Even before you read the review, it’s obvious Car and Driver scribe Mark Gillies doesn’t like the new Mazda 6 i Grand Touring. For once, the strapline accurately reflects the author’s take, without prevarication or sugar-coating: “Mazda’s new family sedan offers more of everything except excitement.” OK, the “verdict” below returns us to Car and Driver’s ad-friendly editorial style: “A worthy rival to the mid-size heavyweights” (instead of “Mazda sells its soul for sales”). And the article itself is one-quarter press release, one quarter praise and one quarter pulled punches (e.g. “Subjectively, the 6 feels good on a back road but not as athletic as you might like.”) But the real news arrives late in the fourth quarter. Car and Driver has declared metphorical war on TTAC’s simile-lade prose. And here we go… “The Gran Touring version of the 6 is as loaded as Keith Richards on tour in the 1970s;” “…setting up a Bluetooth phone connection is as simple as a plate of pasta con aglio e olio;” “The highway ride is as supple as an Olympic gymnast;” “Peel into a corner, and the 6’s tires squeal like a pack of preteen girls at a Jonas Brother concert.” Note to Csaba: sprinkles taste like shit on vanilla ice cream. Or something like that.
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
“The highway ride is as supple as an Olympic gymnast”
I really don’t want to know what C&D is doing with Chinese 14 year olds.
Can’t they just compare the 6 to the Accord and be done with it? There’s a reason they advertise subscriptions for 87% off list.
actually, I thought the review was pretty spot on. $30K as tested price for a 4cyl Mazda?! Mazda really dropped the ball on this one.
supple gymnasts and preteen girls… I think someone at C&D needs to do better background checks.
When I bought my Honda Fit, the previous generation Mazda 6 was high on the list, especially since a 5 door was available. The 5 door, 4 cyl five speed really met my needs. However, since my kids are small, I went with the Fit, especially with the sales tax exemption and government fuel economy rebate. I reasoned that when my boys were too big for the Fit, the 6 would not have lost its focus.
It has. I wonder why, for the last twenty years or so, every new generation car has to get bigger. I for one LIKE small cars. They are almost always more fun to drive, they use much less fuel, they cost less to service and they are easier to park.
The old 6 was a niche car for sure. But I don’t think that Mazda can even hope to beat Honda and Toyota at the family sedan game.
Amateurs. I’ll take my metaphors from Tom McCahill, thank you.
A simile is not the same thing as a metaphor. They’re all similes.
On the metaphors, it sounds more like C&D ripping off TTAC ripping off C&D.
And that observation is inspired by one of Robert’s lines in his 2006 review of the Toyota FJ Cruiser: “…they’re (Toyota) finally getting ’round to ripping themselves off: riffing on the FJ40 Land Cruiser’s riff on the original Jeep.”
Considering an Olympic gymnast probably has about 4-5% bodyfat, I doubt any would be called “supple”.
I wonder why, for the last twenty years or so, every new generation car has to get bigger.
Because no one bought the small 6. Magazines whined and complained about the lack of power and space next to the Altima, Camry and Accord, and the buying public didn’t.
I blame the third-gen Altima for a lot of what’s wrong with the current market. When Nissan dropped the big VQ into it, buff book and column writers, ahem, blew their collective wad over the car, despite the cheap interior and lack of chassis refinement. Suddenly, every car had to have at least 250hp, and had to dispatch 0-60 in six seconds, lest it be called slow.
And it was into the Altima’s wake that the 6 (and Fusion) launched. And despite excellent packaging and brilliant dynamics, it got clobbered by the Altima, and shortly by the bulked-up seventh-gen Accord and sixth-gen Camry. So Mazda upsized it, because that’s what everyone was telling them to do.
The same applies to the Accord and Galant: people were constantly harping on their makers about the cars being too small, too slow for the North American market. And, credit where credit’s due, they responded (though the Galant’s problems, now, have nothing to do with size).
He should’ve said “as supple as a young 8 year-old boy.” http://www.southparkstudios.com/clips/152601
‘Sold their souls for sales’ that is insightful thanks for sharing. I can more clearly identify why I do not admire the actions of Camry drivers.
I wish cars grew in length a few inches to handle taller drivers without the growth in width, weight, and cost. Not much utility in 2 and 1/2 across seating. Almost all sedans are really just 4 passenger cars.
