Mazda6 Sedan

bean3422 · January 2003

If you are complaining about a car because it is too low and too loud...then you are not in my category of driver. You don't want a driver's car, you want a luxury touring car.

I would be just as happy to have a daily driver without any sound deadening, a nearly straight through exhaust, a hipo intake system, and the most aggressive tires possible. You can leave out most of the seats, the radio, etc. Even A/C could go...but I would have a heck of a time driving to work...(no I'm not young enough to be a boy racer...I own a minivan even.)

I would just sacrifice anything for that extra edge of performance...

fowler3 · January 2003

Car can be purchased at most large bookstores, like Barnes & Noble and such.

For a minute I thought you were saying the 6 could be purchased at bookstores. LOL!

Wouldn't the Buick make a good trip car?

I don't think so. On a trip from Greensboro to Durham a year ago, I was behind a Buick, on I-85, that seemed to hit a big dip in the road, the back end bounced high and then it swayed from side to side. I braced for the dip and when I passed over the same surface felt absolutely nothing. My Protegé took it with "aplomb", as reviewers are fond of saying. Glad I wasn't in a Buick!

I use to buy Buicks, Rivieras, but after a bad ear infection I had to give up big, soft suspension cars, they made me carsick and brought on vertigo.
Since 1974 I have driven small imported cars with no problem.

fowler3

bean3422 · January 2003

Road and Track is getting a letter from me...for $860.00 they could have gotten the sport package. The 6 would have then proceeded to blow everything else out of the water in everything except acceleration, and still have been over $1000.00 cheaper.

If you wonder why the Accord and Camry did better in the handling and braking in the Road and Track comparo, just look at the tires. They were all the same size, and the Accord and 6 tires were even the same brand, but the Accord had the V rated Michelin Energy, while the 6 had the H rated tires. Makes a big, big difference. With the Pilot tires from the sport package in the Car and Driver comparo, the 6 beat them all in braking, posted .86 g's on the skidpad, and did the slalom at 64.7 mph. That beat the Accord by .9 g's and the Camry by .6 g's. The Accord barely reached 60 mph in the slalom, while the Camry did a more acceptable 62 mph.

I blame Mazda a bit...they should put better standard tires on the 6...but since neither the Accord Sedan nor the Camry Sedan is available with 17" wheels, they faced the competition with their best rolling stock, while the 6 only had it's standard configuration. Since it still undercut their prices by a significant amount, it was not a fair comparison to not have the 17" wheels on the car.

If you doubt that the 17" wheels make that much difference, look at the slalom times in both Car and Driver and Motor Trend. The 6i actually turns in a slightly better time, but the 6s still had nearly a 64 mph time. Pretty good for a family car.

The Accord only got .76 on the skidpad...even my Mazda MPV got .80, which matched the Camry.

myphantom6 · January 2003

"In less than 24 hours and none of it useful information about the 6 from actual owners or those seriously considering the car. Isn't there a Mazda 6 V Honda Accord thread somewhere else"?

I think if you did find another thread between the Mazda6 Vs. Accord, you would probably find the same people discussing the same issues. If you want to really know the benefits of the Mazda6, then read the comments from Mazda6 owners (Mazda6 owners forum), and if you want to know about the Accord read their owners forum. I also found some good comments at the beginning of this forum as well.

I'm a new Mazda6 owner and I absolutely love my car. I've also own Honda vehicles (not the Accord), and I love their dependability. But the two are totally (to me) different animals. To me the 6 gives me a feel of sportiness, and luxury, with the edge going much more toward sporty. If I had chosen the Accord (which was one of my choices), the edge would have went more toward luxury and semi sporty (if I had purchased the coupe).

The bottom line is what I tell everyone, what do YOU want. If you want to know if your Mazday6 is going to be as dependable as the Accord, you're going to have to wait a few years (or months, as the case may be). But if you just want the sheer joy of excitement right now, you're going to have to go with your gut feeling, and buy one to find out for yourself, and pray that you made a good choice. That's what I'm doing.

As most of the people WILL agree in this forum, choosing one over the other is a tough choice, and only time will tell how Mazda's 6 dependablility will compare with the Accord.

Good luck in what ever car you choose.

