Mazda - Does it have a good future in US?

bottgers · June 2003

My initial reaction was to agree with your post. However, I think Kia and Hyundia are good for the auto market. Someone needs to challange the Japanese auto makers or they won't have a need to continue to improve their vehicles. The big 3 sure aren't going to do it. They seem content just pupming out the same ol' garbage they've been building for decades. In terms of build quality, they don't come close to challanging the Japanese. Kia and Hyundia on the other hand, are challanging the Japanese. While I don't think their vehicles are on the same level build quality wise, I do think they're much closer than the big 3, and close enough to make the Japanese companies sit up and take notice. This forces the Japanese companies to stay one step ahead, which in turn means better vehicles for the consumer. By all means, I hope Hyundia and Kia keep building better and better vehicles, and I will continue to buy the ever improving Hondas, Toyotas, and Mazdas.

a_l_hubcaps · June 2003

I don't think the name can ever fully explain the sales of a car, but I will agree that "Mazda 6" isn't a very good one. They should have stuck with Mazda 626. It has name recognition and, as far as I know, is not known as a bad car among most people (except maybe those who own a 1994 model with the faulty transmission).

-Andrew L

nippononly · June 2003

just the '6' is too short, and the "Mazda Mazda6" seems kind of redundant...better to have a catchy name people can remember...

andys120 · June 2003

Even tho there's a sizeable Mazda dealer in town and 626s as well as Proteges are a common sight.

Where are they?

landru2 · June 2003

because of a recent conversation I had with a relative:

Me: "I really like that new Mazda 6"
Him: "Oh ya? Do they put that in the Protege now?"

Me: "No, thats the name of the model - Mazda 6"
Him: "Hmmm, I've always preferred a 4 cylinder for around town myself."

bean3422 · June 2003

They keep making the same mistakes over again...they are wishy washy and try to read the American public. They say sporty, then sell 4 cylinder automatics. A consumer clinic says that's then thing to do, and they do it. A consumer clinic says they like the 6 name and they do it.

They just need to get their marketing department a subscribtion to every car magazine out there, have them read their suggestions and implement most of them.

They need to fire anyone who still wants to compete with Toyota or Honda, and stick to the sporty theme with a vengeance.

The mazda 6 has a perfectly acceptable name everywhere else in the world. It is called the Mazda Atenza. I can pronounce it fine, can't you?

It seems from recent news that there has been a small shakeup in the Mazda North America marketing department, so who knows, maybe they will finally get it right over the next few years.

Maybe they can help Ford out.

groovypippin · June 2003

The Mazda6 is only called the Atenza in Japan and Asia. In Europe, Australia etc it is also known as the 6.

Mazda went the alpha-numeric route that several other manufacturers have gone (BMW, Mercedes,Acura, Cadillac etc..) so that people would focus on the MAZDA name.

Mazda has very poor brand recognition. The name "Miata" is broadly known, but a surprising number of people can't say who manufactures it. That's a real problem.

Moving to a numeric model designation forces people to say MAZDA when they name the car. Like it or not, that's the motivation behind dropping names like "Protege" and "626".

nippononly · June 2003

truly disgusted if they rename the Miata the '5' or whatever...

the_big_h · June 2003

will probably only apply to the mainstream lines of sedans for Mazda.

MX-5/Miata/Roadster will probably keep its name, as it has the honor of the best selling roadster in the world, ever.

and all rotary cars will have the RX designation :-)

maybe they'll rename the MPV the 9, but that's just a wild guess

guest · June 2003

Yeah sure Mazda has made some mistakes. At least they don't make boring looking cars(ala Toyota) and sell them to the masses. The Millenia looked nicer than its competitors at the time: Acura TL and Lexus ES 300 cicra(1995-2000.) The Miata is a great looking car. The mid to late 80's RX-7 is a Japanese Classic and so is the 93-97 MX-6. The 6 will be a Japanese Classic as well I think. If VW had the type of reliability Mazda has they would be on the heels of Honda and Toyota. Mazda has as good looking cars as VW just lacks that something that VW has had with its young buyers the last 5 years. I don't think its the name of Mazda's cars has anything to do with Mazda sales now. Mazda had a rep with young buyers in the early 90's than they tried to be mass market like Toyota and totally lost their following with the car buying public. Everybody knows about the Rx-7/RX-8, Pro 5 and Miata. They don't know about the 6 though.

maltb · June 2003

I was cited last night in my 6 on my way home for something that I am sure to challenge in court, but my citation gave me a chuckle.

