Mazda6 Signature

I think your trivializing ECU tuning and remapping...it can and does make big differences in performance, that is why customers line up and pay big bucks for remapped and retuned ECU chips on the aftermarket...
I am not trivialising it. Aftermarket does make a difference but what apparently Mazda has done here is not that effective. As I have said previously, there is no difference between the 6 and CX-9 engines in terms of power and torque delivery. The only reason the 6 is faster than the CX-9 is because of the different final gear ratio and of course it weighs less.

As also advised previously, this is just an engine transplant with minimal changes inline with what they have been doing with the 2.5NA and 2.2 D
 
The Mazda6’s performance is particularly impressive when you consider the Ziex ZE001 is a crossover/SUV tire.

Wait, hold the phone. The Mazda6 comes with an SUV tire? Same tire as the Nissan Rogue and Subaru Ascent? What on earth for? We asked Mazda, and a spokesperson told us, “The Falken Ziex ZE001 A/S was chosen as the OE 19-inch tire for the 2018 Mazda6 for a variety of reasons, including stable controllability, refinement, quietness, lower fuel consumption, and braking characteristics. While there are off-the-rack versions of the Falken Ziex ZE001 A/S available, the tires equipped on the 2018 Mazda6 were specifically designed in collaboration with Falken, engineered to specification with the program objectives in mind to deliver a refined experience that complements Mazda’s capable chassis dynamics.”


Here is the article that it is quoted from.

http://www.motortrend.com/cars/mazda/mazda6/2018/2018-mazda6-signature-25t-first-test-review/
So I searched for "ZIEX ZE001 A/S" and the first website/webpage I came to said, "Nissan Rogue OE Replacement"... like what the heck Mazda LOL, but I still have to continue reading the article...
 
So the Motor Trend first test review did mention 45-65 mph times; it said that the new Mazda6 is 0.4 seconds slower than the Accord 2.0T. The Accord does it in 2.9 seconds, which means the Mazda6 does it in 3.3 seconds. I have to be honest I'm disappointed with that number. The GT 86/BRZ does it in 3.3 seconds, the MX-5 does it in 3.2 seconds. A Nissan Murano does it in 3.4 seconds. Where did all that 310 lb-ft of torque go? Now I understand why reviewers are saying it is not as fast as they expected it to be, and the test data supports it. I was really hoping it would be within 0.1 second with the Accord 2.0T and Camry V6. I understand that numbers aren't everything, but I am really fixated on that 310 lb-ft of torque and the 45-65 mph times. Oh well at least it gets better MPG, well 1 MPG better than an Accord. It's going to be tough to decide between the Accord 2.0T and Mazda6 2.5T and even the Camry V6 when it comes time to replace my Speed3.
 
I am not trivialising it. Aftermarket does make a difference but what apparently Mazda has done here is not that effective. As I have said previously, there is no difference between the 6 and CX-9 engines in terms of power and torque delivery. The only reason the 6 is faster than the CX-9 is because of the different final gear ratio and of course it weighs less.

As also advised previously, this is just an engine transplant with minimal changes inline with what they have been doing with the 2.5NA and 2.2 D

LOL...circle talk. So basically your saying that the aftermarket tuners are so good that they can tune their ECU's to make a difference, but Mazda's engineers who have won many Ward engine design awards aren't as capable and don't know to tune their ECUs to where it makes a difference in the 6...lol.
 
So the Motor Trend first test review did mention 45-65 mph times; it said that the new Mazda6 is 0.4 seconds slower than the Accord 2.0T. The Accord does it in 2.9 seconds, which means the Mazda6 does it in 3.3 seconds. I have to be honest I'm disappointed with that number. The GT 86/BRZ does it in 3.3 seconds, the MX-5 does it in 3.2 seconds. A Nissan Murano does it in 3.4 seconds. Where did all that 310 lb-ft of torque go? Now I understand why reviewers are saying it is not as fast as they expected it to be, and the test data supports it. I was really hoping it would be within 0.1 second with the Accord 2.0T and Camry V6. I understand that numbers aren't everything, but I am really fixated on that 310 lb-ft of torque and the 45-65 mph times. Oh well at least it gets better MPG, well 1 MPG better than an Accord. It's going to be tough to decide between the Accord 2.0T and Mazda6 2.5T and even the Camry V6 when it comes time to replace my Speed3.

Honestly, the Accord 2.0T is a beast. Not as pretty as the Mazda 6 but still, an absolute fantastic car. I personally am a big fan of how the Honda 1.5T and 2.0T drive. I know there are some questions about the reliability but from a performance standpoint, they are very good.

Mazda went after a very specific audience with the Mazda 6. Honestly, I think they nailed it.
 
LOL...circle talk. So basically your saying that the aftermarket tuners are so good that they can tune their ECU's to make a difference, but Mazda's engineers who have won many Ward engine design awards aren't as capable and don't know to tune their ECUs to where it makes a difference in the 6...lol.
I'm afraid you are going around in circles trying to justify your points when it's actually quite simple

It's the same engine and same power delivery regardless if it is in the 6 or CX-9. Nothing more.

Time to move on. Have a nice day.
 
I'm afraid you are going around in circles trying to justify your points when it's actually quite simple

It's the same engine and same power delivery regardless if it is in the 6 or CX-9. Nothing more.