Check out post #'s 6081, 6101, 6108, 6110, and 6111 and post 1 - 5 of this thread.

gee35coupe · January 2003

www.tirerack.com have several tests that show the difference is quite small. The reason they have H rated on the 6 and V rated on the Accord is that the Accord is limited at 130 and the Mazda 120. Those Michelins in general are not high performance tires and are geared more toward long wear.
Additionally the Mazda got the best numbers for handling, braking, and excitement so the sport package may have even hurt it a bit by lowering the score for ride further. It's a tradeoff.

mazda6s · January 2003

"The reason they have H rated on the 6 and V rated on the Accord is that the Accord is limited at 130 and the Mazda 120."
Actually I think it's the other way around. The computer is programed with a speed limit to match the equipment on the car. It's not unusual to see the exact same model of car with two different speed limits, one with the lower-rated tires, and another higher one for the car with higher-rated tires. This is sometimes accompanied with a suspension change, but sometimes it's just the tires. The Pontiac Grand Prix is one example of this.

breld · January 2003

I did ask a Mazda representative at the Detroit Auto Show about the availability of the hatch and wagon. She didn't say anything that we didn't know already - they should be available toward the end of this year.

I was just happy she knew what I was talking about.

vocus · January 2003

I will probably make it Thursday night to test drive the 6 finally. I am very curious to try it out.

jampedro · January 2003

So, in other words, there's no mechanical difference between manumatic and changing gears in an automatic with D,S,L and Hold? Correct?

mazda6s · January 2003

To get the true feeling of this car, I recommend that you drive the 6i with manual transmission. After driving the 6s with auto and the 6i with auto, I drove the 6i with manual. I thought the 6s-AT was nice, and the 6i-AT was just OK, but when I drove the 6i-MT I was thoroughly impressed at the handling and overall driving feel of this configuration.

Try powering out of a turn under heavy throttle. If you've done this with any other FWD car, you know how weird they can get. Whatever "magic pixie dust" they sprinkled on the suspension of this car, I want some!

ruefus · January 2003

I'm no expert and have no scientific explanation, but I know there is a considerable difference between the way a normal AT and a manumatic behave. They are NOT the same.

The normal AT isn't intended to be used as a manual for one. If it was, there'd be no point in providing a manual shift gate and cars since the beginning of time would have claimed they had the capability of being driven with a clutchless manual tranny.

A manumatic will pretty much go into whatever gear you ask of it, whenever you ask.

Upshifts may seem similar but gear selection isn't 'on demand' with a STD AT. None that I recall allow you to select 1st gear. If you're in 4th and want 2nd, the car won't necessarily shift until the revs or the AT programming allows it.

Also - even when accelerating, the car is going to shift when the AT is programmed to, not necessarily because you knock the lever from 2 to 3.

mazda6s · January 2003

I had to read your post twice before I got what you were saying. The "real" manumatics, like on Formula 1 cars and the BMW SMG, are different from the Sport AT on the Mazda 6 and the Audi/VW tiptronic, which are really just shiftable automatics. The real manumatics are really manuals with automatic clutches (computer-controlled), whereas the Sport AT and Tiptronic are really automatics that can be manually shifted (but they don't always do exactly what you want, or when you want it).

gee35coupe · January 2003

"Actually I think it's the other way around. The computer is programed with a speed limit to match the equipment on the car."

I beg to differ. In the C@D test the car was also limited at 120 and it had the sport package with the V rated tires. So I guess the 6 is just limited.

mazda6s · January 2003

I don't doubt that the 6 is limited to 120 with the H-rated and V-rated rubber. With a lower-rated tire (S or T?) it would have to be limited even lower. A lot of cars with low-rated tires are limited to 107. I have verified this myself (with a professional driver on a closed test track, of course).

Do you plan on driving faster than 120? If not, why would you care if the Accord is limited to 130 and the 6 limited to "only" 120. Maybe you think it hints at the cars overall capabilities? It's possible but I suspect it might have more to do with the company's desire to avoid litigation. Maybe we can find out what the European and Japan version are limited to. That might answer the question.

ruefus · January 2003

True enough about F1 and the like.

However - the Sport AT in the 6 will shift when you want it to, regardless of speed provided you've place it into the manual mode.