MY: 2003
Make: Mazda
Model: Unknown

I guess that makes me a UFO.

the_big_h · June 2003

is it a rebadged Japanese Mazda Bongo van? :-D

nippononly · June 2003

I think the 6 is nice and all, but I don't think it will ever be a "Japanese classic" in the way of the RX7. Worlds apart. If we hope for "classic" status for the '6', then I would expect the same for the Altima.

bean3422 · June 2003

Thanks for the correction...I knew it was the 6 in Australia, but I thought it was Atenza in Europe.

Well, that explains a lot...since it is such a big seller in Europe, maybe the name has nothing at all to do with it. Maybe Americans just value size and mushiness more than anything else? It disgusts me.

bean3422 · June 2003

as you probably know from my posts elsewhere in this forum, I truly defend the Mazda design. Especially recently...

There has to be some reason they don't sell well here in the US. Maybe it is what my last post said. I don't know.

They sell very reliable, sharp looking, sporty vehicles, that may be a little smaller than the competition. They usually sell for a good price. Is the Ford influence that bad?

boaz47 · June 2003

should do fine over the long run. True in many cases it seems to be just another brand of Ford but they do have some small identity. Mazda has had some interesting cars and every now and then puts a twinkle in the eye of the enthusiast. I was very fond of the P-5 and even thought about buying one before I got the Focus for my wife, but the Focus was a better deal. Strange because I was trading in a Mazda B-2500 on the Focus and Mazda wasn't willing to deal as much on the P-5. The RX 8 better sell well because the Mazda guys had to plead their heart out to get it produced. If this one flops we won't see another in a long time.

guest · June 2003

1.) The Ford tranny in the 1994-1995 Mazda 626 4 cylinder is one of the bigger reasons why Mazda doesn't sell good in the US. Everybody in the US is about the "reliability factor". When a buyer thinks about reliability they think about Honda and Toyota.
2.)Mazda has been out of the spotlight so long people have forgotten about them.
3.)Koreans: With the korean auto manufacturer's offering 10 year warranty's it makes Mazda as a 2nd tier brand a tough sell.
4.)Mazda trying to regain their sporty image with buyers. Mazda lost 2 generations of people in the mid 90's. The loyal Mazda buyer of the late 80's/early 90's defected to Honda and Toyota. Mazda had really no youth cars in 1995 except the MX-6. In 95 the young people were buying Accords and Civic's.

Bottom line: the next 5 years are crucial to Mazda. If they can sell good the next 5 years they'll be ok.

groovypippin · June 2003

1.) "The Ford tranny in the 1994-1995 Mazda 626 4 cylinder is one of the bigger reasons why Mazda doesn't sell good in the US. Everybody in the US is about the "reliability factor". When a buyer thinks about reliability they think about Honda and Toyota."

Other then the people who populate car boards, there are probably about 3 people in North America who are even aware of this issue. This is way, way overblown in my opinion. If a "Ford" trasmission is horrible and such a sales killer, how can they sell 800,000 F-150's a year with Ford transmissions in them.

Reliability is of course a key concern for most import buyers, but this re-occurring claim that the average consumer thinks, 'Oh, I'm not going to go buy a Mazda because of that whole 1994 ford sutomatic transmission in the 626 thing" is ridiculous.

2.)"Mazda has been out of the spotlight so long people have forgotten about them."

Agreed.

3.)"Koreans: With the korean auto manufacturer's offering 10 year warranty's it makes Mazda as a 2nd tier brand a tough sell."

Agreed. Everyone is losing market share to the Koreans as theirs increases.

4.)"Mazda trying to regain their sporty image with buyers. Mazda lost 2 generations of people in the mid 90's. The loyal Mazda buyer of the late 80's/early 90's defected to Honda and Toyota. Mazda had really no youth cars in 1995 except the MX-6. In 95 the young people were buying Accords and Civic's."

Sorta agree. Mazda also had the Precidia and a still relatively inexpensive Miata.

"Bottom line: the next 5 years are crucial to Mazda. If they can sell good the next 5 years they'll be ok."

No offence, but aren't the next five years crucial for every automaker?

nippononly · June 2003

have more momentum than others, so five years is a less crucial timeframe for them.

Mazda isn't one of them.

Not everyone is losing market share to the Koreans - some companies are still gaining market share year after year. However certain companies are losing LARGE CHUNKS of market share. Some do not have large chunks to give.

guest · June 2003

Honda and Toyota.

