It ain't just 'a Ford motor'. Sorry, but it isn't. It's a Ford block with Mazda's engineering all over everything else. There is a difference between this and dropping a crated Duratec in. BIG difference.
As for being 20hp down - 'Scool. It's in a nice neigborhood:
BMW 330 - 225hp
Audi's A4 w/V6 - 220hp
VW Passat V6 - 195hp
But so WHAT? I'll say it again - horses and paper numbers aren't the story. Not with any car, and certainly not with this one.
I think you have to graduate or have graduated within 6 months to qualify. I was able to get the college grad rebate, $300 haggled off (not much, but good considering the updated 2001s were just released) and 0% for 4 years when I bought my Protege--and I was still in school. No doubt I could get an even better deal now on a Protege.
is good, as long as you are moving at a fast clip.
Poll: We know what you would like to have on your Mazda6; what would you do without and still buy the car?
After all, it's pretty well loaded with standard features as a 6i ($19,050 base 5-MT) and definately as a 6S ($21,620 base 5-MT). Adding options (weight) on the 6i narrows the $$$ difference considerably, not to mention reducing performance.
Thanks for the info on the gauges. I don't like the red lighting on the PRO ES. It's a little bit on the garish side. I hope the 6 is a little more pleasing.
here's the info straight off the MazdaUSA website:
"Qualified customers must be within six months of graduation (*except Juniors and Seniors, see note below) or have graduated within the last two years from one of the following: accredited junior or community college with an associates degree, an accredited college or university with a bachelors degree, an accredited nursing school with a bachelors in nursing degree, an accredited graduate school with a masters degree, doctorate degree or are currently enrolled in graduate school."
I tried looking around, but the only numbers I could find are on Mazda's own web site. They list the 6i and 6s as BOTH being 60:40. Seems a bit weird, but I suppose it's possible if the V6 engine and its transmission are mounted farther aft. For manual transmissions, the V6 setup weighs 201 lbs more than the 4-cyl setup. Doing a little bit of math and guess work, I came up with this scenario:
Assume the 4-cyl w/tranny weighs 150 lbs, and is centered 2 feet behind the front wheel. The rest of the car weighs 2892 lbs, located 43.06" behind the front wheel. If this is the case, the 201 lb heavier V6 w/tranny needs to be centered only 10" farther aft in order to maintain a 60:40 weight split. With the large amount of space I saw behind the 4-cyl in the engine well, I'm willing to accept their claim that the distribution is the same for the two models.
Assume the 4-cyl w/tranny weighs 150 lbs, and is centered 2 feet behind the front wheel. The rest of the car weighs 2892 lbs, located 43.06" behind the front wheel. If this is the case, the 201 lb heavier V6 w/tranny needs to be centered only 10" farther aft in order to maintain a 60:40 weight split.
150lbs is way underestimated, and 10" further is way overestimated. The RX-8's little engine alone weights 200lbs. The 4cyl engine, with tranny, must weight at least 300lbs, but probably not much more than 350lbs.
Still, while I haven't compared the mounting locations of both engines, moving it only a few inches under the hood is a huge distance. Keep in mind we're talking about the engine's center of gravity shifting, not its edges. Do we know that it has really moved? Likewise, two feet behind the front wheels nearly brings you to the firewall!
Good work with the calculations though. The 60/40 quote came from Mazda alright. Nikolas for Duratech Performance posted on another forum that those numbers were for the V6, and the i4 had the better ~55/45 weight distribution. He didn't comment further, unfortunately, but I'd take his word. His company is making performance parts for the M6.
Don't forget though- the i4 weight does not include the power seat, alarm, alloy wheels, auto climate control, and ABS that the V6 weight measurement does. Those are not standard on the i4, hence were probably not weighed. I bet you'd find the difference in standalone engine weight is more like 150lbs.
I would take the more agile handling of the 4 cylinder over the extra power of the 6. All of you Mazda junkies should appreciate this logic:
The Protege won comparison tests without being the fastest car because it was a great handler. It's more fun to take a series of twisty curves than it is to see who can get to 60 in a straight lane the fastest.
I just thought it'd be a fun exercise to see how much movement it might take. I still think it's not unreasonable for Mazda to be quoting a 60:40 split for both models. Of course, the easy thing to be for someone in a well-equipped garage to weigh them, which Duratech Performance may very well have done.