Trust me, I did it accidentally on a demo test. Inadvertently bounced the car off the revlimiter for an extended period. If there's a limit, I sure didn't find it. As far as I can tell, the Sport AT goes and stays where you put it, when you put it there.

Normal AT's with just 2, 3 & hold or whatever will shift according to the programmed shift points.

blueguydotcom · January 2003

I had to read your post twice before I got what you were saying. The "real" manumatics, like on Formula 1 cars and the BMW SMG, are different from the Sport AT on the Mazda 6 and the Audi/VW tiptronic, which are really just shiftable automatics.

The trannies on Ferraris, Aston Martins, the MR2 and BMW's M3 are Sequential Manual Transmissions (SMTs though BMW calls its version SMG)......not manumatics.

The real manumatics are really manuals with automatic clutches (computer-controlled),

Nope, that sounds like an SMT. ( http://www.new.edmunds.com/reviews/roadtests/spin/71189/article.html )

A manumatic (as far as I've ever heard) is a Tiptronic, Steptronic, and the billion other variations now offered by just about every manufacturer. They're simpy, automatics with an ability to shift through the gears at the will of the driver.

gee35coupe · January 2003

why they may have put the V rated tires on the Accord instead of the H's the 6 had. The differences in handling between the two same size same maker tires would be negligible. That was my only point. No need to get defensive. I didn't address which car I thought would handle better. Wasn't in the context of my answer.

mazda6s · January 2003

I guess we need to define terms then:
sequential manual gearbox
sequential manual transmission
manumatic transmission
automatic transmission
automanual transmission
sport automatic transmission
(I forget what Chrysler calls their version)

Anybody wanna take a whack at this?

blueguydotcom · January 2003

manumatic
automanual
sport automatic

I'd put those three in all the same category...automatics that you can shift at will but that lack clutches.

I wish there were a dictionary defintion at Merriam-Webster to clear it up.

mazda6s · January 2003

Now I see what you meant. I agree, the difference could be small, maybe 0.01-.02G or so, and it might make the ride a little stiffer too. Personally, I thought the handling/ride trade-off was just about right on the 6i-MT I drove with the 16s. Not sure I'd want to go the 17s, unless I could fall back to the 16s if I didn't like the ride with the 17s.

youster · January 2003

You were correct. On this site http://www.mazda6.co.uk/

One can clearly see head restraints in the back. Also the gear box is straight-no-frill, not the US verion zig-zag snazzy type.

I wonder what prompts Mazda to take away the head restraint. Better visibility?

gee35coupe · January 2003

I think I like the non-sport model's ride and drive better too. But I just gotta have the gauges. I also like the aero package that you can add to the base cars more than the sport package.

ruefus · January 2003

Are called Auto-Stick.

Strangely enough, most of the auto-stick trannies built today are built by Chrysler for other car makers.

Porsche's Tiptronic, for instance, was developed with and is built by Chrysler.

On another topic - I simply don't understand why Mazda felt it necessary to remove the rear head restraints and the Euro-type fender flashers from the North American models. The changes require different designs and different tooling. Seems odd, and even though I've bought one, the NA 6 seems a tad watered down vs. the World car.

seaf · January 2003

If you've test driven one or own one, could you let us all know what the cruising rpm is in a Mazda6i I4 auto at 70mph? I can confirm the I4 MT is about 2800 RPM at 70mph, from my last test drive, I wonder if the auto is the same since according to the ratios on paper they are the same in the highest gear.

Thanks.

ambull · January 2003

Can any owner confirm (or deny) Stretchsje's claim of over 30 mpg in 75% city driving on a manual transmission 6i. This just seems too good to be true, especially since he was zoom-zooming to test out the great handling!

robr2 · January 2003

"I simply don't understand why Mazda felt it necessary to remove the rear head restraints and the Euro-type fender flashers from the North American models. The changes require different designs and different tooling."

Neither is required in North America and costs more money. Additional tooling cost is a non-issue as North American market units are built here and they had to tool the plant anyways. Also, Mazda just tells the nearby seat supplier/metal stamper to make a different part.

mike1770 · January 2003

I'd be curious to know what the 6i owners are getting, too. My average mileage in my MT 6s is around 20 mpg or so. That's mostly around town driving, with some freeway (maybe 25%)-- and I'm being fairly free with my right foot. ;-)

I've only got about 1050 miles on it, also -- mileage may improve as the engine breaks in.

stretchsje · January 2003

I'll confirm it myself on the next tank :-) It was 10.5 gallons for 320 miles, if I remember correctly. There's a margin of error, though- gas stations automatically cut off at different points. I usually go farther than this, but not to the point that I can confirm a completely full tank.

