Next-Gen Mazda 6 Switching to RWD Layout, Inline-Six Power
- Thread starter buster
- Start date
- Status
Id didnt read the link as I'm about to run to the store to pick up some Virus
They could use the old RX8 chassis but i suppose its not small offset crash worthy
And Too heavy.
But, Cool !
RWD great ! That straight 6 IDK
Now a flat 6 = cool factor, shorter and lower center of G.
Ill check it later ...
They could use the old RX8 chassis but i suppose its not small offset crash worthy
And Too heavy.
But, Cool !
RWD great ! That straight 6 IDK
Now a flat 6 = cool factor, shorter and lower center of G.
Ill check it later ...
Last edited:
Assuming things aren't well and truly wrecked by Corona, I might hold onto my Fusion a little longer until this comes out.
Originally Posted by shrooms
That looks incredible. If they'd make a 100% natural aspirated engine without the hybrid garbage, I'd consider it.
The days of N/A engines outside of performance and absolute base models are over, I think. Everyone and their brother thinks forced induction (usually with a turbo) is the answer.
As for the mild hybrid stuff, I nominally agree, but you can thank regulators for that one.
That looks incredible. If they'd make a 100% natural aspirated engine without the hybrid garbage, I'd consider it.
The days of N/A engines outside of performance and absolute base models are over, I think. Everyone and their brother thinks forced induction (usually with a turbo) is the answer.
As for the mild hybrid stuff, I nominally agree, but you can thank regulators for that one.
I would be more interested if it did not have the 48V battery. Those things are almost as expensive as a hybrid battery.
Got me interested until I read..
Quote
as well as a 48-volt hybrid system
Deal breaker!
Quote
as well as a 48-volt hybrid system
Deal breaker!
A large sedan chasing a smaller and smaller slice of the sedan pie.
In Canada 80% + of the market is CUVs, SUVs and Pickups.
In US the number is 70%+
Hope they know what they're doing re: profit
In Canada 80% + of the market is CUVs, SUVs and Pickups.
In US the number is 70%+
Hope they know what they're doing re: profit
I'm not sure the 'Zoom Zoom' company is doing the right thing lately.....the Mazda3's gas mileage took a hit when they went to the 2.5 over the 2.0 (although the power difference is nice).
The suspension change on the Mazda3 was noted (negatively) by Car and Driver (or maybe it was 'Motor Trend').....
The suspension change on the Mazda3 was noted (negatively) by Car and Driver (or maybe it was 'Motor Trend').....
They should also offer a base model with the 2.0 and no 48V battery
edyvw
$50 site donor 2026
This absolutely makes sense.
I told here few years ago when MB announced inline 6 engines that last laugh has BMW in this. Inline 6 engines are necessary bcs. of modularity. MB went that way, FCA is going that way, Mazda is going that way. It is much cheaper to make inline 6 and on same line 4 banger. Mazda obviously needs 6cyl engine to expand portfolio. It is cheaper to make inline 6 together with 4 banger on same line, regardless that inline 6 is actually more expensive and not as capable to use it it various other vehicles (anything transverse or minivans. Though Volvo might say they could, but not sure who wants transverse inline 6) than going V6 route. On top of that, inline 6 is anyway better engine, add to that RWD and longitudinal layout and Mazda is going to be far more serious option for enthusiasts than anything Toyota, Honda etc. With this vehicle they actually have a shot at luxury segment. Longitudinal layout will offer better weight distribution, it allows much more complex suspension in the front. They could easily go with double wishbone in longitudinal layout if the choose so. Add manual and option without hybrid, and I could seriously look at that vehicle.
I told here few years ago when MB announced inline 6 engines that last laugh has BMW in this. Inline 6 engines are necessary bcs. of modularity. MB went that way, FCA is going that way, Mazda is going that way. It is much cheaper to make inline 6 and on same line 4 banger. Mazda obviously needs 6cyl engine to expand portfolio. It is cheaper to make inline 6 together with 4 banger on same line, regardless that inline 6 is actually more expensive and not as capable to use it it various other vehicles (anything transverse or minivans. Though Volvo might say they could, but not sure who wants transverse inline 6) than going V6 route. On top of that, inline 6 is anyway better engine, add to that RWD and longitudinal layout and Mazda is going to be far more serious option for enthusiasts than anything Toyota, Honda etc. With this vehicle they actually have a shot at luxury segment. Longitudinal layout will offer better weight distribution, it allows much more complex suspension in the front. They could easily go with double wishbone in longitudinal layout if the choose so. Add manual and option without hybrid, and I could seriously look at that vehicle.
