Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Midsize Sedans 2.0

1…123124126128129…544

Comments

  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    Well, since the model with all those doo-dads has no proven long term track record, I'd anticipate lots of headaches from lots of problems and having to deal with LOTS of warranty issues and trying to get them to honor the warranty.

    NO THANK YOU! I'll take the problem-free longer lasting model! So in 5 years when your onto your next super stainless steel Fridge, I'll be just breaking mine in for the next 10 years.

    IIRC you have an Audi A3, right? So that perceived Toyota reliability didn't even entice you to get one. I think that might adversely affect your argument.
  • andres3andres3 Member Posts: 13,729
    Well, I'll tell you what, CR had a lot to do with influencing me to take the plunge with a German-make, particularly Audi.

    Audi has shown consistent and significant continual improvment over the last 5 to 7 years in dependability and reliablity according to CR's charts and information. Audi has continually distanced itself from VW as an independent division that has taken CHARGE of Quality Control and the results show a marked gain for their efforts. Audi has widened the gap between them and VW in CR. If it wasn't for that committment to quality demonstrated by both their promises and words, but also their numbers and results, I may have not purchase a virtually problem-free 26,000 miles later A3. The A3 has been "great" and I have not had to make unscheduled dealer visits nor tow truck pickups. I haven't experienced any electrical gremlins or hiccups.

    Also, my parents and my own (and as I was a kid in it) experience with a '87 VW JETTA led me to believe that German cars were built much better than American ones. The Jetta while far from perfect, was no lemon, and it reached 100,000 miles before becoming way too expensive to keep running.

    My friends experience with a used BMW that he kept for quite a while problem-free also solidified my jump from Toytota/Honda.

    But you should know, my second runner-up choice to the A3 was the RAV 4 V6, and it was a close contest. Had Toyota ramped up availability quicker, and more widely, and not overpriced it a tad, I'd probably be driving a RAV 4.

    Honda didn't make anything with a hatch/wagon sporty design that was bigger than a subcompact, so they didn't meet my needs. Toyota doesn't have anything truly sporty right now. Out of all the vehicles I considered, the RAV 4 was the biggest, roomiest, and probably least agile (except if you get the Sport trim maybe) of the group, while the A3 was certainly the quickest, fastest, best handling of the group (and the smallest), but it's cornering ability is spectacular with the sport option.

    Also, Audi, by far and away, stuffed some seriously modern technology such as the DSG true manual-amatic tranny, and direct injection turbo motor. Most automatics are just autos you can shift manually, whereas DSG is more of a manual you can shift automatically. The proof is in the pudding with better 0-60 times and better gas mileage than the 6 speed manual offers.
    '15 Audi Misano Red Pearl S4, '16 Audi TTS Daytona Gray Pearl, Wife's '19 VW Tiguan SEL 4-Motion
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    There is a difference between making a judgement that..."this new camry is likely to be reliable" and an organization such as CR putting a "recommended" label on a car using different criteria for different manufacturers.

    That is where you are wrong, IMO. CR does not use different criteria for different manufacturers. If any other car had a 15-20 year history of reliability, it would also be recommended because of "predicted" reliability. Case in point the Accord.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    That may be Honda’s grade logic at work. The transmission selects a lower gear on an incline. In my 1998 Accord (and TL), the only way to tell that it did is to keep an eye on the tachometer. On level streets, the transition seems to happen around 40 mph, Hondas don’t seem to use the top gear until past 35-40 mph (I find that interesting, and was going to discuss it in EPA fuel economy rating related threads).

    Going uphill, touching throttle will not do anything (unless you demand more power then it will go down another gear or two but never the taller gear). Going downhill, however, I’ve heard, grade logic (and the engine braking that comes from it) gets cancelled if you use the throttle. This will select the taller gear and the rpm will drop (by about 30%, or whatever the difference in ratio is).

    Something I do find interesting is that the tachometer is reading lower than I would expect it to, at 45-50 mph (in either third or fourth gear), unless 1996 was geared taller than 1998. In my 1998, 50 mph would correspond to about 1900 rpm in fourth.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    That's just it buddy, the car IS geared shorter than the 1998-2002. The drop in RPMs to 1500 or so at 50MPH is well below its normal operating RPM in 4th gear (its usually right at 2000 RPM at 50). It is in 4th gear the whole time in that video I posted. Third gear would have it well over 3,000 RPM at those speeds. The torque converter is also already locked up. It isn't grade-logic because it never leaves 4th gear.

