Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Midsize Sedans 2.0

161626466671325

Comments

  • daedalus34rdaedalus34r Posts: 27
    This time I went to the Mazda dealer to check out the MS6. I sat inside and i was impressed. Fit and finish are really nice. I didnt take a test drive, but I plan on it.

    I heard alot of comments about how the shifter is no good, but when i was rowing through the gears the gates were very well defined and extremely easy to find w/ short throws, i dont know what will change when I actually drive it. However, the clutch is VERY stiff ... Not sure if i could live w/ that.

    One problem i do have [not with this vehicle] is finding reverse on a 6speed transmissions [either left-up or down-right]. I can get can get the forward gears easy of course, but it seems like the shifter wont move farther left[MS6 has reverse up and to left]. Do I need to have the car running and/or have my foot on the brake and ONLY THEN will reverse open up? Only manuals i have driven are when reverse is behind 5th gear [5speeds]. If someone could enlighten me, i would be extremely grateful.

    I did the rear seat check and it passed w/ flying colors, a 6'-0" individual can easily sit behind a driver of equal or less height.

    Hopefully there are no glarring errors or hidden problems w/ this car. Ive read about the computer fix that reduces the cars power or something, not sure. Hopefully it isnt major. I am also unsure of Mazda's reliability but im sure its probably solid since its an asian manufacturer. Overall its one of those cars that is under the radar. Does anyone have any real-world 0-60 or 0-100 times? As in, w/o doing a insane 4000rpm clutch dump. Those advertised times are nice, but can only be achieved when one abuses the clutch.
  • goodegggoodegg Posts: 905
    I am also unsure of Mazda's reliability

    Shoot - any turbo-ed 4 cyl. isn't gonna deliver the reliability and major miles the naturally aspirated engines will. Get the turbo for the short-term, high revving lifestyle, but I'd get the latest V6s for speed and reliability without the huge rpm atmosphere of the turbo and questionable long term performance.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    I have driven this car a few times, it is my "stretch target." Alas my price range relegates me to the more mundane boring stuff but I loved the shifter, I thought it was very precise.

    I recall to get reverse you push down on the shifter while moving up and to the left ala VW. The Contour had a collar you would pull up when shifting into reverse, but the MS6 isn't an MTX75 trans.

    Mazda has had some issues with reliability in certain models (the 626 4 cyl w/auto, early RX8, prev gen RX7 - which use rotary engines, not like the regular inline 4s) but has a pretty stellar reputation overall (Miatas last forever, etc).

    I really wouldn't be too worried about a turbo motor. Mazda, Mitsubishi, Saab, Volvo and Honda all have turbo motors that are well proven and the motors seem to have excellent longevity, especially in stock form.

    The nice thing about turbos is they offer excellent efficiency while below boost.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Posts: 4,116
    Shoot - any turbo-ed 4 cyl. isn't gonna deliver the reliability and major miles the naturally aspirated engines will. Get the turbo for the short-term, high revving lifestyle, but I'd get the latest V6s for speed and reliability without the huge rpm atmosphere of the turbo and questionable long term performance.

    20 years of turbo performance and history helps me feel comfortable with a boosted motor. I wouldn't want to change technologies too fast, my 8 tracks still sound great... :P
  • maximafanmaximafan Posts: 592
    Perna, you're making me reminisce on my '02 Maxima (RIP). That car had some great pick up.
    I got to drive a Mazda6 rental car a couple of weeks ago. I have to say I was pretty impressed with the way the car handled. It was a 4-cylinder, so not always real powerful,
    but zippy enough. When my brother would come to town when I had the Maxima, he always liked to drive it whenever we would go out on the town, and he would punch that accelerator and make our heads kind of snap back in the seat and he'd get this look of "wonder" on his face.

