think the definition of "improved handling" is needed here, as this will lower the overall limits of the vehicle, although I concur that it may help steering control (by slowing the vehicle down). Cutting power will never help you go faster.
While electronic stability control has improved the emergency handling on the vehicles we have tested, it's not a cure-all for inherently poor-handling vehicles.
Again, it seems to echo improved stability (hence the name) but not an actual increase in handling.
While I feel that Stability Control may be helpful for vans, SUVs and other poor handling vehicles, I don't know how much it will help on the average sedan. If it makes someone feel more comfortable, I don't see an issue with it for them, it just slows them down when they get into trouble.
Most stock, unmodified, mid-sized mid-market sedans have one good swerve. That is, you can swerve to miss the tire that came off the truck in front of you, or the tent that came off the roof rack, etc, but after that swerve, you are headed for the k-barrier. The next swerve, to re-align the vehicle with traffic, is where things get ugly. I have to reserve judgment on DSC for the masses to see if it makes a difference here or not.
And then, of course, you have those folks that mistakenly think that these things improve something (other than safety) and develop bad driving habits - perhaps relying on some computer 'Nanny' to correct their own gross driving misjudgments.
I disagree, the 2.5 V6 in the Probe was a Mazda design while the 2.5 V6 in the Contour was a Ford design, and that, from what I understand, became the 3.0.
The Probe also had a different manual transmission, IIRC, while the Focus,Contour, Fusion, Mazda3/6 etc all got the MTX75.
At the time though, the Diamond Star was a hotter ticket for the same bucks, with a 200hp turbo.
Hey, when you're raking in tens of billions of dollars selling Explorers why use the same engine in more than one vehicle right? :P
If only Blacque Jacques had some forethought. :sick:
I also think the 4.6 modular V8 was related to the duratec family, they just kept loping cylinders or banks off it. Not so uncommon, the original Audi V8 motor was 2 VW GTI motors stuck together.
Now it is but it wasn't always. The Mustang and Explorer actually share both engines but they are tuned differently for each. I have one of each as a matter of fact. :shades:
I also think the 4.6 modular V8 was related to the duratec family, they just kept loping cylinders or banks off it. Not so uncommon, the original Audi V8 motor was 2 VW GTI motors stuck together.
Not so sure about the V8 being part of the Duratec family. I've never heard or read that one before. FWIW, it's not called "modular" because it can be morphed into many different engines but rather because of it's manufacturing facilities/processes. The Aston V12 is essentially two Duratec30s fused together though.
That is exactly what DSC does and you cannot. A good DSC system, like BMWs, can apply the brakes to individual wheels, which you as the driver cannot, to keep the car pointed in the direction of the steering wheel. SHAWD cannot help in this situation unless you gun the gas in an emergency situation.
A good DSC type system, like BMWs, will also work to prevent you from getting into a bad situation, before you even know you are in one.
How does it know? How does it know what I am trying to do? How does it know what other hazards exist? It primarily tries to control fishtailing, so instead of hitting the k-barrier with the back of the car, I hit it head on. This is not helpful to me.
People give up when it comes to emergency situations and vehicle control. You don't lose control of a vehicle, you relinquish control of a vehicle. You might not be able to get the car to do exactly what you want (those pesky laws of physics) but you can usually avoid a worst case scenario, which is all the DSC is going to do anyway (excepting unwieldy vehicles with high center of gravity...read- SUVs and church vans).
If you wanted to improve handling, put more power to the outside wheel in turns...oh wait, that is what a limited slip differential does. With respect to braking a wheel:
If you brake the inside front wheel on a corner, its not going to make a big difference because there is no weight on that wheel. If you have weight on that wheel, then you aren't at a threshold where you need DSC, you just need to learn how to drive.
If you brake the inside rear wheel, that is going to me even more unloaded then the front wheel (watch a VW GTI or a Nissan Sentra autocross, that wheel isn't even on the ground).
If you brake the outside front wheel, then you are just going to plow or understeer into the direction you were going previously.
If you brake the outside rear wheel, you are going to be facing the direction you were previously coming from.
Stability control detects both understeer and oversteer using a yaw sensor and a steering wheel sensor and corrects for both by braking different wheels. It knows where you're trying to go versus where you're actually going. It also cuts power if necessary.
Limited slip differentials do NOT send MORE power to the outside wheels. It just prevents all the torque from going to a wheel that is slipping (thus the name).
And the braking that is done by ESC does not cause you to lose control - it doesn't lock up the wheel. IF you're understeering and you brake the inside rear wheel a little it helps the car to rotate into the turn (try dragging one foot on a bike).
I would argue that my butt accomplishes the same task, my instructor used to refer to it as "butt pucker"
Limited slip differentials do NOT send MORE power to the outside wheels. It just prevents all the torque from going to a wheel that is slipping (thus the name).
Limited slips prevent all the power going to the wheel that is slipping by sending the power "from the wheels that slip to the wheels that grip" (to quote Subaru). So the way this translates to me is when coming off "off-ramp" going onto "I-5", my Contour would do nothing but spin the inside front wheel. The NX2000 w/limited slip could put down all of its 140hp much sooner as I exited the turn.
And the braking that is done by ESC does not cause you to lose control - it doesn't lock up the wheel. IF you're understeering and you brake the inside rear wheel a little it helps the car to rotate into the turn (try dragging one foot on a bike).
Eh, in reference to my previous point, you never "lose" control, you relinquish it. Also, if that inside rear wheel has enough weight on it for braking to make a difference, then there is more cornering potential in the car and someone needs to turn the wheel more.
Having raced mountain bikes, I never "drag your foot" in a turn because it slows me down. If I put my foot down, it is for stability (called a "dab"), and it means I am not going as fast as I should be, or I took a bad line or some other issue.
