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
I'm beginning to think the human rump is the most sensitive organ on the body!
I went back and re-read the review, and I think you are misinterpreting the results. I do believe that the test driver is explaining how he or she achieved the 8.0 result - with a brake-stand. I think he or she is saying that without a brake stand, the 0-60 is around 8.7. It is customary in test drives to report either the best result or an average of results using the best technique - which in autos means doing a brake stand. 0-60 without the brake stand is akin to 5-60 street start times, and that is why published 5-60 times are often paradoxically longer than 0-60 times.
So I do believe that the 1.0 second diff. between Accord and 6 V6 auto "stands", so to speak. Sorry if that bursts anybody's bubble. Then again, maybe your interpretation is correct, and mine is wrong.
Further, I am almost 100% positive I've read acceleration test comments in other Edmund's reviews where the tester has explained directly that the time printed was achieved with a brake-stand. Why should the 6 be different?
And the 6.8 0-60 for the manual is, no doubt, with revs built up and a clutch dump. So, it should be compared to the brake-torque time of 8.0. So the difference is not 2 seconds, but 1.2 seconds - a fairly large difference, yes, but not totally unbelievable.
Obviously I'm over simplifying to be cute, but you get the idea. Americans have "traditionally" valued that forward thrust, push back into the seat, low-end torque kind of performance. Your mileage may vary.
Ideally, I'd like spine-crushing acceleration, nimble, "oh-crap" handle necessitating cornering, and eye-popping braking, but that costs too much money - so I personally will sacrifice some power and acceleration for the other two. That's just me, though - meaning that others have their own priorities that may differ. That's fine. In fact, it is a good thing, because it gives buyers more options and it pushes manufacturers to make better cars in every way. Witness the way the Altima attacks the marketer vs. the approach the 6 takes.
Better that way, Pat?
Look back at the automatic WRX wagon they tested. They published both times, normal acceleration and brake stand acceleration.
I think the 8.0 is normal time.
Oh, and a random look at Edmund's road tests uncovered the comments for the Mercury Sable Wagon test, where the published 0-60 time was accomplished with a "2,350 rpm brake torque."
drum roll please ...
Exactly 8.0 seconds!
I'm sorry, but thanks for playing "The 0-60 Time is Right."
All kidding aside, go compare 0-60 times for cars of similar drivetrains, weights, power, torque, etc. 8.0 seems about right, with the brake stand, for a car weighing over 3300 lbs and 220 hp, 192 ft-lbs torque at a relatively high 5000 rpm. At least to me it does.
But don't let that get you down. The car is about handling, road feel, balance, not drag racing. Besides, the manual version is decent at 6.8 seconds.
It was even OK on the autobahn because it had a real transmission in it and I could keep the revs up.
So I keep thinking of this car when I am playing with the build my own sites and reading the test reports. Accordingly I am definitely going to give the 6i and the 2.5s a spin before I commit to the 6s or the 3.5SE.
I'm one of those too. Hence the reason I'm not impressed w/0-60 times (10 secs is good for me - seriously) and not shopping for one monstruos displacement GM product. Fun to drive, LOTS of road feel (some refer to it as a harsh, unrefined ride) are at the top of my list, next to value and reliability. HP ratings don't mean much.
Dinu
come on, someone's gotta take charge and be the first one!!!!!
Mark.
No, it was not:
"In typical Honda fashion, the Accord's 3.0-liter V6 is quicker than it feels. The combination of refined and broad power makes this car feel much slower than an Altima, yet we tested our long-term V6 Altima the same day and found it only two-tenths faster than the Accord in the quarter-mile (though the loud and raucous engine made the Nissan seem much faster). The Honda will brake its front tires loose off the line with the traction control disengaged, and it keeps pulling all the way to 6,500 rpm. There is no manual mode for the automatic, but by turning off traction control and simply stomping on the throttle (with no brake torquing and with the automatic in "D") the tires spin at just the right level to return the best times. 'Honda -- we make it simple.'"
http://www.edmunds.com/reviews/roadtests/roadtest/76668/page001.html
Three days. Lots of dealers should have them prior to Saturday.
http://www.edmunds.com/new/2003/mazda/6/index.html
Aren't they the first?
Stopped at my local dealer after work today - no cars yet. I mentioned the goofy options combos, and the ordering guy said he could order any options I wanted. I said "I don't think so". So, he calls Mazda while I'm there, and sure enough, they told him the web site is correct.
Since I always have the option of buying a used car like this and saving the tax, I just lump it into my "what I paid" price for any new car, to make comparisons between choices fair. So when in an earlier post I said "I would nearly have $27K in a Mazda 6 like I want", that figure included tax and fees.
