We hear reports that Mazda is fueling its growth by stocking American rental companies with product. Normally, this sales strategy is a sure way to run a brand into the ground; to ensure that factories build The Least Objectionable Automobile rather than something inherently worthwhile. Not in this case. In fact, you could say that Ford's Japanese partner has created the world largest, perhaps best demo fleet for the four-cylinder Mazda6i. If you have a choice, make it your default option.
Mazda's family friendly tribute to zoom-zoom is a wake up call to the importance of great design. When picking-up our tester, I had to remind myself that this is a six-year-old model destined for the chopping block. While the Toyota Camry and Honda Accord go for derivative shapes and portly portions, Mazda's designers took bread and butter transportation and gave it a protein shake before hitting the gym.
From stem to stern, the Mazda6i offers nothing but trim proportions, sleek lines and muscular tones. Even the 6i's trippy, bubble-headed lighting pods have aged well on their (revised) midnight black backgrounds. Compared to the old 626, or its current competitors, the Mazda6 is an instant classic.
The Mazda6i's interior also shows how well a non-derivative Japanese design stands the test of time. The three spoke, leather-wrapped wheel would look at home in any BMW. The tasty switchgear, velvety door panel inserts and distinctive oval air registers feel better in your hands than any materials in any other car in this price range. Speaking of, the dashboard's northern hemisphere comes from polymers too rich for an entry-level Lexus, much less a dowdy Camry.
Older design or not, the Mazda6 continues to impress when your crew meets for four-portal pleasure. There's comfort for a quartet of average Joes, and it's not a bad place for a third person in the back. The large-ish trunk proves that Japan's latest redesigns add wasteful bulk and little value. That said, the omission of a decklid assist handle should be a punishable crime: smearing a dirty paint job with a wet hand in a thunderstorm is the family sedan equivalent of changing a kid's diaper.
And yet, the Mazda6 never stops with the shock and awe. I opened the dash-mounted coin holder, exposing a thickly flocked cubbyhole that makes the Chrysler Sebring's carpet hang its head in shame. Vault-like in construction, I felt obligated to give the useless crap in my pocket a new home. If you can find a better example of Industrial Design OCD in a sub-$25k car, buy it.
The Mazda6i's magic doesn't end when you twist the key. The base-by-name 2.3-liter four-pot is more than mediocre by nature. Its distinctive growl at idle is proof that there's a performance-minded dual exhaust underfoot. Although there's a paltry 156hp on tap, the Mazda6 revs smoothly to redline. With a willing five-speed autobox in tow, the Mazda6 offers far more spunk than its claimed 9-second run to 60mph implies.
There's nothing wrong with sloth-like speed in a cheap sedan, as long as you can make ample use of the Big Mo. The Mazda6 compensates for its sloth (yes, sloth) with the road manners of more Germanic sports sedans. Mid-corner composure speaks volumes about a suspension tuned with level cornering and minimal understeer in mind. Thanks to the engine's flat powerband, the Mazda6 rarely pushes under a cornering load. Some praise goes to the choice gumballs: 17-inch Michelin Pilots don't come cheap; but they do come prepared.
Mazda obviously told the Larry Winget's of the world to take a hike. The good rubber makes for sublime handling, but with a finessed ride that's simply astounding. The only beef with the Mazda6's dynamics is the parking lot friendly steering: the lack of on-center steering feel in fast sweepers is a bit of a buzz kill.
And then I hit the interstate for some straight-line school of thought. Ay, there's the rub: the Mazda6 howled in protest at the upper reaches of the speed limit, filling the cabin with drones and whacking my eardrums with a constant, offbeat booming. If you're looking for a long-distance, high-speed cruiser, the 6i ain't it.
No doubt: I'd exchange the disturbingly perfect coin tray for more eyeballs in Mazda's NVH (Noise, Vibration, Harshness) department. Reputation aside, this is why the zoom-zoom sedan plays second fiddle to the almighty Camcord. Quiet is the key to Middle America's most basic necessity: a high-speed relaxation chamber to compensate for stressful work weeks, or annoying in-laws riding in the aft cabin.
Fact is, the Mazda6i is the perennial niche player. It's destined for enlightened pistonheads with a small family and an equally modest bankroll. Will the Mazda6i's sharp-looking replacement join the TSX in trading handling for marshmallow comfort? Watch this space. Meanwhile, respect, at a nice little discount.
Will the Mazda6i’s sharp-looking replacement join the TSX in trading handling for marshmallow comfort? Watch this space.
I keep my fingers crossed too!
Very nice review. I recently rented a compact, and refused the Focus and Corolla Hertz first wanted to give me. They found they keys for a Mazda3, which I was very happy with. Stayed amazingly flat in corners, pretty sharp steering (although there was a bit of a lack of feedback), and nicely appointed exterior.
I placed an order for a 2004 Mazda 6s and I thought it was a great car. The Ford Duratec V6 had a completely different character from the version in my Mom’s Taurus, and the car just seemed to want to have fun. Unfortunately the dealer treated me with no respect and then jerked me around, and Mazda dealers are scarce. So I ended up with an Accord V6, which was fast but not nearly as fun, and just felt big, plus no manual with the V6. Finally I got rid of the Accord and got a ’06 TSX which is, as the review alludes, similar in character to the Mazda.
One thing about the new 6, there will be NO MANUAL transmission option with the V6 this time :(
It’s kind of sad that the next North American 6 is explicitly chasing the Camry and Accord, rather than cleaving to it’s own path and leaving mainstream duties to the Fusion.
It’ll still be a good car, but something of value will have been lost.
Whenever I’m stuck renting from Hertz, I get a 6. I’ve had them in good and bad weather. They’re always fun to drive and the better choice over a Camry.
Too bad they’ve ditched the wagon and the hatchback.
I took my 335 in for service a few months ago and was given one of these as a loaner for the day. Initially disappointed that I didn’t have a 328 or something else to play with, I found myself delighted after driving the Mazda6, even in its base-trim with the 4 cylinder automatic. The engine had reasonable power, the transmission always seemed to find the right gear (and I’m no fan of automatics) and the handling was, as you put it, quite Germanic in feel. The quality of the cloth interior, even in non-upgraded form, left me wondering why my only choices in a BMW here in the U.S. are vinyl and leather; count me as a fan of cloth seating.
While I’m not a fan of FWD, this is an exceptional sedan which I think is hampered by Mazda’s long time association with second-rate dealers who have no clue as to how to sell this or the superb Mazda3. There’s something going on at Mazda which should be appreciated and while they do not have BMW’s history, they seem intent on producing vehicles in which the driver is viewed as an important part of the package.
happy to see this review–this car is on my list for my next vehicle, as their resale isn’t too great and they can therefore be found real cheap 2-3 years old. I heard, however, that the reliability isn’t great…auto tranny problems, I think. Does anyone know if this applies to both the 4-cyl and V-6 versions?
Also, 21/28 isn’t great for a 4-cylinder
Never heard about problems with either 5-speed transmission (AT or MT). I think the original 4-speed AT had some issues, as it did in the Mazda3.
@drifter: I would tend to disagree with the public shunning ALL of Mazda’s products. The 3 has sold very well, the 6 not so much. The article explained why…people want complete quiet and a soft suspension. They want gear ratios that are for efficiency, not performance.
These are still great cars, I only wish I could find a hatchback model with the V6 and MT.
Mazda6: A very underrated car, constantly eclipsed by the big boys. And right now, the deal of the century.
These are still great cars, I only wish I could find a hatchback model with the V6 and MT.
I had a gorgeous ’05 black V6 hatch which was a great car by every measure. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of test driving a Speed6.
The problem with Mazda they never really develop anything special.
Compared to Honda and Toyota they develop Hybrid Cars, Nissan The New GT-R and Mitsubsishi New look, New Engine, Advance Y-control, Stability control and Active differential and including Paddle shifter and Subaru a better faster car and new car design
Mazda has been left out in car design and only now they are designing good looking cars. I remember in the 90’s the 626 and Mazda Protege were the only models that were mass marketed in America.
The good cars they have were not even sold in America.
Mazda3 pretty descent but it just reminds me of the Protege that got fatter. (just compare the old car it’s from thin to fat)
If you want to Modify this Mazda6 or Mazda3 it will be a nightmare for a Tuner because performance parts are limited and not even an SRI or CAI.
Besides driving dynamics, I always think Mazda styling (for sedans, anyway) is a notch above the competition.
But there are the occasional tradeoffs (NVH) as you’ve mentioned above – but still, I’ve owned 3 in the last 20 years, and each one was fun to drive, relative to the competition.