Because no one bought the small 6. Magazines whined and complained about the lack of power and space next to the Altima, Camry and Accord, and the buying public didn’t.
That is true but however, I can’t see the logic of a relatively small maker as Mazda trying to compete with the major players at their own game.
Auto journalists, well, what a topic that is. Suffice to say that they are given plenty of wine, women and song, as well as free gas and hotels, to provide positive spin. Ever notice how often the “press” pans a 4 cyl Toyota? Because Toyota has boring launches. Motel 6 is more the digs, whereas GM will provide Hyatt.
Finally, even with all this horsepower, most family sedans are sold with the 4 cyl. I believe it is something like 90% of all Camrys sold.
I blame the current car obesity epedemic solely on car magazines.
They constantly bitch about how “Car A” lacks hundreds of pounds of sound deadeningthe refinement of “Car B” and award comparison tests based on subjective categories like “Fun to drive”.
Car and Driver showed no love for the previous Mazda6,barely even letting it compete in comparison tests. So now that Mazda has moved it more mainstream by fattening it up and ditching the hatch and wagon versions it all of the sudden loses its soul.
I can’t fault Mazda for wanting a bigger piece of the mid-size sedan pie, especially now that the current Accord is ugly as sin and Toyota is showing signs of losing its reliability rep.
Car and Driver, are they still around?
With the recent news that CosmoGirl was discontinued I assumed C&D was gone as well.
I blame the fact cars have gotten large based on consumer demand. Think about the target demographic. How dare someobody want a vehicle that can fit four people comfortably AND their luggage for a weekend trip while still getting ~30mpg highway. If they had any sense, they’d buy something like a Jetta with a useless back seat and worse MPG because it’s smaller!
@psarhjinian – I wouldn’t blame the Altima, the Altima has managed to keep its weight down, fuel economy up, and performance up. Ironically, car publications think the back seat is too small….. I’d blame the manufacturers whose cars are the same size yet weigh ~300lbs (Honda, Mazda) to ~500lbs more (GM, Volkswagen)
I wouldn’t blame the Altima, the Altima has managed to keep its weight down, fuel economy up, and performance up
Yes, now, because it was the first car to really bloat like gangbusters. Compare the second-gen Altima to the third.
The 2002 Altima 3.5SE (and to a lesser degree, the Pontiac Grand Prix GTP) was largely responsible for the “Every family sedan must be able to turn 0-60 times that would shame some supercars” phenomenon. ** Prior to that, it was completely acceptable for a V6 to hit 0-60 in eight seconds. Nowadays it’s unacceptable for a four to hit those times.
For Christ’s sake, people actually call 8+ now just slow, but dangerous. I’ve driven a goddamn Smart CDI from Montreal to Toronto (slogan: “Zero to sixty eventually!”) on the 401 and 20, which has to be one of the worst stretches on this continent and at no time would I have described a car that for whom “sixteen seconds” is not it’s quarter-mile time “dangerously slow”.
Or, to put it this way, a Toyota Camry SE can keep pace with, and possibly overtake, an E39 540i and gets within striking distance of an M5. That’s sick and wrong.
Look, I like power as much as the next guy, but it’s gotten flat-out stupid. If the Altima hadn’t shot the automotive equivalent of steroids, we’d be driving cars that get at least 1-2L/100km better fuel economy.
** The other fault, I think, lies with MPG instead of gallons-per-mile:
15 mpg = 6.5gpm
20 mpg = 5.0
25 mpg = 4.0
30 mpg = 3.3
35 mpg = 2.8
40 mpg = 2.5
The difference between 30 and 40 mpg (Prius territory) equates to 0.8 gallons per mile driven. The difference between 15 and 20 is 1.5 gallons consumed per mile. This effectively distorts the perceived economy of fuel guzzlers like V6 sedans versus their more efficient brethren because the difference between 18 and 20 mpg, say, seems small, but actually equates to a more than a half-gallon of gas per mile.
And yet people bitch about the Prius getting 45 instead of 55, which is actually less than the difference between 18 and 20.
psarhjinian : you’re off two decimal places.