Gaining little chunks of market share little by liittle: Nissan, Ford, Kia, and Hyundai.

Losing market share little by little: Mitsu, Mazda, GM, and VW.

Losing huge chunks of market share: Chrysler.

nippononly · July 2003

that blanketing of ads on TV for Chrysler these last few days? I am so sick of seeing them.

It's time for all the medium-size players, mazda among them, to pick on VW. As the number of years of really problematic VW cars lengthens to a decade or so now, it may be time to foment a buyer revolt! Mazda could benefit from that - sporty, nice offerings right in some of the same segments as bread-and-butter VWs.

newcar31 · July 2003

VW isn't doing themselves any favors with their advertising either. Has anyone seen VW's advertisement for their "windows down, stereos up" event?

Are they kidding? With all of the problems they had with window regulators and windows falling into the doors, why would they want people to possibly remember that with an add campaign called "windows down, stereos up"? Yeah, maybe the windows will be down and the stereo will be up, but not because customers wanted them to be.....lol

I hope Mazda does take a chunk of out VWs [non-permissible content removed]. VW deserves it. If there is any company that doesn't deserve their success, it's VW IMO and if there's any company that deserves to sell more cars than they do, it's Mazda. VW makes some appealing products, but I don't think I have ever heard of a brand where so many owners cry lemon and swear to never, ever, buy one again. VW customer loyalty has to be pretty poor right now.

theiceman · July 2003

I owned three of them from '85 to '94 but I had to jump ship over to Toyota - none of their cars had the combination of interior cabin space, decent trunk space (our '92 929 had a pitiful trunk!) and any kind of power in auto tranny form. Their pricing policy was okay and their styling appealed to me more than anybody else's but their product always seemed to be late to market and behind the competitors in the practical areas of interior space and power on an auto tranny.

I still say they could compete with the Camcords but they have to bulge out that interior a tad. Right now, I'd say their powertrains have (finally) become competitive.

And that's a good start.

ice

dinu01 · July 2003

Have you driven a 99-03 Protege lately?
How about a Mazda6?

Dinu

newcar31 · July 2003

"I still say they could compete with the Camcords but they have to bulge out that interior a tad."

NO!!!! The Mazda6 is the perfect size. I don't think I could own a bigger car. The new Camry looks like a Hummer next to the Mazda6.

guest · July 2003

On the topic of Chrysler: Chrysler has been the most appealing domestic car company product I would say for the last decade or so. Their problem is their marketing strategy is very poor and their younger buyers aren't very many. They have managed to get younger buyers with the Dodge Stratus Coupe and Dodge Neon SR-T but those buyers are not enough to offest Chrysler's average age buyer of 50.

As far as VW is concerned the 02+ Passat is a very beautiful looking car but aside from that all the rest of their cars have very poor reliability. All the rest of their products are very crisply styled including the Audi line but the reliability problems are really bad.

As far as the Camry is concerned the car is big enough. I hope when Toyota releases the next generation Camry they don't put any more room in it. I don't need to feel like I am driving an 80's full size domestic. The 6 is as roomy as a 94-97 Honda Accord which is good enough for me. If I want a car with lots of room in it I'll go buy a Pontiac Boneville or a Lincoln LS.

guest · July 2003

its interior room. They did do that with the 95-98 Protege and it bombed big time. When the 99 Protege came out it had less interior room than the 95-98 model. The 99-03 sold better than the 95-98 Protege. Mazda tried to do that once and the 95 Protege was one of the cars that almost killed Mazda. It wasn't a bad car it just didn't offer anything over a Corolla or Civic at the time in 95-96.

theiceman · July 2003

And what's their edge? Up until now, Mazda has been smaller, less powered and sold through a weaker dealership network. Where's the mystery in the weak sales?

Now the new 6 has more power and that's a good thing. And the style is very good (at last). And I'm also sure the handling is top-notch for what it is - à la Mazda (remember, I'm a convert). And they're a little bigger than they used to be (I sat in one a little while back & was impressed). All good things.

So I agree it's a good car - it's just not for me. And it's because of the size. Alright, I'm not the market but I contend that the 6 is not going to stack up favourably against the market it's aimed at: the people who are buying mid-sized cars. The Camry, Accord, Impala, Taurus, Altima, and Malibu - all cars in the top 10 in sales - are all significantly larger than the new 6. The remainder of the top 10? Corolla, Civic, & Cavalier - all decidedly smaller.