Great review! I had a 5-door V6 Manual. Loved the storage compartment and was very smooth and comfortable but still tossable. Understeer almost got me a couple times though.
The engine had a good sound, but muted. Road noise and various squeaks and rattles were problems and the manual was clunky at best.
Mazda has no idea (nor should they care) but a rental Mazda 6 that I drove from Pittburgh to Cleveland to Detroit to Columbus (it was work not a vacation)back in 2004 finally convinced me to give it up buying domestic cars. I was very pleasantly surprised. Mazda didn’t so much pick up a new customer as GM lost a long-time (long-suffering) one.
BEAT:
If you want to Modify this Mazda6 or Mazda3 it will be a nightmare for a Tuner because performance parts are limited and not even an SRI or CAI.
Not sure where you’re getting this from. The 3.0L V6 Duratec is one of the most popular engines on the road and the 2.3L I4 is lightweight and easily modified. There is an abundance of engine and suspension mods on the market, ranging from intakes to turbo setups for both engines. A little research goes a long way.
Really There are high performance parts for Mazda6 and Mazda3. I wonder where?
There are A FEW after market parts and body kits but who wants to body kit a car this already looks chubby in any angle. Mazda is terrible on high speed turns etc etc.
I am talking about more complicated stuff than just short ram intake or ceramic brakes.
That’s my point
The main reason that the Mazda6 always loses out to the Accord in a real world comparison is because the Accord is simply a better car in far to many ways to list here. Yeah the Mazda is a good handling car but The majority of all Mazdas a I have driven were also good drivers. THAT is Mazdas selling point to attract folks to their products. The problem is that once the test drive is over and you need to assess the rest of the vehicle that Mazda does end up lacking. I have experince with every 626 and 6 model since the 1980s and the best way to describe the 6 is “flimsy” compared to an Accord or even Camry.
Now how is this a 4 star review? The jist of the review is that the Mazda 6i is a good handling car, yet at the end you correctly sum up the handling advantage to a set of very good AND expensive tires. I have driven enough FWD Japanese cars to know that a wheel and tire change generally equates to a very noticable improvement in handling and braking. The difference between a Camry (of all cars)with stock wheel and tires and an upgrade to some low profile VR rated rubber is Night and Day!
Now lets be honest the 2.3l engine in the 6 is a dog! Put three adults in a 4cyl 6i and the car is screaming blood murder! Once you put a decent load in one of these things you quickly remember why an Accord or camry come equiped with a more compliate suspension, and higher profile tires.
The problem for Mazda and the Mazda6 is that the # is such a good car! It is smaller and lighter yet comes with the same engine. The only reason to buy a 6 over a 3 is space, but if space is what you need their are just better alternatives out there.
The Mazda6 does make for an excellent low priced rental car though. I always have a smile when I see an available Mazda6 at Hertz, that is funny because I could never see myself buying one.
# /= 3
Easy on the shift key there, whatdoiknow1.
“I have experince with every 626 and 6 model since the 1980s and the best way to describe the 6 is “flimsy” compared to an Accord or even Camry.”
My father put a quarter of a million miles on a GLC back in 1987. I once bought a Protege with 125,000 miles on it and drove it like I stole it. They little shitbox never complained. I drove my 1987 RX-7 Turbo II over 150 mph with one hand resting lazily on the steering wheel. While I understand the appeal of the Camry (we’ve gone through 5 in my family), I would never buy one before an equivalent Mazda product. Where else would I go for a Rotary Miller-cycle DSI whip with oscillating air fents and a solar powered interior fan?
BEAT, you should really do more research before you spout out more nonsense. There are many, many aftermarket parts available for Mazdas. No, it’s not like a Honda B or D-series motor which have been around for ages, the MZR line is relatively new.
Look up some of the forums.
Mazda is a smaller company than some of the ones you described, but they’ve always specialized in quirky engines…Miller-cycle, rotary, hydrogen to name a few. Alot of those items you mentioned weren’t developed by the automakers, but their suppliers. Packing a bunch of technology into a car doesn’t make it always make it a better car.
>Beat
Mazda doesn’t do anything special? You are kidding right, there is one little thing called the rotary engine that no one else does. Love it or hate it, it is unique.
Mazda’s are not appliances so they do not appeal to the general public. There are fewer Mazda dealers than Honda and Toyota so that plays a part as well I’m sure.
It’s not Germanic in feel; the Germans just know how to make their cars feel like Mazdas.
I have a 2004 Mazda6s, MT, that I bought in December 2004 just before Christmas. It wasn’t everything I wanted (no sun roof), but I got what I still think was a great deal on it, $17,500 + tax & license. I still love that car to this day. While the V6 engine barely produces north of 200 hp, it still feels fast, and certainly is fast through the corners. The body roll around the 30 mph on ramp onto the freeway near my house is non-existent even at 55 mph. All the little cubbys from the sunglass holder between the visors to the cup holders between the seats seem first rate. the door panels, seats, etc. are all wearing well. The only bad thing that I can think of saying about the car in my 3+ years of ownership is that the transmission can be somewhat grabby if you try to drive the car like a Camcord. But, put the pedal to the floor and drive it the way you know you want to drive it, and the transmission behaves wonderfully.
I have had no trouble driving it on long trips myself. My mom lives 500+ miles from me; so, I certainly have experience in driving my Mazda6 over long distances.
I’ll take my Mazda6s over a Camry or Accord of the same age in a heart beat.
The overriding problem with this 6 compared to the competition was lack of interior room relative to the Camcords. I remember someone from Mazda admitting that they blew it on that score and that they wouldn’t make the same mistake again. It’s a compromise that would work for me, but I’m not a typical bread and butter buyer. It’s the sedan I would buy if I had to buy a sedan in that class. People who really want midsize sedans aren’t typically looking for the exact mix that the 6 offers. I’m sure the new 6 will try to be a Camcord with Zoom Zoom, and something will probably be lost along the way. That’s how it goes. The masses have spoken.
The Altima 2.5 is competitive in price, has 10% better fuel economy, 20 more horses, and the styling is sex on wheels (for a “family” car). I’d look at it before the 6 if I’m looking for a midsize sedan.
I’d also look at a Malibu/Aura if GM suddenly, magically became a viable company.
Strippo : People who really want midsize sedans aren’t typically looking for the exact mix that the 6 offers.
I think Altima offers a similar mix, executed much better (just my opinion). I also wonder what the presence of the Ford Fusion does to the 6’s appeal.
BEAT – The rotary engine was conceptualized by Felix Wankel and put into production by only two companies, NSU and Mazda, despite research by both GM and Mercedes. Mazda is the sole automobile company on the planet to have continued production of the rotary and all of the important advances on this motor are attributed to Mazda. Whether or not it is everyone’s cup of tea, it adds a diversity to the automobile market which would be sorely lacking otherwise.
As to Mazda performance parts, it seems that there are a great number of them on racetracks every weekend. In the BMWCCA events I have attended, one of the instructors drives a well-thrashed series 1 Miata which routinely finds its way around much faster cars due to its light weight, handling prowess and her skill as a driver.
Whether you like them or not, the fact that they are building cars which are engineered to be more than transport appliances adds a vital part to the overall car spectrum in much the same way that Porsche, Ferrari, BMW and others also add to the spectrum of non-boring cars. As enthusiasts, we should be thankful for people at all of these companies who are trying to keep some semblance of “feel” in driving. Although the general public seems to feel otherwise, I’m happy to have the choice between a car with some soul and an isolated, efficient transportation module.
Sorry, I’m gonna have to disagree with some of this review.
I’m a diehard Mazda owner. Lets see, 12 years of driving, all of them Mazdas (2 626’s and now a Miata).
The interior quality is my beef. Nothing wrong with anything, but to say its better than a Lexus is just wrong. Its not. I’d argue the 3 has better materials and fit than the 6.
Will agree they drive great, and I like the size (not everyone wants a huge sedan, but we do like power…so Civic size but with a better motor…meanwhile hardly anyone gives customers this choice). But they feel a little cheap, and they’re pretty noisy.
I don’t think this particular model (4cyl/auto) deserves 4 stars. 3 is maybe ok.
I commute 1,800 miles/month into NYC driving my 04 Mazda6 Wagon (3.0L/5M). Granted it’s noisy on I-78 & twacks a lot on the pulvarized pavement of the Pulaski Skyway, but it’s a hoot to drive – slick shifter, good powerband, smooth + happy revving motor.
I could drive my in-laws 05 Accord EX (2.4L/5A) to work & save about $160/month on gas. Without a shadow of a doubt, the fun of driving the 6 is worth $40 a week (even or perhaps especially in Manhattan traffic) to me.