15 mpg = 0.065gpm 20 mpg = 0.050 25 mpg = 0.040 30 mpg = 0.033 35 mpg = 0.028 40 mpg = 0.025
So, the difference between 30 and 40 mpg is 0.008 gallons. I think your point is that it is a pittance, and because these are ratios, mpg makes distorts* the efficiency gains as mpg increase.
*it’s not so much that mpg distorts anything. Instead, it’s that people are bad at ratios.
Glad you caught this, RF. I read the review last week and immediately thought, “They really don’t like this car.” When I reread the review a few days later (shortage of reading materials in the WC) I noticed all the metaphors, which are not usually used so liberally. The magazine really is going in the crapper, which seems somehow appropriate, given that’s the area where 99% of their issues are now kept, I’ll bet…
@psarhjinian:
Actually, even the “bloated” 2002 Altima still weighs less or on par with the prior generation- within 50 pounds of a 1997 Toyota Camry LE, over 400 pounds LESS than a 1997 Oldsmobile Intrigue, and 200 pounds LESS than a 1997 Ford Taurus. And if you’re basing the 1998-2001 Altima as a mid-size standard, it was largely criticized for being too small and cramped and too slow.
Also, Ford launched the Fusion in 2006- well after the 3rd gen Altima, 7th(?) gen Accord, and neck and neck with the new Camry.
And finally, what’s wrong with a mid-size sedan being able to pull impressive numbers? At one time it meant torque steer city, but that’s not an issue anymore. Fuel efficiency has remained consistent through the years, too, which is impressive.
I’d say the problem we’re facing now is we’re seeing automakers bloat their cars further. The current Accord is simply way too big- the last gen was nearly perfect sized given its purpose, and I don’t think customers asked for it to be any larger, yet Honda just blimped it out.
@mikeolan:
+1 on the Accord. It is too big. All the Honda needed was a competent automanual, but then what would be the point of Acura?
@psarhjinian:
To be honest, most of the Altimas I see on the road are the 2.5S models. Not surprising. The 4-pot in that thing gets along fine and loves to rev, but can get a little thrashy. What’s wrong with four cylinders getting to 60 in less than 8-9 seconds?
Yeah, the interior is something to quibble about when Hyundai can do as good or better, but all is forgiven by putting your hands on that steering wheel. As far as driving dynamics are concerned I found it to be more engaging than an Accord or a Fusion. There’s a reason Ford never included an Altima in their little “comparison tests” they advertised about a while ago. I will, however, concede the Mazda6 is sublime in comparison.
Bottom line, Nissan made a good car. Don’t be mad that they found their niche and exploited it. Nissan found their voice with that car, a competent handling & rapid car. So what? That is Nissan. How does it go? Don’t hate the playa, hate the game?
However, I would be mad at Mazda for trying to do the same. I had my suspicions from looking at the new car. But everything I’ve read confirmed them.
R.I.P. Mazda6
P.S.: LOL at the Camry SE being sick and wrong. I find it pretty amusing. Out of character, yes, but pretty funny that its that fast.
I think Mazda did an admirable job of preserving much of the 6’s zoom-zoom character while making the car bigger in order to compete with the other players in the segment. And why not?
Nissan did the same thing with its Altima in 2002 and that car was such a shock with its 240hp V6 that the other manufacturers had no choice but play along in order to stay competitive. Mazda tried going its own route with the then new 6 and while it has been a sales success it could never compete with the likes of the Accord or Camry on just sporty flavor alone.
I’d love to see a matchup between the V6 Mazda6 and the V6 Altima. These cars define the sporty segment of the mid (or is that full?) size arena.
And I agree with psarhjinian; I never really liked the idea of a Camry SE even if it is a car that does pretty well at virtually everything.
One of my hobbies of the last few years has been collecting any number of the Brooklands Press series of marque-specific road test reprints. Talk about a time-warp. The books feature road tests from all over the world (a few too many South African and Australian for my taste.) The best were from the old British Motor from the 60s and 70s. But a close second was Car and Driver from the same period. New readers may be surprised to learn that Brock Yates could actually write well at one time. The contrast with the Car and Driver of today could not be more jarring. Instead of trenchant (and funny) writing that went on for thousands of words in the days of yore, we now have the pathetic (and brief) catalog copy that was produced by the manufacturer (er, advertiser) masquerading as road tests. Sad, that.