Topic: First Drive: 2018 Mazda6

[Dante]

Great looking car. With the bump in power, addition of CarPlay and Android Auto this is the car I would buy in the segment. AWD option would be awesome to complete it. Sure, will not outsell Camry/Accord by any stretch of imagination, but this has nothing to do with the product itself.

[greengs]

VW is the opposite. My car is rated at 170hp on 87 octane, but APR has dyno results showing 190hp on 93 octane.

Is your engine the 1.8T?  If so, your ratings are 170hp, 184lb/ft on premium gas.  Regular is required and it makes something less than that on 87..  VW doesn't specify what. 

This info isn't readily available on the VW.ca site.  But, if you go to the USA website and look under technical specs it shows the following for their 1.8T turbo engine:

Fuel Requirement

Regular (horsepower achieved with premium fuel)

[Sir Osis of Liver]

VW is the opposite. My car is rated at 170hp on 87 octane, but APR has dyno results showing 190hp on 93 octane.

Is your engine the 1.8T?  If so, your ratings are 170hp, 184lb/ft on premium gas.  Regular is required and it makes something less than that on 87..  VW doesn't specify what. 

This info isn't readily available on the VW.ca site.  But, if you go to the USA website and look under technical specs it shows the following for their 1.8T turbo engine:

Fuel Requirement

Regular (horsepower achieved with premium fuel)

Either marketing isn't speaking with engineering, or 93 octane has an even bigger effect on the TSI than other brands to match the results ARP was getting.

In 2015 at least, VW was specifically saying 170hp using 87 octane. It's the kind of information I like to know.

[greengs]

VW is the opposite. My car is rated at 170hp on 87 octane, but APR has dyno results showing 190hp on 93 octane.

Is your engine the 1.8T?  If so, your ratings are 170hp, 184lb/ft on premium gas.  Regular is required and it makes something less than that on 87..  VW doesn't specify what. 

This info isn't readily available on the VW.ca site.  But, if you go to the USA website and look under technical specs it shows the following for their 1.8T turbo engine:

Fuel Requirement

Regular (horsepower achieved with premium fuel)

Either marketing isn't speaking with engineering, or 93 octane has an even bigger effect on the TSI than other brands to match the results ARP was getting.

In 2015 at least, VW was specifically saying 170hp using 87 octane. It's the kind of information I like to know.

Honestly, I think the difference between 87 and 91 on any of these engines would be hard to notice in most operating conditions.  Even from what I've read about the Mazda CX-9 that has the 227/250 rating, reviews say the difference is hard to notice.

I think it's all marketing.  VW changed their GTI from premium gas required to regular required (premium recommended for optimum power) in 2016 and I doubt they changed anything.  All that happens is the engine now makes 5-10 hp less at peak curve. 

[Jaeger]

Great looking car. With the bump in power, addition of CarPlay and Android Auto this is the car I would buy in the segment. AWD option would be awesome to complete it. Sure, will not outsell Camry/Accord by any stretch of imagination, but this has nothing to do with the product itself.

Agreed - that's kind of a false metric anyway - the list of mainstream midsize cars that won't outsell Accord and Camry is, well, every midsize car not named Accord or Camry.  The lions share is theirs and the rest of the segment is fighting for the scraps.  That said, I'm sure Mazda can make inroads against the likes of Altima and Sonata.

[greengs]

Here are the prices for easy comparison, MSRP before fees and tax(es)

Mazda 6 GS-L Turbo : $33,600
Mazda 6 GT Turbo: $35,800
Mazda 6 Signature Turbo: $38,800


Camry V6 XSE is $39,890
Camry V6 XLE is $40,890

Accord 2.0T Sport auto: $34,190
Accord 2.0T Touring auto: $38,890

[OliverD]

Here are the prices for easy comparison, MSRP before fees and tax(es)

Mazda 6 GS-L Turbo : $33,600
Mazda 6 GT Turbo: $35,800
Mazda 6 Signature Turbo: $38,800

Camry V6 XSE is $39,890
Camry V6 XLE is $40,890

Accord 2.0T Sport auto: $34,190
Accord 2.0T Touring auto: $38,890

Are you on VWvortex as well?

[greengs]

Here are the prices for easy comparison, MSRP before fees and tax(es)

Mazda 6 GS-L Turbo : $33,600
Mazda 6 GT Turbo: $35,800
Mazda 6 Signature Turbo: $38,800

Camry V6 XSE is $39,890
Camry V6 XLE is $40,890

Accord 2.0T Sport auto: $34,190
Accord 2.0T Touring auto: $38,890

Are you on VWvortex as well?

 

I've been there since 2002. 

[OliverD]

Here are the prices for easy comparison, MSRP before fees and tax(es)

Mazda 6 GS-L Turbo : $33,600
Mazda 6 GT Turbo: $35,800
Mazda 6 Signature Turbo: $38,800

Camry V6 XSE is $39,890
Camry V6 XLE is $40,890

Accord 2.0T Sport auto: $34,190
Accord 2.0T Touring auto: $38,890

Are you on VWvortex as well?

 

I've been there since 2002.

Noob, I've been there since 1999.

[Noto]

I understand that Mazda didn't want to invest in making this ageing 6 AWD, but it really needs it to carve out its niche and properly move 'upscale'.  It may be priced well compared to the Camry/Accord, but nearly $40k is a lot of money for this thing when we have winter (or want better launch).

Better car or not (it's not), the Buick with firesale pricing makes them pretty damn compelling...

[Jaeger]

I understand that Mazda didn't want to invest in making this ageing 6 AWD, but it really needs it to carve out its niche and properly move 'upscale'.  It may be priced well compared to the Camry/Accord, but nearly $40k is a lot of money for this thing when we have winter (or want better launch).

Better car or not (it's not), the Buick with firesale pricing makes them pretty damn compelling...

Somebody should break the news to Honda and Toyota that awd is a competitive requirement for the midsize sedan segment.  They just released brand spanking new models without it.  And with all the bandwidth devoted to those cars, I sure didn't read much along the lines of "no awd?  WTF were they thinking??" Hard to criticize Mazda for not adding it to the refresh of a dated model.

[dougjp]

I understand that Mazda didn't want to invest in making this ageing 6 AWD, but it really needs it to carve out its niche and properly move 'upscale'.  It may be priced well compared to the Camry/Accord, but nearly $40k is a lot of money for this thing when we have winter (or want better launch).

Better car or not (it's not), the Buick with firesale pricing makes them pretty damn compelling...

Agreed. I still use a local Buick dealer for tire storage and changeover, and I was in yesterday. They had a Regal Sportback in the showroom, the styling is beautiful and it wasn't even a GS which is even nicer. I always loved the looks of the 6 but the Buick is at least as good, IMO.
The base engine in AWD is a 2.0T with 295 torque, 250 HP. The GS is a 3.6L with 282 torque @ 5,200, in other words, the base is just as good for day to day driving and other than minor styling there would be no need to spend $$ for the GS.

The hatch area is cavernous with the back seats down. There are levers right at the rear of the car inside which fold the rear seats down flat with no manual intervention from the back doors. I was impressed overall.

[Noto]

Somebody should break the news to Honda and Toyota that awd is a competitive requirement for the midsize sedan segment.  They just released brand spanking new models without it.  And with all the bandwidth devoted to those cars, I sure didn't read much along the lines of "no awd?  WTF were they thinking??" Hard to criticize Mazda for not adding it to the refresh of a dated model.

Not sure if you've missed the point or are intentionally suggesting that my point is irrelevant.  I explicitly stated that I don't blame Mazda for not adding it to the "refresh of a dated model":

I understand that Mazda didn't want to invest in making this ageing 6 AWD,

But, in fact, many do argue that the Accord, especially the 2.0T, would benefit greatly from AWD.  We also have all those who want an Accord with AWD just taking up the CR-Vs (maybe that's the point?). 

The Camry/Accord are on an assault of fuel economy (not unusual at all).  Mazda tried with the fuel economy game, and it didn't succeed.  Mazda is now trying to position itself upscale and as great "value" compared to the luxury marques, but it's merely doing that with interior materials and exterior styling.  Adding the turbo makes the powertrain at least relatively 'competitive', but which of the vehicles the Mazda is aiming for is FWD only?

G70 is RWD/AWD, 3-series is RWD/AWD, A4 is RWD/AWD, C-class is RWD/AWD, Buick (if Mazda cares) makes 'em in FWD/AWD, the Acura TLX is FWD/AWD, and the Legacy is of course only AWD...

The Mazda6 is not aiming at the ES350 crowd (and if it's trying to, it's failing), which somehow is acceptable as a FWD-only model.

...but if it's taking aim at the IS350 (or 300), that one, too, is RWD/AWD.

Subaru knew it wasn't winning any popularity contests, but decided to put AWD on all its vehicles.  Now, Subaru is synonymous with winter and (thanks to the STi, performance traction) -- true or not.

So, again, I'm not surprised by the lack of AWD on this generation of the Mazda6, but I have to suggest that a 5-year old model on its last legs of refresh is still desperately in need of AWD for its next redesign.

[OliverD]

A4 is FWD/AWD

[tortoise]

But, in fact, many do argue that the Accord, especially the 2.0T, would benefit greatly from AWD.

It would certainly help with the wheel hop issue that has been brought up several times.

And I agree with the premise that Mazda needs to differentiate itself from the Camcord.  And AWD is another way for them to accomplish this.   We all know that a 2.5T all-wheel drive wagon is the best way though. 

[Jaeger]

Somebody should break the news to Honda and Toyota that awd is a competitive requirement for the midsize sedan segment.  They just released brand spanking new models without it.  And with all the bandwidth devoted to those cars, I sure didn't read much along the lines of "no awd?  WTF were they thinking??" Hard to criticize Mazda for not adding it to the refresh of a dated model.

Not sure if you've missed the point or are intentionally suggesting that my point is irrelevant.  I explicitly stated that I don't blame Mazda for not adding it to the "refresh of a dated model"

I am quite sure that you missed my point.  And far from surprised.

[Jaeger]

A4 is FWD/AWD

Facts?  Pffft. 

[OliverD]

The Mazda6 is not aiming at the ES350 crowd (and if it's trying to, it's failing), which somehow is acceptable as a FWD-only model.

Relative to how it does in the U.S. the ES is a poor seller in Canada, I'm guessing mostly due to lack of AWD since the majority of the sales in this segment are AWD. The IS does quite well in Canada, unsurprisingly.

[Jaeger]

The Mazda6 is not aiming at the ES350 crowd (and if it's trying to, it's failing), which somehow is acceptable as a FWD-only model.

Relative to how it does in the U.S. the ES is a poor seller in Canada, I'm guessing mostly due to lack of AWD since the majority of the sales in this segment are AWD. The IS does quite well in Canada, unsurprisingly.

Doesn't the ES outsell the AWD GS in Canada?

[tortoise]

It's also $20k cheaper.