Mazda doesn’t do anything special? You are kidding right, there is one little thing called the rotary engine that no one else does. Love it or hate it, it is unique.
Two things:
1) Who the hell cares? I’ve never heard of anyone buying a Mazda because they offer a rotary in one car that no one buys.
2) If it was so damned special, why has it only been on just the one car (that no one buys) for as long as I can remember? Either use it throughout the range or dump it and put the 3.5L V-6 or EcoBoost 2.5L four in the RX-whateverthey’reuptonow and be done with it! It’s that simple. There’s a reason why no one else uses rotaries in their cars: they’re crap. Too thirsty. No torque. Too much oil.
Beat,
Your argument falls apart because you base your argument on the fact that the Mazda6 has no aftermarket.
I don’t personally own a Mazda6, so I can’t attest to it’s aftermarket without doing more research than I’m willing, but Mazdas as an overarching whole have a pretty solid aftermarket with at the very least the MX-5 and the RX-8. I personally own a Mazdaspeed3, and find the aftermarket to be acceptable, although the car does not have as widespread a following as say a Civic Si. Furthermore, Mazda has an inhouse tuning section, which is more than I can say about Toyota and Honda (TRD is a joke.) Saying Mazdas are hard to find parts for because it’s hard to find parts for a Mazda6 is like saying Hondas are hard to find parts for because it’s hard to find parts for an Odyssey.
To say that Mazda doesn’t offer anything unique and attractive compared to other car companies is just straight up ignorant. I get the impression you’re just arguing because you want to be right even though you know you’re wrong, but I’ll assume you really just don’t know. Please name one car that any other manufacturer makes that can even hold a candle to the MX-5 at that price point (namely, a RWD, light, track-ready car). The RX-8 is also a car that no other manufacturer can emulate (although the market for this car is admittedly niche). The fact is that Mazda makes cars that mainly appeal to the road-racing minded driver, which is a pretty small subset of the population. The company spends a lot of effort in tuning the chassis and suspension of their cars, and have to cut corners in other departments. This makes their cars less mainstream, which is probably why they don’t sell as well. Not because they don’t make a GT-R level car, nor make a hybrid, nor make a rally car.
I have liked this car from the exact day it rolled out. And still do.
Put in the 3 interior inside and it would be perfect.
I’m afraid the next 6 will not have the appeal of this one.
This car looks hot (after 6 years) and has the right size (like the Fusion).
Hello all! Thank you for reading. [i]drifter : Compared to ToyHoNis counterparts, Mazdas has been less fuel efficient, noisier, rougher riding and comes with expensive tires that help handling but don’t last long. While auto journalists love them for their handling and styling, car buying public has shunned the mostly. [/i] Yup, I priced those Pilots at Tire Rack: $198. They are worth every penny, but damn, that’s a lotta pennies. crc : Too bad they’ve ditched the wagon and the hatchback. You can still get the 5-door in this bodystyle. whatdoiknow1 : Now how is this a 4 star review? The jist of the review is that the Mazda 6i is a good handling car, yet at the end you correctly sum up the handling advantage to a set of very good AND expensive tires. I have driven enough FWD Japanese cars to know that a wheel and tire change generally equates to a very noticable improvement in handling and braking. The difference between a Camry (of all cars) with stock wheel and tires and an upgrade to some low profile VR rated rubber is Night and Day! Except all Camrys have VR tires and that’s the only thing holding a (non-SE) Camry to the ground! The new Camry’s base suspension understeers, rolls and pitches just as hard (maybe harder) than a Lincoln Town Car. The Mazda 6 is a solid four star car for its design. Great suspension, excellent fit and finish and the styling is so clean, timeless and elegant. The Honda Accord has always had Mazda-like performance for a wider audience, but let’s face it, the latest model is a full-sizer and is a strange looking beast. whatdoiknow1 : Now lets be honest the 2.3l engine in the 6 is a dog! Put three adults in a 4cyl 6i and the car is screaming blood murder! Once you put a decent load in one of these things you quickly remember why an Accord or camry come equiped with a more compliate suspension, and higher profile tires. Its not a dog, the final drive + 5-speed auto helps a fair bit. Even with 3 people the car isn’t too slow, compared to a 4cyl Camcord. Now if it had a 4-spd auto, I’d totally agree with you. Strippo: People who really want midsize sedans aren’t typically looking for the exact mix that the 6 offers. And the sales figures prove it. Kind of a shame though. The interior is smaller, but does it matter to most drivers? It’s the same reason why we don’t need SUVs, sedans don’t need to get bigger and bigger if 2-3 passengers is all you carry. Not to mention the trunk in the 6 is BIGGER than the new Accord. Jerome10 : The interior quality is my beef. Nothing wrong with anything, but to say its better than a Lexus is just wrong. Its not. I’d argue the 3 has better materials and fit than the 6. The upper half of the 6’s dashboard had polymers that were richer textured and squishier than the Lexus ES 350 I tested. That’s the cold, hard truth. Jerome10: I don’t think this particular model (4cyl/auto) deserves 4 stars. 3 is maybe ok. I included the classic, not fussy, not overkill design and packaging into the mix. What you get with the 6 is pretty unique. And they spent money where you’d like it: Michelin Pilots (debatable) and cool things like that coin tray. BEAT : Jerome10 is a good example of being honest. Yes he is a Mazda Lover but he doesn’t agree that Mazda is better than Lexus. Nobody said that: its only the upper half of the IP. Don’t generalize an 800 word TTAC review, people. We get too granular in our analysis for that.
Wait did you really say that cars now-days don’t use chassis at all? Regardless of how much you tune cars, it is “very obvious” that even if you are a tuner, you’re not a driver. And honestly the term “high performance parts” is subjective and has not been thrown around until your last post. What exactly do you consider a “high performance part”?
Strippo: People who really want midsize sedans aren’t typically looking for the exact mix that the 6 offers.
And the sales figures prove it. Kind of a shame though. The interior is smaller, but does it matter to most drivers? It’s the same reason why we don’t need SUVs, sedans don’t need to get bigger and bigger if 2-3 passengers is all you carry. Not to mention the trunk in the 6 is BIGGER than the new Accord.
You’re preaching to the choir, but I think when push comes to shove the wife is the one making the decision on which midsize family sedan to buy, so catering to the interests of TTAC readers and the like is ultimately bad for business in this segment.
limmin :
Mazda6: A very underrated car, constantly eclipsed by the big boys. And right now, the deal of the century.
Definitely an amazing deal right now. The car reviewed here can be bought for less than $18k (MSRP $21,550). Someone try to tell me they can get more for anywhere near that price (Mazda3 notwithstanding).
I would have bought this car last month, since it was on sale for a hot 15k, but I didn’t want to own a new car that would become obsolete within half a year. I got a Camry instead. Bad mistake! I really love the styling, even if it’s a tad old, but this will make a great bargain once the new models hit the showrooms. But wow, the new model is a god damn supermodel and will make the old one look so plain jane!
The Mazda6 had one strong model year, 2003.
But they even blew that one by tying many options to the Sport Package, then having a limited supply of the body kit included in the Sport Package.
Result: a glut of non-Sport cars, and a shortage of those with it.
They sorted this out later, but by then the Mazda3 had arrived and stolen all of the 6’s thunder.
For reliability info:
http://www.truedelta.com
Did they ever fix the front passenger seat? When the wife and I were last looking we test drove the 6 and I loved the wagon, but the front passenger seat was set too high for me (my head hit the roof with every bump) and wasn’t adjustable for height.
The sales guy told me that none of the trim levels came with an (height) adjustable seat. Other than that I loved the car, but as it would be the wife’s and I would be riding in the passenger seat at least some of the time, I didn’t need the concussion.
Alas, by getting rid of the wagon/hatch in the 6 series, Mazda just narrowed down their niche. Pity.
When we went car shopping this spring for a family hauler, one of my stops was the Mazda dealer.
Its a shame there was no new 6 wagon, or I’d probably have pushed hard even though rear seat space seemed a bit less than required. I found one overpriced used one and LOVED it, but that’s all that was around.
Anyways, we bought a 5 instead. All I know is that if Mazda can make that really-mini-van handle as well as it does and feel as zippy with the same 2.3 4 pot, I can’t imagine what they can do with something a little leaner like a 3 or a 6 with a V6.
I do know that next time I go to replace my own car, I’ll be stopping at the Mazda dealer first.
BEAT:
With all due respect, you consistently interject your Lancer into forum responses as some sort of top-tier automobile that demands respect. This alone, in my opinion, reflects poorly on your ability to criticize Mazda for lack of enthusiast appeal.