Where's the 6 size-wise? Comparable to the Focus, Passat, and the Mitsu Gallant - and almost as big as the Saturn L. Apart from the Focus, none of these are market rockets - and, don't forget, the Focus is Ford's "small" car while the 6 is Mazda's "big" car and I think the Mazda can compete well with the Ford - I just somehow suspect that Mazda's target's a little loftier. Er... and bigger.

I agree that there's a darned good chance that I'm off base here. What the heck, this is and open discussion. Right?

ice

newcar31 · July 2003

That's why many choices are great. Sounds like you'd like an Impala or Intrepid. You could pick one of those monsters up for about the price of a Mazda6.

"The Camry, Accord, Impala, Taurus, Altima, and Malibu - all cars in the top 10 in sales - are all significantly larger than the new 6."

Honestly, I wouldn't own any of those cars and I'm not sure the Malibu is bigger than the 6, but who cares anyway? I hope people aren't cross shopping the Malibu and 6. The Camry is great, it just isn't me. The Accord is great, but it looks weird IMO. The Altima looks cheap inside and out, IMO. The Impala and Taurus are too rental car. The Mazda6 is perfect. Not too big, not too small. Drives like a dream. Looks cool, sounds cool. Handles very well. For the money and for what I want, perfection.

guest · July 2003

good at last! Mazda styling has been good for a long time: RX-7, Millenia, MX-6. Mazda historically styles better products than Toyota . Toyota has always been the most vanilla out of the Japanese Competition. Even the 626 in the mid 80/early 90's was nicely styled.

The Tarus is old and so is the Malibu. The Accord is too big now. Last generation model was big enough.

As far as Mazda's edge is concerned Mazda's are for people who don't need the room of a Honda or a Toyota and like more sophisticated styling than a Honda or Toyota. Like I said before Mazda tried to be roomy before with the mid 90's Protege and it bombed. Why would Mazda do something again that was a bomb before? It makes no sense in doing that. The next generation Protege was smaller and sold more.

The VW Passat sells what 100,000 units a year? That doesn't sound bad.

Mazda weak sales are because of bad Ford Tranny's that damaged Mazda's reputation and the last generation 626 really didn't sell well. Mazda needs time to rebuild iself. When Mazda was going through their 1st phase of their rebuilding process the Koreans with their 10 year warranty's were taking more market share making Mazda a tough sell as a 2nd tier Competitor to Honda and Toyota. Mazda is now going on their second phase of rebuilding.

I don't get how the 6 is too small. Its the perfect size.

The Chevy Cavilier because its based on a platform from the 80's. The Chevy Cavilier is light years behind a 6. The Focus could be comparable.

If you want a car with a lot room there's always the Domestics.

theiceman · July 2003

Actually, I like the Mazda - but my needs are currently for something a little larger. But this isn't about me or you right?

Let's face it, Mazda has to get its buyers from somewhere. The 6 isn't really positioned as an entry level car and Mazda doesn't have enough of its own customers to make the 6 a sales success. So, they've got to convince somebody else's buyers to try the 6.

But to do that, it has to get top of mind first and then get cross-shopped. Getting top of mind means hitting their target markets with advertising but also getting positive reviews from the ocean of car reviews in all sorts of publications (newspapers, magazines (not always auto ones either), Consumer Reports, etc.). From what I've read about the 6 in these sources, the journalists are almost unanimously glowing about the 6. Most also point out that the 6 is smaller - while some point out that it is more expensive in its base form - than the Accord or Altima.

Perhaps the best conclusion was one article I read that said something to the effect that "sure it's smaller but the 6i is decidedly sportier and therefore is not a direct competitor to...".

The problem with that - if the market really sees it that way - is that the Camry, Accord, Altima, et al represent one honkingly huge market. I don't think Mazda really intended to distinguish its bread and butter sedan out of this market.

Unless it's hoping that the market for "middle class enthusiast cars" (as one article I read labelled the 6) is sufficiently large.