Gee: In regards to the 4cyl Accord being faster to 60 than the '6. They're each 7.8, 7.9, or 8.0 seconds, depending on where you read, but the 6 has that awesome sound!!! I've lived with new Accords and own a new Mazda, and the Mazda had the much greater variation as the engine breaks in- meaning I'd expect the Mazda engine to perform have better gains after a break-in. Though that is only speculation, the times of 7.8s for each car is not.

BTW, for tuners out there, the Japanese version makes 175 horsepower, and differs only in timing (runs on 91 octane).

mazda6s · January 2003

That means with simple mod (chip?) you could get 15HP more, as long as you don't mind running premium gas. I'd go for that! Of course you'd want to wait for your warranty to run out, right?

blueguydotcom · January 2003

Yesterday I noted that a few versions of Mazda6 sported stickers touting a new 4 year/50k warranty. The 6s I drove bore no such sticker. Anyone know what the deal is?

newcar31 · January 2003

Mazda just changed the warranty. The stickers on the cars that don't reflect 4yr/50K must have been printed before the change.

stretchsje · January 2003

Duratech Performance is doing a lot of stuff for the engine, and posts at www.goonish.com/atenza/

BTW, it was confirmed there that it is 5x7's for the stock stereo, but different for the Bose. I don't know if I posted that here or not.

fowler3 · January 2003

I noticed a change on one 6s at a local dealer, it had a V6 logo on the door just under the door guard strip. Not a decal, this was molded like a badge and painted body color. Looked cool. The model was a Glacier Silver 6S 5-speed with Sport Package cladding, 17" alloys, and black leather trim.

Another thing I noticed the fog lights on a 6i (dummies) look exactly like the working fogs on Sport equiped models. They use the lens on all
models, no bulbs and no wiring on standard 6i's and 6s's.

If anyone would like to see a photo of three 6S models in profile e-mail me. They are Redfire, Lapis Blue, and the Glacier Silver Sport, side views in scale to each other. All have alloys. E-mail address in my profile.

A standard 6i or 6s with the seven-spoke wheel covers, in Glacier Silver, looks very much like a Mercedes-Benz from the side. (Minus the three-pointed star sticking up.)

A while back we were discussing how the 6 looks like a Millennia only smaller. I took a photo of a 6 parked next to a Millennia and only from the back quarter is there a resemblance. The Millennia has a long hood with too much bulge as it nears the grille. The 6 is much nicer looking, better proportioned.

fowler3

gee35coupe · January 2003

"Gee: In regards to the 4cyl Accord being faster to 60 than the '6. They're each 7.8, 7.9, or 8.0 seconds, depending on where you read"

In the C@D comparison test, with both cars tested in similar conditions the Accord was .4 sec faster to 60 and is pulling away to .8 sec by 90. Also the TSX also has a version of the engine putting out 200hp.

What's funny is the manual 6i is faster than the R@T measured time for the automatic V6.

mazda6s · January 2003

"What's funny is the manual 6i is faster than the R@T measured time for the automatic V6."
Is that the automatic Mazda 6s? It could be due to the top speeds in gears 1-2 at redline (for the gear ratio data I have):
Mazda 6i-MT 1-35 2-64
Mazda 6s-AT 1-32 2-58
Accord EX-MT 1-34 2-62 (for comparison)
If my data is correct, the 6s-AT would be shifting just before 60. Knowing that the car mags always test 0-60 times, it seems rather dumb to gear the 6s-AT so it shifts at 58MPH. Not only that, but with the MT you can hit the rev limiter when you shift. With the AT, it could shift before redline, even at WOT.

diploid · January 2003

In the letters to the editors, Edmunds stated that the automatic V-6 Mazda6 actually took closer to 9 seconds to reach 60 without brake torquing.

gee35coupe · January 2003

We won't get into why they had to gear it so short.

groovypippin · January 2003

because they are so embarassed and humiliated that they can't get their four door mid-size family sedan from 0-60 in 2.7 seconds.