Aside from the Saturn ION, and perhaps the Chevy Cobalt, the new Lancer has been one of the most universally-panned small cars on sale today. It has a garbage interior, mediocre driving dynamics, sluggish acceleration, and offers no standout features aside from its admittedly sharp styling. I have yet to see one review outside the likes of Family Circle that has any sort of praise for the car. See the TTAC review, for example: https://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/mitsubishi-lancer-review/
A (false, IMO) lack of aftermarket support for the Mazda 3 and 6 determine their worth as enthusiast choices? For goodness’ sakes, the GM J-bodies had fantastic aftermarket support, with a plethora of gaudy (“colorful”) add-ons, superchargers, turbos, shift linkages, suspension mods, and the like, and they were miserable, awful little shitboxes. If the availability of aftermarket crap for a given small car determines its worth, the 1995 Neon must have been the pinnacle of subcompact engineering.
And to even breathe “Evo” in relation to the 0%-financing-grade Lancer is just painful to hear. The two cars are so different as to share the Lancer name for insurance underwriting-purposes alone. And what of Mitsubishi’s abysmal dealer network, questionable warranty exclusions, and eyebrow-raising corporate ethics?
Mitsu’s racing heritage up against Mazda and Honda? Heh. Cute.
Mazda has a storied racing past, with respect from a large swath of the automotive media and enthusiast base. The MX-5 is the de-facto sporting roadster, on and off the track. The RX-8 is a tech leader and track terror. The ‘Speed3 redefines cheap speed, while the company has spent much time on new technological advances like their Miller-cycle supercharged engines, micro-displacement V6s (1.8L V6 in the MX-3 anyone?), snickety-snick gearboxes, superb chassis (yes, cars still have a chassis) development, etc.
There is a wealth of constructive critique and intelligent discussion about various aspects of the automotive industry on TTAC. Perhaps instead of spouting your opinions as fact (PERIOD!), you might want to sit back and absorb what some of the very bright minds on this site have to share, and let your “facts” be a little more malleable.
It’s hard to accept that what you have isn’t as superior as the Mazda3, I know. I went through the same thing when I bought a Ninja 650R instead of the Suzuki SV650 only to realize later that the SV was simply the better machine. But open your mind a little and the pain will subside.
-Drew
seoultrain : But then, the overwhelming majority of Mazda6’s I see out there are bone stock. You’re trying to criticize the Mazda6 for not offering something that frankly no one in the market for this car cares about.
And, stock for stock, the Mazda6 is one of the best (if not the best) way to aggressively shuttle 4 people, 15-ish cu-ft of cargo for $22k or less. And do it with nice style and proportions.
Re: this aftermarket diatribe…I’m sure you can make a Camry and Corolla into a serious stealth bomber with aftermarket suspension/engine upgrades from its corporate brothers, but this whole discussion is completely out of whack.
Enough already!
Well, Sajeev, the review was fantastic.
I’m a big fan of the 6 in its current form and I’m just crossing my fingers that they didn’t botch the replacement car. The fact that the Fusion/Milan/MKZephyr are based on this car’s old bones and are so competitive speaks volumes about how good the 6 was from the jump.
Just like the new 6, I’m just as nervous as I am excited to see the new 3. Reminds me of the title on the second-gen Miata review in Car and Driver. Something to the effect of: “they redesigned the whole car and didn’t screw anything up!” Here’s hoping…
I have deleted the entire exchange between BEAT and TXN3. The comments devolved into flaming and name calling, which are not allowed on this website. Both commentators have been warned that a repeat performance will result in an immediate posting ban.
If anyone feels aggrieved by any comment, please do NOT respond through a comment. Email me and I will sort it out.
I really like to think that the Mazda Engineers know how big a hit the next 6 can be, based on the success of the current and the 3, so I expect them to do a good job with it.
Then again, I expected Honda/Acura to take a stance of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” and give us a turbo 4 in the new TSX, so I’ve been wrong before…
I recall reading a Buick review that said something along the lines of, “noise reduction isn’t exactly a sexy selling point. It’s got to be like tenth on most shopper’s list”. Just sayin’….
Several months ago, I purchased a 5-door 2008 s Grand Touring Mazda6 and offer these observations:
1) The Mazda6 is a “sporty” family sedan, but is hardly a sports sedan. If you want a sports sedan, I suggest you buy one instead of trying to make this car into something it was never intended to be.
2) The 5-door is one of the very few mid-size hatches on the US market (The replacement for this car will only be offered as a sedan). As a result, the 5-door offers versatility that no Camcord can offer and is a heck of a lot more fun to drive than a RAV4 or CRV.
3) The styling of the Mazda6 is nice, but considering the styling of hatches and CUV, the 5-door is particularly nice. You would never know this car is not a sedan.
4) As you live with this car, you begin to really appreciate the straightforward simplicity of the controls. Such a nice departure from “button mania.”
5) The car with the 6 cylinder is relatively quiet and adequately powered. A 6 pot producing 211 ponies is still anemic, but the car is hardly underpowered. I have no idea why Mazda’s turbo 4 is not in this car. That would have really improved the car.
6) Being slated for replacement beginning this Summer, there are some great deals out there for the remaining 2008s. I got mine for a little over $23k with everything except Nav and Sat radio. As such, the car comes equipped like it cost more like $30k.
Taken as a versatile family sedan that is fun to drive, the Mazda6 is hard to fault
Regarding the aftermarket argument: High-performance tuner parts exist for the 6, BUT BUT BUT the car throws a CEL with the addition of any CAI/SRI, which is a major PITA.
I completely agree with this review, but I’m also a major Mazda fanboy (if only their dealers didn’t suck so hard…). The Mazda6 is my favorite car out on the market today (a bold statement, I know), and I will probably buy one before they changeover production to that new Camcord crap. I don’t understand why people keep buying larger and larger Camcords…my father’s old 1990 Camry seemed smaller than today’s Corolla, and yet it was a great family car! I love the slightly smaller size of the Mazda6, the steering feel, the VERY 3-series like suspension/chassis composure, and driver-centric interior. Damn, that steering wheel feels sweet.
I have no idea why Mazda’s turbo 4 is not in this car. That would have really improved the car.
They did, it was called the Mazdaspeed6 and was pretty much a flop. Once again, the car magazines proclaimed it great, and people stayed away in droves.
Lurnberg:
I was thinking of the 244hp version which is in the CX-7 and uses regular gas.
I hope Mazda makes a point to considerably increase the fuel economy in the next 6 and 3. One of the reasons I’m not interested in the 3 and 6 hatch is that they can’t crack 30 highway on the new ratings.
I was just thinking that the Mazda 6’s relative failure in the US reminds me of the late, and great, Ford Contour. It was universally praised by the car mags, but was never a hit for Ford. It’s biggest problem being it was not as big as the Accord or Camry, and the Mazda faces the same criticism. Now that you’ve made the new one bigger Mazda, please don’t make it boring as well.
Hello! Ive been a Mazda Master Tech/Shop Foreman for 26 years, and presently have..20+ Mazdas in my family. We’ve had Millenias, Miatas, 626s, 323s, a Mazda5, Proteges, B-Series Trucks.
Mazda’s “niche” is sporting cars. There are advertised as such, and byu their own admission floundered when they tried to be all things to all people(95-98 Protege, ’98-’02 626)
They KNOW they wont ever be Toyota or Honda. So as family haulers for those that want quiet, the smoothest ride, basically a Japnese-named Buick, perhaps Mazda isnt for you.
And YES–Wednesday I had the ’09 Mazda6 in my posession from corporate. More in every sense of the word than the 1st generation 6, although I do lament not being able to get a manual behind that Duratec 3.7 V6. The 4 cylinder grows from 2.3 to 2.5–and my tech specialist tells me that whatever had the 2.3 before will now get the 2.5.
I will be attending a ’09 Mazda6 Training session in a month.
I happen to think their line-up at present is just fine, although the RX-8 doesnt appel to me(after having both 1st and 2nd generation RX-7s), but I’d REALLY like to see a Mazdaspeed MX-5, Direct Injected Turbo, 240–280 HP.
But I’ll happily soldier on with my ’99 Miata Sport.
I am a huge Mazda fan. Mazdas have always looked better than ToyHonNis’s, and they drive well too. I had a rental 6 a few years back, driving from Denver into the Rockies to Keystone. It was pretty fun on the highway, but better on the way back on some back roads. Real comfortable I thought too. I will miss the wagon and hatch in the new model, but with gas prices up, wagons should gain as the SUV wanes. Maybe Mazda bring it over afterall.
As an owner of a ’07 Mazda 6s I wish, wish, WISH Mazda didn’t chase the Camcord market by making the new 6 bigger and heavier. Even my 6 sometimes feels too wide for a given road or parking lot. Of course I come from a history of driving only small cars, including a Mazda 323 and 626.
There’s a picture of the two generations side-by-side floating around Autoblog and I have to admit the new 6 makes mine look kind of frumpy, but no way do I want the added size. Wouldn’t mind swapping the 3.0 for the 3.7, though!
James2 : I have to admit the new 6 makes mine look kind of frumpy, but no way do I want the added size. Wouldn’t mind swapping the 3.0 for the 3.7, though!
Speaking of the aftermarket, its just a matter of time before people with fully depreciated Mazda/Ford/Lincoln/Jaguar sedans go for cheap thrills and swap their 3.0 Duratecs for the 3.5 or 3.7. After all, people already do it frequently with the 2.5 Duratec…
This is actually the kindest review of the Mazda6 ‘i’ that I’ve ever read! Based on my experience with the 4-cylinder Mazda6, I’m pretty much in agreement with the reviewer.
I own an ’06 Mazda3 s 5-door and, at 49,200 miles (800 miles left on the 50k warranty), I took it in for an odd clicking noise that sounded like a valve problem. Instead, it was a problem with a connecting rod and, long story short, it was out of service for almost three weeks waiting for a new engine to arrive. The dealership kindly offered me a Mazda6 i as a loaner car and they even let me choose it off from their existing new car inventory! I snagged an i Touring 4-door in Performance White with Beige interior.
After spending three weeks and around 1100 miles with it, I was seriously considering buying it instead of returning it! The interior was well designed, used high-quality and good-feeling materials and as functional as my beloved Hondas from 2005 and prior. I also was content with the 2.3L I-4/5-speed automatic combo despite my initial expectations otherwise. The greatest fault of this powertrain wasn’t performance or driveability- it was NOISE! My Mazda3 has this same 2.3L but with the manual tranny and it sounds like a gem when revved and is generally unobtrusive otherwise. In the Mazda6, I seriously wondered if there was a hole in the exhaust system. I could see how that flaw could be a deal-breaker for the average mid-size sedan buyer.
I have often wondered how many potential Mazda6 sales were cannibalized by the Mazda3 which was introduced one year later in 2004. The Mazda3 handles better, accelerates quicker, weighs less resulting in better fuel economy, costs significantly less and it’s interior isn’t that much smaller than the too-small-for-its-class Mazda6.
In any case, the ’09 Mazda6 is a significantly larger and better performing vehicle that will easily be the sexiest design amongst mid-sizers. I’m almost certain that it will be my my next car…I’ll just wait about six months to let them work out any early-production issues.
For those car buyers whose needs are met by the outgoing ’08 Mazda6, now is a golden opportunity to steal one (figuratively speaking). After I read this article earlier today, I emailed my Mazda dealer for a quote on an ’08 Mazda6 i Sport VE (Value Edtion) 4-door. The car stickers for $21,550 with automatic transmission as the only option added. My guy offered it for $17,500 plus TAX out the door. You can’t get an automatic Mazda3 s for that price! The Mazda6 i Touring 4-door he has on the lot stickers for $24,115 and he quoted $19,700 plus TAX out the door. FYI- the Touring model adds heated leather seats, heated side mirrors and a 200-watt Bose audio system to the Sport VE trim level. The specific one quoted here also had the optional power moonroof and rear-wing spoiler.
It wasn’t surprising when he told me that they’re stuck with a lot more V6 ‘s’ models than 4-cylinder ‘i’. They still have two ’07 Mazda6 s Touring 4-doors in a color called “Violet Gray” and stiker prices of about $26k- can be had for only $18k for anyone can live with the unique hue and the V6’s low-to-mid 20’s fuel economy average.
It’s unfortunate that Mazda replaced the 6 station wagon (I think they called it ‘SportWagon’) with the 5-door hatchback last year. Not that the 5-door was bad, but the wagon was more practical and it could even be had with a manual transmission. It was a great, much more sporting alternative to station wagons like the Subaru Legacy or more expensive (and less reliable) VW Passat.
Alas, the market spoke and, like so many other station wagons before it, the Mazda6 SportWagon went away. It’s not too different from how Mazda replaced the ‘just right’ MPV minivan with not one, but three vehicles (Mazda5, CX-7, and CX-9). Imagine if Mazda had foregone all the development costs for those three new vehicles and instead applied it developing a hybrid system for the MPV, making it the first hybrid minivan brought to market.
I guess that’s what happens when Ford gets to call the shots. Taking that into consideration, I guess we should be satisfied we get products from Mazda that are as good as they are.
reclusive_in_nature : I recall reading a Buick review that said something along the lines of, “noise reduction isn’t exactly a sexy selling point. It’s got to be like tenth on most shopper’s list”. Just sayin’….
Nice try. This ain’t a $32,000 Buick. :)
A sexy selling point isn’t the problem this time ’round. Like a slap in the (Camcord buyer’s) face, the Mazda 6 gives a knee-jerk reaction once you hit the cruise control at 75mph.
Beelzebubba :
I have often wondered how many potential Mazda6 sales were cannibalized by the Mazda3 which was introduced one year later in 2004. The Mazda3 handles better, accelerates quicker, weighs less resulting in better fuel economy, costs significantly less and it’s interior isn’t that much smaller than the too-small-for-its-class Mazda6.
I have an 05′ Mazda 6i (stock) that I got during the wonder summer fire sale that was June/July 2005. While I started out looking at the 3, the 6 stole the sale because I could get a lot more “car” for the price. For a little over $17 total I got standard power windows/locks, ABS, side air bags, and air conditioning which at least at the time were costly options, and quickly made it more expensive than the base model 6.
Ohh Mazda6, if you were any more beautiful I would explode. What I don’t understand is the one-year gap between the ’02 mazda626 and the ’04 mazda6 up here in Canada. Are we not good enough for an ’03 mazda6?! Oh well, at least I know when I go buy myself an ’04 GT-I4 it’ll be free of those first-model-year-blues!
… erm, -mazda never develops anything really special…
ummmm,…
RESPECT MAH FURAI AUTHORITAH!!!!!!!!!!!
I purchased a 6 SportWagon in the same 2005 fire sale for $19k. The only option it had was the sport grill. It was a great car and I liked it very much but it felt a little flimsy (when closing the doors, for instance). That and I had the clutch replaced at 12k and it still exhibited the same problem when I brought it in initially.
I enjoyed it for 2 years and traded it for an XC90. The new 6 looks great.
The reason that I bought a new Mazda 3 in 2004 was that I couldn’t get the Mazda 6 station wagon with the 4 cylinder engine, and the V6 was not fuel efficient. I like my Mazda 3 except for the inadequate cargo space and weak air conditioning.
I do not understand why the Mazda 6 station wagon is not avialble in the U.S. with the 4 cylinder engine; in Australia it IS available with the 4 cylinder engine.
Mazdas generally handle better than most cars, which is why I like them.
For the U.S. market, Mazda tried to position both the Mazda6 Sport Wagon and the Mazda3 5-door as being the “sportiest” version of each model. As a result, the Mazda6 Wagon was only offered with the larger V6 and the Mazda3 5-door has the 2.3L engine standard (along with 17-inch wheels that are optional on sedans) and the 2.0L isn’t available.
The Canadian market does have the choice of 2.0L or 2.3L in the Mazda3 5-door. It is called the “Sport” rather than 5-door, but essentially can be had in an entry-level 2.0L configuration with 15-inch wheels- just like the Sedan. The Canadian trim levels are different that ours- GX, GS and GT. Basically, the GX = ‘i’, GS = ‘s’, GT = ‘s Touring’. The GT has an option package called the Luxury Package which mirrors the U.S. ‘s Grand Touring’ trim level.
Mazda would be smart to get a 2.0L 5-door into U.S. showrooms NOW!
I think the engine choices in the 6 are the main reason why it doesn’t sell well compared to the CamCord.
The 2.3, while nice, is relatively thirty but that is in large part due to its age. My opinion could be slightly bias though because I think the 05′ was the last model year to have the 4-speed automatic.
And Ye Olde Duratec 30 only produces around 200 horse power which in the land of 260+ HP V6 CamCords just does not look nice on a spec sheet.
FRE:
I do not understand why the Mazda 6 station wagon is not avialble in the U.S. with the 4 cylinder engine; in Australia it IS available with the 4 cylinder engine.
That is an excellent question given the existence of the Mazda 5 which only comes with the 4-cylinder. However I suspect that Mazda U.S. knew that the 2.3 would be considered “pokey” in the U.S. market and even more so given the extra weight of the station wagon model, so they dug around the in the Ford parts bin and found the 3.0.
TTACFanatic:
“However I suspect that Mazda U.S. knew that the 2.3 would be considered “pokey” in the U.S. market and even more so given the extra weight of the station wagon model, so they dug around the in the Ford parts bin and found the 3.0.”
Probably you are right, but even in 2004, we knew that the price of gasoline would be increasing and the V6 uses about 25% more fuel than the 2.3. I’d expect that the Mazda 6 station wagon with the 2.3 would still, with the manual transmission and a driver who knows how to use it, be able to accelerate from 0 to 60 in not more than 9 seconds, which should certainly be adequate, and probably the top speed would still have exceeded 110 mph. 15 years ago, that would have been considered very peppy.
We’ve become spoiled where power is concerned. Also, I don’t know what people are doing with all that power anyway. Around here (Albuquerque, NM) people are still pokey in accelerating up to speed to get onto the freeway, so they don’t even use that power when they should.
The one thing I definitely like the least about my ’04 6 wagon is the fuel consumption. The V6 isn’t a terrible engine, but for the amount of gas it guzzles (I get about 20-22mpg on mostly highway driving) the performance it delivers isn’t really worth it. If I could somehow yank the thing out and put a VW 2.0 TFSI in, I think I’d be much happier.
Other than the fuel consumption, it’s been a great car for the past 4 years, and will be for several more. Its handling and steering feel make commuting more entertaining, and its cargo space is more than enough for just about anything I need to haul. I too am sad they got rid of the wagon for next-gen US models, but frankly, I probably wouldn’t have gone for a 2nd-gen 6, as the current 6’s lack of size is pretty appealing to me.
Oddly enough, few people seem to understand why I went with the wagon version. My parents still view the car as a frumpy mommy-mobile akin to the Griswold Family Truckster. A Mazda salesman once asked me, “why’d you have to get the wagon?” In light of how the general American public views wagons, I find it entirely unsurprising that the 6 wagon died off for ’08. Unfortunate, but unsurprising. I guess I’ll be keeping this car for some time longer.
flacken:
“I probably wouldn’t have gone for a 2nd-gen 6, as the current 6’s lack of size is pretty appealing to me.”
I do not know why people complain about the size so much. It will seat 4 comfortably and 5 with some in the “bitch” seat; but that seat is aptly named no matter the size of the vehicle.
I have only found one instance where I wish the 6 sedan was bigger; when I was in the parking lot of Menards trying to shove a half sheet of drywall into the trunk. I got it in eventually but it was an exceedingly tight squeeze width-wise.
Also, unfortunately I suspect that the 6 sport wagon will continue to go unloved by the masses even if we do see the foreboding $5 gallon. As good a car as it may be both in terms of driving, style, and utility most people will shun the wagon because their mom drove a wagon … I think that explains itself.
With my 2004 Mazda 3 hatchback, I get > 30 mpg on the highway and if I slowed down (I drive about 75 – 80), I could get more.
It is difficult getting my bicycle into the hatchback, which is one of the reasons that I wanted a station wagon. Salespersons seem to see a van as a substitute for station wagons, but I don’t want a van. They don’t handle as well and they use more fuel. They are also more sensitive to cross winds and, because they are less aerodynamic, they use more fuel. It’s interesting that station wagons are more readily available in other countries than they are here.
I have only about 12,500 miles on my Mazda 3, even though I’ve had it for almost 4 years. I’ve actually put more miles on my motorcycles which, of course, get much better mileage. Considering how few miles I put on the Mazda, it should last me another 15 years. However, if a good wagon becomes available, I might replace it sooner. Actually, the increasing price of gasoline could reduce the popularity of vans and SUVs and increase the demand for station wagons.
TTAC:
The room in the back of the Mazda6 is far from generous unless the people in front aren’t that big and don’t have the front seats all the way back. I’m six feet tall and my seat is all the way back and my legs are not particularly long. The rear seat is fine for ocassional use, but that’s about it.
The Sport Wagon and the 5-door were both added to the lineup for the ’04 model year. I’m actually surprised that they didn’t kill the 5-door at the end of ’06 with the Wagon. I’ve seen very few of the Mazda6 5-door on the road or on the lot at my dealer. A search of new inventory on Mazda’s website shows approximately one 5-door in dealer inventory for every 14-15 4-door models. It’s been a similar ratio for at least a couple of years. It doesn’t help that the 5-door looks so similar to the 4-door, but costs $1,000 more. For whatever reason, Mazda also limited the exterior colors on the 5-door to just five choices (one being a hideous electric blue) compared to the 4-door which has typically had 8-10 choices.
American buyers have not been receptive to hatchbacks in the past, despite the fact that they’re functionally superior to cars with a trunk. The perception that a hatchback is synonymous with economy cars is one factor. Vanity is another- they won’t drive it if it doesn’t look cool. The sales success is of the Mazda3 5-door proves that Americans will buy a hatchback if you make it look hot!
In Europe and other international markets, there is actually a 5-door and a Wagon version of the new Mazda6. Edmunds.com had a news brief with a few photos of both styles and they commented- “The Mazda6 wagon looks even better than the sedan!”
Here’s the link to see it. There are six pics of the wagon and four of the 5-door.
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/News/articleId=124855
Being the OCD-freak that I am, I also had to check it out in a lot greater detail at mazda.co.uk. Their first effort wasn’t a hit in the U.S., but the second time WILL be the charm if they look this good!
I also don’t understand people complaining about a lack of room in the Mazda6. I and my wife are both 6’1″ and I can sit in the driver’s seat with plenty of room behind it for my wife. That was one of the things we checked out on every car that we test drove. Of course I don’t keep the seat all the way back as that would make driving rather uncomfortable from what would be a less than optimal driving position. When I told my wife that people were talking about the lack of room in the Mazda6, she asked if they were crazy or had spent any time in a 6. She said that she wouldn’t be caught dead in an Accord or Camry, and hoped that Mazda didn’t lose the sporting nature that sets them apart from the other midsized sedans on the road. I guess we will see.
To the person that only gets 20-22 mpg from mostly freeway driving, is it much stop and go or slow and go? I get 20 mpg when I’m driving around town, mid 20’s on the rare occasion that I do a significant amount of freeway miles along with in town driving, and high 20’s on long trips. I also like quick starts and driving about 5 mph over the speed limit; so, I’m not babying it. I’ve tracked my mileage from the first fill up in December 2004.
Lumbergh21: I also don’t understand people complaining about a lack of room in the Mazda6. I and my wife are both 6′1″ and I can sit in the driver’s seat with plenty of room behind it for my wife…Of course I don’t keep the seat all the way back as that would make driving rather uncomfortable from what would be a less than optimal driving position.
+1
I’m 5’10 and another person the same height could sit behind me in perfect comfort in the 6. Then again, when reviewing a car, my driving position is less than ghetto fabulous.
In fairness, in my own personal 2-door coupes, I sometimes lay back to relax a bit in traffic and crank up the tunes. But its a coupe and nobody’s behind me.
So I guess I can see where both parties have ground, but I don’t think making bigger and fatter cars is the right answer. Especially in today’s climate.
Great review!
The Mazda6 is also on my list of potential next car to get. I’ve always loved the styling of these cars and after driving the snot out of them at a recent Zoom Zoom Live event, I’m hooked.
Why the hell is it so hard to find a 5 door V6 model with a MT? Or any 6 with a V6 and a MT? In the event that I can’t afford the Speed3 (crossing my fingers) a nice used 6 with a V6/MT combo would be great!
One can only hope that Mazda knows what they’re doing with the new version of the 6. The styling looks nice and all but why is there no MT option for the V6? I’d assume that it would be keeping with the car’s sporty nature to offer a MT across the model range.
SupaMan: Sadly, you cannot disparage Mazda, or any other carmaker for the difficulty in finding a car with MT. It is your fellow drivers who are the culprit as the number of MT cars is becoming vanishingly small.
Note to Robert: Perhaps there is an interesting piece here on the percentage of MT cars by manufacturer and model. It’s getting smaller and smaller as people are unable to crank their own windows and operate a three-pedal car…
Hand cranked windows; now that is a very, very small percentage of cars or trucks sold.
edgett:
I’m not blaming Mazda. Matter of fact, I’m praising them they were one of a handful of companies that offered a midsize car with a V6/MT combo (Honda was the other for a while until recently).
Doesn’t anyone ever teach their kids to drive a stick anymore?
This car would’ve been perfect…
Maybe we’ll see more V6/MT combos if marketing folks promoted the fact that manual transmissions give you the economy you need with the performance you want…and more performance for less money than a similarly equipped slushbox model.
I travel a lot for work and deal with Hertz (instead of the better-stocked Avis) because they’re cheaper (i.e. worse) than any other rental company. This is the only car I ever look forward to receiving. A bit noisy, true. But it’s fun to drive on a road trip and great for passing on long highways. Feels great in corners, and though it’s smaller than a Camry (which is looking more and more like a Chrysler Concord to me with every redesign), it’s not as inefficient in its use of space as, say, a Pontiac G6. Fun little car, and a great value.
Carguy622 wrote, “Unfortunately the dealer treated me with no respect and then jerked me around, and Mazda dealers are scarce.”
I had a similar experience in 2004.
When I returned to the U.S. after living out of the country for 10 years, I decided to buy a Mazda 3. I was favorably impressed after doing a test drive, but then the sales manager left me sitting in the showroom for about 20 minutes, after which I left and went to another dealer. I don’t know what the matter was with those people.
According to another poster, the manual transmission provides better economy and performance than the automatic. I agree, at least in theory. However, even most people with manual transmissions do not know how to use them well so with the average driver, the automatic would out perform the manual in both economy and performance. Part of the problem is a lack of adequate instruction on how to use a manual transmission well.
With a manual transmission, best economy is obtained by starting out with a heavy foot but upshifting at the lowest speed at which the engine will still run properly and smoothly after the upshift. That does not result in particularly smooth operation because there is an abrubt interruption in power at each upshift, followed by a sudden resumption of power, assuming that the shifts are executed in a manner to maximise econony, i.e., no feathering of the throttle while shifting, but rather, instantly releasing it and then instantly depressing it. Thus, on every upshift, the passengers heads will move forward, then back again, which they probably would not like. If the car is accelerated slowly, too much time is spent in the lower gears and maximum efficiency is not obtained ’til the car is in the highest gear. With an automatic transmission, the driver has less control so probably moderate (not slow) acceleration is best, followed by slow acceleration from the speed at which the transmission can be made to shift into top gear with the torque converter locked up.
A serious source of inefficiency with a spark ignition engine is the throttle valve. Unless it is fully open, power is wasted sucking air into the engine past the throttle valve, which is why the engine is more efficient with the accelerator depressed most of the way. A principal reason that Diesels are more efficient is that they do not have a throttle valve. In general (there may be some exceptions), maximum economy is obtained at the lowest speed at which top gear can be used (and, with an automatic transmission, with the torque converter locked). The power to drive the car increases with the cube of the speed so, as you drive faster, the engine becomes more efficient but the power to drive the car increases faster than the engine efficiency, which is why driving at higher speeds reduces fuel efficiency.
With a manual transmission, a skilled driver can probably beat the EPA fuel mileage estimates.
MANUAL TRANSMISSION AVAILABILITY
It has been noted that manual transmissions are becoming more and more rare. But, consider this.
From time to time, we read about accidents resulting from unintended acceleration. Contrary to what one might think from news reports, there is general agreement among safety experts that the cause is almost always driver error, i.e., the driver presses the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal. With a manual transmission, that error would be far less serious since, unlike an automatic transmission, a manual transmission would not automatically shift to the lowest available gear when the accelerator is depressed. Also, that type of accident most commonly occurs while parking at which time, with a manual transmission, the driver would normally have his foot on the clutch so pressing the accelerator in error would not cause unintended acceleration. Then too, if the driver has his left foot on the clutch, he’d be less likely to put his right foot on the wrong pedal.
Unfortunately, there seem to be no accident statistics indicating the percentage of accident-involved cars which have automatic transmission. Thus, there are no statistics which would make it possible to compare the accident rate of cars with automatic transmissions with cars with manual transmissions. Although there is no proof, I suspect that manual transmissions are safer. If that could be proved statistically, the percentage of cars sold with manual transmissions might increase.
Even for those of us who have a strong preference for a manual transmission, it’s difficult to fault automakers who choose not to offer them. The demand simply doesn’t exist for most mainstream car models.
Honda has been one of the few companies to offer an extensive lineup of models+trim levels available with a manual transmission. While some competitors offered a manual only in basic and/or sporty trim levels, Honda has typically offered the choice across entire model ranges. Even in 2008, you can walk into a Honda dealership and get an Accord EX-L 4-cylinder with a 5-speed manual. Try to find (or even order) a Nissan Altima, Toyota Camry or even the Mazda6 i with similar equipment to the Accord EX-L and with a manual transmission- you’re out of luck! The Altima 2.5S has a 6-speed manual standard, but you can’t select ANY of the option packages offered- the CVT must be selected if you want any upgrades. The Toyota Camry LE and SE have a 5-speed manual, but if you want an XLE it’s automatic-only. The Mazda6 i Sport and Sport VE are the only trim levels with a 5-speed manual, the Touring and Grand Touring models with all the goodies are automatic-only.
The outlook is a little bit better for compact models. The Mazda3, thankfully, can be had with 5-speed manual in ALL trim levels, including the Grand Touring (leather/Bose/Xenon/Navigation). Honda offers a manual in all trim levels of the Civic, even the top-of-the-line EX-L w/Navigation (the Civic Hybrid is considered a separate model, otherwise it would be the only Civic trim not available with manual). Mitsubishi doesn’t offers a manual across the Lancer range, but the Nissan Sentra and Toyota Corolla only have a manual available in their lower one or two trim levels.
Shockingly, the Ford Focus, Dodge Caliber AND Chevrolet Cobalt have manual transmissions standard in even the highest trim level (Caliber with AWD is CVT-only). Unfortunately, you’d still be driving a Ford Focus, Dodge Caliber or Chevrolet Cobalt! Bad idea! Reviews of the Caliber and Cobalt have also made it clear that the manual shifters in both are pretty much the worst out there. I’d take a slushbox Corolla over any of the domestics…
I wonder if we’ll see the manual transmission make a comeback with today’s fuel prices?
Boy, I certainly hope so. I loved my 5 speed manual-equipped Honda Civic and this Hyundai slushbox is making me yearn for the good ol’ days.
FRE: I agree, at least in theory. However, even most people with manual transmissions do not know how to use them well so with the average driver, the automatic would out perform the manual in both economy and performance. Part of the problem is a lack of adequate instruction on how to use a manual transmission well.
I agree in theory too, but I question the automatic outperforming manuals overall. Mostly because you’re neglecting the fact that autoboxes are 5-7% less efficient because of the torque converter. More power and more economy come “standard” with a standard. It’s gonna take a lot of bumper to bumper traffic with drivers who never ride the learning curve to compensate for that gain.
And those in the know already learned that when you pop a manual in neutral (to coast to a stop) the fuel economy goes through the roof.
Namaste, Sajeev.
Almost always, a skilled driver with a manual transmission can beat an automatic, but most drivers are not that skilled.
As you say, automatics are less efficient, but once the torque converter is locked up, the difference is probably
Sajeev Mehta :
And those in the know already learned that when you pop a manual in neutral (to coast to a stop) the fuel economy goes through the roof.
I recently read that in-gear coasting is more efficient than popping into neutral. Apparently when lifting off the throttle while in gear (a higher gear at low rpms), fuel supply is almost completely cut off, whereas neutral makes it switch to ‘idle’ mode, which uses a little more fuel. Even if true, the difference is probably negligible and the driver’s timing is everything.
FRE : As you say, automatics are less efficient, but once the torque converter is locked up, the difference is probably
Yup, but that normally assumes straight highway cruising above the stall speed of the convertor.(usually around 2000rpm) Depending on gearing, this means highway only cruising to get 100% lockup.
The other thing is that just about anyone who owns a stick shift turns into a smooth operator after a few hundred miles of practice. Its one of those necessities after you make the monthly payments. (which is why so few MT vehicles are available, nobody even wants to try!)
p00ch: I recently read that in-gear coasting is more efficient than popping into neutral. Even if true, the difference is probably negligible and the driver’s timing is everything.
Funny you mentioned it, I recently read counter-arguments that say its a crock. If I can dig it up on the internet, I’ll post it. The computer can’t lower fuel to levels similar to (warm) idle and achieve smooth performance, especially above 2000rpm. Not to mention the lean condition engine concerns you get when you bait the Laws of Thermodynamics.
I have one of those trip computers that’s connected to the duty cycle of my car’s fuel injectors and it tells the same story: instant fuel economy goes up 5-10% when you pop into neutral and the car idles at 800rpm at speed.
“Yup, but that normally assumes straight highway cruising above the stall speed of the convertor.(usually around 2000rpm) Depending on gearing, this means highway only cruising to get 100% lockup.”
Actually not the stall speed.
Typically now days, with high-speed engines, the stall speed is well over 2,000 rpm and may even be > than 3,000 rpm on some cars. However, lockup commonly occurs at 2,000 rpm. However, in the interest of smoothness, more modern automatic transmissions lock the converter at a higher speed, resulting in reduced efficiency unfortunately.
Many drivers habitually drive in a lower gear than necessary, partly because modern cars are so quiet that they don’t realize how fast they are running the engine. Running in a lower gear than necessary definitely wastes fuel, a fact of which many drivers are unaware. They may be able to use top gear at speeds as low as 30 mph (depending on the car), but don’t shift into top gear at all in the city because they mistakenly believe that it should be used only on the highway. Also, if they did use top gear in the city, they’d have to do much more shifting because they’d have to downshift every time they slowed down slightly, and most drivers shift as little as they possibly can. However, an automatic is willing to do more shifting which sometimes enables an automatic transmission to be more efficient than a manual transmission in the hands of a lazy driver.
In any case, except possibly with rare exceptions, a good driver who is determined to maximize fuel efficiency can get better mileage with a manual transmission, but most drivers either don’t know how to or are unwilling to do the extra shifting required to maximize economy. I suspect the EPA mileage estimates are based on how they assume the average driver will use the transmission rather than on using it for maximum efficiency, which could explain why EPA mileage figures for city driving are sometimes slightly higher for automatic transmissions than for manual transmissions.
In the future, it may be that continuously variable transmissions with no torque converter will regularly deliver more mpg than manual transmissions.
Sorry, the system somewhat scrambled my previous post and I can’t seem to edit it. So, I’ll try to clarify here.
On both my 1953 and 1955 Packards, the Ultramatic transmission locked the torque converter at speeds as low as 20 mph (about 850 rpm) but, to improve smoothness, more modern transmissions lock the converter at a higher speed at the expense of efficiency.
Good review and very accurate. I should know, we have two 2007 Mazda6’s, one 4-door and one hatchback. Both of our kids are in college and we needed/wanted safe, economical cars for them. After looking at most of the popular 4-cylinder mid-sized cars from Passat to Camry, it became clear the Mazda was the best overall value.
We picked up the 4-door in March ’07 and it currently has 16K miles on it. We paid just over $17K for it with leather, sunroof, 6-disc CD, etc. It has the PZEV version of the 2.3L so it’s rated at 146HP tied to the 5-speed automatic. Plenty of power for most people. The car hasn’t had one issue, it has been perfect. The 17″ Michelin Pilots are wearing well and should go 40K miles. This car averages 28 MPG in mixed driving, better than we expected under the heavy foot of a 19 year old. The 5 star crash ratings beat the VW Passat we were considering so we have peace of mind.
We picked up the second Mazda6 in December ’07 after our oldest totalled his ’04 Dodge Stratus with 85,000 on the odometer. The Stratus had been a great car from the start so he was interested in getting another Dodge/Chrysler. Unfortunately, the Dodge/Chrysler dealers weren’t discounting Avengers and Sebrings very much and with a limited budget from his insurance settlement we needed a deal to keep his payments in line. He ended up with a Mazda6 hatchback for under $16K with cloth seats, 6-disc CD, rear spoiler, etc. He currently has 10K miles on it, and it too has been flawless. My in-laws wish their Camry XLE were as reliable as these two Mazdas.
Compared to the styling of the Accord, Camry, Passat, etc., the 6 is far sportier. Only the Altima comes close in the minds of my kids. They couldn’t see themselves in one of those cookie-cutter cars and pay more money and get less equipment to do so.
It’s too bad that Mazda has decided to drop the wagon version because I’d consider one for myself. Up until last year I’d never even considered a Mazda. Now we’re glad we did. No disappointments and the dealer has treated us well with an excellent service department.
Im late to the mix here but Ive owned four of these across 2004-2007, all in V6 MT form save for a short term speed6. Collectively, I have personally driven the platform over 100K miles. Its particularly great to read this review as Ive nominated this car for TTAC 10 best twice now. I only have a couple things to add to the fray here:
The mileage beef is largely due to the driver as Ive NEVER achieved below 26mpg on any of the V6 cars. The Speed6 was the winner at 29mpg average over 19K miles.
The michelins are absolute crap. They are awful in anything but decent weather and are vastly outperformed by several other tires which completely transform an already well sorted out chassis. Falken Zeix, Yokohama, Pirelli and others come to mind.
The build quality between the domestic 6 versus the japanese Speed version is night and day….dometic being FAR superior in quality of materials and control.
The drivetrain has a couple little oddities such as a notchy first to second linkage and also a well kept secret hesitation in the low rpms that resulted in the 220-215hp revision. Most people would hardly be aware of the issue.
The car rides significantly better on the 17s than the 18s and also performs better due to less unsprung weight. Tire choice and reduced cost are added benefits of going the 17 route.
The 5 door, while my favorite in terms of utility and style, is far less rigid than the sedan…and the bose subwoofer in the 5 door sounds like crap while the superior rear deck mounted sub is adequate for most average listeners.
Overall, I never bothered with the 4 banger version because the V6 was a better package (Im a 100 mile commuter so your criteria may differ). Everyone praises the 3 but Ive never found it to be better in any category and it costs more feature for feature.
Little details to note are the door panels in the 2004-2005 were better tooled than later models, the center stack in the later models is better in black and the drivetrain was smoother in the low rpm range after 2006+. I consider the very zenith of this model to be 2006 V6 MT sedan in touring form when you add Bose and Sunroof. I bought that car for just over 19K out the door. This combo was never offered in any other year as they migrated to the value editions. Lastly, residual values, in MY experience, have been FANTASTIC. I highly recommend this car.
socsndaisy:
1) the V6 does have noticeable hesitation in the low rpms which would make you think the car has turbo lag if you didn’t know better
2) the Bose sub in the 5 door is boomy. The problem with the Bose system is that it very hard to improve without replacing the entire system
3) the V6 with the end of model fire sales is a solid new car value, but the biggest problem with this car is that it reminds you all the time of how could it could have been. Put the turbo 4 at 244 hp from the CX-7 and this car would be transformed
My girlfriend has a 3s with the 2.3 and an auto. The interior quality is excellent. The motor is incredibly smooth along with the transmission so it’s deceptively fast until you peek at the speedo. The ride is firm, the car hardly rolls. Steering is a little numb but there’s no kickback, and the effort is perfect. The interior is very quiet, even at high speeds.
Before she got the car I was dead-bent on buying another Honda. That has changed.
I just saw the new Mazda 6 at the local dealership & it is VERY NICE. It is larger & looks very sporty. They are doing sales training, but in about 2 weeks they’ll be arriving on the lot to be sold.
This dealership also sells Merc Sables, & with end-of-season rebates are hard to pass-up, but I’m seriously thinking of doing that for the looks of the 2009 Mazda 6.
This dealership also sells Merc Sables, & with end-of-season rebates are hard to pass-up, but I’m seriously thinking of doing that for the looks of the 2009 Mazda 6.
Don’t do anything that you’ll regret in the morning! Just say no the to the diSABLE. =) The Taurus and Sable nameplates are actually the most annoying and distasteful things about the cars! Ford Five Hundred and Mercury Montego sounded much better and the new-old names haven’t had any measurable impact on sales. Just another farkakteh decision on their part…
Seriously, though, is there some reason you’d choose an ’08 Mercury Sable (with incentives) instead of an ’08 Mazda6 in Touring or Grand Touring trim? Although if you are in a situation where you can hold off on making a final decision until you get to see and drive the ’09 Mazda6, that would probably be the best way to proceed.
Besides, in a few more weeks, the ’08 Mercury Sable and the ’08 Mazda6 will probably be even lower priced than they are now. The ’08 Mazda6 has a rebate of $2750 currently and the Sable has a $1500 rebate.
Final thought- have you given any consideration to the Mercury Milan? Just thinking out loud here…
i’m new here, i have a 2003 mazda 6i, bought it about a year and a half ago, i was goin ta get a altama, but when i saw the 6i on the internet, had ta drive it. granted it didn’t drive as nice as the accord, and altama, but it didn’t matter, the 6i was so much fun ta drive, i had ta have it. ever since i’ve own this car more people have commented on it, then any car i have ever had. put the car in M, and it ya can shift it like a manual, the car is so quiet, people ask if it’s runnin, and times i try startin it, when it already runnin. for a 4, it has a lot of zip, the seats are comfortable, it has plenty of room inside, the trunk is big, great on gas, the only problem i see is when ya do get people in the back seat, the car loses power, all in all i would buy another one, it’s just so much fun ta drive, it gets a lot of looks, with the spoiler, mag wheels, and i forgot, it’s yellow.