silvrsvt Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 Not a bad looking car, but the rear of it its kinda weak styling wise http://www.autoblog.com/2012/08/28/2014-mazda6-mazda-6-reveal-moscow/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 I don't know. I'm almost kind of tired of Mazda's new design direction already, as they hinted at it already with far too many concepts over the past couple of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 28, 2012 Share Posted August 28, 2012 but the rear of it its kinda weak styling wise I guess they just didn't spend enough time on the rear end........ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANTAUS Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/sedans/1208_2014_mazda6_first_look/ Impressive...Weight is coming in at 2954lbs., fuel economy could be 39-40HWY.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calypsocoral Posted August 29, 2012 Share Posted August 29, 2012 I guess they just didn't spend enough time on the rear end........ I like the rear end-- you can almost actually see something behind you! I also like that they kept the belt line down, instead of hiking it up to Steve Urkel levels, like everyone else (including the new Fusion). 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leon Posted August 31, 2012 Share Posted August 31, 2012 Oh, good thing they added Skyactiv-G 2.5-liter! The 2.0 is kind of weak for the weight. And for the economical ones - regenerative breaking plus stop/start technology. I'm completely happy with the new design language direction after their current "goofy smile" theme. I know that in a few years if I'll need to buy another car, cool-looking Mazdas will be ready to choose from :shades: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 (edited) Impressive changes, 111.4" wheelbase, moved the front wheels 4" forward in relation to front A-pillar, reduced over hang In an alternate universe, that car would have been the basis for the '13 Fusion Edited September 2, 2012 by jpd80 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 Pricing, specifications, and EPA fuel economy figures for the U.S. market 2014 Mazda6 have been announced. 2.5L SKYACTIV-G gasoline engine, 184 horsepower at 5,700 rpm and 185 lb-ft of torque at 3,250 rpm 25 mpg city/37 mpg highway/29 mpg combined for 6-speed manual; 26/38/30 for 6-speed automatic $21,675 including destination charge for base model (i Sport 6MT) Press release Pricing details Brochure with features and specifications Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheesyRider Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 They need to have someone check their material for errors. The brochure lists the manual transmission as available on both the sport and touring trims. The press release and pricing details list the manual as only available on the sport trim level. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 They need to have someone check their material for errors. The brochure lists the manual transmission as available on both the sport and touring trims. The press release and pricing details list the manual as only available on the sport trim level. I agree CheesyRider. The brochure is from the LA Auto Show, so perhaps Mazda originally intended to offer the manual transmission on both Sport and Touring trims and then made a last minute change before today's press release. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 And then rewind to now with Fusion 1.6 Ecoboost which doesn't have a lethargic engineand achieves basically the same fuel economy as the new Mazda 6:Fusion 1.6 Ecoboost:23/36/28 (Automatic)25/37/29 (Manual)24/37/28 (Auto Start-Stop)This is why Mazda is technically good delivering real weight reductions but then stickswith a NA DI engine that really struggles to bring the goods when geared for economy.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted January 4, 2013 Share Posted January 4, 2013 And then rewind to now with Fusion 1.6 Ecoboost which doesn't have a lethargic engineand achieves basically the same fuel economy as the new Mazda 6: Fusion 1.6 Ecoboost: 23/36/28 (Automatic) 25/37/29 (Manual) 24/37/28 (Auto Start-Stop) This is why Mazda is technically good delivering real weight reductions but then sticks with a NA DI engine that really struggles to bring the goods when geared for economy.. Lethargic and unrefined describes the 1.6L engine in Fusion and Escape when paired with an automatic tranny. It's responsive at lower speeds but quickly runs out of breath, and real world fuel economy isn't anything spectacular. For reference, review results of the midsize sedan comparison test that included a 2013 Fusion 1.6L 6AT in the November 2012 issue of Car and Driver, along with Consumer Reports' evaluation of two 2013 Ford Escapes (a 1.6L SE and a 2.0L Titanium) in the November 2012 issue of that publication. Back to the Mazda6: since the 2.5L MZR engine in the previous Mazda6 provided competitive performance, the more powerful 2.5L SKYACTIV unit in a car that's lighter should present no issues at all with "bringing the goods" in the 2014 Mazda6. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 5, 2013 Share Posted January 5, 2013 (edited) Already on sale in Australia ...LINK The diesel versions are around 20% better again in fuel econony Euro combined Fuel economy Gasoline 2.5 I-4 = 6.6 l/100 km ( US 36 mpg) Diesel 2.5 I-4 = 5.4 l/100 km ( US 44 mpg) I assure you guys, Euro combined figures are easy to achieve in mixed driving and in that situation, a diesel will get same or better economy than a comparable hybrid. Edited January 5, 2013 by jpd80 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted January 6, 2013 Share Posted January 6, 2013 Lethargic and unrefined describes I'm about this close to declaring you a troll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Lethargic and unrefined describes the 1.6L engine in Fusion and Escape when paired with an automatic tranny. It's responsive at lower speeds but quickly runs out of breath, and real world fuel economy isn't anything spectacular. For reference, review results of the midsize sedan comparison test that included a 2013 Fusion 1.6L 6AT in the November 2012 issue of Car and Driver, along with Consumer Reports' evaluation of two 2013 Ford Escapes (a 1.6L SE and a 2.0L Titanium) in the November 2012 issue of that publication. Back to the Mazda6: since the 2.5L MZR engine in the previous Mazda6 provided competitive performance, the more powerful 2.5L SKYACTIV unit in a car that's lighter should present no issues at all with "bringing the goods" in the 2014 Mazda6. This is parallel universe stuff for Ford, Mazda 6 and 2.5 DI embodies a what if Ford kept Mazda and its CD3 based Fusion and developed it further.... The Mazda 6 is a nice effort but let's not kid ourselves that it reaches a much smaller buyer audience than either Fusion or Mondeo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKII Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Couple 1.6 EB video reviews does not leave me with the impression that the 1.6EB in Fusion is lethargic nor unrefined. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 And then rewind to now with Fusion 1.6 Ecoboost which doesn't have a lethargic engineand achieves basically the same fuel economy as the new Mazda 6: Fusion 1.6 Ecoboost: 23/36/28 (Automatic) 25/37/29 (Manual) 24/37/28 (Auto Start-Stop) This is why Mazda is technically good delivering real weight reductions but then sticks with a NA DI engine that really struggles to bring the goods when geared for economy.. On the other hand, the Skyactiv-G outdoes the 2.5 in the Fusion in both power and FE. Maybe that's what they were going for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
97svtgoin05gt Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 Still don't care for those dumbo looking round fenders in the front but overall a nice looking car. Another manufacturer with no V-6 option....hmmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted January 14, 2013 Share Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) I'm about this close to declaring you a troll. Do what you need to do as Moderator; I'll comply. Edited January 14, 2013 by aneekr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.