Huge Discount For 2017 Mazda 6

My needs are hauling cargo most of the time so sedans are no longer practical for me. A 6 wagon would be interesting though. My G35x is probably the last sedan I will ever own.
 
In a day and age where manufacturers are squeezing every last ounce of efficiency from their cars, the sedan is a much more sensible choice over the crossover considering that interior space and overall cargo/trunk volume is within 11-12% of each other.

If you buy the 2.2L Diesel in a CX-5, totally understandable. If Mazda offered some sort of 2.5T in the CX-5 that was not offered in the mazda 6, even more understandable. But this is not the case! So tell me... why the hell are you Americans looking right past the slow selling 6 and buying a heavier car with the same powerplant just because everyone is convinced they need the extra space? I dont get what is it with you Americans and crossovers. If you fill your CX-5 to the brim with stuff and use that 11% difference in cargo volume all the time, I get it. But something tells me that not everyone who went with the CX-5 needed that extra 11% of space.

Considering that the Mazda 6 is faster and 9MPG more efficient on the highway then an awd CX-5 with the same engine, stops harder using the same brakes, corners better while being more stable, I dont get why you Americans cant at least give the damn Sedan a try before deciding that the CX-5 heavier slower less efficient is truly what you need.

The sedan market is dying. this isnt something we should just brush aside and let happen... sedans are a more sensible choice all while offering better performance and improving efficiency. Why does everyone always lose their s*** on this forum when i propose an idea different from what everyone is used to? Reminds me of 4 year olds, its just ridiculous You can buy a brand new Mazda 6 for a great deal now. go out there save yourself thousands of dollars in final sales price + lower running costs while helping out the brand with the dying sedan market. If my post isnt sensible/reasonable then I dont know what is!

I don't know where you're getting 11%.

Mazda6
---------
EPA passenger volume (cu ft) 99.7
EPA cargo volume (cu ft) 14.8

CX-5
------
EPA passenger volume (cu ft) 103.6
EPA cargo volume, rear seatback up/folded (cu ft) 30.9 / 59.6

So that's double the cargo volume, not 11%. In addition to the volume being a lot smaller, the height of the trunk and the height and width of the rear seat pass-through are limiting factors with a sedan. I prefer a hatchback or a wagon because I can load and unload more easily and can carry larger items.

Another big factor in slow sedan sales is the relative shortage of AWD options. They are getting more common, but the Mazda6 doesn't come with AWD in this country.

If we were offered a Mazda6 wagon with AWD, I'd buy that over the CX-5.
 
I don't know where you're getting 11%.

Mazda6
---------
EPA passenger volume (cu ft) 99.7
EPA cargo volume (cu ft) 14.8

CX-5
------
EPA passenger volume (cu ft) 103.6
EPA cargo volume, rear seatback up/folded (cu ft) 30.9 / 59.6

So that's double the cargo volume, not 11%. In addition to the volume being a lot smaller, the height of the trunk and the height and width of the rear seat pass-through are limiting factors with a sedan. I prefer a hatchback or a wagon because I can load and unload more easily and can carry larger items.

Another big factor in slow sedan sales is the relative shortage of AWD options. They are getting more common, but the Mazda6 doesn't come with AWD in this country.

If we were offered a Mazda6 wagon with AWD, I'd buy that over the CX-5.

The interior passenger space is almost the same though.
 
In a day and age where manufacturers are squeezing every last ounce of efficiency from their cars, the sedan is a much more sensible choice over the crossover considering that interior space and overall cargo/trunk volume is within 11-12% of each other.

If you buy the 2.2L Diesel in a CX-5, totally understandable. If Mazda offered some sort of 2.5T in the CX-5 that was not offered in the mazda 6, even more understandable. But this is not the case! So tell me... why the hell are you Americans looking right past the slow selling 6 and buying a heavier car with the same powerplant just because everyone is convinced they need the extra space? I don’t get what is it with you Americans and crossovers. If you fill your CX-5 to the brim with stuff and use that 11% difference in cargo volume all the time, I get it. But something tells me that not everyone who went with the CX-5 needed that extra 11% of space.

Considering that the Mazda 6 is faster and 9MPG more efficient on the highway then an awd CX-5 with the same engine, stops harder using the same brakes, corners better while being more stable, I don’t get why you Americans can’t at least give the damn Sedan a try before deciding that the CX-5 heavier slower less efficient is truly what you need.

The sedan market is dying. this isn’t something we should just brush aside and let happen... sedans are a more sensible choice all while offering better performance and improving efficiency. Why does everyone always lose their s*** on this forum when i propose an idea different from what everyone is used to? Reminds me of 4 year olds, it’s just ridiculous You can buy a brand new Mazda 6 for a great deal now. go out there save yourself thousands of dollars in final sales price + lower running costs while helping out the brand with the dying sedan market. If my post isn’t sensible/reasonable then I don’t know what is!