Time will tell. In the meantime, you've got yourself a nice car - did you get the 6 or the 4? Manual or Auto?

ice

newcar31 · July 2003

I got the 4 with a manual.

chiggy45 · July 2003

I think Mazda needs to take a lesson from Honda. When Nissan came out with the 3.5L 240hp V6, Honda quickly matched that 240 with a 3.0L 240hp V6. Mazda had an opportunity to match the hp, but decided that 220hp is enough. Now, I'm not saying that the 20hp is that BIG of a difference, but if Mazda wants to compete, they need to atleast match or beat Honda/Nissan in one cateogry. In this day and age, beyond reliability people are looking at speed. It's hard to sell the Mazda as the sportiest car, when its engine is weaker than the Accord and Altima. Luckily, its more than the Camry, but then again, Toyota doesn't need as much help as Mazda does....

newcar31 · July 2003

"but if Mazda wants to compete, they need to atleast match or beat Honda/Nissan in one cateogry"

It does match or beat the Altima and Accord in at least one catagory.

#1 It's more fun to drive than either of them

#2 The interior is better than the Altima

#3 It looks better than either of them IMO.

the_big_h · July 2003

qbrozen · July 2003

In this day and age, beyond reliability people are looking at speed

Take all 3 equally equipped sedans on a track and ..... oh, wait, you can't .... Honda doesn't offer a V6 Accord sedan with a stick .... so much for looking at speed from them, huh?

Base V6 Altima is $1400 more... I would expect to get SOMETHING more for that money. So you get a bigger engine.

Everything else is subjective, so I'll stay away from fun factor, etc.

dinu01 · July 2003

I don't want 200+HP! Yes you heard me right. With a car that's fun to drive - hugs corners without body roll, brakes well, accelerates briskly - why do people only care about the HP figure?

My 130HP 01 Protege is a blast to drive and has plenty of power to go 100+mph. My 91 Maxima w/160HP V6 cruises at 3000RPMs at 90mph and is so quiet you can barely feel you're going that fast. A faster car will only get you in trouble - if you don;t feel like you're moving you tend to go faster, which in most jurisdictions automatically activates blue and red lights behind you...

As for size, the 6 is great - roomier than a PRO, not as huge as a Maxima/Accord/Camry. Great to maneuver around town and to cruise on the highway.

Dinu

theiceman · July 2003

...and not about what we each like. For decades now, Mazdas have been well kept secrets. They are great, under-appreciated cars.

I also don't think sales success in the intermediate car segment is about speed. Horsepower is a number that most people don't understand. But the manufacturers have to post good numbers because people do compare them: "Oh, looky, the Altima has 240 horsepower!" But only handfulls of enthusiasts look at gearing, final drive ratio, or curb weight. My experience is that most people would view all these numbers as closely competitive and make their decision based on other things.

Heck, if the Mazda 6 is a dollar late and a penny shy at 220 hp, where does that put the 210 hp Camry?

As important as they are, I doubt if ponies or even "tossability" alone can sell many cars in this market. This segment is, after all, for mid-sized 4 door sedans. And manufacturers sell a heckuva lot of 4 bangers with auto trannies in this market. Which is consistent with the meat of the market being economy-minded families, not youthful enthusiasts.

Mazda's obviously taking a different tack. And the future appearance of a sportswagon will only make it a little more interesting...

ice

andre1969 · July 2003

the biggest players in the mid-sized segment are probably the 4-cyl Accord, 4-cyl Camry, 3.4 Impala, Taurus Vulcan, 4-cyl Altima, etc, it just goes to show that whatever car has the highest hp isn't necessarily going to be the biggest seller.

I agree with Iceman, that while big hp numbers sound nice, it's probably some other aspect that ultimately sells the car.

theiceman · July 2003

Actually, my comment on style being "very good (at last)" was referring to recent years. I agree with all the examples you cite (you forgot the '92 to '95 929 - which I owned) but those are long gone. The recent 626, Millenia, etc. were "handsome" cars but they started out plain and just got plainer.

The Protege 5 is really nice - as is the 6 - and the RX8 also looks like a winner. It's all good - now. Two years ago? Different story.

But that might just be my perspective.

irnmdn · July 2003

"As for size, the 6 is great - roomier than a PRO, not as huge as a Maxima/Accord/Camry. Great to maneuver around town and to cruise on the highway."

I am sure you will find a Lincoln Navigator just as maneuverable as Mazda6 because both have the turning diameter of 38.7ft.
OTOH, the supposedly huge Camry does a full circle in 34.8ft - which is less than that of a Mini Cooper!!!. Even the Altima beats Mazda6 by 1 feet.

Most people are baffled how an Accord I-4 can get better performance *and* gas mileage on a car with bigger interior compared MZ6 - Mazda/Ford engineers can't figure it out either.