I have to disagree on the handling over power aspect. I owned a 1990 MX6 and while it handled superbly it had 140 HP and nothing makes a car seem less sporty than it labouring on the highway trying to pass. There's nothing wrong with great handling(i.e. Protege 5) in a certain segment but if a car offers both I would take a V6 in a heartbeat if cost isn't an issue. (especially since the V6 handles great from what I hear.)
I did some calculations assuming the worst case, that the entire extra 201 lbs of the V6 is on the front wheels. I know this is not really true, but here's what you would get if it was. I also assumed the manual transmission, but the results for the AT would be pretty close. Like I said, this is worst case.
1. If you assume the 4cyl is exactly 60/40, then the 6cyl is 62.5/37.5
2. If you assume that the 6cyl is exactly 60/40, then the 4cyl would be 57.4/42.6
So as you can see, the 4cyl can't be 55/45, even if the 6cyl is really 60/40 and the entire extra 201 lbs of the V6 is on the front wheels.
Follow this link, the Wall Street Journal is now reporting that the next taurus is going to be based on the Mazda6. Seems to support the rumors that Mazda will be doing most of the development for future ford products....
has been around for a couple months. It's nice to see Ford will be using Mazda's expertise again (instead of the other way around). Now if Mazda could just produce Ford's pickup, I might by a truck again ...
Saw the new commercial for the first time last night. The 6 looked great. Good ad but that zoom-zoom kid has got to go.
Interesting about the Taurus. I am curious how that will work. Will the Ford shrink down in size? Will it become sportier? Will the Sable stick around? I think it can only mean good things for the Taurus but I am having a hard time picturing it since they are currently so different.
It's a good move from a business point of view. You can tune the 6 for the "sporty" people, and tailor the Taurus for the Camcord Crowd (Honda Herd). Hey, maybe they'll even put drum brakes on the rear of the Taurus! Since they're "just as good" as discs, that should be OK, right? (ho oh, did I say that?)
I'd like to see this comparo of "mid-size sports sedan wannabes". All are 4-door mid size sedans with 4-cyl engines, manual trans and 4-wheel disc brakes:
Mazda 6i
Audi A4 1.8T
Passat GLS 1.8T
Altima 2.5S
Honda EX-4
Saab 9-3 ???
There could be 1 or 2 more that belong on this list, but I guess 6 is enough. Any magazine people out there want to take up the challenge?
Mazda6s--I'd like to see that comparo too. I don't think the Saab belongs, though, different class. Actually, I'd like to DO that comparo...
aromas/diploid--it's nice that there's a choice, isn't it? I'd take the handling over power any day. I used to drive an Audi V8Q (predecessor to the A8) that had both, but it's the handling I really miss.
From the way Mercury has been limping along, I'd say you'll see the Sable disappear, if not the whole of Mercury.
I find it odd that Ford would base two cars off a third's chassis. Not that it doesn't happend.
It could also be that you're seeing Mercury beginning to be replaced by Mazda in the Ford lexicon. It upgrades the Ford image and allows them to move in different directions. Directions that Mercury will never go.
No big loss to the world. I've never understood why the Big 3 continue to have the same car under three different brand/model names. I know there are minor differences, but it always has seemed like a waste of resources and effort. I guess I'm not nostalgic about the Oldsmobiles/Mercuries/Plymouths of old. I hope Mazda doesn't move toward being just another Ford brand. So far they don't seem to be moving that way too much.
bought Ford! LOL! The Taurus will probably be a stretched M6 to get more legroom and a little bit wider.
As for car companies having several different brands/models, it reduces costs to use the same platform for several cars. No company wants to be a one-product producer. But it has its disadvantages, look at the Jeep, now it's a Jeep in sheet metal only with a Chrysler engine and tranny (trouble).
If it costs $1-billion to design a new car from the ground up, spending $300-million to make new sheet metal and interiors for an existing platform is cheap. (Cheap is a relative term depending on your circumstances.)
edmund2460: The reviewers describe the M6 instrument lighting as "subdued" a "warm glow".