I don't like sedans and I don't like being lower to the ground. Simple as that.

Edit: Plus AWD

And I have slept in the back of my CX-5 before on a blow up mattress.

And I detest wagons (they just look ugly to me), so I'd pick a CX-5 over that any day.
 
Last edited:
I have a '16 Mazda6 and '17 CX5.
The former is my commute car, and the latter is my wife's but I drive it often on weekend.

Here is my quick assessment:
The Mazda6:
has better handling
is noisier from inside
is smaller inside, much smaller cargo space,
has harder suspension
(note: I am sure the '17 Mazda6 is as quiet as the CX5 now.)

For about the same price (both GT) when I bought them, and consider the fact that my CX5 has AWD, you can imagine why many go for CX5.
Yes, Mazda6 has some extra goodies like autoUp/Down windows for all, i-Eloop, etc.
 
Last edited:
- does the CX-5 feel significantly slower then the 6?

- how is the AWD system on the CX-5 in poor weather conditions?

- which car is more stable at high speed?

CX-5 does not seem significantly slower, maybe just a tad.

Don't have AWD so I can't say.....

Both are very stable at high speed, but the CX-5 feels the breeze more than the 6 on windy days.

Overall, the 6 is quieter and seems a bit smoother on the highway, as the CX-5 has a stiffer ride, but not obnoxiously so. I originally got the CX-5 to be my trip/highway vehicle and intended for the 6 to be my second car, around town/short trip vehicle......and now I am having some second thoughts after seeing how well the 6 handles itself at high speed.....I'll prolly switch the long/short duties between them. I can see the the 6 is gonna be a pleasure to drive on extended trips.

BTW - before I picked up the 6 in August, I had intended to get a 3 GT wagon....but all it took was back to back test drives on the 3 and the 6 to convince me that the 6 was the way to go.....much quieter and smoother ride with the 6, and the trunk seems spacious with the rear seats able to fold down. I guess you can't beat the longer wheelbase.....Can't understand why Mazda doesn't sell more of them....
 
CX5 is basically just a tall Mazda 3 wagon FWIW
Yeah but it doesn't look like a boxy station wagon. ;)

I don't call hatchbacks, wagons.

I'd be ok with a 3 hatchback if I had to, but much prefer something higher off the ground like my CX-5 :)
 
Last edited:
CX-5 does not seem significantly slower, maybe just a tad.

Don't have AWD so I can't say.....

Both are very stable at high speed, but the CX-5 feels the breeze more than the 6 on windy days.

Overall, the 6 is quieter and seems a bit smoother on the highway, as the CX-5 has a stiffer ride, but not obnoxiously so. I originally got the CX-5 to be my trip/highway vehicle and intended for the 6 to be my second car, around town/short trip vehicle......and now I am having some second thoughts after seeing how well the 6 handles itself at high speed.....I'll prolly switch the long/short duties between them. I can see the the 6 is gonna be a pleasure to drive on extended trips.

BTW - before I picked up the 6 in August, I had intended to get a 3 GT wagon....but all it took was back to back test drives on the 3 and the 6 to convince me that the 6 was the way to go.....much quieter and smoother ride with the 6, and the trunk seems spacious with the rear seats able to fold down. I guess you can't beat the longer wheelbase.....Can't understand why Mazda doesn't sell more of them....

how about the mazda 6 for highway, and then a (preferably) manual mazda 3 for around town? that makes better sense.

I agree, the Mazda 6 is such a fun car to drive. it's very agile and responsive, and the steering is amazingly precise, direct and firms up beautifully around corners. in spite of all this, the car rides beautifully on the highway even at high speed.

CX5 is basically just a tall Mazda 3 wagon FWIW

... with a Mazda 6 interior.
 
I don't like sedans and I don't like being lower to the ground. Simple as that.

Edit: Plus AWD

And I have slept in the back of my CX-5 before on a blow up mattress.

And I detest wagons (they just look ugly to me), so I'd pick a CX-5 over that any day.

I'm the opposite from you. SUVs and CUVs look like rolling boxes to me. The CX-5 is better than most, but the Mazda6 wagon looks way sleeker to me.

I think the CUV craze offends my left brain because a lot of the vehicles are just tall for the sake of being tall and not taking advantage of the height. For example, the Mazda CX-5 is 6" taller than the Outback I'm currently stuck driving, but the CX-5 has about 1" less ground clearance. And the CX-5's cargo area height is 1" shorter, despite the fact that the Subaru fits a full sized spare. So where did 8" go? The CX-5 is also 8" taller than the Mazda6 AWD wagon, but only has 1" more ground clearance. I was unable to find the cargo area height of the 6 wagon, but from pictures it looks like about 2" less than the CX-5. The CX-5 does have an inch more headroom in the front and 2" more in the rear. But still, it's 8" taller with only 1" more ground clearance, and all you get out of that is 2" more height in the rear? Where did 5" go? Some of the CX-5's competitors are worse about wasting vertical space. RAV4 is 2" taller than the CX-5 with 1" less ground clearance, but the cargo area opening is only 1" taller and it has the same headroom.

A taller vehicle hurts handling because of the higher CG. It also generates more wind resistance which means less fuel economy and poorer performance at higher speeds, and more wind noise. So if the extra height isn't being fully utilized, what's the point? I personally don't get it.

Up here in NH, we also have a lot of guys who buy trucks but never haul or tow. My neighbor has his jacked up about 6" but it never leaves the pavement and his bed is pristine and scratchless because he never puts anything into it. I don't get that either.
 
^Agree w/that and in a perfect world I'd have an AWD (to be able use my driveway in winter) diesel 6 wagon in said driveway on pre-order tomorrow if it got announced today. Being a little further off the road in snow storms that I'm not at all exempt from driving in is the exception but the other 355+ days/yr being lower is better with one other minor exception being curb clearance- nice not to worry about scrapage.
 
Last edited:
I'm the opposite from you. SUVs and CUVs look like rolling boxes to me. The CX-5 is better than most, but the Mazda6 wagon looks way sleeker to me.

I think the CUV craze offends my left brain because a lot of the vehicles are just tall for the sake of being tall and not taking advantage of the height. For example, the Mazda CX-5 is 6" taller than the Outback I'm currently stuck driving, but the CX-5 has about 1" less ground clearance. And the CX-5's cargo area height is 1" shorter, despite the fact that the Subaru fits a full sized spare. So where did 8" go? The CX-5 is also 8" taller than the Mazda6 AWD wagon, but only has 1" more ground clearance. I was unable to find the cargo area height of the 6 wagon, but from pictures it looks like about 2" less than the CX-5. The CX-5 does have an inch more headroom in the front and 2" more in the rear. But still, it's 8" taller with only 1" more ground clearance, and all you get out of that is 2" more height in the rear? Where did 5" go? Some of the CX-5's competitors are worse about wasting vertical space. RAV4 is 2" taller than the CX-5 with 1" less ground clearance, but the cargo area opening is only 1" taller and it has the same headroom.

A taller vehicle hurts handling because of the higher CG. It also generates more wind resistance which means less fuel economy and poorer performance at higher speeds, and more wind noise. So if the extra height isn't being fully utilized, what's the point? I personally don't get it.

Up here in NH, we also have a lot of guys who buy trucks but never haul or tow. My neighbor has his jacked up about 6" but it never leaves the pavement and his bed is pristine and scratchless because he never puts anything into it. I don't get that either.

Agreed, I share the exact same thoughts.
 
Yeah but it doesn't look like a boxy station wagon. ;)

I don't call hatchbacks, wagons.

I'd be ok with a 3 hatchback if I had to, but much prefer something higher off the ground like my CX-5 :)

Neither does the Mazda 6 wagon ;)

phpvpirT0-5575238bd8ec8.jpg


I don't call hatch backs wagons either. The 5 door Golf hatchback is not a wagon but the Golf wagon is. And the Tiguan is basically a tall Golf Sportswagon. The CX5 is longer than the 3 and is basically a tall, wagon version of it. Regardless of what you like to tell yourself.

Bang on Red MC... I wish we had more wagon options here...*sigh*
 
Neither does the Mazda 6 wagon ;)

phpvpirT0-5575238bd8ec8.jpg


I don't call hatch backs wagons either. The 5 door Golf hatchback is not a wagon but the Golf wagon is. And the Tiguan is basically a tall Golf Sportswagon. The CX5 is longer than the 3 and is basically a tall, wagon version of it. Regardless of what you like to tell yourself.

Bang on Red MC... I wish we had more wagon options here...*sigh*

Why does that wagon look even better to me than the sedan? Man that looks nice. (bow)
 
Exactly. And as nice as the CX5 look for a 'CUV' (aka tall wagon), I'd far, FAR prefer that 6 wagon.

Agreed. With that being said, I am impressed with the amount of space the 6 has.

My BMW 5 series, which is 700 pounds heavier and significantly larger then the 6 only has a slightly larger trunk and back seat space is the same if not slightly better in the Mazda...

FWD cars make really good use of space.
 
An awd 6 wagon would compete with the Outback, no?

My preference was the Oldsmobile Vista Cruiser. That was some wagon.
 
I loved the Volvo 240 series. My buddy had a turbo wagon, and I had a turbo 2 dr sedan. RWD before nanny features became mainstream.
 
My wife see them as this abomination from her childhood...

3.jpg


or some may see them as GMs last models...

7fa29d1b640b6e16d728038861702907.jpg


I think they put a LT1 in them but still not something that helps with the cause for appreciation to the masses
 
Back