Mazda6 Signature

Drove that base 6GT today when I had CX5 in for oil change..nice interior, nice riding vehicle pretty quick capable on the back roads but idk it wasn't 'asking' me to push it, didn't sound great doing it. Drove 3GT with a manual straight after, and quite to my surprise, preferred it. The 6 wasn't offensive in any way just not the speed6 light that I guess I kinda hoped for also felt like I was sitting an inch or so too high...oh well still nice car for the $ I thought my tester was a titch over 30 I believe.
 
Last edited:
Mazda aren't aiming for MPS (Mazdaspeed) with their new 6. More of a sophisticated sedan with more performance without losing any of it's Zoom Zoom capabilities.
 
Mazda aren't aiming for MPS (Mazdaspeed) with their new 6. More of a sophisticated sedan with more performance without losing any of it's Zoom Zoom capabilities.

Yeah, from some of the reviews you get the feeling that the car is not nearly as fast as people had hoped. This review in particular gives that feeling. But if the same engine in a CX-9 can do 0-60 in 7.1 seconds, it should be faster in a car weighing almost 700 lbs less. No?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvgqo3Mk27M&feature=youtu.be
 
Drove that base 6GT today when I had CX5 in for oil change..nice interior, nice riding vehicle pretty quick capable on the back roads but idk it wasn't 'asking' me to push it, didn't sound great doing it. Drove 3GT with a manual straight after, and quite to my surprise, preferred it. The 6 wasn't offensive in any way just not the speed6 light that I guess I kinda hoped for also felt like I was sitting an inch or so too high...oh well still nice car for the $ I thought my tester was a titch over 30 I believe.
This is good. This means the 2.5 NA engine is not too much of a slouch compared to the turbo. The reason I say this is good, is because I am looking into getting a CPO Mazda6 with the 2.5 NA engine to replace my Speed3. While I would prefer the turbo 6, I cannot afford it right now and I would like a new car soon. My fear is that after getting a Mazda6 with the NA engine, I would regret it everytime I see a turbo 6 out on the road LOL.

The past few months my commute has changed as I now have to go through stop and go traffic. Commuting in the Speed3 in stop and go traffic, is tiring, especially on the drive home from work, since I also have to rush to pick up my kid on time.
 
Yeah, from some of the reviews you get the feeling that the car is not nearly as fast as people had hoped. This review in particular gives that feeling. But if the same engine in a CX-9 can do 0-60 in 7.1 seconds, it should be faster in a car weighing almost 700 lbs less. No?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvgqo3Mk27M&feature=youtu.be

Have to wonder if they toned down the torque/power on the low end given that this generation 6 is still just FWD? Otherwise it would likely be hopping and tugging all over the damn place.
 
Have to wonder if they toned down the torque/power on the low end given that this generation 6 is still just FWD? Otherwise it would likely be hopping and tugging all over the damn place.

Would be interesting to see the dyno curves on the turbo 6. The Forrest Auto Review video said that he had traction control off when he pushed it and didn't notice any torque steer or wheel spin. The tune is more than likely pulling torque on low RPM because it is just FWD. That's not necessarily a bad thing to me, but understandably, other people will be surprised at the lack of shove for an engine that makes 310 lb-ft of torque.
 
Yeah, from some of the reviews you get the feeling that the car is not nearly as fast as people had hoped. This review in particular gives that feeling. But if the same engine in a CX-9 can do 0-60 in 7.1 seconds, it should be faster in a car weighing almost 700 lbs less. No?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvgqo3Mk27M&feature=youtu.be

People unfortunately expected too much. Mazda was never going to make a "fast" car. They are addressing the widespread comments that it needed more oomph from take off and whilst driving.

It should be circa 6-7s bracket provided the gearing doesn't hobble it.
 
Forgot to ask if he knew what fuel it was running on..probably cheap s*** if i had to guess..and I didn't expect a race car but it didn't feel like 1/3 more power and 2/3 more tq..i know if it was 87 it wouldn't be that much more power so no need to point that out x:)
 
I think they should've tuned it differently, firmed it up a bit, maybe some real brakes..wheels do look very nice in person, brakes look puny.
 
Forgot to ask if he knew what fuel it was running on..probably cheap s*** if i had to guess..and I didn't expect a race car but it didn't feel like 1/3 more power and 2/3 more tq..i know if it was 87 it wouldn't be that much more power so no need to point that out x:)

I know you know the details but others might not :D

227HP on 87, 250HP on 92. Torque remains the same on either fuel grade.
 
I think they should've tuned it differently, firmed it up a bit, maybe some real brakes..wheels do look very nice in person, brakes look puny.

When it gets released here, I'll be able to get details on the differences in brake diameters etc (brochure here is quite detailed)
 
To me the engine felt right at home in the big 9er but somehow minimally more lively with almost 1k less lbs to push around...so yeah I did expect a bit more.
 
Just couldn't help yourself could ya?

(wink)

To me the engine felt right at home in the big 9er but somehow minimally more lively with almost 1k less lbs to push around...so yeah I did expect a bit more.

The engine itself is not aimed at being a "power" plant. Even though the Mazda 6 2.5T weighs less than the Mazda CX-9 2.5T, the engines power delivery has not been altered. If they wanted more, they would have altered the power delivery of the engine not to mention the gearing.

Remember the 2.5T in the CX-9 was aimed at low end to every day speed limits as mentioned in their research where Mazda technicians "tailed" every day consumers to see their driving habits.
 
(wink)



The engine itself is not aimed at being a "power" plant. Even though the Mazda 6 2.5T weighs less than the Mazda CX-9 2.5T, the engines power delivery has not been altered. If they wanted more, they would have altered the power delivery of the engine not to mention the gearing.

Remember the 2.5T in the CX-9 was aimed at low end to every day speed limits as mentioned in their research where Mazda technicians "tailed" every day consumers to see their driving habits.

When Mazda said the 2.5T was made for the CX-9, they really meant it! Lots low low end torque to get a big truck moving. But that is not ideal in a sports sedan.
 
Yes.. impressed with how well it gets the porky cx9 up and running and its not unwelcomed in the 6 but its didn't breathe the amount of life into it that I anticipated. That said I did neglect to hit it into sport mode..and was likely running on 87..on the upside i noticed 0 torque steer.
 
Yes.. impressed with how well it gets the porky cx9 up and running and its not unwelcomed in the 6 but its didn't breathe the amount of life into it that I anticipated. That said I did neglect to hit it into sport mode..and was likely running on 87..on the upside i noticed 0 torque steer.

Well, I bet most of those things are true. I do wonder if they wanted to avoid torque steer or any feeling of it and that is impacting how it feels. Up-market folks do not like torque steer and chirping tires.

Here is another review that sounds like your experience:

http://wwwb.autotrader.ca/expert/20180420/first-drive-2018-mazda6/
 
Torque is good but adding more power won't make a difference until they change how the power and torque are delivered
 
Last edited:
Back