Yes, Saabs also require sales tax be paid. My figures on the Saab also included tax, and came up to $30,800 on a model like I wanted.
The point in my original post was that I doubted I'd be able to cherry pick the options I wanted on a Mazda OR Saab. With rollouts, they usually have a bunch of loaded up cars and a few zero or no option models. So my "theorectical" price points might not be possible. For example, I can build a nice Infiniti G35 Leather model and with expected discounts and sales tax, drive it off the lot for about $31,000. However, I can't find a single one like this in Atlanta in the color (black/black) I would like. So that means I have to take the $3300 premium pkg to find one, , or one with a sunroof and the Bose option, and heated seats (here in Georgia!) which is over a 10% increase for some 'improvements' I find only marginally helpful.
The Saab has various subtle differences that I guess got it "near lux" status. My dad's $40,000 Lexus EX300 "eggmobile" is based on the chassis of a $20,000 Camry. There's more to it than where the car's origins come from.
As for Saabs being for the image conscious. the appeal for me was that it was a way to avoid the "attention" (by the envious, law enforcement, vandals, theives, carjackers, hostile drivers, etc) received by our '98 BMW 540i sport 6 speed and '97 540 Auto we owned. I never look twice at most Saabs, but they are handsome, so that was a plus for me. Put it this way, go ask a Hooters girl if she wants a ride home in a Bimmer or in your Saab. "Saab? Aren't they from Finland or something?"
Many dealers should have at least one car by Saturday. Whether or not it is prepped and ready to be driven is a whole 'nother story.
-B
Meade
Meade
Meade
I am kinda excited about the 6 coming, I can't wait to drive it.
I tend to use my car to the hilt, not only commuting to and from work and carting the baby around and getting groceries, but also making runs to Home Depot and similar places. I frequently fold down one or both of my rear seatbacks to haul stuff.
And in every car I've ever encountered that has adjustable rear headrests, you either have to re-adjust them all the way down or remove them altogether (and then have to find somewhere to put them) when you want to fold down the rear seatbacks. And that's a hassle in my opinion.
If the integrated headrests function to prevent whiplash, which they probably do, then I see no reason for adjustable ones back there. As Forrest Gump said, "You know, one less thing ..."
Meade
Tell me -- I could go and look this up, but I'm too lazy. Does the 6 have a folding center armrest in the back seat?
Meade
I carry passengers in the back more than I carry materials, so it's nice to know they will have some protection in a rear-end accident. Also, my headrests back there adjust up and down and they tilt as well, so they try to be in the right place.
While the new Accord has it's critics, I think the larger issue is the slow-down in auto sales (due to overall softness in the economy).
** Consequently, I can see why the 6 is not going to sell at MSRP (not to mention that this isn't a limited production vehicle)**
To a previous point, for those looking for alternatives, why not a Maxima SE w/ 6spd? It's handling may not be as good, but the power will be better and the price will be comparable.
Now, about the issues that have been mentioned by others:
1. Rear seat room
After adjusting the drivers seat to where I would have it, I hopped in the back seat. It was fine; comfortable. The back seat is going to be for my kids anyways.
2. Rear head rests.
The back seats look a little weird, but it was very cool to release those seats from the trunk and have them fold down by themselves.
3. Side view mirrors
Yep, they'll probably snap right off if you hit them. My Taurus has the same issue. It sure hurts when you run into them.
4. Radio display
I like the idea of the display being higher. Even though the buttons are several inches below the display, they are pretty large and I think I'd be able to press the buttons without looking or with a quick glance.
Bottom line for me:
I can't justify trading in my 97 Taurus with less than 60,000 miles on it for this car. I probably won't even test drive it, just in case it's really fun to drive. However, when the hatchback comes out, I'll have a reason. I'd be trading in to get more use. It would offer a lot more flexibility in terms of what I could fit inside. Plus the hatchback is the best looking version in my opinion. Check out the pics on the Mazda site for yourself.
Are you sure they don't fold back? Mine do in my Japanese made Latin America model. You have to look close and try them. I can't figure why in their right mind they would change this for the NA model.
2. Back Headrests
Mine has 3 adjustable headrests. I've lowered the rear backrests no problem without having to remove them and the driver's seat is way back. I do have them in the lowest position, though. I think the NA built in headrests look wierd, but that's a matter of taste. It's something new and certainly must improve the rear mirror view.
3. Rear Seat Room
I too have sat back there with the driver seat back and still comfortable. At 6 ft., my knees easily clear the front seatback.
Guess I'll have to personally check them out - but at this point I'm beginning to get discouraged.