2009 Mazda6 i Grand Touring: Performance and Fuel Update

Why do you guys always seem to post substantially slower acceleration times than Car And Driver? Last time I read their review on the Jetta TDI they managed 8.1 seconds to 60 when Edmunds had a 8.9 second time... where did those .8 seconds go? Does C&D just destroy the clutch of every car they test? Not likely, because their recorded times with automatics and dual clutch transmissions are quicker too.

That start button is in a crazy silly location - like oops, we forgot to put one in!

That's some scary awful gas mileage.

Ok, here's something for you mazda6lovers. The other day I saw it on the road and realized it's butt ugly. If you imagine it's front end pointing at 12 o'clock and you're looking at the car from the 5 o'clock angle you'll see the greenhouse and the A pillar going straight into... no not the hood, but the bulging front fender. There's not a hint of the hood, just the fender. So there.

I like the start button location. After you press it your hand is right there to move the shifter out of park. It's different, but it's not worse imo.

"So there."

Well, I guess we have the final word on its appearance. And I must say my heart is broken that ctpax doesn't approve. And he has the science to back it up.
I don't think it is the best looking car out there but it is far from the worst and it always cracks me up when people take something as subjective as appearance on a car and make a declaration on it.

compliance has a point. The fact that Mazda put plastic over where the actual key goes in lesser models kind of stinks, though. Overall, Mazda did a great job with the new 6, I think. Thanks for the review.

I think it looks great inside and out, and I actually like the fender and the RX-8-esque look.

The buttons on the older Mazdas do light up, including the labels that say what they are. And why rockers instead of buttons? Maybe on the left spoke the rockers are good for volume and track selection. But a rocker switch for cruise control off/on? I can't imagine any type of device or appliance where off/on should be a rocker instead of a button. I'm sure, much like the unlit wiper/cruise/everything stick in our GMC, you get used to it as an owner. But it seems like change for change's sake, and has become less functional in the process.

the push button is in that location because its not standard. Its a compromise forced by the fact that the base car has regular keys. apparently it is difficult to have a button installed where the ignition would normally be situated.

I'm interested to get more feedback on the interior. It is definitely nice, but not mind blowing as some reviews have suggested. Its on par with the Malibu and Accord but nothing game changing. Most of the plastics are rock hard just as on other cars in this class. I also wasnt a fan of the 80s VCR fonts on the center stack or the small gauges and info in the gauge cluster.

What, so Mazda is going to race in NASCAR?

Buick Enclave has 80s VCR fonts as well.

Again with the "pretty impressive" accolades for 29.1mpg a highway road trip in a midsize 4 cyl. sedan with 2.5 l of displacement? I don't get it. I'd think that would be just "okay". But maybe that's because I have on several occasions logged in the 30.1-30.4 range with my Altima, which has two more cylinders netting an extra half-liter of displacement and kicks out another 100 ponies. If the 4 cyl. Mazda is impressive, then I guess that's stupendous! astonishing! fantasmagorical!

But wait - didn't your own V6 Camry do even BETTER than that on highway trips? You're going to exhaust your stock of superlatives for that one, I guess. Hmmmm - seems like you guys became real easy to impress on the fuel economy side of things all of a sudden. Getting poorer highway fuel economy than a V6 rival doesn't exactly make a strong case for the purported "relevance" of this 4-banger sedan.

And I sure wished you guys had tested the manual version of this car. Auto + 4 cylinder = slooooow. Still looks great, though.

No it didn't, it got 26mpg as a high.

Someone must not have gotten the memo that the Malibu isn't on par with the Accord as far as interior plastics go.

How fast we're you going in your Altima?

Where else should they have put the ignition cover, or what should they have done with it, it still serves a purpose.

jaeger1: Why don't you go drive an I4 Mazda6 on the same trip under the same circumstances in the same manner and see how it goes? I hit 50 miles a gallon in my I4 Altima once, and I hit 14 as well. Mileage varies. I know, shocking. The EPA ratings are the best guide to a vehicle's potential because they're standardized and controlled with variation ironed out as much as possible. Don't compare apples to oranges. Frankly, no one in this conversation cares that you've hit 31 before. Why? Because it's not comparable. If you have a current generation Altima it's rated for 26 on the highway while this Mazda6 is rated for 30. That's what matters. The average person will see four miles a gallon better from the I4 Mazda6 than the V6 Altima on the highway. The highway isn't the best place to compare I4 to V6 engines, anyway. A Honda Fit with its 1.5l I4 only achieves 33 on the highway compared to 29 for the V6 Honda Accord. But look at the city mileage. That's where it changes dramatically. I4 engines tend to be smaller and weaker and connected to transmissions with fewer speeds, therefore they must work harder to maintain high speeds than large, powerful engines with fuel-sipping transmissions and gear ratios.

I hope the new 6 is more durable than my Mazdaspeed 3; after the problems and rattles that have beset my heap I finally checked the VIN plate to make sure it wasn't built by GM or Chrysler...

I keep my highway speed in the 120-125kph zone on longer trips as a general rule.

orangutang - I find observed fuel economy to be way more significant than EPA ratings - particulary when conducted over a long-term test by a trusted source. I consider Edmunds a trusted source.

The average combined fuel economy at 16,167 miles for the V6 Camry was 25.09. The average combined fuel economy for the 4 cyl. Mazda 6 to this point is 24.2. I suck at math, but that's WORSE right?

The really funny part is that the average mileage for the Camry was described by the reviewer as "tepid". But now we've got a whole bunch of high-fiving "Impressive!"s being showered on the 4 cyl. Mazda. Clearly I am missing something. I feel sure though, that you will be able to explain why I should be impressed with the fuel economy of a 4 cyl. midsize passenger sedan that hasn't been able to match that posted by its much more powerful V6 competitor. I'm all ears.

Jaeger

PS - No-one cares? When did you get elected as spokesperson for the entire membership? That memo I didn't get.

at 16,167 miles for the V6 Camry was 25.09

I think you provided the answer for me, the 6 is ONLY a few months old with ONE trip under it's belt(as far as we know).

Guys it's a friggin Toyota 2GR-FE. It's out of everyone's league.

This I4 is clearly on par with everyone else, even with Toyota's own I4.

The Toyota 2GR-FE is out of everyone's league. It's insane. The competition should just give up.

"The Toyota 2GR-FE is out of everyone's league. It's insane. The competition should just give up."

I think you are onto something...

Once again and as usual, keyboard warriors are busy at work bashing the 6, as if its numbers are far worse than those of the camcordibu. Oh but look at the comparison of those 3 and compare the numbers; faster than 2 of them to 60, all of them through the quarter, and tied for first with that camry thing at 24 mpg average.

I have a feeling it's gonna be a long 20k miles, all with the 6 actually outclassing the competition, but with the haters finding SOMEthing to complain about.

9 seconds? Good god that's glacial.

This thing FAILs at every thing,especially in the looks department. i guess those eyes tells alot about it's origin,eeeeww!!

"Buick Enclave has 80s VCR fonts as well."

Thats debatable. And even if its not those fonts are only in the gauge cluster. The 6 has them on readouts in the center stack as well.

"Someone must not have gotten the memo that the Malibu isn't on par with the Accord as far as interior plastics go."

Plastics evaluation is largely subjective. I didnt find any major difference between the two but the Malibu has a more attractive design. The Accord's center stack is huge as are the buttons and fonts which seemed sized for AARP members.

"9 seconds? Good god that's glacial."

Most four cyliner midsize cars need 8.5-9secs to get to 60. Magazines rarely test I-4 models so we forget how slow they are. The V6 models are MUCH faster these days because the hp gap is so large.

toyota4life, ya I totally agree omg this thing is just terrible compared to the pristine design of the Camry. The Camry is like, absolutely beautiful and stuff.

"toyota4life, ya I totally agree omg this thing is just terrible compared to the pristine design of the Camry. The Camry is like, absolutely beautiful and stuff."

i'll take a camry any day over this abomination,and i dont even like driving cars.
after driver my 4runner for six yrs, no more cars for me.
i wont even mention the venza,what a gorgeous work of art!! drool, drool.

Wow, so failing to do cartwheels over a 4 cyl sedan getting less than 30 mpg highway and less than 25 mpg combined counts as HATING now? Not much of a fanboy, are you?

cx7lover - you are correct to point out - as I did earlier - that these are early numbers. They could well improve, and I hope they do. My point is simply that these numbers - as they stand - are not IMPRESSIVE by any measure. Indeed, they do not match the combined numbers of a V6 competitor which these very editors described as "tepid".

Even if these num

Now "tepid" would surely be an appropriate adjective to describe the 9 seconds this thing takes to eventually get to 60.

It's such a shame this car is so heavy. A 9.1 second 0-60 really isn't awful, but 3600 pounds in a 4-cylinder midsize sedan is cringe-worthy. Going for the V6 will make it very very quick in a straight line but then you're looking at 272 HP through the front wheels in a heavy car and that just sounds like a recipe for mediocrity. I'll miss the old Mazda6.