Mazda6 comparison

Just read this article and some of the folks comments there. Pretty interesting...
 
Poor Camry, Toyota can never get it right with the driving enthusiast. Why did they even put it in the comparison? I am just glad to see what most of us already know around here. When compared head to head the Accord is found lacking compared to the 6. Still some seem to not want to give mazda their due credit. To me this was no real surprise, Mazda's whole stated purpose is to build cars that are fun to drive. So it is no wonder they spend more time getting the fine details about driving dynamics right. It is what they are dedicated to, while toyota and honda are dedicated to more of a mass appeal. I love mazda's for that reason, it is what attracted me to Mazda in the first place.
 
I like the quotes from the testers:

Evans: “Engine’s got plenty of zip. Never had to floor it, and it never felt weak or made the car feel heavy. Everything about this car is smooth and fluid. The way the steering comes off center, the way the suspension eases the chassis into corners, the way the throttle picks up, the way the brakes engage, the way it handles transitions. It’s perfect.” Jurnecka: “The steering is sublime, especially for this class. Weighting is just spot-on, and there’s a great amount of feel and precision. ‘Little’ things like this really make a huge difference in how a car feels.”

Agree wholeheartedly!
 
I don't know what's worse, automotive journalism or comments about automotive journalism? hahaha

They should have compared the new Altima instead of the Camry since it's an older model compared to brand new ones from Nissan/Honda/Mazda.

It tough to buy into automotive journalism other than for entertainment (which I do enjoy). But you can't rely on someone else to tell you what to buy. The pricing of the Mazda6 is a little high, but...it does feel the best to drive and that's worth something considerable.
 
lfkmazda said:
They should have compared the new Altima instead of the Camry since it's an older model compared to brand new ones from Nissan/Honda/Mazda.
Click to expand...

I agree with you there; I have no idea why they had the Camry in there. Maybe they wanted to see how the number 1 seller compares to a niche product? The Altima makes a lot more sense. Here's hoping they'll do another, larger comparison, and maybe Ford will finally give up the goods.
 
The Camry is only a couple of years old.

I'd also give the Accord a close second. Seems Honda stepped up their game. I love the Mazda 6 though.
 
Last edited:
cburrell said:
Poor Camry, Toyota can never get it right with the driving enthusiast. Why did they even put it in the comparison? I am just glad to see what most of us already know around here. When compared head to head the Accord is found lacking compared to the 6. Still some seem to not want to give mazda their due credit. To me this was no real surprise, Mazda's whole stated purpose is to build cars that are fun to drive. So it is no wonder they spend more time getting the fine details about driving dynamics right. It is what they are dedicated to, while toyota and honda are dedicated to more of a mass appeal. I love mazda's for that reason, it is what attracted me to Mazda in the first place.
Click to expand...

If you look at the test results, Accord did better in a number of tests, Figure 8, lateral G, stopping distance, acceleration after 60 mph and 45-65. According to MT, manual Accord Sport recorded 0-60 in 6.8 sec, while manual Mazda6 Sport took 7.8 sec, so the CVT obviously slowed the Accord during launch. The 2.4L is stronger than the 2.5L Skyactiv, while less efficient. I'll probably take the 6, but wouldn't race an Accord.


lfkmazda said:
I don't know what's worse, automotive journalism or comments about automotive journalism? hahaha

They should have compared the new Altima instead of the Camry since it's an older model compared to brand new ones from Nissan/Honda/Mazda.

It tough to buy into automotive journalism other than for entertainment (which I do enjoy). But you can't rely on someone else to tell you what to buy. The pricing of the Mazda6 is a little high, but...it does feel the best to drive and that's worth something considerable.
Click to expand...

Camry is the benchmark of the segment in terms of sales. Year after year they lose comparison tests and year after year they are the number 1 in sales.
 
ManMachine said:
If you look at the test results, Accord did better in a number of tests, Figure 8, lateral G, stopping distance, acceleration after 60 mph and 45-65. According to MT, manual Accord Sport recorded 0-60 in 6.8 sec, while manual Mazda6 Sport took 7.8 sec, so the CVT obviously slowed the Accord during launch. The 2.4L is stronger than the 2.5L Skyactiv, while less efficient. I'll probably take the 6, but wouldn't race an Accord.

Camry is the benchmark of the segment in terms of sales. Year after year they lose comparison tests and year after year they are the number 1 in sales.
Click to expand...