Time to move on. Have a nice day.

LOL, time to move one because you won't admit you are wrong and so you choose to ignore valid points that prove contrary to the misinformation your speaking...
 
Your statement actually applies to you since you are the only one sprouting this information and no where else other than Mazda USA have said it. Mazda Australia hasn't made any mention of the 2.5T being specifically tuned for the 6. If it was tuned for the 6, all Mazda local HQ's would be saying this. Are they (uhm)

You can think what you like and say what you like. That is up to you. It is a forum after all.

My comments are not misinformation as everybody else (reviews) have pretty much said it's the same engine in both the 6 and CX-9. Seems you choose to disagree with this statement which is up to you but you also disagree with pretty much all the reviews out there.

As I mentioned previously, if any reviews state what you are saying (2.5T specifically tuned for the 6) then I am more than happy to stand corrected.

I won't be continuing this discussion anymore. You can have the last word if you so wish. That is fine. I've said all I want to say.

Best wishes to you :)
 
Last edited:
FWIW Car and Driver had the 6 outperforming the Accord 2.0T and Camry V6 in the 30-50mph and 50-70mph metrics, and on regular fuel to boot.

I just don't see how the target buyer could drive all three and find the acceleration of the 6 to be deficient. I can more easily see how the buyer would find the Camry's interior deficient compared to the 6.
 
FWIW Car and Driver had the 6 outperforming the Accord 2.0T and Camry V6 in the 30-50mph and 50-70mph metrics, and on regular fuel to boot.

I just don't see how the target buyer could drive all three and find the acceleration of the 6 to be deficient. I can more easily see how the buyer would find the Camry's interior deficient compared to the 6.

Does the Accord & Camry provide push back into the seat acceleration (uhm)

If they do then basically it's that feeling that the target buyer apparently missed out in the 6 because it provides a relentless surge acceleration instead of push back into the seat acceleration
 
Honestly, the Accord 2.0T is a beast. Not as pretty as the Mazda 6 but still, an absolute fantastic car. I personally am a big fan of how the Honda 1.5T and 2.0T drive. I know there are some questions about the reliability but from a performance standpoint, they are very good.

Mazda went after a very specific audience with the Mazda 6. Honestly, I think they nailed it.
The Accord 2.0T straight line numbers from Car and Driver are super impressive, the Mazda6 2.5T and Camry V6 aren't even close. I find it confusing though that Car and Driver has the Mazda6 faster in 30-50 mph and 50-70 mph metrics than the Accord/Camry, which goes against the data from Motor Trend. They must be testing them differently.

You're right, looks like Mazda was really targeting a specific audience with the new 6. They are willing to trade outright performance for a very pleasant ride. They are really taking this move to "premium/upmarket" thing very seriously.
 
Does the Accord & Camry provide push back into the seat acceleration (uhm)

If they do then basically it's that feeling that the target buyer apparently missed out in the 6 because it provides a relentless surge acceleration instead of push back into the seat acceleration

The somewhat flat 3k-4k range in the powerband might be to blame for that. I believe Motor Trend in their First Drive review mentioned it. It like surges at 2k RPM, then sort of stagnates at 3k-4k RPM then surges again at high RPM. Kinda like the complaint people have with the torque dip of the FRS/BRZ, but it is obviously not as bad as that.
 
The somewhat flat 3k-4k range in the powerband might be to blame for that. I believe Motor Trend in their First Drive review mentioned it. It like surges at 2k RPM, then sort of stagnates at 3k-4k RPM then surges again at high RPM. Kinda like the complaint people have with the torque dip of the FRS/BRZ, but it is obviously not as bad as that.

I think I beat them to it in noticing this!

209hg7s.jpg
 
I think I beat them to it in noticing this!

209hg7s.jpg
My guess is, Mazda did this for fuel efficiency. Their data most likely suggest, like their data for the CX-9 demographic, that people will get on the throttle for a bit to pass, then will stop needing the extra power soon enough, probably at the 3k-4k RPM range. Basically, looks like this Mazda6 is very much developed to be a daily driver luxury cruiser.
 
My guess is, Mazda did this for fuel efficiency. Their data most likely suggest, like their data for the CX-9 demographic, that people will get on the throttle for a bit to pass, then will stop needing the extra power soon enough, probably at the 3k-4k RPM range. Basically, looks like this Mazda6 is very much developed to be a daily driver luxury cruiser.

(iagree)
 
As an owner of a mazda 6 GT Reserve, I don't notice this 3-4krpm thing at all. The engine is quick to rev up to 2krpms, almost like it had electrical power to get it up there, but once you are there it pulls evenly until 5krpms. And yes, it will break traction in 2nd gear, even with traction control on. I've only been driving it for 2 days and have been taking it easy, but yeah...extremely happy with the car.
 
As an owner of a mazda 6 GT Reserve, I don't notice this 3-4krpm thing at all. The engine is quick to rev up to 2krpms, almost like it had electrical power to get it up there, but once you are there it pulls evenly until 5krpms. And yes, it will break traction in 2nd gear, even with traction control on. I've only been driving it for 2 days and have been taking it easy, but yeah...extremely happy with the car.

What firmware are you running?
 
Back