It wasn't until after I test drove the car and was told that they will not negotiate the sticker price of $25,900, I realized I was a member of the Ford Partner Recognition Program. With this new information, I went to the dealer with my social security number and my Ford program pin number. But alas, the sales people said that the Mazda6 is not part of this program (E-Plan + 5.3%).
Mazda is not doing themselves any favors by holding out on this model as people will 'move on' to other cars.
considering that it just came out this month. I'm getting a pretty good deal on my Mazda6s with auto, sports package and wheel locks for $22,100. I thought they would never budge from MSRP. Just got to put one dealer against another. I hate doing that though, then you have dealers calling you left and right.
considering that it just came out this month. I'm getting a pretty good deal on my Mazda6s with auto, sports package and wheel locks for $22,100. I thought they would never budge from MSRP. Just got to put one dealer against another. I hate doing that though, then you have dealers calling you left and right.
You thought your MX6 had to labor to get on the freeway? IIRC, the turbo models had 145 hp and 190 lbs-ft of torque. You had a turbo model then right? And you thought it was slow? Geez. Those cars were considered to be fast back then, and I remember seeing 0-60 times in the low to mid 7s. That's pretty quick for 1990.
Dealer's can opt not to sell you a car at plan pricing. They aren't obligated.
Shop around. Someone WILL work with you for the plan pricing. I've got access to S-plan. Some dealer's want me to order, others will sell me one off the lot, one won't sell it on S-plan period.
Is it just me or is the "build your own" feature for the Mazda6 on the Mazda site total crap? I just gave up after a few attempts... The price was not updating right; the "next" button was not appearing; color changes were not taking effect; it would not properly indicate what trim levels/transmissions I had selected or deselected. And I use IE6 on a PC -- nothing odd on this end.
Sheesh, I'm trying to get excited about the car, but Mazda's making it hard.
On another note, I really like the two Mazda6 commercials I've seen (one is the close-up tach; the other is the car carving the 6 into the dirt). The only thing I'd like is to see better shots of the actual car. Having not seen one in person yet, the heavily stylized still photos on the internet are just not descriptive enough for me.
I agree. My mom bought a 1987 Camry 4 cylinder automatic. One of the first ones off the truck. Only had 120 or so HP but it would cruise effortlessly at 80-100 mph with a/c on all day long. All this 200 hp and up is getting ridiculous. The 1984 vete only had 225 hp. All this fascination with HP and torque is getting out of hand.
was the piece of crap of vettes. Among other things, it was under-powered.
But I agree, sort of. This recent round of hp wars is fairly reasonable right now, but it is about to get out of hand. It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that hp wars are invariably fought at the expense of fuel efficiency. Even if both increase with new technology (as with the new Honda 3.0l V6), the one still always trades off the other. IMO, the modern car is plenty powerful enough for street use.
That, and making power cheap puts it in the hands of kids who, through our deplorable driver's ed, can't handle it.
But hey, hp is fun, and fuel efficiency and safety aren't - and fun sells. So I'm not sure what a car company is to do.
Insurance companies and/or fuel prices will hopefully put a cap on it. We shall see.
In 1984? In what way? Even the 911 Carrera 3.2 only had like 230 hp back then. While they were crap I will agree, they were very competitive with contemporary sports cars.
But the fact that you would say that the Vette was underpowered goes a long way in describing the hp war that we have now. I mean does Benz need a twin turbo V 12? Or a 400 hp M5?
But many can afford Accords, Altimas etc. I guess what is special about this round of hp wars is that it is hitting the market right in the meat of it - in high volume mid-size sedans.
As far as the 84 vette goes, the thing to look at would not be hp, but bottom line performance.
An 84 vette in a stock mustang in 1984. Mustangs only had like 175hp back then. And the SVO 190hp Turbo 4 was big news and was the quickest Mustang.
Vettes with the Z51 suspension were all over showroon stock racing back them.
What I'm saying is that the horsepower wars are out of habnd. You don't need 200hp to make a comfortable family sedan. 150 HP was enough up until the mid 90's. Actually it still is though I guess since most cars sold are right around there. Heck the Camry sold more than any of them with 135 hp for years.
It has upped the power, yes, but it is engineered more for balance than for engaging directly in the hp competition - It does enough to "keep up" with respect to power while focusing more on what really makes driving fun.