Bottomline: with Mazda6 you do not get any advantages with it;s smaller size except handling.

andre1969 · July 2003

are really only a good gauge of handling if you do a lot of low-speed manuvering in tight spaces, do a lot of parallel parking, make a lot of tight U-turns, etc. Out on the open road at high speeds, it's really not going to make a difference whether your turning circle is 30 feet or 40 feet...you're not going to be taking any high-speed turns that tightly. If you try, you're either going to be buying tires every couple of weeks, or flip the car!

FWIW, an '85 Caprice also has a turning circle of 38.7 feet. But it's not going to handle as well as a 6 (although it may out-slalom a Navigator!). That's going to depend on things like the tires, wheels, suspension, steering ratio and response, etc.

As for the Accord, one reason it may get such good gas mileage is that it has a 5-speed automatic. In 5th gear, it's effective final ratio is something like 2.0:1, whereas most comparable cars are probably more like 2.4-2.6:1, once they get into overdrive. The Accord can get out on the highway and loaf, burning very little fuel, but when you need the power, you can stomp on it and take advantage of the lower gears. Pontiac used to do some of the same tricks back in the 60's, and got better mileage and performance out of their engines than Chevy, Ford, and Mopar did out of some of their much smaller engines in competing cars.

dinu01 · July 2003

"Bottomline: with Mazda6 you do not get any advantages with it;s smaller size except handling."

And that's what I care about.

The Protege has worse gas mileage than the Civic/Rolla but it makes you feel like you're driving a car not sitting on top of a soap bar that's being pushed downhill.

Bottom line for me and many Mazda enthusiasts: I still fill-up once a week in the Protege, just like I did in my Civic and Tercel (back in highschool), so that argument doesn't fly too high - yes I'd rather spend $5-10 more/week and drive a fun car.

As far as the turning circle goes, I don't see anyone complaining about how hard the car is to park or take turns in the city - you adjust to the car.

Bigger interior is great - if you wanna haul a hockey team, but I bet that the vast majority of people drive alone or with only one passenger over 90% of the time. For many, a family car doesn't need to be a land barge (the new Camry).

Dinu

theiceman · July 2003

But for those for whom it is important, the 6 will have a wagon version next year. It won't give it any extra leg or shoulder room, but there'll be plenty of room for the tent and Fido.

theiceman · July 2003

A link to a list of cars, ranked by EPA estimates of interior volume (in cu. ft.). The Mazda 6 has 96 cu. ft.

New models ranked by passenger volume

A car can compensate for a deficit of 1 or 2 cu. ft. by just having a very well designed interior and easier door openings.

guest · July 2003

The 88-92 and 93-97 MX-6's were pretty nice looking cars too. The mid to late 80's RX-7 was a very nice looking car too. 93-97 626 still looks good to this day. 95 Protege and 98 626 were the cars that really drew a bad reception from the buying public. I had a 98 626 and I actually got a few compliments about my car but I also got backlash too because a 98 626 isn't a hip car for a young person to drive.

About turning radius my Acura CL has a large turning radius.

2 years ago: 2001 well Mazda had the Pro 5 that was debuting as an 02 model in the US than there was the Protege MP3. The Tribute is a nice looking SUV that debut for the 2001 model year.

Aboyt Gas Mileadge Honda's always have gotten great gas mileadge because their technology is just so good.

ambull · July 2003

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/03_28/b3841080_mz014- .htm

theiceman · July 2003

You're right - the '93 MX-6 was a beaut! OTOH, I think we might disagree on the '88 MX-6 - it was essentially a 626 coupe and, while okay for the era, was hardly award-winning (at least not to me - and I owned an '88 626!)

In the early 90s, Mazda was tops as far as design went but that evaporated within a few short years. Let's hope that history doesn't repeat itself.

nippononly · July 2003

alludes to something I was reading last night in the June 30 Autoweek: Mazda sold out of V-6 manual-transmission 6s more than a month before they were able to make the 2004 model available, and sales of the 4-cylinder automatics have been much weaker than they expected.

I hope they figure it out and change the mix of the cars they are producing, but the businessweek article is already calling the intro of the 6 "botched"...

The RX8 is available any day now...hopefully it will be on fire and get some people interested in mazda.

ambull · July 2003

Yes, the intro to the 6 was botched because of a lack of V6 manuals and sport packages. They are supposed to have that fixed for '04. Let's hope they do a little better with the RX-8 and Mazda3.

Mazda - Does it have a good future in US?

Comments

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles