Mazda, most fuel-efficient automaker in US - EPA

[dareo]

K24W1 Accord 6MT actually posts faster 0-60 times, 6.6 0-60 from car and driver, versus their tested time of 7.9 on the 6. Accord only needs one shift to get to 60, and its horsepower is underrated.

It felt like the Mazda 6 w/19" wheels could easily out handle it. It was also not as smooth of a ride for a daily driver. Plus, the sport accord is not far behind the 6 in handling.

My wife felt more comfortable and had better visibility out of the accord, and the haggled price was much better than Mazda.

We have only seen a best MPG of 35, all highway, so i give the fuel economy win to Mazda.

 

[97tbird]

I agree - The '14 Mazda 6 rides stiffer than all the other cars we test drove...in a good way. It has a fairly stiff suspension and great steering and handling for its size.
Not a 'floaty' / overly comfy car by any means.

 

[cchase]

Ironically, on fuelly.com the 2014 Accords have a higher average mpg than the 2014 Mazda 6s.

I'm not reading anything into that really, just an observation.

 

[dishdude]

Originally Posted By: 97tbird

and AGAIN, Mazda DOES make a full size mini van! are people blind ???



I assume you're referring to the Mazda 5? It's 7/8 the size of an Odyssey/Sienna/T&C. It's closer in size to a first gen short wheelbase Voyager/Caravan.

 

[cchase]

Originally Posted By: dishdude
Originally Posted By: 97tbird

and AGAIN, Mazda DOES make a full size mini van! are people blind ???



I assume you're referring to the Mazda 5? It's 7/8 the size of an Odyssey/Sienna/T&C. It's closer in size to a first gen short wheelbase Voyager/Caravan.


They make the CX-9...

 

[dishdude]

Yes, CX-9 is a big full size crossover. Mazda has some nice cars, I just don't think it's fair to compare their entire fleet to a manufacturer like Toyota that has pickups, cars like the Avalon and SUVs like the 4 Runner.

 

[redbone3]

My 95 Miata has zero rust. But, that's Nevada. It might have looked like Swiss cheese after that many years in Syracuse.

 

[JavierG]

I think Subaru deserves credit as well. Great fuel mileage and most of their vehicles are AWD.

 

[Bladecutter]

Just think about the fact that people only ever want to compare brand x and brand y cars with the V6 engines against the Mazda's.

Funny how no one wants to compare the 4 cylinder versions of the same cars against the Mazdas.

I have owned 2 Mazdas so far, and I can easily see myself owning more over the years. Out of all the other car companies I've owned cars from, only Porsche is the other brand that I have already owned that makes a product that I would buy today. Pontiac doesn't exist, Chevy and Buick don't offer anything I want, and there isn't a Nissan made today that I would chose over the equivalent Mazda offering.

BC.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: redbone3
My 95 Miata has zero rust. But, that's Nevada. It might have looked like Swiss cheese after that many years in Syracuse.


Oddly, the Miata is one car I've never really seen rusted out before, maybe if I google searched I could find an NA with some rust, but never seen an NB or NC rusted before.


Originally Posted By: cchase
Ironically, on fuelly.com the 2014 Accords have a higher average mpg than the 2014 Mazda 6s.

I'm not reading anything into that really, just an observation.


The Accord Hybrid is why.

Look at both Mazda6 and Honda Accord and look at the two highest MPG values in the bar graph if you want to filter the Hybrid's effect. Then it becomes clear

 

[dareo]

Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
Just think about the fact that people only ever want to compare brand x and brand y cars with the V6 engines against the Mazda's.

Funny how no one wants to compare the 4 cylinder versions of the same cars against the Mazdas.


BC.


I just compared Honda Accord's 2.4L 4 cylinder to Mazda's 2.5L 4 cylinder in my post above. *Spoiler Alert* Mazda gets owned in output, but has slightly better MPG. Honda = 17.9 seconds to 0 to 100 mph, and Mazda was 20 seconds 0-100, both cars tested by same magazine, car and driver, both 6MT. The accord weighed 3272 vs Mazda's 3124 pounds.

 

[jrustles]

Originally Posted By: dareo
Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
Just think about the fact that people only ever want to compare brand x and brand y cars with the V6 engines against the Mazda's.

Funny how no one wants to compare the 4 cylinder versions of the same cars against the Mazdas.


BC.


I just compared Honda Accord's 2.4L 4 cylinder to Mazda's 2.5L 4 cylinder in my post above. *Spoiler Alert* Mazda gets owned in output, but has slightly better MPG. Honda = 17.9 seconds to 0 to 100 mph, and Mazda was 20 seconds 0-100, both cars tested by same magazine, car and driver, both 6MT. The accord weighed 3272 vs Mazda's 3124 pounds.


This again. Bolded is my favourite part.

 

[cchase]

Originally Posted By: Bladecutter
Just think about the fact that people only ever want to compare brand x and brand y cars with the V6 engines against the Mazda's.
BC.


Actually, it was 97tbird who brought up the V6 Accord.

 

[dareo]

I really like both cars, but Honda has no business saying their accord is only 189 horsepower if it can weigh 148lb more than the 6 and beat it soundly like that. I'm not sure why they don't more accurately represent its power level. Other than the fact that most are sold with a CVT that saps the power way back down.

 

[jrustles]

Oh re-lax. Most K24W's make 174-185hp worldwide, they're not all this one specially tuned-up model for the North American Accords.

The Skyactiv is the opposite, NA gets the lowest rated tune, while the rest of the world gets the 191HP version.

Underrating, who hasn't done it? My old 1988 MX6 was rated at 145hp, but dynos repeatedly proved that 145hp was at the wheels, and should have been rated around 160hp. Who knows why they did it, insurance?

Originally Posted By: dareo
I really like both cars, but Honda has no business saying their accord is only 189 horsepower if it can weigh 148lb more than the 6 and beat it soundly like that. I'm not sure why they don't more accurately represent its power level. Other than the fact that most are sold with a CVT that saps the power way back down.

 

[SF0059]

If I was shopping for a car today it would be down between Mazda 6 or 3 and the Honda Accord or Civic. I enjoy the cars from both makers and each brand has their positives and negatives.

I have driven all but the new 3 and for me it would be the Mazda 6. I have owned a Protégé, a 626 and a first gen 3 and loved all of them. Honda fans, you just don't know how good Mazda is until you own one. They get in your blood.

 

[dareo]

USA Skyactive also only got 13:1 compression instead of 14:1 on the engine due to our gasoline. However, Honda only is at 11:1 and just rips it up, so i'm not sure how much the compression matters above 11:1 since you choose between more advanced ignition timing or higher static cr.

 

[AcuraTL]

Luckily with DI you no longer have to choose one or the other, you can have a little bit of both. Compression is the way to go for mpg and hp. It becomes a problem when so little advance can be run that you end up producing too high of EGTs. Luckily higher compression lowers EGTs a little.

We live in an exciting time. While I think closed loop EFI is the single biggest improvement made in over 50 years, direct injection is right there. Compression ratios and boost levels are shooting up to levels that required race gas with port injection. Turbos combined with higher compression are a recipe for good fuel economy and if you look at the powerbands of many newer turbocharged cars, they make amazing torque just off idle and power everywhere on the tach.

Once they get the toothing problems worked out my next car will be DI. I will never sell my TL though. I bought it new in Dec of '05 as an '06 and it's been so incredibly reliable and still manages 29-34mpg on the freeway. I adjusted the valves near 120,000 miles and the intake ports, intake valves, and the bowl area look like a new engine that has never been started. For that reason it makes me a little leery to go with DI. Port injection has done such an amazing job at keeping the intake tract clean where it counts. No cylinder washdown worries either. Using a boroscope the cylinders at that mileage looked brand new. Not only were the hone marks visible, just like the intake it looked like the engine had never been started. I'm sure a lifetime of Redline oil and top tier premium fuel don't hurt either. I know not all DI engines have an issue with cylinder washdown and resulting fuel dilution but I'm going to wait another couple years before owning one with DI. Still though it is the future and it should advance at a very fast rate for the next few years before slowing down. We're going to see power and economy continue to climb pretty quickly. Soon we will be back up to where we were in the '80s but with much heavier and more powerful cars.

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: Quattro Pete

Rust testing requires time. This Mazda6 that the OP bought is too new to have any valid data on. While in the past Mazdas did have rust issues, is it possible these new ones are better in that department?


No rust on my 2007 MS3 work beater after 131,000 miles...

 

[MCompact]

Originally Posted By: Bladecutter

I have owned 2 Mazdas so far, and I can easily see myself owning more over the years. Out of all the other car companies I've owned cars from, only Porsche is the other brand that I have already owned that makes a product that I would buy today.


After I exorcised my MS3's teething issues it has been dead nuts reliable and fairly entertaining to drive. It's not really fast, but it is fine for a DD. And I average @28 mpg, which isn't bad for a 2.3 liter that makes 287 bhp.

Will I buy another? Maybe; I'm not sure that I will ever buy another FWD car- and Mazda doesn't have any RWD coupes on the drawing board. If a Mk 3 MS3 is in the works I'll give it a good hard look, but FWD may be the deal-killer...