MAZDA 6

[ER-3682]

Well yeah... road tax is a killer... changing that set of 19 inch tyres will be quite a killer too.

But I heard feedback that 2.0 is underpowered.

 

Fuel economy isn't that bad. My 2.4 Camry is only clocking about 9.5 to 10km/litre only. I believe it can reach 12km/litre without much problem.

2.0 is 'Enough",won't 'underpowered'......the 19' Tyres costed $1800.00 for Michelin PSS,can get cheaper Yokohama Earth for $1200.00 per set....If you can afford 2.4 Camry's Road Tax,what is the extra 100cc road tax.?

[Blueodyssey]

2.0 is 'Enough",won't 'underpowered'......the 19' Tyres costed $1800.00 for Michelin PSS,can get cheaper Yokohama Earth for $1200.00 per set....If you can afford 2.4 Camry's Road Tax,what is the extra 100cc road tax.?

 

Maybe I should give 2.0 a try. I tried the 2.5 only. Have that revy sound which I am not very used to.

 

Tyre change for wear and tear is ok. Just concern if you get a nail and the tyre cannot be patched... ouch! Haha.

 

True lah for road tax. I trying to cut that down since I don't really need such a high engine capacity car.

 

But having said all these, the M6 is super seductive. I can't get my eyes off the design.

[Redboy]

Yeah, there was a slew of new Skyactiv Mazda 6 registered and then it stopped abruptly. Over-priced I guess. It's worse for the Sonata, hardly any on the road. I do see some. But the new Optima totally none. I really haven't seen a single new K5 Optima on the road... Over-priced of course. There was a narrow window when prices fell and the prices were reasonable but Kia had no Optima to sell then. Hyundai sold a large number of Sonatas then and Mazda too... Now Cat B is dominated by the higher end brands.

Anyway, the papers advertise a new 2017 model. What's changed? I assume it's a face-lifted model.

Mazda 6 still can see on the road, but relatively rare.

Road is still dominated by Mazda 3, which is super common, like Altis. 

Maybe the price difference between Mazda 3 & Mazda 6 is causing some buyers to think twice, as need to consider the downpayment. 

 

But new camry, also very few on the road.

 

K5 is so rare that chances of seeing a Ferrari or Lambo is higher than seeing a new K5.

[Redboy]

Maybe I should give 2.0 a try. I tried the 2.5 only. Have that revy sound which I am not very used to.

 

Tyre change for wear and tear is ok. Just concern if you get a nail and the tyre cannot be patched... ouch! Haha.

 

True lah for road tax. I trying to cut that down since I don't really need such a high engine capacity car.

 

But having said all these, the M6 is super seductive. I can't get my eyes off the design.

haha. mazda is not known to be quiet, so they tend to have the sound when accelerating. This is line with sporty nature of the brand. 

But u can feel the difference when you are attacking the bends and stability of the car. 

 

too bad on the tyre size. Keep fingers crossed that the tyres can be patched, otherwise got to change at least 2 tyres. Heartpain. 

 

If want lower cost tyre, can try Kumho Ecsta.

Paid only about $450 for 4pcs brand new 17" tyres. 

 

A Mazda 6 may not be able to offer the quietest or most comfortable ride, but it offers the satisfaction in driving it. Even when u are not driving it, you still experience the joy of owning it, when you look at the car's curves and looks. 

[Redboy]

Hi MZ6 owners, I read the specs that the fuel tank is 62 litres. I have tried a few times to continue driving after the reserve lights up and the range went to 0km. But only manage to pump 53L.

Is that normal?

What is the max liters you guys pumped before?

Just finished driving with a full tank.

About 720+ km using 51.543 liters.

 

Translates to about 14.1 km/l.

 

Not such a fuel guzzler.

 

In fact, I feel that the FC is on par or even better than the previous Mz3 1.6 litre driven.

[AhChong]

Well yeah... road tax is a killer... changing that set of 19 inch tyres will be quite a killer too.

But I heard feedback that 2.0 is underpowered.

 

Fuel economy isn't that bad. My 2.4 Camry is only clocking about 9.5 to 10km/litre only. I believe it can reach 12km/litre without much problem.

 

Fuel economy starts at 12km/L if I use sports mode and drive aggressively. On normal driving, I average 13.5 km/L. No Jap car can beat that for a 2.5 litre engine.

 

The interiors beats the Teana and Camry hands down.

 

19 inch Rims is a must have for a car to look this good. Then again, I usually upgrade my rim size.

 

And the 2.5 has all the works too.

[Redboy]

Fuel economy starts at 12km/L if I use sports mode and drive aggressively. On normal driving, I average 13.5 km/L. No Jap car can beat that for a 2.5 litre engine.

 

The interiors beats the Teana and Camry hands down.

 

19 inch Rims is a must have for a car to look this good. Then again, I usually upgrade my rim size.

 

And the 2.5 has all the works too.

Nice to hear that. Hope this will dispel the myth that Mazda cars drink.  

 

But only thing is the road tax. It seems that road tax has increased back recently.

