Last night, I put about 100 freeway miles on our 2009 Mazda 6 i Grand Touring, climbing a few grades and initiating a few decisive passing maneuvers. And now I'm convinced that the car's 2.5-liter inline four-cylinder engine is an adequate power source for this midsize sedan.
Ours is a PZEV, of course, so it's rated at 168 horsepower at 6,000 rpm and 166 pound-feet at 4,000 rpm (versus 170 hp and 167 lb-ft on non-PZEVs). Like most fours in this class, the 2.5-liter makes useful torque at relatively low rpm and it lasts into the mid-range, so getting around town and merging onto the freeway is pain-free.
Climbing grades (in this case, the I-5 Grapevine) forces the engine to reach for high rpm -- well, not too high, as redline comes early at 6,200 rpm. I don't dislike the way the engine sounds at these speeds, but I don't delight in it. Given the choice, I'd rather have the current-generation Accord's 2.4-liter engine as my soundtrack. The engine isn't exactly comfortable at 6,000 rpm, either, but nor does it feel strained.
In general, I was happy with the responsiveness of our Mazda 6 i's five-speed automatic transmission, but on the Grapevine, it took extra prodding to get it to drop to 3rd in "D," so that manual mode would be useful. I do like the 0.692 top overdrive gear, because it has the engine at 2,500 rpm at 70 mph and only 3,000 rpm at 80 mph.
Overall, this is a powertrain I could live with in a personal car, especially considering the impressive cruising range -- this a 400-mile car, easy-peasy. The only time the Mazda 6 i feels kinda slow is under full throttle coming down an entrance ramp. And really, I think it would have no difficulty keeping up with the four-cylinder Accord, Camry and Malibu we tested last year. First choice is still the Passat 2.0T, though.
Erin Riches, Senior Editor @ 7,070 miles
kissel1 says:
11:46 AM, 03/ 5/09
Hi Erin!
Great, great detailed post!
I'm considering a Mazda 6..question:
Do you feel the four-cylinder engine is adequate?
Thanks in advance!
06scooby says:
11:48 AM, 03/ 5/09
What in the heck is that truck in front of the car by the subway?
cx7lover says:
11:55 AM, 03/ 5/09
Hi kissel1!
Great, detailed comment!
I'm considering asking you a..question:
ARE U TROLLIN'?
Thanks in advance!
lenoroc says:
11:56 AM, 03/ 5/09
The Mazda 6 has a gorgeous rear, damn. Those twin tailpipes help.
The Mazda 6's weight might place its acceleration below the Malibu and Accord 'sthough, it's a bit of a porker.
lenoroc says:
12:04 PM, 03/ 5/09
Disregard my last comment, I got it backwards. Hah.
aurakr says:
12:44 PM, 03/ 5/09
That is why it would be nice if Edmunds can do a long term test of the Malibu with the 2.4/6 speed combination.
Then we would have a direct comparison. Doesn't Mazda use a 6 speed auto with the V6?
I wonder if the gearing on the 2.4/6 speed auto in the Malibu is like the gearing on my Aura XR with the 3.6/6 speed? I know that I am at 2000 rpm at 75 mph and just over 2100 at 80 mph.
Please don't tell me you were turning 6000 rpm up the grapevine!!!!
aurakr says:
12:44 PM, 03/ 5/09
That is why it would be nice if Edmunds can do a long term test of the Malibu with the 2.4/6 speed combination.
Then we would have a direct comparison. Doesn't Mazda use a 6 speed auto with the V6?
I wonder if the gearing on the 2.4/6 speed auto in the Malibu is like the gearing on my Aura XR with the 3.6/6 speed? I know that I am at 2000 rpm at 75 mph and just over 2100 at 80 mph.
Please don't tell me you were turning 6000 rpm up the grapevine!!!!
jlaszlo says:
02:08 PM, 03/ 5/09
I have an '09 Touring with the 6-speed manual. It's interesting how, in my car, I'm near 3,000 rpm at 70mph. The same disparity happened when I test drove a 4-speed auto Astra and the 5-speed manual.
My mileage is a bit better than yours though 500 miles of mixed driving (a little over 26 mpg) though I'm babying it.
I'm with you on the power. It's adequate but rowing the gears is a joy.
Compared to the '07 Accord EX-L Navi, 5-speed I owned this is a far superior car. More fun to drive, better fit and finish, and much more back-seat and trunk space.
SadButTrue says:
04:00 PM, 03/ 5/09
@jlaszlo,
I noticed the manual's higher revs myself when I was at the 6 press event last year. The only explanation I got from the Mazda folks was that manual buyers like their cars "sportier." Guess the Corvette's not very sporty, eh?
-Josh
greenpony says:
06:30 PM, 03/ 5/09
What's just adequate now was performance 10 years ago, when a typical V6 powered midsize sedan was running 170-ish hp.
As for engine revs, AT vs MT, I've grappled with the same question. The only reason I can think of that a MT typically revs higher at a given cruising speed than an AT is to help reduce the need to downshift all the time, especially in hilly or mountainous terrain. What gets me is that the MT and AT have comparable highway mpg's, despire a rev difference. What's up with that?
06scooby says:
07:19 AM, 03/ 6/09
I think you are more accurate green pony. In my legacy in 5th gear it cruises at 70 a few hundred rpms higher than the 4spd auto rental (same year) I had once. but on most of the grades around here my legacy will climb it without a downshift and that one would kick down to 3rd at 70.
Since most people that actually buy manuals like to shift, I wish mine was more relaxed while cruising. I don't mind kicking down a gear, I enjoy it!
Monocrom says:
10:35 AM, 03/ 7/09
Adequate is not bad. But why be adequate, when you can shoot for the moon.... And not just shot for it, but reach it.
blueguydotcom says:
04:24 PM, 03/ 7/09
Gotta agree the Passat or the Passat CC (25k with a 6 speed manual) are best choices if one is stuck with a FWD family car.