So what? It was fun beating a "Vette". It was my brother's friend, and he was out in his Grampa's vette. He was talkin' it up. Most non car people would think that a "Vette" should beat a Mustang. I knew better because I knew the 84's were dogs. So I took him up on HIS offer to race. HE should've known better.
set of Matchbox road repaid trucks and some really cool Majorette (French Toy Maker) cars, including the 1984 RX-7 in red. I suspect it is at that point that I became aware of the Mazda brand name
Dinu (Another useless post)
PS: I have to agree, handling is way more important than power. Think of it this way: Miata or Lincoln Town Car?
I had fun in my 1982 Tercel. Most cars these days have limits high enough where you probably won't even begin to dicover them. My 300ZXTT was fun but to have fun in it I had to dang near kill myself i was going so fast. Same with my MR2. No more sports cars I'm sure the car I chose will do me just fine. Handling, power, features, looks, price. They all have a ranking.
Comments
As for being 20hp down - 'Scool. It's in a nice neigborhood:
BMW 330 - 225hp
Audi's A4 w/V6 - 220hp
VW Passat V6 - 195hp
But so WHAT? I'll say it again - horses and paper numbers aren't the story. Not with any car, and certainly not with this one.
Poll: We know what you would like to have on your Mazda6; what would you do without and still buy the car?
After all, it's pretty well loaded with standard features as a 6i ($19,050 base 5-MT) and definately as a 6S ($21,620 base 5-MT). Adding options (weight) on the 6i narrows the $$$ difference considerably, not to mention reducing performance.
fowler3
BTW, the front air dam on the blue car in that second link is a bit overdone, but the two in the first link look fun.
"Qualified customers must be within six months of graduation (*except Juniors and Seniors, see note below) or have graduated within the last two years from one of the following: accredited junior or community college with an associates degree, an accredited college or university with a bachelors degree, an accredited nursing school with a bachelors in nursing degree, an accredited graduate school with a masters degree, doctorate degree or are currently enrolled in graduate school."
Assume the 4-cyl w/tranny weighs 150 lbs, and is centered 2 feet behind the front wheel. The rest of the car weighs 2892 lbs, located 43.06" behind the front wheel. If this is the case, the 201 lb heavier V6 w/tranny needs to be centered only 10" farther aft in order to maintain a 60:40 weight split. With the large amount of space I saw behind the 4-cyl in the engine well, I'm willing to accept their claim that the distribution is the same for the two models.
150lbs is way underestimated, and 10" further is way overestimated. The RX-8's little engine alone weights 200lbs. The 4cyl engine, with tranny, must weight at least 300lbs, but probably not much more than 350lbs.
Still, while I haven't compared the mounting locations of both engines, moving it only a few inches under the hood is a huge distance. Keep in mind we're talking about the engine's center of gravity shifting, not its edges. Do we know that it has really moved? Likewise, two feet behind the front wheels nearly brings you to the firewall!
Good work with the calculations though. The 60/40 quote came from Mazda alright. Nikolas for Duratech Performance posted on another forum that those numbers were for the V6, and the i4 had the better ~55/45 weight distribution. He didn't comment further, unfortunately, but I'd take his word. His company is making performance parts for the M6.
Don't forget though- the i4 weight does not include the power seat, alarm, alloy wheels, auto climate control, and ABS that the V6 weight measurement does. Those are not standard on the i4, hence were probably not weighed. I bet you'd find the difference in standalone engine weight is more like 150lbs.
The Protege won comparison tests without being the fastest car because it was a great handler. It's more fun to take a series of twisty curves than it is to see who can get to 60 in a straight lane the fastest.
1. If you assume the 4cyl is exactly 60/40, then the 6cyl is 62.5/37.5
2. If you assume that the 6cyl is exactly 60/40, then the 4cyl would be 57.4/42.6
So as you can see, the 4cyl can't be 55/45, even if the 6cyl is really 60/40 and the entire extra 201 lbs of the V6 is on the front wheels.