    Let me be really clear.

    Under normal conditions (flat road, not accelerating) at 50MPH, the car is in 4th, torque converter locked-up, car running 2,000 RPM.

    Go down a hill with no throttle, the RPMs are still around 2,000 RPM. Tap the throttle lightly (less than 10%) and let back off, and the revs will drop siginificantly and hold until you push the gas again.
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Go down a hill with no throttle, the RPMs are still around 2,000 RPM. Tap the throttle lightly (less than 10%) and let back off, and the revs will drop siginificantly and hold until you push the gas again

    That is grade logic at work. The car already selected third gear, and when you tap the throttle, it cancels the logic and transmission shifts into fourth.

    I can't feel fourth to third gear shift in my Accord when grade logic engages. The only way to tell is to keep an eye on the tach while the condition is right for grade logic to show up. Like I said, this will happen on an incline at speeds above 40 mph. On level ground, you might see something like you do on an incline as your car either speeds up past (about) 40 mph or is slowing down to below 40 mph (this seems to be the magic speed in my TL, below which, I cannot select fifth gear, and the car will only use the 1-4 gears). See if you notice this in your car too.

    While drop (or gain) in rpm can be explained by above which is embedded in transmission logic, the lower rpm can't be. Do you have gear ratios (and tire size) handy? But ~1500 rpm in fourth seems low (which, coincidentally, is something you would see in fifth gear in the new Civic between 45-50 mph since it is geared very tall).
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I can't feel fourth to third gear shift in my Accord when grade logic engages.

    Heh, I CAN! The trannies in the pre-1998 Accords are pretty "firm" in their shifting. Not very smooth at all. Trust me, I've been driving this car for five years, I can recognize the grade logic working in a downshift (not trying to sound patronizing). The car never shifts gears. Its as if something disengages, like when you engage a clutch when in gear.
  • drwilscdrwilsc Member Posts: 140
    You are comparing Honda and Toyota to the Patriots. Does that also mean that they are dishonest like Bill Belicheat?
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    I think it is disengagement of torque converter that you're noticing. If you step on the throttle, it goes back up to the expected rpm, right? (In my Accord, it happens at lower speeds, but then, I haven't paid close attention going downhill at speed).
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    I think it's just the way Honda transmissions work. The engine will go all the way down to almost idle speed while in gear. Most automatic transmissions will downshift before the rpms get that low. It feels like the transmission goes into neutral, if the rpms are at the certain level.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    No, it's not the level of shift bud. The RPMs drop LOWER THAN TYPICAL when coasting downhill after tapping the throttle. I STILL don't think y'all are getting it...

    It's not that the tranny is holding a high gear longer, it's that the engine is running lower RPMs than the gear ratios specify when under those conditions i mentioned previously. 60MPH at 1,500 RPM in my 4-cyl Accord which is 500 lower than it runs when running normally. I took a video tonight of it in my 2006 EX 4-cyl Auto. You can see it runs 1,200 RPM at over 50 MPH. This is not a typical gear ratio (it should be at 1700 RPM).

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=5dsg7h3-kMY
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    The engine will go all the way down to almost idle speed while in gear.

    I meant to add, that my Accord will drop from fifth to fourth gear by 35MPH at the very slowest, sometimes sooner. At that point, in 4th gear, its still only running 1,500RPM
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Because you are going downhill, the car can be traveling faster than the engine is pushing it. In this instance the rpm will be lower than the speed would normally indicate on flat ground. Most automatic transmissions will not do this, from my experience. Most automatics will effectively engine brake, even in top gear. The torque converter is probably not locked, when this happens, since the wheels are allowed to travel faster than the engine rpms suggest.

    Does that sound even close Grad?
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    It ALMOST goes over my head, and it almost makes sense, but the fact that there is a noticeable drop in RPM (300-500 within a second sometimes) instead of just a big increase in speed. The speed may never change, but the RPMs do. It happens on off-ramps all the time; trying to slow down, I can barely carress the throttle once and send the RPMs down by 500 or so. They hover at 1,000 from 50-35MPH until it finally downshifts to 4th, sending revs back to normal range.