I know people here on this forum take it for granted and assume that the Mazda is always the "sporty" choice compared to the competition. But when you look at the numbers, it's not really so clear.

The Mazda 6 feels noticeably "sportier" when it's the Accord that just as athletic. Some cars look better on the stop-watch. Some cars feel better behind the wheel. You have to pick and choose what works for you. I will say this as a definitive knock against the Accord, though, it's steering feel is completely lost in all the electro-boost it gets. But, the pricing and packaging on the new Accord is very attractive compared to the 6.

That is why you should take automotive journalism and forum posting with a grain of salt.

Mazda is not going to catch Toyota in sales any time soon. Shows just how un-important comparison tests really are.
 
If this were a family sedan comparison test plain and simple, the boring Camry most likely would've won, as it continues to win somehow in terms of sales (the general public loves it). However, from a performance-oriented standpoint in terms of automatic-equipped sedans, the Mazda deserved this win. What would be REALLY interesting, however, would be to see a showdown between the six-speed MANUAL Honda Accord Sport and a Mazda 6 Sport (or Touring when that becomes available with the stick later this year). If the Accord recorded a 0-60 time as fast as 6.6 seconds with the four-cylinder engine and manual transmission and the automatic Mazda 6 was able to achieve a 7.4-second time (I have a feeling a stripped-down 6 could've managed at least a tenth or so better), it will be a close and interesting comparison between the two manual cars. As impressive as the Accord's numbers are, I'm rooting for the Mazda. Even if it's a tad slower, the driving dynamics and the engineering philosophy behind it alone would close the deal for me. That's why I've driven Mazdas exclusively for almost a decade now.
 
GoBackToSleep said:
If this were a family sedan comparison test plain and simple, the boring Camry most likely would've won, as it continues to win somehow in terms of sales (the general public loves it).
Click to expand...

The Camry is the safe bet for the average consumers and they sell plenty in fleet sales. I've never seen it win a comparison test though. I also don't think the average Camry buyer looks for reviews before they purchase which is why Toyota doesn't really care if it wins or not these comparo tests.

The Camry isn't a bad car, it just doesn't please journalists.
 
GoBackToSleep said:
If this were a family sedan comparison test plain and simple, the boring Camry most likely would've won, as it continues to win somehow in terms of sales (the general public loves it). However, from a performance-oriented standpoint in terms of automatic-equipped sedans, the Mazda deserved this win. What would be REALLY interesting, however, would be to see a showdown between the six-speed MANUAL Honda Accord Sport and a Mazda 6 Sport (or Touring when that becomes available with the stick later this year). If the Accord recorded a 0-60 time as fast as 6.6 seconds with the four-cylinder engine and manual transmission and the automatic Mazda 6 was able to achieve a 7.4-second time (I have a feeling a stripped-down 6 could've managed at least a tenth or so better), it will be a close and interesting comparison between the two manual cars. As impressive as the Accord's numbers are, I'm rooting for the Mazda. Even if it's a tad slower, the driving dynamics and the engineering philosophy behind it alone would close the deal for me. That's why I've driven Mazdas exclusively for almost a decade now.
Click to expand...

As I mentioned above, according to Motortrend, "manual Accord Sport recorded 0-60 in 6.8 sec, while manual Mazda6 Sport took 7.8 sec". Granted they may not have tested these under the same conditions, but I don't expect the manual Mazda6 to win the drag race.
 
Automobile Magazine just had a midsize madness, bracket-style playoff with 8 cars. They did a quick comparison against the new Altima here, and an even quicker one against the new Fusion here. The finals came down to the 6 and Accord again, but the 6 couldn't pull ahead this time. It's a good read though.
 
I agree with their decision as I know that Mazda's aren't for everyone. I can easily recommend a Civic or Corolla to anybody, but I always must explain a little more when it comes to the 3. Honda really did a good job at making a car for everyone.

I would still take a 6 though.
 
Please log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

OkieRich
2022 Mazda6
Replies
1
Views
3K
sm1ke
sm1ke
MOCOLONI
  • Question
2003 Mazda6 compatible with parts from other Mazda models?
Replies
0
Views
262
MOCOLONI
MOCOLONI
bazzaboy09
What sort of MPG is your Mazda6 getting?
Replies
11
Views
3K
Snorting2.5
S

Latest posts

Back