Let's see, the dictionary definition of "unneeded" is "not necessary", so you're 100% right on that. Of course, then we would have to define what is "necessary", wouldn't we?
6i and the 6s must be really tough for those who can. For those who have smaller pockets, or have to wait, the 6i is more car than they hoped for.
I'm with Maltb on a base car being enough fun.
At first, I was for the Premium Package to get the alloys, I've never had them on a car. Now, a month later, the standard wheel covers look good to me. Every car on the road has 5-spoke alloys. Mazda6's wheel covers are the best I have seen and resemble 7-spoke alloys on luxury cars.
The longer you shop the closer you get to what is right for you...the difference between need and want.
Lost too many wheel covers with my older cars to ever get away from alloys again. Not much is worse than getting somewhere at night and seeing you're missing a hubcap.
I have always wondered why the other OEMs never picked up on one of the smartest things to do with wheelcovers. As far back as the early 80s Honda has been doing that. Of course, wheelcover sales suffer... :-)
Cost me $60 at a JUNK YARD to get a replacement. Woulda been way more if I'd had a dealer order one for me. But that's only happened to me once in the 10 years I've owned my car. Thankfully.
I'm concerned about the Mazda6's reliability. Can someone please tell me about their experience so far??? The dealership that I would be working with is a considerable distance from my home. Also, I would like to get the 6s, but don't want the spoiler. Are they going to be offering that soon. I think that is the information I've gotten from the recent posts. Thanks! PS I can't believe you guys like a 4 cylinder engine that is not turbocharged.
And that includes a 300ZXTT, RX7 Turbo, Lotsa Integras, and Accords and stuff..The one I think I miss the most was a 1987 Civic Wagon that I bought for $550. Was primer black (in most places) and an automatic. Wouldn't win a single race but I would never mistake it for anything else in a crowded parking lot. I put 15" Borbet Type C wheels on it, a kickin Sony stereo, and tinted the windows. Heaven on slow wheels I tell ya.
There has been a lot of discussion on here regarding the 6i vs. the 6s, but not so much the differences between the MT and the AT. In the Car and Driver review, they had a MT 6s and rated the 0-60 time at 6.8 seconds. Another review that I looked at tried an AT 6s and rated the 0-60 time at 8 seconds. Can there really be this much of an acceleration difference between the MT and the AT? The only thing that I think could cause this difference is that with the MT, you can drop the clutch at 4000rpm when starting at the line and it's more difficult to do that with the AT. Maybe the AT weighs more than the MT as well. Comments?
Automatic transmissions are much more inefficient than manuals. It's not in the gear ratios or shift points, but in the transmission of the power. The AT uses hydraulics, the MT is a direct mechanical connection. It's true that ATs will lock up their torque converter to eliminate the losses, but that's at cruising speeds and not during acceleration.
The weight difference isn't enough to cause a significant difference in 0-60 times.
Remember though, that magazine tests are done with pro drivers on test tracks (except CR) and you are not likely to match the 0-60 times they get with the MT. On the other hand, with the AT you can just stand on the brakes, hit the gas, release the brakes, and you could probably match their AT times without too much trouble.
Thatnks for the advice on double posting. I hadn't realized that refreshing would cause a second post to appear.
Well I went to Performance Mazda tonight and they had 5 6's on the lot. I didnt have time to drive one but I'm impressed with the way it looks- inside and out.
And maybe I'm more boy racer than most of the posters here but I actually liked the GFX package (Spoiler, side skirts, etc).
Thanks for the responses. My boyfriend explained to me that the 6 cylinder engine weighs more and that causes the vehicle to not handle as well...... Ok I get it. But, I am used to a 4 cylinder turbocharged engine in my A4. I love the A4, but have had several small problems - ignition coil, gauges breaking, windshield washer pump, etc. It was also misfiring on all 4 cylinders. When I brought it to the dealer, they said it was MY FAULT. I apparently let the fuel level get too low and air got sucked into the fuel injector. Whatever. I'm done with that car. So much for the brilliant German engineering!!!I expect a new, $27,000 vehicle to work right for at least a couple of years. Also, the ONLY dealership in orlando sucks! I am just worried about a new car's reliability. So, that's why I'm reading this forum. Thanks for the help!
From the dyno (power at the wheel vs engine rpm) data, I did a simple numerical simulation which compute the speed vs time for the Protege5, AT & MT. There are 3 factors that play in favor the MT:
1) the power loss on the AT is around 5% higher than MT.
2) the 2 consecutive gears are sparser on the AT than on the MT
3) the AT shift about 500 rpm earlier than the optimum rpm.
Including these 3 factors, my calculation come up with a time pretty close to what magazines have tested: 8.34 vs 9.45s 0-60mph for respectively MT and AT.
But, unless you get pretty fancy with the math, there are some problems with this sort or calculation: Is the percentage of power loss (efficiency) in the AT constant? It probably would be in the MT, but in the AT you're dealing with hydraulic pressures that probably vary with speed. What is the difference in the efficiency between the AT and the MT for those last 500 RPMs as opposed to the first 5800 RPMs? Probably not the same as the difference at say, 3000 RPMs. In other words, it's not linear, so you couldn't model it with a simple algebra equation. That said, it's probably easier than mathematically modeling something like understeer. Or how about modeling the difference between disc brakes and drum brakes.
that's why automagic's suck and manual trannies own. Also, the manu-matic transmissions are not any more efficient than their standard automatic brethern.
**The first thing I'll change is the wheels. Those wheel covers are ones that only a mother (or the designer) could love (IMO).**
Well, obviously, I'm not a mother -- SO -- I must be a designer, which I am. And they look better than the wheel covers on the Protegé by far. One thing I have always liked in a wheel (cover or alloy wheel) is that the center be convex or crowned, as opposed to concave, as most alloys are. In other words, looks like a dome. The Mazda6 wheel covers have this shape.
The thing I have never liked about alloys is they let rusty discs show; most have skinny spokes; and they are too hard to take care of. Mags use to crack, I assume alloys are stronger?
Wheel covers do for disc brakes what the wheel dust covers do without blocking airflow and they come standard.
If trim pieces around the headlights and taillights rusted would you accept this as normal? It is on brakes.
If the cars are new, haven't been driven long enough to break-in, wouldn't the 0-60 times be slower? This would account for the differences between two reviews -- somewhat, anyway. Not to mention the differences between temperature, humidity, and elevations for the two tests. The weight of the driver, etc.
Just brought home a new "s" Mazda6. Got it for $500 over invoice by negotiating thru e-mail with local fleet and internet managers. What a way to buy a car..... Dealer tried to low ball trade-in but used it against the dealers to bid for my business. Car is awesome, got it with the sport,comfort,leather, bose package. Not sure how to use the menu-stick but I'll probably never use it anyway, or should I? Great car for the price. Recommend a test drive and you'll be sold...Just don't let the dealers know how much you like the car. Looks like price is starting to go up as more people want the car. Better hurry before the prices are out of whack. Zoom, Zoom, VROOM!
I just test drove a 6S manual. We're replacing my Audi TT b/c I am pregnant--so we're looking for a practical but great handling sports sedan. The S kicked the tires off of anything I have driven recently (aside from my TT!), and that includes a BMW 325xi, Audi A4, Audi A6, Jetta, Accord V6, etc. So I am pretty much ready to add a silver 6 to the family. But what I need from you all (in addition to the lively discussion about drifting, for example) is -- please-- what is your best price? I live in the DC area but will take whatever I can get. I need leverage!
Thanks for all the comments. Looks like the manual transmission is definitely the better bet. I've always driven MT cars/trucks and like it much better, but my wife prefers an AT. Since the Mazda AT has the manumatic option, I thought I would check it out to see if it would be a good option.
Thanks again for all the input. Now all I have to do is find a dealer with a MT 6s. :-)
There are a few exceptions, but most drivers fiddle around with using the manual shift of an automatic and find it fairly unsatisfying. Mostly they leave it in D. That's certainly the case with my automatic.
I think the problem lies with the hydraulic torque convertor. This is the reason automatics are generally unsatisfying to drive to a person who prefers a manual. You've got this big fluid pump between the engines and the wheels that numbs the car's responsiveness. You can put manual shifters on an automatic, but you've still got the torque convertor.
This doesn't apply to the new SMG boxes on high-end BMWs, Porsches, Ferraris, and the MR2 which have a friction clutch under computer control. I've never driven one, but most folks really like them. The issue with these is cost and complexity.
Then there is the promise of the CVT (continuously variable transmission). It always seems to be three years down the road, but never really materializes, except for small cars.
The power losses are much less, and there is no changing gears as such. Somehow, I doubt they are much fun to drive.
I've driven an Audi A6 with the manumatic and did exactly what markjenn describes--fiddled with it for a few minutes and then gave up. Yes, you can downshift to slow the car down, but you can't adjust how fast you downshift. With a manual, you can downshift and ease off the clutch to modulate how fast the engine engages and slows you down. Another maneuver that makes me prefer a manual: when backing out of a parking space, engage the clutch so you're drifting backwards, then shift into 1st, give it just a little gas, and slowly let out the clutch so you reverse directions and drive away without ever using the brake. PLUS, you can start in 2nd in the snow to avoid spinning your wheels (I grew up in Wisconsin, so winter driving was a big part of learning to drive). None of these maneuvers are necessarily good for your clutch, but they're all things you can't do in a manumatic.
johncline--Audi has CVTs that I think are out now, but I'm not sure which models. I haven't driven them, but I've read that in Honda CVTs, you have three settings that adjust the engine revs, so you can use higher-rpm setting to use the engine to slow the car down or get more torque than the normal, fuel-efficient setting. I have an automatic that clunks into 2nd every time, so I'm thinking a CVT is in my future (for whatever car my wife drives--not for me!).
talk to Fitzgerald Mazda. They have two locations, and have a no-haggle price of $500 over invoice in any trim. If not, go to your local dealership and have them beat this price.
My 4 speed auto 6 (no manumatic) has three drive positions - D,S,L and a hold button. Someone said most people leave it in D. In fact, I keep mine in S (3rd max) except when on an open highway. 3rd has engine braking for city driving, while the top gear in any auto has hardly any. In fact, when you pull the shifter back from N, it slides through D to S. You only need the unblock button for L. My Camry blocked at D. Could it be Mazda is subtly recommending the S since most driving is in the city? What do the pros recommend?
So I figure I may be using more gas, but prolonging brake life. My company pays the gas. I can buy it discount after 3 years.
But there's something I do in my auto 6 that I hardly ever did in my auto Camry - control gear changes with shifter and hold button combos (I guess it's equivalent to a manumatic), just to hear and feel the engine along with the excellent steering/suspension systems. I've gotten carried away with the feeling and mistakenly hit the rev limiter a few times in 1st and 2nd. All of a sudden the car starts bucking when this happens. Luckily I was on straightaways, might be dangerous on a curve.
Could it be Mazda is subtly recommending the S since most driving is in the city? What do the pros recommend?
The Camry has an "overdrive off" button, which is the same as using "S" on your tranny. Toyota actually recommends that you use this to save wear and tear on your brakes- they have a whole section on engine braking in its owner's manual. I'm sure it's the same with other manufacturers.
So, yeah, a normal automatic shifter isn't much different then a manumatic. There are more uses for driving this way than just engine braking, and if you enjoy it, perhaps you'd also enjoy a real manual.
The latter I bought from after the salesman, Johnny Holiday, made me take the '6 out for a lengthy, unsupervised drive :-) Well, that and he was the only one to find the '6 that I wanted- it came all the way from Philly. Still, had that not happened, I would have gone with Fitzgerald. Their service was impeccable, and it's a shorter drive from DC.
Drove M6 4cyl and V6 both MT yesterday. I went the same path and tried to do the same things to compare. Here are my observations:
(1) Even though V6 is not the best V6 engine out there it is still more powerful than the 4cyl and anybody who gets behind the wheel will feel it. For example after turning (2nd gear) I was going up the hill. With the 4cyl I pushed the acceleration pedal down to it's limit and didn't get any acceleration until I was on top of the hill - not a very nice experience since the hill was about 25-30 degrees incline. While having the same conditions the V6 was able to accelerate the car pretty well.
(2) Though I didn't toss it very much, I couldn't feel any difference in handling even though the V6 is heavier by 200lbs. And it's not a surprise to me - 200lbs could be the weight of a person sitting next to me with the 4cyl.
(3) This is subjective: I really liked the way the V6 engine sounds on a higher RPMs. Something similar to a jet plane ;-)
So my conclusion from this test drive is that if you can afford (and find ;-) V6 MT then go for it. However the 4cyl is pretty good too.
BTW, a question to all race-spirited M6 4cyl owners: Did you consider Mazdaspeed Protege as an alternative? I saw one on the dealer's lot - looks very serious and tempting...
Did you consider Mazdaspeed Protege as an alternative?
Yes and no. I really liked the Protege, but the Mazdaspeed was a little over-the-top for me. Even the base Protege has fantastic handling, and I'm more concerned over that than the added power of the turbo. Both the Mazda6 and the Protege have, on seperate occasions, been called the best handling front-wheel-drive vehicles in the world.
I love the sound of the V6, although the sound of the 4cyl engine fills out nicely as it ages. The V6 sounded awesome though! I can speak for the 4cyl, but I've heard the same of the V6- the engines don't become alive until after 600 miles. I suspect that's the power issue with the i4 here- my first impression wasn't very inspiring either.
The weight differences between the i4 and V6 are minor. Some of that extra weight comes from the extras such as ABS and a power seat, not from the engine. Also, the 4cyl engine is NOT mounted as far back in the engine bay as it could be (why?!), so the weight distributions are similar. Nonetheless, the weight difference is large enough to create minor understeer, while the 4cyl version sometimes oversteers. If you didn't notice, they it probably doesn't matter.
> Even the base Protege has fantastic handling, and I'm more concerned over that than the added power of the turbo.
As I understood from their booklet turbo charger wasn't their main goal. They increased hp to add some dynamics and equalize power over rpm range. The main goal was still handling and that's what they spent most of their energy on...
As I understood from their booklet turbo charger wasn't their main goal. They increased hp to add some dynamics and equalize power over rpm range. The main goal was still handling and that's what they spent most of their energy on...
Very true, you're right. Be aware that the Mazdaspeed will also have a harsher ride. The '6 handles well without any harshness- I don't know if this matters to you or not. It's kind of magic, the '6. I don't know how they did it. In terms of outright performance, I'm sure the 'speed is better, though I've never driven it, so I guess my comments about harshness are simply hearsay anyway. I'd check out the RX-8 if you can afford it.
Comments
On another note - anyone seen the Euro version's OEM Nav system? Me want!! Check this video:
http://www.katter.nu/ulf/mazda/m6-nearest-busstation.wmv
I'm with Maltb on a base car being enough fun.
At first, I was for the Premium Package to get the alloys, I've never had them on a car. Now, a month later, the standard wheel covers look good to me. Every car on the road has 5-spoke alloys. Mazda6's wheel covers are the best I have seen and resemble 7-spoke alloys on luxury cars.
The longer you shop the closer you get to what is right for you...the difference between need and want.
fowler3
Whether they look good or not, when you drive in a pothole infested area, those covers just disappear.
Thanks!
PS I can't believe you guys like a 4 cylinder engine that is not turbocharged.
Why? Part of driving fun is not always brute power (although that's satisfying too!), but rather great cornering, stability, road feel and braking...
BTW: How's your A4 holding up? Any issues with it so far?
Dinu
neutral steering: when you go off the road and into the bushes sideways
oversteer: when you go off the road and into the bushes tail first
6i
manual: 3042 lbs
automatic: 3091 lbs
6s
manual: 3243 lbs
automatic: 3311 lbs
The weight difference isn't enough to cause a significant difference in 0-60 times.
Remember though, that magazine tests are done with pro drivers on test tracks (except CR) and you are not likely to match the 0-60 times they get with the MT. On the other hand, with the AT you can just stand on the brakes, hit the gas, release the brakes, and you could probably match their AT times without too much trouble.
Well I went to Performance Mazda tonight and they had 5 6's on the lot. I didnt have time to drive one but I'm impressed with the way it looks- inside and out.
And maybe I'm more boy racer than most of the posters here but I actually liked the GFX package (Spoiler, side skirts, etc).
I hope to drive one soon.
Thanks for the responses. My boyfriend explained to me that the 6 cylinder engine weighs more and that causes the vehicle to not handle as well...... Ok I get it. But, I am used to a 4 cylinder turbocharged engine in my A4. I love the A4, but have had several small problems - ignition coil, gauges breaking, windshield washer pump, etc. It was also misfiring on all 4 cylinders. When I brought it to the dealer, they said it was MY FAULT. I apparently let the fuel level get too low and air got sucked into the fuel injector. Whatever. I'm done with that car. So much for the brilliant German engineering!!!I expect a new, $27,000 vehicle to work right for at least a couple of years. Also, the ONLY dealership in orlando sucks!
I am just worried about a new car's reliability. So, that's why I'm reading this forum.
Thanks for the help!
1) the power loss on the AT is around 5% higher than MT.
2) the 2 consecutive gears are sparser on the AT than on the MT
3) the AT shift about 500 rpm earlier than the optimum rpm.
Including these 3 factors, my calculation come up with a time pretty close to what magazines have tested: 8.34 vs 9.45s 0-60mph for respectively MT and AT.
Bruno
Is the percentage of power loss (efficiency) in the AT constant? It probably would be in the MT, but in the AT you're dealing with hydraulic pressures that probably vary with speed.
What is the difference in the efficiency between the AT and the MT for those last 500 RPMs as opposed to the first 5800 RPMs? Probably not the same as the difference at say, 3000 RPMs.
In other words, it's not linear, so you couldn't model it with a simple algebra equation. That said, it's probably easier than mathematically modeling something like understeer. Or how about modeling the difference between disc brakes and drum brakes.
Well, obviously, I'm not a mother -- SO -- I must be a designer, which I am. And they look better than the wheel covers on the Protegé by far. One thing I have always liked in a wheel (cover or alloy wheel) is that the center be convex or crowned, as opposed to concave, as most alloys are. In other words, looks like a dome. The Mazda6 wheel covers have this shape.
The thing I have never liked about alloys is they let rusty discs show; most have skinny spokes; and they are too hard to take care of. Mags use to crack, I assume alloys are stronger?
Wheel covers do for disc brakes what the wheel dust covers do without blocking airflow and they come standard.
If trim pieces around the headlights and taillights rusted would you accept this as normal? It is on brakes.
fowler3
fowler3
Very much so, especially in this car.
I-auto 59%
I-stick 6%
S-auto 29%
S-stick 6%
abs/tcs (i model) 20%
SAB/SAC (s-model) 14%
moonroof 29%
leather 35%
sport pkg 24%
audio pkg 30%
Saw a Lapis Blue AT. I think it was the base model - grey cloth, nice dash, beautiful shade of blue!
The dealer was closed so I couldn't sit in it (: They only had one 6 outside and maybe one inside (not sure - the lights were off).
I like it in that it's smaller than an Accord/Altima, but larger than the PRO - pefectly-sized IMO.
Dinu
950 miles
First tank:
10.2 gallons
320 miles
Second tank:
15 gallons
520 miles
90% D.C. Beltway area / heavy city taffic
6i MT
If it wasn't my car, I wouldn't believe it.
Values are approximated; I don't have the book in front of me.
I just test drove a 6S manual. We're replacing my Audi TT b/c I am pregnant--so we're looking for a practical but great handling sports sedan. The S kicked the tires off of anything I have driven recently (aside from my TT!), and that includes a BMW 325xi, Audi A4, Audi A6, Jetta, Accord V6, etc. So I am pretty much ready to add a silver 6 to the family. But what I need from you all (in addition to the lively discussion about drifting, for example) is -- please-- what is your best price? I live in the DC area but will take whatever I can get. I need leverage!
Thanks,
Ladybugnova
Thanks again for all the input. Now all I have to do is find a dealer with a MT 6s. :-)
Mike
I think the problem lies with the hydraulic torque convertor. This is the reason automatics are generally unsatisfying to drive to a person who prefers a manual. You've got this big fluid pump between the engines and the wheels that numbs the car's responsiveness. You can put manual shifters on an automatic, but you've still got the torque convertor.
This doesn't apply to the new SMG boxes on high-end BMWs, Porsches, Ferraris, and the MR2 which have a friction clutch under computer control. I've never driven one, but most folks really like them. The issue with these is cost and complexity.
- Mark
The power losses are much less, and there is no changing gears as such. Somehow, I doubt they are much fun to drive.
johncline--Audi has CVTs that I think are out now, but I'm not sure which models. I haven't driven them, but I've read that in Honda CVTs, you have three settings that adjust the engine revs, so you can use higher-rpm setting to use the engine to slow the car down or get more torque than the normal, fuel-efficient setting. I have an automatic that clunks into 2nd every time, so I'm thinking a CVT is in my future (for whatever car my wife drives--not for me!).
So I figure I may be using more gas, but prolonging brake life. My company pays the gas. I can buy it discount after 3 years.
But there's something I do in my auto 6 that I hardly ever did in my auto Camry - control gear changes with shifter and hold button combos (I guess it's equivalent to a manumatic), just to hear and feel the engine along with the excellent steering/suspension systems. I've gotten carried away with the feeling and mistakenly hit the rev limiter a few times in 1st and 2nd. All of a sudden the car starts bucking when this happens. Luckily I was on straightaways, might be dangerous on a curve.
The Camry has an "overdrive off" button, which is the same as using "S" on your tranny. Toyota actually recommends that you use this to save wear and tear on your brakes- they have a whole section on engine braking in its owner's manual. I'm sure it's the same with other manufacturers.
So, yeah, a normal automatic shifter isn't much different then a manumatic. There are more uses for driving this way than just engine braking, and if you enjoy it, perhaps you'd also enjoy a real manual.
LBnova
Heritage Mazda: www.mileone.com
The latter I bought from after the salesman, Johnny Holiday, made me take the '6 out for a lengthy, unsupervised drive :-) Well, that and he was the only one to find the '6 that I wanted- it came all the way from Philly. Still, had that not happened, I would have gone with Fitzgerald. Their service was impeccable, and it's a shorter drive from DC.
(1) Even though V6 is not the best V6 engine out there it is still more powerful than the 4cyl and anybody who gets behind the wheel will feel it. For example after turning (2nd gear) I was going up the hill. With the 4cyl I pushed the acceleration pedal down to it's limit and didn't get any acceleration until I was on top of the hill - not a very nice experience since the hill was about 25-30 degrees incline. While having the same conditions the V6 was able to accelerate the car pretty well.
(2) Though I didn't toss it very much, I couldn't feel any difference in handling even though the V6 is heavier by 200lbs. And it's not a surprise to me - 200lbs could be the weight of a person sitting next to me with the 4cyl.
(3) This is subjective: I really liked the way the V6 engine sounds on a higher RPMs. Something similar to a jet plane ;-)
So my conclusion from this test drive is that if you can afford (and find ;-) V6 MT then go for it.
However the 4cyl is pretty good too.
BTW, a question to all race-spirited M6 4cyl owners:
Did you consider Mazdaspeed Protege as an alternative? I saw one on the dealer's lot - looks very serious and tempting...
Yes and no. I really liked the Protege, but the Mazdaspeed was a little over-the-top for me. Even the base Protege has fantastic handling, and I'm more concerned over that than the added power of the turbo. Both the Mazda6 and the Protege have, on seperate occasions, been called the best handling front-wheel-drive vehicles in the world.
I love the sound of the V6, although the sound of the 4cyl engine fills out nicely as it ages. The V6 sounded awesome though! I can speak for the 4cyl, but I've heard the same of the V6- the engines don't become alive until after 600 miles. I suspect that's the power issue with the i4 here- my first impression wasn't very inspiring either.
The weight differences between the i4 and V6 are minor. Some of that extra weight comes from the extras such as ABS and a power seat, not from the engine. Also, the 4cyl engine is NOT mounted as far back in the engine bay as it could be (why?!), so the weight distributions are similar. Nonetheless, the weight difference is large enough to create minor understeer, while the 4cyl version sometimes oversteers. If you didn't notice, they it probably doesn't matter.
Either way, I'm glad you liked it!
As I understood from their booklet turbo charger wasn't their main goal. They increased hp to add some dynamics and equalize power over rpm range. The main goal was still handling and that's what they spent most of their energy on...
Whilst the Infiniti was slipping all over the roads while trying to throw it around about, the Mazda6 was stuck to the road.
Well done Mazda, a much cheaper car also!
Very true, you're right. Be aware that the Mazdaspeed will also have a harsher ride. The '6 handles well without any harshness- I don't know if this matters to you or not. It's kind of magic, the '6. I don't know how they did it. In terms of outright performance, I'm sure the 'speed is better, though I've never driven it, so I guess my comments about harshness are simply hearsay anyway. I'd check out the RX-8 if you can afford it.