    I think I've come off as rude; I'm not trying to be, just trying to come up with an answer to this phoenomenon. If I've been short with anyone, I do apologize. Y'all have done nothing but try and help! :)

    Have you guys tried doing this in your cars?
  • elroy5elroy5 Member Posts: 3,735
    Have you guys tried doing this in your cars?

    The next time I'm on a long bridge, I'll try it. Hills do not exist around here. ;)
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Sometimes, a hill isn't necessary. Decelerating from 60+ MPH coasting, then tapping the gas quickly only to coast again, can cause this sometimes as well.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    I am glad you found a vehicle that meets your needs. I do find it intriguing though that after being such a fan of Toyota or Honda, you bought a German make. It was very interesting to see the vehicles you were considering.
    I think the vehicle attributes I hold dear are very different from the ones that you were seeking and I have a better understanding of where you were coming from.

    In looking for a small/midsize wagon, did you look at the Legacy at all?
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    Have you guys tried doing this in your cars?

    I've been trying, but the proper conditions have not occured for me yet.

    Did you see the discussion on fuel use (or lack thereof) when coasting in gear vs. in neutral on the "future of the manual transmission" discussion? I don't know if that has any connection to what you are seeing, but a minimum rpm figure of about 1500 came up in that unresolved discussion...so I wonder if there is any connection.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    Probably not. 1,500 RPM occurs at 50 MPH. At different speeds, the RPM drops differently. Today, on my way to school, I managed to make the (1996) car do this at 65MPH (it dropped to about 2,000RPM, when at that speed it should be right at 2,500-2,600).
  • colloquorcolloquor Member Posts: 482
    I don't know if anyone's posted this link to an AutoWeek overview of the new Accord. If it's already been posted, I apologize.

    http://www.autoweek.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071017/FREE/310170003/1532/- FREE
  • robertsmxrobertsmx Member Posts: 5,525
    Have you guys tried doing this in your cars?

    Yes. It seems to disengage torque converter when coasting below certain speed. As I slowed down from 60 to about 35 mph, the engine rpm and wheel speed matched (about 1800 rpm). Beyond that point, it felt more like shifting into neutral. A very light tap and the rpm would again match the speed.
  • dsiriasdsirias Member Posts: 34
    Somebody told me that the Mazdaspeed6 requires 93 octane and that even 91 hurts performance a lot. Well you can't get 93 in CA, only 91!. If this former is true, why would Mazda do this? Is that why the Mazdaspeed 6 is in the showroom forever? Something is wriong because the all wheel drive is a really good thing, and this car should be selling.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    the fact that it is choosy about its gas is really a function of the turbocharging that allows the 270HP in the first place. It is very common and almost universally true that turbo/supercharged engines require premium gas, the higher the octane the better. The VW 200hp 2.0 is also an engine that 'suffers' from an appetite for octane. IMO, the illogical difficulty Mazda seems to have selling the Speed6 (it is being discontinued for 08 apparently) has less to do with the fuel issue (as I expect most buyers could handle the 20 cents/gal in exchange for the 60 extra (over the V6) ponies and better overall FE - but more to do with price, it is still relatively pricey, even despite some rather deep discounting. That all said, however, it is a fun car to drive with that stick, and genuinely does offer something different in this class.
  • urnewsurnews Member Posts: 668
    That was a most unflattering review of the 2008 Accord. It makes me even happier than my wife and I bought a new 2007 V6 SEL AWD Fusion on Dec. 4 last year. Except for poor in-city gas mileage (14.8 mpg), it has been a most satisfactory car for 10-plus months and 4,900 miles.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    IMO, the illogical difficulty Mazda seems to have selling the Speed6 (it is being discontinued for 08 apparently) has less to do with the fuel issue (as I expect most buyers could handle the 20 cents/gal in exchange for the 60 extra (over the V6) ponies and better overall FE - but more to do with price, it is still relatively pricey, even despite some rather deep discounting

    The price was not the reason the Mazdaspeed6 had issues selling, it was marketing. First, they built a performance vehicle, with an adult feel, appealing to the mature (non EVO/Sti buyer) buyer that was looking at the BMW 3 series, Audi A4, and Legacy GT. Not only did Mazda build a car that was a great performer, it had better driving dynamics then all too. However, they made this vehicle in only a 6-speed manual. Great for the enthusiast, bad for the rest of the potential customers. How many BMW 3 series and Audi A4's do you see in a stick? Not many. So, since this vehicle was out performed by the EVO and STi, the enthusiast crowd opted for the later, not the MS6.

    The MS6 was only going into production for 2 year's, with a total production number of 10-12K unts in NA. Mazda planned this, it was not due to lack of sales that they abandoned the vehicle.

    My brother and best friend both own one, and it is one heck of a vehicle. It's fast, handles great, and has a great feel inside with great build quality.

    Overall, it was a great vehicle, but was marketed toward the wrong people. The Mazdaspeed3 has been marketed to the young buyer, and has been selling like hot cakes.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    OK I'll bite on most of this - except I don't think that it is conceiveable that those young buyers out there are ever going to view a Mazda6 in the same way they do a Evo/Sti/GTI. Those cars (the Evo etc) much more competitive instead to the Speed3, the Speed6 simply too large and the Mazda6 is generally perceived as a Camcord alternate - in any case a different and probably more mature buyer. And sure all mfgrs. will end up justifying their 'mistakes' with a 'planned' 2 year production run - wonder what would have happened if the car had sold well.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    And sure all mfgrs. will end up justifying their 'mistakes' with a 'planned' 2 year production run - wonder what would have happened if the car had sold well.

    I went to the Mazdaspeed6 drive event 2 months before the vehicle went on sale in the U.S., and it was then that Mazda told us of their plans. There has never been any Mazdaspeed vehicle to run longer then 2 years. Never did they ever plan from the start to build more then 12K units. Never. Maybe if it was a huge hit, they might have considered it, but, that's doubtful.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    except I don't think that it is concieveable that those young buyers out there are ever going to view a Mazda6 in the same way they do a Evo/Sti/GTI.

    I never said anyone would. The vehicle was marketed toward the BMW 325Xi, Audi A4 Quattro, and Legacy GT. Mazda never intended to compete with the EVO/STi crowd.

    Here is an quote from the Mazdaspeed6 Drive Event work book: "In comparison, the Mazdaspeed6 is targeted at a true performance enthusiasts who see their cars as an exciting form of self expression. These buyers tend to be married men in their late thirties and early forties. They are financially comfortable college graduates in successful professions at work and with young families at home." Does that sound like an EVO/STi buyer to you? Nope. At the end of the book is a comparison with the Mazdaspeed6 to the Audi A4 Quattro 2.0T/3.0T, BMW 325xi/330xi, and Subaru Legacy GT
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    " it had better driving dynamics then all too."

    I am going to challenge you on the assertion the MS6 has better driving dynamics than the 3 series. The STi is a no nonsense car that devours all comers. Adjustable differential, water cooler intercooler, upgradeable ECU etc. The MS6 has more luxury than the STI but less performance. I'd prefer the STI and I'm not a boy racer.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    and the MS6 is not larger than any A4 or 3 series ever was and is not hampered by the 'family sedan' image? Of course it is, and maybe Mazda's mistake. Sans the MS6, Mazda plays very poorly in the HP wars these days almost making 'zoom-zoom' a joke. Maybe if Ford will let them have enough 3.5s they can get back in the right neighborhood, but if this will be the case, won't Ford recognize that there would be no reason for us to buy a Fusion.
  • lilengineerboylilengineerboy Member Posts: 4,116
    Sans the MS6, Mazda plays very poorly in the HP wars these days almost making 'zoom-zoom' a joke.

    There is more to zoom zoom than horsepower. Those that drive a 270hp lounge chair might not get the difference.
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    According to CR's latest survey data, here's the most and least reliable mid-sized cars, i.e. predicted reliability as a new car:

    Most Reliable-listed in ratings order, starting with the best score
    Toyota Prius
    Honda Accord (2007)
    Hyundai Sonata (4-cyl.)
    Toyota Camry Hybrid*
    Ford Fusion
    Mercury Milan

    Least Reliable-listed in ratings order, starting with the worst score
    Chevrolet Impala (V8)
    Volkswagen Passat
    Pontiac G6
    Volvo S40/V50 (turbo, FWD)

    * means the assessment was based on only one model year

    http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-10-16-toyota-cr_N.htm
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    I am going to challenge you on the assertion the MS6 has better driving dynamics than the 3 series

    After driving both on the same course, the MS6 equaled the BMW in handling, however, it out performed it in acceleration, and braking. This was the 2006 BMW 325xi sedan.
  • aviboy97aviboy97 Member Posts: 3,159
    Mazda plays very poorly in the HP wars these days almost making 'zoom-zoom' a joke. Maybe if Ford will let them have enough 3.5s they can get back in the right neighborhood, but if this will be the case, won't Ford recognize that there would be no reason for us to buy a Fusion.

    What are you talking about?? The Mazda6 is up for a redesign, and in 2003 it was just as competitive as the rest of the mid sized sedans. The Mazda3 is STILL a top performer in the compact market. The MX-5 is revered at the #1 roadster of all time. The CX-7 is quicker/ drives better then a Murano/CR-V and others. The CX-9 has been absoultley great, and just won the MT SUV of the year, kudos to its driving dynamics. The MS3 smashes it;s competitions, beating the Si and GTI. How has Mazda making "zoom-zoom" a joke? You gotta be kidding me, it seems as if you know nothing about Mazda. They are more "zoom-zoom" now then ever.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    Yes, it might outperform the 325xi, but wouldn't have a chance next to the 335xi. It might win the stop light race from the 328(xi) but not win on driving dynamics. The 325xi is about the worse performer from BMW, but I cannot comment on the veracity of the comparison. Someone else might have a different take.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    From the AutoWeek review of the Accord:
    Thumbs way up on the way the car drives, which is what matters, of course. It's a Honda: stable, solid and quiet on the road. It is not, however, much fun to drive, even with a manual transmission. The engine is adequate, but you need to really wring out the shifter to keep it in the power band; it feels like a slug at low revs. And to think there's an even less-powerful four-banger available.

    Ouch... I figured Honda would soften up the Accord a little, but to make the v-6 get this kind of review, that is very surprising from a magazine which has generally been very nice to Honda. I've heard the coupe is a bit more fun though, so I still have hope. But it sounds like "fun to drive" and stylish is becoming the domain of the more expensive Acura.
  • 03accordman03accordman Member Posts: 671
    The car was an I-4, not a V6
  • backybacky Member Posts: 18,949
    I found the Accord pleasant to drive, very solid and with a smoother ride than the previous generation. A great family car. But fun? No.

    I wonder if Honda has considered an Accord Si version, ala the Civic Si.
  • zzzoom6zzzoom6 Member Posts: 425
    oh yeah, I forgot there are two different I-4's.
  • thegraduatethegraduate Member Posts: 9,731
    I hate to hear they've gone more mainstream and given up some crispness... that was a part of the Accord's appeal over its competitors!
  • chronochrono Member Posts: 149
    I think it's because Honda wanted to go for a bigger piece of the pie and aim at Camry buyers. Camry owners like their pillow soft ride so Honda had to compromise. That's too bad.
  • jaxs1jaxs1 Member Posts: 2,697
    The Camry ride is not "pillow soft," but is is pretty smooth compared to an Accord. Maybe an Avalon or Buick Lucerne is pillow soft.
    The Accord ride is pretty rough and bumpy if the road isn't glass smooth.
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    And sure all mfgrs. will end up justifying their 'mistakes' with a 'planned' 2 year production run - wonder what would have happened if the car had sold well.

    Has ANY MazdaSpeed model lasted more than 2 years? Let's see... The MS Miata? Nope... The MS Protege? Don't think so (and that was a good seller for Mazda.) The current MS3 (as of right now) is planned on lasting until '09, since a new 3 is expected in '09-'10.

    Mazda has NEVER planned on a MazdaSpeed lasting more than 2 years, it's simply a way to entice the model before an expected redesign. Always has, always will.

    What would happen if the car sold well? Nothing more than a bigger profit for Mazda.
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    Sans the MS6, Mazda plays very poorly in the HP wars these days almost making 'zoom-zoom' a joke.

    That's funny, since the 3, CX-7 and CX-9 are plenty powerful compared to the competition, and 263 HP in a compact such as the MS3? Hardly a "joke"...

    Maybe if Ford will let them have enough 3.5s they can get back in the right neighborhood, but if this will be the case, won't Ford recognize that there would be no reason for us to buy a Fusion.

    This won't be an issue, since the next 6 is expected to get the 3.7L Mazda-sourced V6 that the current CX-9 has.
  • kdshapirokdshapiro Member Posts: 5,751
    "Hardly a "joke"

    YOu're right it's not a joke. VW has it's GTI and BMW will be putting 300+ hp in the 1 series. The whole zoom zoom thing to me is a joke. Part of the turnoff of the brand, not to mention better offerings from competitors.
  • jeffyscottjeffyscott Member Posts: 3,855
    It is not so much about drag racing, it's more about this:

    image

    Ignoring the 25 mph recommended speed, of course :) .
  • lightfootfllightfootfl Member Posts: 442
    re 6447 and others
    Grad, I have found on my 2006 Sonata LX that when I have been going at a normal speed, then slow by taking my foot off the gas, the car seems to have a "slight drag" that by tapping the gas releases that drag. This may be the same type thing you are addressing. I don't know/understand it either, but think it is the transmission holding the gear while decelerating,and the "tap" releases the gear. It is consistent and obvious when it happens. Obviously it is detectable by looking at the tachometer. I haven't noted the actual amounts however.
    van
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    This won't be an issue, since the next 6 is expected to get the (whatever)
    another lesson in Fordspeak? Wonder if anything or anybody has ever delivered on a promise that also happens to be associated with that company. This kind of thing really gets old.
    You didn't (apparently) notice - the context in which I was pointing out the absence of the 'zoom-zoom' was as it is related to the Mazda6 and its place specifically in this category. The Speed3 is a solid entrant in the 'rice rocket' category, and the CXs may be reasonable choices in the SUV/Car category but we are talking about the 6 here and lamenting the loss of the one model that delivers some of that 'zoom'. And even if Ford/Mazda can deliver 260-270hp in a 3.7 liter V6 someday, it is still a bored/stroked Ford Duratech (much like Ford's 3.5) regardless of who actually manufactures it - hardly solid ancestory. I still contend Mazda would be far better off and likely offer a more competitive product if Toyo Koyjo (splg?) was not influenced by goings on in Dearborn.
  • captain2captain2 Member Posts: 3,971
    and jeffyscott - while many understand what you're saying, no FWD (OR FWD BIASED awd) will ever do the 25mph curvies in the same way that things like a 3 series ( or 1 series) can and do. 60%+ forward weight distribution along with the driven wheels also doing the steering has that effect. Simply tightening up a suspension, and making a car ride (and feel) like a go cart, does not change the laws of physics and the ultimate terminal understeer that all cars of this genre must suffer from. In summary, if Mazda really wanted to compete on these 25 mph curvies you reference they also need to get out of the FWD car business (as do many other mfgrs.).
  • mz6greyghostmz6greyghost Member Posts: 1,230
    another lesson in Fordspeak? Wonder if anything or anybody has ever delivered on a promise that also happens to be associated with that company. This kind of thing really gets old.

    Frankly, so does your (unnecessary) Ford-bashing.

    but we are talking about the 6 here and lamenting the loss of the one model that delivers some of that 'zoom'.

    That's because it was introduced IN 2003, while everyone since then has had a major redesign.

    And even if Ford/Mazda can deliver 260-270hp in a 3.7 liter V6 someday, it is still a bored/stroked Ford Duratech (much like Ford's 3.5) regardless of who actually manufactures it - hardly solid ancestory.

    ...In your opinion. Ask the thousands of Probe and Contour owners (among other vehicles), they'll probably give you a different answer.

    I still contend Mazda would be far better off and likely offer a more competitive product if Toyo Koyjo (splg?) was not influenced by goings on in Dearborn.

    Wow. Your ignorance knows no bounds, doesn't it?

    Ford bought their controlling share when Mazda was doing nothing but hemorrhaging $$$ on these shores. The bleeding was due in large part of Mazda's plan in the mid-'90's to abandon their sporty niche, and offer more "competitive" products to the Honda/Toyota crowd. Their loyal fan base bolted, and sales plummeted.

    Since then, and due in part to Fords capital, they've not only stopped the bleeding, but have introduced new product (such as the 3, 6, CX-7, CX-9, etc.), returning to a niche that Honda and Toyota long since abandoned, has built a loyal fan base, and are one of Ford's "divisions" that's actually MAKING PROFITS.

    Just because they don't sell 500K 6s per year doesn't mean that they're not "competitive", especially when they're still making $$$ as a company.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles