Well I only drove it for five minutes when it was cold so that is what I based my opinion on. It wasn't horrible but it wasn't any better than my GF's 2010 Mazda 3 S. It just had that typical delay in shifts when the gas was pressed abruptly. But I did not use the paddle shifters.

 

So I just drove a GT and its night and day between a sport in the MT much more refinement and it just seems to come alive more (which is a first). I've never had more fun in an auto rather than a MT. I also thoroughly enjoyed the paddle override. Allowing you to use the manual shift mode even when you have only selected drive. I'm going back tomorrow to do a side by side comparison against a fusion as my mazda dealer has a ford dealer on site.

Was also looking at some numbers and the diesel option on the 6 seems useless. You get 1 more MPG but diesels is about 30 cents more expensive and yes the power and torque numbers on it are impressive but due to gearing being diffident. The 0-60 and 1/4 mile times are faster in the gas 6 rather than the diesel.

 

Say what?
Lay off the Buffalo wings, and check your mpg figures again.
The US diesel hasn't been announced yet, and the euro diesel mileage figures are considerably more than 1 extra mpg.

Let me guess...

The dealer told you that the diesel would only be 1 mpg more, right?
They are trying to sell you the car NOW, not in 6 more months down the line.

BC.

 

No this number came from research, the current estimation on the diesel is 41-43 with an outlandish speculation peaking at 45MPG as opposed to the gas 38MPG. anyone thinking it will be much higher is just an unrealistic approach

 

I'm so tired of hearing about this diesel crap. They only belong in trucks.

 

Where are you getting the diesel mileage figures? Something seems VERY wrong.

Paul.

 

The 150hp diesel does 4.2l\100km.
The 175hp one 4.8l\100km.
Both in "combined" ratings (urban+highway).

Highway only... 3.6 and 4.2 respectively.
http://www.mazda.it/upload/country/i...a6_01_2013.pdf
Look under "Consumi".

 

The diesel is already out and has been out in many different countries finding the numbers respectively and converting isn't complicated

 

L/100 km to MPG or MPG to L/100 km Fuel / Gas Efficiency / Consumption Conversion Chart / Table (Miles per US gallon to liters per 100 kilometers )

Over 58mpg...

 

Yeah right, and my RX-8 gets 30MPG on the highway.

 

Yes it is rated at 58 MPG doing a straight conversion, but for that mater a VW TDI is rated at 56MPG in the UK and we all know thats not what they get here.

My numbers again seem to be real world expectancy as the TDI here is around 40MPG

 

Go play in a different thread, then.

This is a Mazda 6 thread.
It contains both diesel and gasoline engines.

Either deal with it, or move on.

BC.

 

Nah, I'll just stay here and complain about them to annoy you since apparently what I think matters so much to you.

 

So you do or you don't want to here about the new subcompact diesels???

I use to be with you in hating ever diesel unless it was a good old 1 ton, but we have to face it seems everything with a 6 or 4 banger are getting diesels nowadays

8's to 6's to turbo 4's to NA 4's now to diesels, the evolution of the automobile.

 

Hey OEM turbos are making a come back We shall see how the diesels sell.

 

I'll put my NA up against you'r T-NA all day

Winner gets curly fries and a milkshake.

 

Now that's funny!

 

For anyone interested

https://www.rx8club.com/general-auto...napsis-243071/

 

What you say doesn't phase me, but it does seem silly to complain about a diesel engine offered in a thread about a car that contains it in the way that you did.

Regardless, I decided to go test drive the new Mazda 6 back to back with a 2014 CX-5 with the new 2.5 engine in it, just today.

Both vehicles were the Touring version, and both with the automatic.
The 6 had the leather interior, while the 5 had the cloth interior, and AWD.

I will keep my comments about the CX-5 limited, since this thread isn't about that vehicle.

First impressions:

The Mazda 6 interior is a notch above the CX-5's interior.
You can definitely tell that they took the comments about what would make the CX-5 interior better, and put them directly into the new 6.
The leather seats are simply fantastic.
The exterior is also just as wonderful to behold, from every angle.
Of all the colors I saw, the Soul Red and Meteor Gray have that extra pop to them. I did not get to see the 6 in the Black Mica, however.

Driving impressions:

It is not an RX-8. If you try to compare it to an RX-8, you are going to be very sorely disappointed, as some have mentioned already.

Bump absorption - The Mazda 6 absorbs road imperfections with the same aplomb that the RX-8 does. It swallows up the impact, and just lets you know that something happened, but it wasn't anything to concern yourself with. Bumps in corners don't upset the chassis or suspension in any way.

Steering feel - Lighter than the RX-8 and CX-5. I also hated the very slippery steering wheel. To me, the steering wheel just feels smaller than the RX-8 and CX-5 steering wheel, and the fact that my fingers don't find anything they like about the tactile feel of the steering wheel, made me very conscious about what feedback the Mazda 6 was giving me. And the answer to that is not nearly enough.

Don't get me wrong, the car handles well for its class of car. Better than my 2007 Nissan Altima S did. But it is just not in the same class as the RX-8, nor even in the same class as the CX-5. Yes, I did just say that. I feel that the CX-5 handles better than the Mazda 6 does. The answer is very simple, too.

The RX-8 has a wheelbase of 106.4 inches.
The CX-5 has a wheelbase of 106.3 inches.
The Mazda 6, on the other hand, has a wheelbase of 111.4 inches.

Having all that weight stretched 5 more inches really upsets the balance of the car front to rear. It understeered very badly when pushed into corners hard. The 19" front Dunlop Sport 5000's just could not keep the front end planted, and washed out. The CX-5, on the other hand, just felt so much better, and its so much taller. The width of the 6 and the CX-5 is identical. The front and rear tracks are within several tenths of an inch of each other, I'll just call it the same between the both of them.

And both cars are nearly the same weight.
Well, there's a 100+ lbs difference between the new 6 and the FWD CX-5.
The AWD CX-5 I tested is 300 lbs heavier, but quite a bit of that is in the back end, and low, which only aids the weight balance and distribution.

Comparing the Mazda 6 to my old '07 Altima 2.5 S with the 6 speed manual, the 6 out handles it, but the steering feel from the Altima was more to my tastes. Put the steering feel into the 6 that the 8 has, and figure out a way to make it not feel so nose heavy, and it would be so much better, in my opinion. It is very good.

Engine performance - The 6 wins this one, because the car weighs less, is lower, and has better transmission shifting programming. It is not harsh. It is not clumsy. Honestly, it perfect. I wish the CX-5 had as clean and crisp shifting logic as the 6 does. No hunting, no goofiness, just perfect shifts, every time.

There is a however, coming up. The CX-5 has a much taller final drive ratio, and whenever you gave it the beans, it felt like the car was much peppier than the Mazda 6. Neither car is an RX-8, however. But slow, they are not.

Oh, and I live and test drove these cars at over 5400 feet in altitude.
Both cars have about 147 hp, once you drop off 20% from the 184 hp due to the much thinner air and lack of oxygen up here. The cars will be faster at sea level, by several seconds, 0-60.

So, what's my overall impression?

The Mazda 6 is a fantastic car to compete against the Honda Accord, Toyota Camry, Nissan Altima, and everything else in the target segment. For owners who want a better looking car for the same money, they get it in the 6. If they wanted great fuel economy, they will get it in the 6. If they want better handing, it beats the competition, as a whole. If they want a more luxurious looking and feeling interior, the 6 once again wins, hands down.

If they want blistering acceleration, the Mazda 6 does not offer that currently.
But, you need to remember, only a small portion of the Midsize family sedan market is equipped with V-6's. Power hungry people will go elsewhere, until the Skyactive-D becomes available. Hopefully that car will deliver the good for acceleration. If its tuned for economy, like the TDI VW products are, I don't think it will win over those power hungry buyers, at all.

I like the Mazda 6.
If I was buying a sedan to seat 4 really comfortably, it would be on the top of my list. I would have bought it over the '07 Altima, without a doubt.

But all told, I wouldn't replace the RX-8 with one.
Just too different, and not as good a handling car, with all the weight up front, making the car plow when pushed.

If I could take the 6's interior and put it in the RX-8, oh my, that would be tasty.
And I love how the nose of the 6 hints very slightly at the now deceased Furai.

Mazda has a winner on its hands, no doubt.

My money, however, is going to go to a CX-5 FWD Touring.
Maybe. I'm nearly sold.

Very nearly.

No FWD Tourings in Colorado, or the surrounding states, currently.
I will bide my time.

BC.

 

The 6 and the CX-5 share the same interior.

 

^ This. I can literally name out all the things different between the two. Little things such as the MMI console control is now available for the Mazda6 instead of only for Euro CX-5's, extra stitching on door panels, same vents and shift surround but with metallic accents, metallic accent around start/stop button, stitched center armrest, piano black (or blood redish) extra trim around navi and one piece to the left of the steering wheel, and GT Mazda6 gets 4 way power passenger seat. The shape of the dash itself is damn near the same. Touring 6 gets leatherette as opposed to cloth in CX-5 Touring. That's it!

 

People expecting more power from the diesel car will be disappointed, at least in stock trim and especially in the typical 0-60 tests. The diesel car has less peak power and may weigh a little more. The available torque at low rpms being so much higher equals much more power at 'those' lower revs. If you compare them getting on throttle from 1500 to 3000 rpm, the diesel is the winner hands down with a BIG push in your back. It will be a very rewarding drive since so much can be accomplished at lower revs, possibly changing people driving styles on their daily commute.

Bottom line: Don't expect huge power when the diesel arrives although it may take modding better (And that is yet to be proven).

Paul.

 

As I said there basically the same, most people wont notice the difference as there minute changes

 

BTW...sold today my MPS (a.k.a mazdaspeed6)...she goes to Frankfurt in Germany and the next couple of days i'm ready to order a 2.5 auto Wagon (MT not available here in EU on 2.5) ...

yes, i'm quite alone here in EU wich use gasoline ...but in my opinion is more right for my use of the car.. the dealer was shocked...someone asking for gas engine...

tested briefly a wagon diesel 150 hp (obviously no gas car available for testing...) and handles very well, more agile than my speed6

 

A wagon?! You must post pics.