Trail braking where you drag the brake a little bit past the initial tun-in to the corner to get some rotation is different and seems to work well for bikes and cars alike.
Like I said, I think its probably great technology for the masses, especially those who don't understand that having a top heavy vehicle full of kids might handle differently than an Accord. As far as performance driving goes, I would really like to drive the car myself.
b) if the front wheels have lost grip and are causing understeer, then no amount of grip or acceleration from the inside rear tire is going to correct that. You have only two options - back off the throttle and let the front wheels regain their grip or brake the inside rear wheel only (you can't do that with the seat of your pants) which will help pull the fronts into the turn.
I wasn't arguing that stability control is better for pure performance - it's not. I was just pointing out the technical inaccuracies of your statements.
I think there was discussion a while back about F1 or Indy cars using Traction Control during races. Many argued that Traction Control negated some of the skill of the driver, and should not be used in race situations (only for testing).
My point was if you are plowing that much, the inside rear wheel is going to be so unloaded that the effect of braking by that wheel is going to be minimal.
A third option would be to reduce your steering wheel angle (like when you straighten up to slam on the brakes on a motorcycle, or traverse a slippery spot) and then resume turning again.
I think this will be like ABS where it will change the type of crash (and hopefully the severity), but maybe not reduce the overall rate. It just compensates for lack of driver skill by lowering the limits of the vehicle.
...by lowering them.
It can make the driver more confident, so he/she will drive closer to the limit than he/she normally would, thereby improving lap times.
Eh, while I think driver confidence is a big issue (I actually set up the NX to be more forgiving at the limit because I was faster that way), I think something that electronically defines the envelope and determines when I am exceeding it would just slow me down.
On the road is different than on the track. I personally would still like to be able to read and interpret the feedback my car is providing, with out 2-3 layers of electronics in-between, but for others, I would like them to have as little input on the driving experience as possible :P
I think no matter how skilled you are at driving, you will go a little faster around that corner knowing if the rear breaks free on you, the car will save you. If Traction Control can improve lap times for F1 drivers, I'm sure it can do the same for you.
Sorry, but the fact is that it DOES work. The inside rear wheel is NOT totally unloaded. Remember we're talking about a recoverable situation, not trying to do a hairpin at 100 mph. Do you think they faked all the video demonstrations that show that it works this way?
This is a SAFETY device. It reacts to a situation more quickly and in ways that no driver can match to keep the car on the road. Period. If you think you can do the same thing under normal driving circumstances you're sadly mistaken. We're talking about an unexpected situation, not hanging it out around the curve on a track day.
Not when it kicks in so far before the back end is going to break free....
This is assuming it kicks in at the limit, but it doesn't, it lowers the limits. Thats fine, I think most people obviously don't know the limits of the vehicle they are driving and I would just as soon not have them try to find those limits driving on the road with me. I don't think they will miss it.
So far the only video I have seen is on a test track, some with cones and some with a styrofoam VW that gets pushed out of the way.
Will it help the average driver avoid certain types of crashes? Yes. Will it make someone a better driver? Definitely not.
This is a SAFETY device. It reacts to a situation more quickly and in ways that no driver can match to keep the car on the road. Period. If you think you can do the same thing under normal driving circumstances you're sadly mistaken.
I disagree, but I hope if it makes you feel more comfortable, you will purchase vehicles equipped with this device.
I would rather invest some money in actually teaching people (or myself) how to drive, but given my level of faith in mankind at this point, I think the less driving people actually do, the better.
Some will, and some will not (substantially lower the limits). There are systems that can be set closer to the limit than you (or any other driver) can get, on a regular basis.
PS: Maybe there should be a separate thread on the ESC issue?
I think it could be an exciting new technology, and if it makes the roads safer I'm all for it. I think it will be a boon to top heavy unwieldy vehicles (vans/suvs) and also heavy tractor trailer trucks.
I don't see it as the panacea that its being touted, but maybe it will give way to what is, or will be a step towards autonomous vehicles that form "trains" to maximize vehicle through-put and ease congestion.
As far as if i am better off with or without it, I have decided I am better off without it but want all of you to have it :P j/k
Oh it better not show up "on a regular basis" or its wayyyy to invasive. And if I hit those limits on the street, then eh, I deserve a big spanking.
PLEASE?
I miss that!
Un-camoflauged pics of the 2008 Accord have debuted, sketches for the updated Fusion are surfacing, a new Malibu is due soon, and we're talking about stability control programs (not on particular cars even!)
I'd love to have someone to talk about the new Accord with (in comparison with say, the Altima/Camry/Fusion). Anyone interested?
my two cents at least!
-thene
I guess I would call that improved...
I am not a fan of that look either. I like the headlights to stay pretty much in the front plane of the car. I had thought, back when the concept pictures were out, that the new Accord was going to do that and the front would be somewhat more like the TSX in that regard.
Coupe: Pretty
Sedan: Meh...
Since there is no direct shot of the front of the sedan but base on the coupe's look, it should be descent. The side looks like Honda has lifted out directly from the 5-series. Not bad looking but it's just not "Honda". The rear, again, is the weakest link (that's 2 models in the roll now, let's not make it a trend, Honda!). Looks to me like the old Saturn LS300 (Hint: NOT GOOD) with Altezza lights on it.
As for interior, although no clear shot has been leaked but based on several spy photos and Honda's own track record I think it will again be class-leading. Overall, I do like the new one better than the current version, especially the coupe. Also, there is no doubt in my mind that this one will continue to out-handle the Camry, out-smooth the Altima and out-refine every other competitors. However, will it outsell the Camry and regain the number 1 spot is yet to be seen.
Source: Edmunds InsideLine