Here are the raw numbers if you're interested,
Total/Front/Rear:
1. Assume 4cyl is 60/40
3042/1825.2/1216.8
3243/2026.2/1216.8
2. Assume 6cyl is 60/40
3042/1744.8/1297.2
3243/1945.8/1297.2
4cyl: 52.6
6cyl: 67.8
My old 86 Mazda 626 had 93HP and weighed somewhere around 2500lbs, so that was a whopping 37.2 HP/100lbs!
http://biz.yahoo.com/djus/021213/0045000019_1.html
Meade
Interesting about the Taurus. I am curious how that will work. Will the Ford shrink down in size? Will it become sportier? Will the Sable stick around? I think it can only mean good things for the Taurus but I am having a hard time picturing it since they are currently so different.
Mazda 6i
Audi A4 1.8T
Passat GLS 1.8T
Altima 2.5S
Honda EX-4
Saab 9-3 ???
There could be 1 or 2 more that belong on this list, but I guess 6 is enough. Any magazine people out there want to take up the challenge?
aromas/diploid--it's nice that there's a choice, isn't it? I'd take the handling over power any day. I used to drive an Audi V8Q (predecessor to the A8) that had both, but it's the handling I really miss.
I find it odd that Ford would base two cars off a third's chassis. Not that it doesn't happend.
It could also be that you're seeing Mercury beginning to be replaced by Mazda in the Ford lexicon. It upgrades the Ford image and allows them to move in different directions. Directions that Mercury will never go.
As for car companies having several different brands/models, it reduces costs to use the same platform for several cars. No company wants to be a one-product producer. But it has its disadvantages, look at the Jeep, now it's a Jeep in sheet metal only with a Chrysler engine and tranny (trouble).
If it costs $1-billion to design a new car from the ground up, spending $300-million to make new sheet metal and interiors for an existing platform is cheap. (Cheap is a relative term depending on your circumstances.)
edmund2460: The reviewers describe the M6 instrument lighting as "subdued" a "warm glow".
fowler3
Otherwise the Ford beancounters probably would've killed Mazda's rotary program already...
Mazda is not doing themselves any favors by holding out on this model as people will 'move on' to other cars.
try find another dealer that's willing to accept your discount plan.
Shop around. Someone WILL work with you for the plan pricing. I've got access to S-plan. Some dealer's want me to order, others will sell me one off the lot, one won't sell it on S-plan period.
Sheesh, I'm trying to get excited about the car, but Mazda's making it hard.
On another note, I really like the two Mazda6 commercials I've seen (one is the close-up tach; the other is the car carving the 6 into the dirt). The only thing I'd like is to see better shots of the actual car. Having not seen one in person yet, the heavily stylized still photos on the internet are just not descriptive enough for me.
But I agree, sort of. This recent round of hp wars is fairly reasonable right now, but it is about to get out of hand. It wouldn't be so bad if it weren't for the fact that hp wars are invariably fought at the expense of fuel efficiency. Even if both increase with new technology (as with the new Honda 3.0l V6), the one still always trades off the other. IMO, the modern car is plenty powerful enough for street use.
That, and making power cheap puts it in the hands of kids who, through our deplorable driver's ed, can't handle it.
But hey, hp is fun, and fuel efficiency and safety aren't - and fun sells. So I'm not sure what a car company is to do.
Insurance companies and/or fuel prices will hopefully put a cap on it. We shall see.
But the fact that you would say that the Vette was underpowered goes a long way in describing the hp war that we have now. I mean does Benz need a twin turbo V 12? Or a 400 hp M5?
Of course, Mazda's $5-billion debt load would encourage them to allow a little meddling by a stock owner.
fowler3
As far as the 84 vette goes, the thing to look at would not be hp, but bottom line performance.
Vettes with the Z51 suspension were all over showroon stock racing back them.
What I'm saying is that the horsepower wars are out of habnd. You don't need 200hp to make a comfortable family sedan. 150 HP was enough up until the mid 90's. Actually it still is though I guess since most cars sold are right around there. Heck the Camry sold more than any of them with 135 hp for years.
Dinu
(Another useless post)
PS: I have to agree, handling is way more important than power. Think of it this way: Miata or Lincoln Town Car?
Miata, all the way! (and 6 over the Accord/Camry/Altima - do you like how I try to stay on topic?)
... but many would disagree.
V8's are cool, but go-kart like handling is cooler (IMO, of course). Just so long as the acceleration isn't too far off.
Gee, I guess I want it all.