Oh, the humiliation of not being able to race the Mustang 5.0L beside you from light to light with your infant laughing gayly in the child seat behind you!!

I'm sorry, I forget it was all an attempt to finally - after all these years - produce a mid-size family sedan that you can safely merge onto the autobahn at 147 MPH. God knows the danger the driving public was subject to on a daily basis before this hideous oversight was rectified.

Thank you Honda! Thank you Nissan! Why would I ever consider a crapcan like the Audi A4 with a paltry 220 HP, let alone a BMW 330i with a measly 225 HP.

But why am I here in the Mazda6 forum. I must go forth and warn my brethren in other forums not to purchase whatever car they are considering for whatever reason. I will dedicate my life to this sad and thankless task. So it is written, so it will be!

wayde · January 2003

Just got the new issue of Automobile in the mail - the All Star issue. They picked the Mazda 6 as their family sedan all star. They said that this was the only category with a car that was a definitive choice by all staffers. Way to go Mazda!

groovypippin · January 2003

But what about that short gearing!?! Those guys must be nuts!

diploid · January 2003

"Oh, the humiliation of not being able to race the Mustang 5.0L beside you from light to light with your infant laughing gayly in the child seat behind you!!"

Well...when your motto is "Zoom zoom zoom," is it wrong for people to expect that from you? I guess that's why Ford dropped "Quality is job #1."

maltb · January 2003

I took a trip up to the local mountains this weekend with a couple friends to go snowboarding. One was a driver of a 2000 Jetta VR6 MT the other a 91 Miata. Not only was the paltry I4 able to get us up the mountain at limit +abunch speeds, both passengers kept commenting at how much power and how good the handling was on my base 6i. Once we were up the hill we had to stop and get some Pepto for the Jetta driver.

I seem to have that affect on my passengers.

Yes Dip, I'd sanction that event as having Zoom-Zoom.

stretchsje · January 2003

OK, concede, I see it pulled a time of 7.5 seconds versus 7.9. That's better than I've ever seen for the Accord, and worse than I've seen in the past for the '6. I'll state again, though, that the 6's engine has a dramatically different feel after being broken in- unlike anything I've ever seen in a Honda or a Toyota.

mazda6s · January 2003

Ya, I love the way the 2.3 sounds at around 4000 RPMs.

diploid · January 2003

malt - Seems as if you're zoom zoom-ing too much if the passenger needs Pepto.

johnclineii · January 2003

..actually it was the mere thought of having to go back and drive that vee-dub that made the passenger's tummy upset!

coasterbob · January 2003

fowler, I saw the emblem as well when I stopped back at my dealer in South Jersey. I asked my salesman to get one for my 6s, and he was going to find out from parts dept if he could get them. I think we , who bought the FIRST 6s's, should get the emblems.

ambull · January 2003

You've made some good points regarding the Accord and the Acura TSX looks to be better yet. But for me, they each have something which keeps me from committing to them.
The Accord is a little bigger than I prefer, but its main problem is looks. In front, it looks buck-toothed and the rear tailights have been said by some to be upside-down. Maybe they're inside-out, but whatever, they're not aesthetically pleasing to me. And C&D tests show the brakes and handling are better in the 6i.
The TSX looks good and will have more performance, but it costs more. I'm not looking to pay over $20K, and with its limited production, it will be way over that.
So, it looks like I will probably have to "settle" for a 6i and maybe install be some performance mods in the distant future if I can't live with the second-rate acceleration.

vocus · January 2003

I can't drive a stick, so it will have to be automatic for me. I am also too power hungry for a 4-cylinder, so V6 only for me thanks.

stretchsje · January 2003

Learn to drive a stick. It'll take two hours, save yourself a grand, and you'll thank yourself every day.

Honestly, as much as I love this car, I wasn't impressed in the auto-equipped version.

Seriously, from one Edmunds TH member to another, you really owe it to yourself to learn stick. Get better mileage, save yourself some cash, and have way more fun! Don't forget the 4cyl MT sprints faster than the 6cyl AT :-) Isn't that worth two hours of your time?

Mazda6 Sedan

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles