The hotly anticipated 2009 Mazda6 is set to hit the showroom floor in August. The base 2.5-liter four-cylinder model, with 170 horses and a standard six-speed stick, will set you back $19,220 (including a $670 destination fee). For contrast, a base Accord runs nearly two grand more ($21,030). The four-cylinder Mazda6 will offer an optional five-speed automatic transmission for a bit more money, of course. If you want to dial-up the power, Mazda offer the 6 with a 273 horse, 3.7 liter V6 (six-speed automatic transmission only) for $24,800. All versions of the new Mazda6 come with air con, ABS, six airbags, dynamic stability control and traction control. The autoboxed four-banger gets 21/30 EPA miles per gallon, dropping one mpg if you pick the stick. The V6's 17/25 mpg is not what you'd call class competitive; the five-speed Accord V6 is rated at 19/29. Then again, the Mazda should handily beat the Honda in the ol fun to drive category. We'll have a TTAC review as soon as the 6 hits the streets.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Wow….17/25!? That’s crossover territory! Mazda, pleeeaaasseee, find it in your hearts to give the V6 model a 6 speed manual. Maybe that’ll up the mpgs a little, not to mention improving the good ol’ fun-to-drive factor.
Yeah, those mpg specs would be what I’d expect from the MS6 (AWD). Doesn’t really cut it when people are coming to expect 30mpg from every midsize car these days.
ash78:
For comparison’s sake, my direct-injected MS6 is rated at 19/24. Cruise control on the highway gets me about 27 mpg but when flogged hard I see around 21 mpg combined.
I was expecting a little bit better numbers from the V6 as well, a manual might be able to squeak out a couple more mpgs.
No stick with the V6? Is this the Zoom Zoom company? My sister and her boyfriend each own a 6 with the manual. His is modded quite a bit; hers all stock. I thought the size was perfect, but the car really is lacking in the NVH department, as well as some of the interior components. Seems they fixed all that, but added too much size and weight in the process. Can’t help but wonder how awesome this car would have been with all the improvements but negligible size/weight gain. I guess they seem too many sales going to the Camcord Group…
I don’t think a manual (or at least a Mazda one) would help much. Six-speed automatics generally get very good mileage and most Mazda (and Honda) manuals have stupidly short gearing (3500rpm@120km/h) versus their automatic counterparts.**
This is a big, heavy car with sticky tires and a powerful engine. It’s going to suck gas no matter what you do.
** Actually, this is a pet peeve of mine: what’s the point of overdrive gears on a manual-transmission car when it’s still revving like crazy in top gear. And why, for the love of god, am I able to pull away in third gear in a Honda Fit, while second gear is so uselessly short that I have to shift at 20km/h?
I think we’d save a lot of fuel–especially in city–if more cars weren’t tuned to lay a patch out of every intersection at the slightest touch of the throttle.
Maybe that’ll up the mpgs a little, not to mention improving the good ol’ fun-to-drive factor.
I doubt it. According to Justin:
The autoboxed four-banger gets 21/30 EPA miles per gallon, dropping one mpg if you pick the stick.
If the four drops mileage with the stick, I would guess the six would, too.
Yikes, that is seriously bad mileage for this car. It looks very aerodynamic, so I was expecting much better highway mpg’s. What V6 is that? Is it shared with the MKS?
But that’s weird though. Traditionally, manuals have offered better mileage than their automatic counterparts so I was a bit surprised that a 5 speed automatic gets marginally better mileage numbers than the six speed manual.
I mean, I agree it’s a big V6 with a lot of power, but if Honda can manage 19/29 with a five speed automatic in an equally large (more or less) V6, then what’s the deal with Mazda?
I can always dream about the manual/V6 combo right?
They keep looking better and better but GEEZ get with the program – $4+ gasoline. People are buying with $5 gas in mind knowing that during a 5 year ownership gas very well could be $8 a gallon. These kinds of mileage numbers represent the next class of vehicle with no resale.
We want 100% electric but since none are readily available except the Phoneix Motors electric SUT/SUV we will be looking for at least 35 mpg cars b/c we expect fuel prices to get worse and worse.
FWIW other than that I think the Mazdas look better and better each time.
If it doesn’t come with a manual, it won’t be parked in my driveway. Sad given that I’m a self admitted Mazda fanboy; I love my 2004 Mazda6s, even after four years. Given those horrible mileage numbers for the V6 version, I would definitely be looking at the Mzzdaspeed3 or the RX-8 (similar numbers) before the Mazda6 even if it did have a manual transmission available.
for those complaining about lack of V6/stick shift, I ask you this:
What does this combination allow you to do that the I4/stick shift won’t?
improvement_needed Says:
for those complaining about lack of V6/stick shift, I ask you this:
What does this combination allow you to do that the I4/stick shift won’t?
It makes me giddy-er.
It gives me the same feeling that driving a manual equipped 350Z does, except now I’d have 4 doors for everyone else to join in on the giddy-ness.
Guess the MazdaSpeed3 will have to do.
What does this combination allow you to do that the I4/stick shift won’t?
102 hp, 102 ft-lb torque
…And the CVT/V6 Altima and the six-speed AT/V6 Camry get better mileage than the five-speed AT/V6 Accord. Per Consumer Reports’ annual car issue, over their test loop, Altima and Camry got 23 MPG, while the Accord, even with its cylinder deactivation, only got 21.
So, looks like Mazda gives you “worst in class” fuel mileage. Not really any different than previous Mazdas, and probably one of the big reasons why I’ve never seriously considered buying one….
SupaMan: But that’s weird though. Traditionally, manuals have offered better mileage than their automatic counterparts
Not any more. Look over EPA numbers, and many autobox versions now have higher numbers than the stick versions. Automatics are more efficient nowdays, with lockinf converters in every gear, and in the EPA tests, they do well. A top-notch driver with a stick can do better, though, in real world driving. In reality, many stick drivers probably do worse: keep the engine in gear too long.
My suspicious nature tells me that automatics are also becoming more efficient than manuals on the EPA cycle because they’re programmed to do so. Hence, behavior such as kickdown response becomes more sluggish as a result. But I have no experience with the Mazda automatics to verify–do they have anything like a Sport mode setting one can dial in and out?
I’ll get these into the TrueDelta/TTAC pricing database by the end of the week for some real comparisons.
The base four is clearly a value-leader you’ll rarely see on a dealer lot–the spec sheet says it must be special ordered.
The i Sport starts at $20,920–not so far from the Accord base price.
@bill h.: yes, Mazda automatics have an up/down selector at the bottom of the shift gate. The MX-5 and RX-8 get paddle shifters in the US, with other models overseas also getting paddles.
The complaint about that is Mazda has it backwards from most other manufacturers: to upshift you press down down, and downshift is up.
_____
AWD. Where’s the AWD?
_____
supaman and danms6:
thanks… – do you track your cars?
or tow a trailer?
This is a stylish alternative to the Camcord. I like Mazda’s guppy-like styling. It stands out.
Very disappointing mileage — this 2.5 must be a bored-out 2.3, thus perpetuating it’s rather thirsty nature.
improvement_needed:
for those complaining about lack of V6/stick shift, I ask you this:
What does this combination allow you to do that the I4/stick shift won’t?
About 2 seconds in the 1/4 mile.
I’ve always liked Mazda’s driving dynamics and styling, but I’ve had some bad luck with them in recent years so I’ll be looking elsewhere when it comes time to trade.
I’ve liked the looks of the last generation of Mazda6, but the mileage on the this new version is not nearly what I would expect. For comparison, I get 16/23 with my Dodge Charger, and yes, it’s got a Hemi.
thoots: “So, looks like Mazda gives you “worst in class” fuel mileage. Not really any different than previous Mazdas, and probably one of the big reasons why I’ve never seriously considered buying one….”
Amen. I’ve had several Mazdas, and although they all had their virtues, in every case gas mileage was mediocre.
bill h: “But I have no experience with the Mazda automatics to verify–do they have anything like a Sport mode setting one can dial in and out?”
They used to, at least: two simple buttons marked “eco” and “pwr” by the shift lever. “Eco” (sounds better than “No-Pwr” doesn’t it?) provided quicker upshifts and slower downshifts.
If you want to dial-up the power, Mazda offer the 6 with a 273 horse, 3.7 liter V6 (six-speed automatic transmission only)
Doh!
I don’t understand this logic – same deal as with the IS350, older V6 Accords, etc. Aren’t the enthusiast-types buying the more powerful cars more likely to want the stick? I guess in the low end it’s considered a price/fuel-efficiency choice…
Don’t really care if the manual V6 combination would have been no faster or no more efficient. Shifting is fun, and this is a car that markets vehicle dynamics as a selling point. Mazda is supposed to offer something that the Camcord can’t, i.e. a superior fun to drive quotient.
BTW: I agree with the poster regarding crazy RPM’s when cruising in top gear. My Probe woulds spin the engine at nearly 4000 rpms at 80 mph.
“My suspicious nature tells me that automatics are also becoming more efficient than manuals on the EPA cycle because they’re programmed to do so.”
I suspect the same thing. It is quite possible to “teach to the test” with automated systems in a way which will not be replicated in real world driving. I suspect that much of the disconnect between EPA test numbers for hybrids and what people actually get is due to this effect as well.
That’s why I find Consumer Reports’ fuel economy numbers more useful for comparison purposes than the EPA test numbers.
The thing with the V6+MTX combination is that Ford is responsible for V6 engines. Mazda does the I4. The last Mazda V6 was the K series that went out of production in ’02. With the 3L Duratec, Ford already had a MTX available from Europe. However for the new Cyclone 3.5/3.7 V6 there has been no MTX development, it’s all gone into the 6spd ATX. So, please do yourself a favor and forget about the possibility of this happening unless it’s done by a third party. This is part of Ford’s stated goal of making Mazdas more NA market friendly.
Besides, enthusiasts don’t buy cars in numbers for it to be worth investing serious coin to develop a new transmission. It’s the people who buy beige Camcords with an ATX that they’re trying to go after. That’s where the money is.
rm Says:
July 16th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
The thing with the V6+MTX combination is that Ford is responsible for V6 engines. Mazda does the I4. The last Mazda V6 was the K series that went out of production in ‘02. With the 3L Duratec, Ford already had a MTX available from Europe. However for the new Cyclone 3.5/3.7 V6 there has been no MTX development, it’s all gone into the 6spd ATX. So, please do yourself a favor and forget about the possibility of this happening unless it’s done by a third party. This is part of Ford’s stated goal of making Mazdas more NA market friendly.
Well, gee, thanks for ruining my day. I guess I’ll have to make my Mazda6s (the V6 Mazda6) last forever. If Mazda, zoom-zoom, isn’t going to provide a manual transmission, in the future who will?
Lumbergh:
No problem. ;-)
I’m in the same boat as you with my 6s.
“The complaint about that is Mazda has it backwards from most other manufacturers: to upshift you press down down, and downshift is up.”
I may be alone in this, but I actually would prefer that setup….
The car looks awesome in all the photos. All the photo cars are naturally the top-of-the-line s Grand Touring models with standard 18-inch wheels and dual exhaust outlets for the V6. Mazda did a great job of making lesser, ‘i’ models look as good as the ‘s’ models with the 03-08 Mazda6. I really hope they do the same this time around and the 4-cylinder models won’t look like penalty boxes!
The new 3.7L is impressive compared to the 3.0L V6 it replaces- an increase of 60hp and 72lb-ft of torque (the latter @ 4250rpm vs. 5000rpm) are HUGE. The fuel economy of 17/25 is one mpg lower in the city and the same highway rating. Unfortunately, these numbers are still toward the bottom of the heap compared to other V6 mid-size sedans. Notably, the Accord V6 gets 19/29 and Camry V6 gets 19/28.
The 4-cylinder models fare much better, though. A healthy power increase of 22hp and 17lb-ft of torque are welcome, as is the increase of 2mpg when equipped with automatic transmission.
The Ford Fusion will be getting the 2.5L I-4 from the Mazda6 for the 2010 model year. There are also rumors of a new V6 around 3.0L in size and 240-250hp. I’m curious to see if Mazda might make use of that engine if/when it appears to slot in between the current 170hp and 272hp offerings. Especially if it can pull off fuel economy ratings of 28+ highway.