Originally Posted by edyvw
This absolutely makes sense.
I told here few years ago when MB announced inline 6 engines that last laugh has BMW in this. Inline 6 engines are necessary bcs. of modularity. MB went that way, FCA is going that way, Mazda is going that way. It is much cheaper to make inline 6 and on same line 4 banger. Mazda obviously needs 6cyl engine to expand portfolio. It is cheaper to make inline 6 together with 4 banger on same line, regardless that inline 6 is actually more expensive and not as capable to use it it various other vehicles (anything transverse or minivans. Though Volvo might say they could, but not sure who wants transverse inline 6) than going V6 route. On top of that, inline 6 is anyway better engine, add to that RWD and longitudinal layout and Mazda is going to be far more serious option for enthusiasts than anything Toyota, Honda etc. With this vehicle they actually have a shot at luxury segment. Longitudinal layout will offer better weight distribution, it allows much more complex suspension in the front. They could easily go with double wishbone in longitudinal layout if the choose so. Add manual and option without hybrid, and I could seriously look at that vehicle.
^^^Yup^^^
This absolutely makes sense.
I told here few years ago when MB announced inline 6 engines that last laugh has BMW in this. Inline 6 engines are necessary bcs. of modularity. MB went that way, FCA is going that way, Mazda is going that way. It is much cheaper to make inline 6 and on same line 4 banger. Mazda obviously needs 6cyl engine to expand portfolio. It is cheaper to make inline 6 together with 4 banger on same line, regardless that inline 6 is actually more expensive and not as capable to use it it various other vehicles (anything transverse or minivans. Though Volvo might say they could, but not sure who wants transverse inline 6) than going V6 route. On top of that, inline 6 is anyway better engine, add to that RWD and longitudinal layout and Mazda is going to be far more serious option for enthusiasts than anything Toyota, Honda etc. With this vehicle they actually have a shot at luxury segment. Longitudinal layout will offer better weight distribution, it allows much more complex suspension in the front. They could easily go with double wishbone in longitudinal layout if the choose so. Add manual and option without hybrid, and I could seriously look at that vehicle.
^^^Yup^^^
edyvw
$50 site donor 2026
Originally Posted by CKN
At the end of the day....they will still be a niche player with a minuscule market share.
And? If they are not top 10, they do not count? If they can generate profit, pay their workers good, roll out good cars, they are successful. Do people buy cars based on size of company? Market share?
At the end of the day....they will still be a niche player with a minuscule market share.
And? If they are not top 10, they do not count? If they can generate profit, pay their workers good, roll out good cars, they are successful. Do people buy cars based on size of company? Market share?
Originally Posted by CKN
At the end of the day....they will still be a niche player with a minuscule market share.
Agreed. This is why I think Porsche, Ferrari, etc. are stupid. Noone would ever want one of those. Loser companies making loser cars. Jeez.
At the end of the day....they will still be a niche player with a minuscule market share.
Agreed. This is why I think Porsche, Ferrari, etc. are stupid. Noone would ever want one of those. Loser companies making loser cars. Jeez.
Originally Posted by edyvw
Originally Posted by CKN
At the end of the day....they will still be a niche player with a minuscule market share.
And? If they are not top 10, they do not count? If they can generate profit, pay their workers good, roll out good cars, they are successful. Do people buy cars based on size of company? Market share?
For once we agree on Mazda on something, rofl!
Originally Posted by CKN
At the end of the day....they will still be a niche player with a minuscule market share.
And? If they are not top 10, they do not count? If they can generate profit, pay their workers good, roll out good cars, they are successful. Do people buy cars based on size of company? Market share?
For once we agree on Mazda on something, rofl!
- Status
