So my father is getting a new Mazda...

  • Thread starter Thread starter TopHat
  • 65 comments
  • 2,767 views
It makes it easier to get into the back seats, but I seem to recall getting tangled in the seat belts... Then again, maybe that was my car too...
 
The one issue with the MS3 is that it's small and boy-racer-ish... of course, the RX8 isn't really a "practical" car... but it doesn't look like a college-boy's car (don't get me wrong... I'd love to have an MS3, myself... the standard engines don't do the 3 chassis justice).

The new 6, if it's based on the global 6, should be a swell handling car. Especially with the 2.5, which gives it a good, even weight balance. I miss the freneticism of the old 6, which felt more connected to the road (thanks to the terrible road-noise insulation and the hydraulic steering), but the new Mazda6 handles as-close-as-damnit-possible to a BMW 3-series as you can get without going RWD.
 
niky
The new 6, if it's based on the global 6, should be a swell handling car.
Click to expand...
Its not. Its based on the old 6 (though that was a swell handling car in its own right).


Keep in mind that if he wants the RX-8, he will have to drive it like a crazy person to get power out of it, which may not be his thing.
 
Last edited:
I've got a decent amount of seat time in the RX-8 and V6 Mazda6, and lots of seat time in a barebones 6, and I'll tell you this. Get the MazdaSpeed 3.

The RX-8 is just not a good car. It tries to deliver on all levels for the sports car lover who needs practicality. Frankly, it ends up coming up short on everything. It definitely has reliability issues (as a Mazda owner, I have talked to many of our local 8 owners), poor acceleration (you have to really rev it to get anywhere, and it takes some extra gas to get it moving from a stop), poor gas mileage (especially in the city, due to those starts), limited space, the highest price of the three cars, and good handling/road feel (which I count as a downfall because it's not good enough to compensate for its oher pitfalls).

The V6 6 is cheaper than the RX8, has 40 more HP, over 100 more ft-lbs or torque, and really feels snippy for a Japanese sedan. I was shocked when I first touched the gas. It still gets better gas mileage, and to be honest, the handling isn't bad at all. I believe you can opt for a better handling sport package.

The Mazdaspeed3 is the cheapest of the group, gets the best gas mileage (a hair better than the Mazdaspeed 6), is the best straightline car, and the best handler. Do a little reading on some recent magazine tests and you'll see the reviewers got more than they expected from a front-driver. The only pitfall is that it must be a manual tranny. It might have slightly less interior room than the 6, but certainly isn't cramped at all, and it is better for cargo with the hatchback.

This is a no-brainer when you look at the numbers and drive the three. Get him behind the wheel.
 
Reliability issues... *thinks*

May have something to do with owners that don't know about the oil consumption and just drive the car without checking anything until the next oil change/service interval... Or until something really feels wrong behind the wheel.

OH WAIT. That's 95% of the American car buying population...

Issues due to other stuff failing SHOULD be worked out by now, but they ain't issues from it being a rotary all said.

Aaaand on the lack of low-end... NOTHING that winds to 8 or 9000 rpm will have much low end, and in fact... Most 1.8 - 2.0Ls that wind that high have less torque than the Renesis... At a higher RPM. (as in peak torque hits later)

Lastly... The piston engine goes *boing* *boing* *boing* but the Mazda goes *Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm*. ;)
 
Still, I'm thinking, older American male, concerned about highway ride as well as handling, Sportiest thing he's owned is a sports sedan, I might lean towards the Mazda 6, more comfortable, more room, better cruiser without sacrificing much in the way of handling. However, If he'd doesn't mind the lack of low end torque, (and possibly, "passing power,") a somewhat firmer ride, the higher maintenance, and the occasional "mid-life Crisis" jokes, (Whether it be true or not,) I'd say he's ready for the RX-8.
 
Rotary Junkie
Aaaand on the lack of low-end... NOTHING that winds to 8 or 9000 rpm will have much low end, and in fact... Most 1.8 - 2.0Ls that wind that high have less torque than the Renesis... At a higher RPM.
Click to expand...
Which really doesn't mean anything. The Masda 6 V6 would be faster, get better mileage, handle pretty good in its own right and be more practical. 8/10ths the sporting character for 20/10s the usability.
 
Last edited:
TopHat said that the 6 would be a 4 cylinder.
 
In which the same thing applies, the only difference being that the Mazda 6 would be slightly slower than the RX-8 in a drag race and the mileage difference would increase even more.
 
He said the 3 would be too small, Troux. He seems set on the 6 now.
 
The 3 is too small, but he was looking into the 8? Also, the 3 really isn't much smaller than the 6 at all. Like I said, there's a lot of cargo area, and it will comfortably seat 5.
Rotary Junkie
Reliability issues... *thinks*

May have something to do with owners that don't know about the oil consumption and just drive the car without checking anything until the next oil change/service interval... Or until something really feels wrong behind the wheel.

OH WAIT. That's 95% of the American car buying population...
Click to expand...
No, I was talking about owners that are rotary enthusiasts.
 
Well, I was actually gonna start a review thread on the '09 Mazda6.

I've not driven the RX8 so I can't say anything about it except that someone I know has one and it uses premium grade fuel, gets less than 20 MPG, but it is quick and handles well.

I've now driven both the '08 and '09 Mazda6.
The '08 is a tight little sedan with good power (even though the 2.3 is rated at a paltry 150-some HP) It is a firm riding car, but it will not beat you to death when the road gets bumpy. It corners nice and flat.
I have but 2 complaints: 1st. Mazda decided to back light the gauges in red. It grows on you over time. But I just find it unattractive, and hard to see at dusk, when it's still too bright to take off the shades, but too dark to run without headlights.

My other complaint has to do with the interior color scheme. If you chose a tan colored interior, everything from top of door up will still be black or grey.
So, for the fashion conscious, get a black interior.

The '09 I drove was a 2.5L with a 6-spd manual. It was a hoot to drive and 6th gear drops 500 RPM on the freeway at 70 MPH. The shifter was smooth, had nice short throws, and nice positive engagement. The clutch was smooth and progressive.
The 2.5 feels quite a bit more powerful than the 2.3, though there is less than a 15 HP difference between the engines.
Because of the build quality of the new 6, the motor is damn near eerily quiet. In "normal" every day driving, you WILL be short-shifting it, because you can't really hear it or feel it. It starts to growl at about 3500-4000 RPM with a redline near about 7500.
Unfortunately, the V-6 is only available as an automatic. But I do believe on the sTouring and sGrand Touring you get paddle shifters.

Price wise, the 6 with the 3.7 and loaded to the gills (sGrand Touring with Nav system) will run a bit over $33,000. The sTouring can be had for $3000 less.

The RX-8 Grand Touring, with the same stuff will run a touch over $35,000.

For my lifestyle and needs, as much fun as the RX-8 would likely be, I'd go with the 6.
Plus, the new V-6 only has right at 40 MORE horsepower than the Rotary.

Add that both the I4 and the V6 don't require premium grade fuel, and get better gas milage.
 
Last edited:
Troux
The 3 is too small, but he was looking into the 8? Also, the 3 really isn't much smaller than the 6 at all. Like I said, there's a lot of cargo area, and it will comfortably seat 5.
Click to expand...

Exactly. TopHat, has your father ever been inside mazda 3 hatch?
 
Meh, perhaps He's one of those people who thinks hatchbacks are nothing more than small economy cars.
 
Thats too bad then. He's missing out on one of the best FWD's for sale in the US market.

BTW's did the new rx8 shed a few pounds? A 3000 pound car with a tiny, torque inclined motor was a bad idea from the start
 
I also have a Mazda 3 sedan on the lot.
One of the complaints I have heard about the hatch (though it is a cute car) is of road noise.
That is also true of the 6 hatchback.
I'm old enough that I don't want to contend with road noise by turning up the stereo.
Top Hat's dad has a couple of years on me, so I imagine he'd likely feel the same.

Besides, for the money, you can't beat the refinement to performance ratio of the Mazda6. You'd have to drop a bit more money on a Camry. And more still on an Accord.
 
well if the look is the reason he doesn't want a 3 then thats fine, however don't let him tell you it's about practicality or space since the 3 has far more of both than the rx8.
 
Last edited:
YSSMAN
As for the "awkwardness" of the rotary, I've just never been a fan of the noise or the way it puts the power down.
Click to expand...

Duke
Have you driven one?
Click to expand...

YSSMAN
I did have an opportunity to drive one, but oddly, I turned it down.
Click to expand...

Boo. Credibility fail.


Rotary Junkie
Reliability issues... *thinks*

May have something to do with owners that don't know about the oil consumption and just drive the car without checking anything until the next oil change/service interval... Or until something really feels wrong behind the wheel.

OH WAIT. That's 95% of the American car buying population...
Click to expand...

If the oil is low, an idiot light will come on. Reliability and excessive oil consumption may be correlated, but not necessarily causal.


Rotary Junkie
Aaaand on the lack of low-end... NOTHING that winds to 8 or 9000 rpm will have much low end
Click to expand...

NOTHING is too extreme a statement. The motor in my car revs to 8000 RPM and makes 262 lb-ft @ 4900. It's not an earthshattering number or anything, but combined with very short gearing, does a fair imitation of a larger displacement motor ---provided you're in the right gear.


M
 
Idiot lights don't necessarily come on early enough...

At least, they don't come on early enough to prevent damage.

4900 RPM is not low-end for one, and displacement will affect torque at all RPM. Just because a given fairly large displacement yet revvy engine makes more torque down low than something smaller doesn't mean it's got low end... Or at least not much for its displacement.
 
Maybe not all motors that rev that high are torqueless, but the rotary sure as hell is one. The motor has awful low-end, and makes the car annoying to drive around town.
 
Rotary Junkie
Idiot lights don't necessarily come on early enough...

At least, they don't come on early enough to prevent damage.
Click to expand...

Okay, so let me make sure I understand you correctly. You're saying that Mazda designed an engine that consumes oil at an excessive rate, but knowing this is the case, also designed an idiot light that doesn't come on soon enough the prevent long term damage to the engine?

Furthermore, long term reliability problems are therefore caused by the owners???


Rotary Junkie
4900 RPM is not low-end for one,
Click to expand...

That's not a bad point, but the torque curve is pretty flat on the motor. I don't have a dyno handy at the moment, but there's useful torque as low as ~2000 RPM.

Rotary Junkie
and displacement will affect torque at all RPM.
Click to expand...

Right, which is the main reason why I thought your original statement was too extreme. It is possible for an engine to both rev AND make good useable power and torque at lower engine speeds. The but way you made it sound was, like impossible.

Rotary Junkie
Just because a given fairly large displacement yet revvy engine makes more torque down low than something smaller doesn't mean it's got low end... Or at least not much for its displacement.
Click to expand...

Well, my motor displaces 3.2 liters. So that's 81.87 lb-ft per liter, according to my ricer math. That's not bad, compared to something like an S2000 F22C which revs to an identical 8k, works out to about 73 lb-ft per liter.

Compared to other NA 6 cylinder motors in the 3 liter range...

350Z VQ 3.5 287@6200
350Z VQ 3.5 HR 260@????
TT 3.2 236@2800
Mustang Cologne V6 4.0 245@3500

Like I said before. It's not stellar or anything, but given the curve and combined with very short gears, it's got good wheel torque.


M
 
///M-Spec
Okay, so let me make sure I understand you correctly. You're saying that Mazda designed an engine that consumes oil at an excessive rate, but knowing this is the case, also designed an idiot light that doesn't come on soon enough the prevent long term damage to the engine?

Furthermore, long term reliability problems are therefore caused by the owners???
Click to expand...

There is a reason it's called an IDIOT light.

I've never seen the oil idiot light come on right when the oil gets a bit low... No, instead, the engine will probably have been having noticeable lubrication problems for quite some time before it comes on. It's not just Mazda that's guilty of this... It's pretty much everyone. It's just that the rotaries are the only motors that by nature consume oil quicker than the oil change interval and therefore are more likely to be run just a bit low on oil each time by people who don't know or care enough.



That's not a bad point, but the torque curve is pretty flat on the motor. I don't have a dyno handy at the moment, but there's useful torque as low as ~2000 RPM.


///M-Spec
Right, which is the main reason why I thought your original statement was too extreme. It is possible for an engine to both rev AND make good useable power and torque at lower engine speeds. The but way you made it sound was, like impossible.
Click to expand...

True.

///M-Spec
Well, my motor displaces 3.2 liters. So that's 81.87 lb-ft per liter, according to my ricer math. That's not bad, compared to something like an S2000 F22C which revs to an identical 8k, works out to about 73 lb-ft per liter.

Compared to other NA 6 cylinder motors in the 3 liter range...

350Z VQ 3.5 287@6200
350Z VQ 3.5 HR 260@????
TT 3.2 236@2800
Mustang Cologne V6 4.0 245@3500

Like I said before. It's not stellar or anything, but given the curve and combined with very short gears, it's got good wheel torque.


M
Click to expand...

You win. Stupid high-compression BMW motors ruining my blanket statements. :dopey: Nah, I was off mark so...
 
///M-Spec
Okay, so let me make sure I understand you correctly. You're saying that Mazda designed an engine that consumes oil at an excessive rate, but knowing this is the case, also designed an idiot light that doesn't come on soon enough the prevent long term damage to the engine?

Furthermore, long term reliability problems are therefore caused by the owners???
Click to expand...

VW does it. I've never had the oil light come on. I've had the blinking, flashing, beeping warning come on that tells me there is no oil in the car and that I need to stop now, but not the little light in the instruments that tell you oil is low. I've also been off the dip stick a few times, but no light. All this from a car going through a quart every 1500 miles, within "normal" limits.

Check your oil every time you fill up and you should have no problems.
 
A lot of times that idiot light isn't connected to an oil level sensor, rather, an oil PRESSURE sensor. I know that's how my car is.
 
land sea air
I've never ever driven a car that did otherwise...
Click to expand...

Hm. Then why oh why have I seen cars that will run low on oil (low enough to cause damage) and still not have it come on?

Philly's car just further illustrates it...
 
In both the Blazer and the truck the second oil gets low the light come on. Dad's car does it too (though that leaks oil so frequently that I may be exaggerating its accuracy).
 
Last edited:
OK, it's pretty much been decided around here that we're getting the 6. Our lease on the '05 6 is going to be up in November, and we'll probably pick up the new car on the same trip to the dealer. If not we should have the car before the year is out. 👍 Thanks for the input and help guys. 👍

The car will be an i Touring, in Kona Blue Mica, with Moonroof, Bose, Auto-dim mirrors, splash guards, black cloth/velour type upholstery, and remote start. It'll be an Automatic by the way.

Not to mention, this'll probably be the last car purchase for another 4-5 years on this end of the family.
 
land sea air
well if the look is the reason he doesn't want a 3 then thats fine, however don't let him tell you it's about practicality or space since the 3 has far more of both than the 6.
Click to expand...
Perhaps in an alternate reality/universe.
I actually have BOTH cars. The 3 while comfy is not as roomy as the outgoing 6.

The new 6 is larger than the '08.

As for the 'stripper', Mazda definitely knows how to equip a car.
The only things I'd want different: Power driver's seat, 6-disc CD changer, Aux plug for my iPod.

I went to Toyota's website and priced a similarly equiped Camry. It was $1,200 more.
I already know a comparable Accord, is about $25,000.
 
Last edited:
Back