    Unfortunately, he tries to do the same thing with my '07 Lexus RX. You won't get the same reaction. (this makes me laugh all the time.)
    While my Rx has pretty good pick up for an SUV,
    it's still not nearly as quick as the Maxima was! ;)
  • scape2scape2 Posts: 4,124
    I'm kind of surprised you don't see more Maxima's around. These are nice looking along with great performers. I wonder if they just get lost in the Acura/Lexus shadow..
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    I know this is gonna sound weird, but to me, the Lucerne looks better than either the Avalon OR the Maxima (although the Maxima update helped). A 19 year old likes a Buick? Well, out of the choices, yeah.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,911
    The Lucerne is growing on me also. But it's a full-sized car. One thing GM does not lack is styling prowess.
  • plektoplekto Posts: 3,738
    Go test drive the Lucerne CXS and you'll be even more impressed. Of course, in black. The ONLY color that it looks stunning in is black. Some cars look lame in black, but this looks perfect, like Mercedes E and S classes do.
  • moparbadmoparbad Posts: 3,869
    Swirl marks and dirt = Black car.
  • targettuningtargettuning Posts: 1,371
    "reasons they've never caught on big in the states" Yes they never did catch on big but rather than maintenance/repair costs the real reason was and still is cheap gasoline. Yeah, yeah it is over $3.00 per in most of the country but nowhere near the cost of gas in Europe. Diesel fuel, while still expensive is significantly cheaper there. And lets not forget some of the other reasons. Americans have long memories and many remember the GM diesel fiasco in the 80's which unfortunately turned many against any sort of a diesel. Then there is the lack of availability for almost any diesel (other than commercial trucks and light trucks) car or SUV even though they are fabulous economy wise. Also, even those who had taken a chance (owned or drove) on a diesel 20+ years ago have no idea how technology has improved them. A modern direct injection turbo diesel is quiet..quick...economical..and long lived. It does not smoke...smell..rattle excessively at idle nor is it a slug. In short, nearly no one in this country knows just how good they really are. The fuel was only recently formulated for low sulfur content (important for emissions) and only recently have workable "traps" for particulates been introduced. Mercedes, I believe, can now pass EPA standards. So, I too would rather have a modern diesel than a hybrid that may never give "pay back" for the large up front cost premium. This isn't even taking into account the largely unknown long term reliability of battery packs etc. However, these seem fairly reliable at this point. If Honda's diesel becomes accepted (and it should) there could be a flood of diesel cars in this country, it is about time. Past time really.
  • captain2captain2 Posts: 3,971
    two things-
    1) the thing that the Camry has always been and what is largely responsible for its success is that they are normally 'softer', something not high on an enthusiast mags priorities but well up there with the average American carbuyer in this class, and
    2) C/Ds COTY award has as much to do with a car's 'significance' as it does with any evaluation of a particular car's dynamic capabilities. If 400 or 500,000 buyers a year doesn't make the Camry significant, I don't know what does.
    The Fusion V6, IMO, is not even in the same league as a Camry/Altima/Aura XR/Accord V6s, if for no other reason than what's under the hoods.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,911
    C/D doesn't do a COTY award. Maybe you are thinking about MT? That is the one that is much about "market significance." And the 2007 Camry won that award. As you noted, 400k+ buyers is pretty significant.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    C/Ds COTY award has as much to do with a car's 'significance' as it does with any evaluation of a particular car's dynamic capabilities.

    I agree, the Aura didn't win a comparison with the 07 Camry, it was just more significant (being a brand new model, and not a redesign of an existing car).

    The Fusion V6, IMO, is not even in the same league as a Camry/Altima/Aura XR/Accord V6s, if for no other reason than what's under the hoods.

    I agree with this also. But, I think the Fusion's interior would also put it a step down from these cars.
  • jd10013jd10013 Posts: 779
    There are many days I wish I still had my diesel golf. But I agree with you 100%, I'd take a diesel over a hybrid any day of the week. I have no interest in a small subcompact car with a 1.3 liter engine. And your probably right about seeing more of them. Nissan will also be putting out a diesel maxima in 2 years, I think.

    I had to laugh when you mentioned the gm diesel's. What a joke they were. If I remember correctly, they tried converting a gasoline engine instead of designing a true diesel engine.
  • urnewsurnews Posts: 668
    The Fusion V6, IMO, is not even in the same league as a Camry/Altima/Aura XR/Accord V6s, if for no other reason than what's under the hoods.

    You, and I, are certainly entitled to our own options. IMHO, the 3.0-liter Ford V6 is definitely competitive though not at the top of the mountain.

    The "not in the same league" comment seems off base, unless you have something on which to back up that opinion.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    The Fusion V6, IMO, is not even in the same league as a Camry/Altima/Aura XR/Accord V6s, if for no other reason than what's under the hoods.

    You, and I, are certainly entitled to our own options. IMHO, the 3.0-liter Ford V6 is definitely competitive though not at the top of the mountain.

    In the "Camry/Altima/Aura XR/AccordV6" league you are talking about, it is actually bottom of the mountain for output/acceleration performance. I can't think of a car in the segment that offers less horsepower in top - V6 form, making it, the unfortunately-worded "loser" in that race (horsepower is only one aspect).

    Same league, yyyyeah, I guess they ought to be prounounced that. They are 3.0L - 3.5L V6s, all in 3,200-3,600 lb sedans. They aren't the best incarnation/tuning of their respective engines (all but the Fusion make more horsepower in other variations).

    Beats 'em in handling though.
  • elroy5elroy5 Posts: 3,741
    Beats 'em in handling though.

    Not exactly grad. The V6 Accord out handled the V6 Fusion. The Fusion just had a more "sporty feel", whatever that means.
  • dudleyrdudleyr Posts: 3,469
    To me the Fusion felt more nimble than the Accord. The Accord is very easy to drive fast, but the Fusion felt like it had less lean and higher limits.

    Now lets get a wagon version of the Fusion and get the I4 mpg up to Accord level and things are good. :)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Posts: 9,731
    Not exactly grad. The V6 Accord out handled the V6 Fusion.

    Curiousity got me...according to whom/what? I sort of felt the Fusion handled better but rode harder than the Accord. Everything I've read sort of said that too.
Sign In or Register to comment.