Think there was a period when rebates on road tax were offered to drivers. 

[teomingern]

The reality is that all 2.0 L cars will consume about the same amount of fuel when driven by the same driver and with the same road conditions. There's no escaping the immutable laws of physics...

[AhChong]

The reality is that all 2.0 L cars will consume about the same amount of fuel when driven by the same driver and with the same road conditions. There's no escaping the immutable laws of physics...

Toyota has teamed up with Mazda to get the fuel saving tech from Mazda. That speaks volumes about which car has better fuel efficiency tech.

In return, Mazda gets to tap into Toyota's electric engine. Cause it is expensive to developers one.

 

My previous Mazda 1.6 only gets 11 km per liter. Same driver...me.

[teomingern]

Toyota has teamed up with Mazda to get the fuel saving tech from Mazda. That speaks volumes about which car has better fuel efficiency tech.

In return, Mazda gets to tap into Toyota's electric engine. Cause it is expensive to developers one.

 

My previous Mazda 1.6 only gets 11 km per liter. Same driver...me.

If your new car is much lighter, it would also explain better fuel consumption... but you can't run away from the basic laws of physics...

[Tbt001]

The Mazda 6  2.0 is not much lighter (1472 kg) compared to the Kia Optima (1450 kg), Nissan Teana (1470 kg) and Toyota Camry (1480 kg) - comparing all the standard 2.0 L family sedan cars.  Only the Hyundai Sonata (1555 kg) and Honda Accord (1530 kg) is about 5+% heavier.  Yet, it's fuel consumption is far better than any of these cars.  Not only that, it has one of the highest power output, losing out to the Camry.

 

Good fuel consumption not only comes from a lighter weight.  Other factors include drag coefficient, engine efficiency (good low-end torque, completeness of combustion, etc.), good gearing ratios, and low mechanical losses.  Tyre pressure also plays a big part!

 

If you look at the older generation Mazda 6, it had rather poor consumption figures when compared to its peers.  But today, with its new Skyactive engine design consumption has improved by a lot. 

 

To conclude, I quote an article from the Forbes magazine:

Electrification, whether full or partial, is one of the ways manufacturers are modifying their products to boost their Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFÉ) rating, which has a national average target of 34.2 mpg. Hydrogen is another zero-emissions strategy. Mazda does neither, yet for three years in a row it’s boasted the highest fuel economy of any manufacturer according to the DOT and the EPA.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/lianeyvkoff/2016/03/28/for-mazda-saving-the-art-of-driving/#24172e385fd2

[george78]

I have been driving the Mazda 6 for past 8 months and I have been getting fuel consumption of about 14.2km/l which is a vast improvement of about 11.2km/l from my previous Mazda 3. The skyactive engine really is good.

When in sports mode, my engine seems to drag and can't get through 3rd gear. Anyone can advise me?

[AhChong]

If your new car is much lighter, it would also explain better fuel consumption... but you can't run away from the basic laws of physics...

Actually, my new car is about 400 kgs heavier than my old car. While energy cannot be created, efficiency can allow the engine to utilise more of the energy and waste less. That is advancement in engine tech over the last few years.

 

And that translates to having better fuel efficiency for a heavier car with a bigger engine driven by the same driver using the same routes, without changing the immutable laws of physics which is simply more energy is needed to move more mass at higher speeds with faster acceleration.

[teomingern]

What was your last car? Mazda 3 or 323? I find it pretty difficult to believe that your new car is 400 kg heavier and has significantly better fuel consumption... and you're driving a larger engine now (2.0 L) versus a smaller engine then (1.6 L)...

[Blackyv]

Just to share,

 

Latio 1.5 4at, 16" wheel: 12km/L

 

Mazda 6 2.0 , 18" wheel:

12km/L

 

Same driver, same route, same petrol grade and brand.. I'm not complaining. [:p]

[Passion]

Just to share,

 

Latio 1.5 4at, 16" wheel: 12km/L

 

Mazda 6 2.0 , 18" wheel:

12km/L

 

Same driver, same route, same petrol grade and brand.. I'm not complaining. [:p]

Very good. You always zua the accelerator is it? The advertised consumption is so much better than 12km/l. I was expecting like 13.5 to 14km/l for this engine.

[Tbt001]

I think we have to be realistic: we cannot achieve the advertised consumption (even when they are fairly tested) because the test condition is usually without aircon, single (small size) driver, optimally tuned engine and with careful driving.  In real life driving conditions, esp in Singapore with aircon, expect 15% to 20% less depending on driving style.

 

Here are some numbers:

 

Old Mazda6 2.3L (2005)   1454 kg   official: 12.6km/L     I got: 9.9km/L

New Mazda6 2.5L (2016)  1472kg (heavier)    ofc: 15.9km/L   real:~ 13.5 km/L

 

Other new cars' official numbers:

 

Mazda6 2.0   1472 kg    16.9 km/L

Accord 2.0    1530 kg    13.2 km/L

Camry 2.0     1480 kg    14.0 km/L

Teana 2.0     1470 kg    13.5 km/L

Optima 2.0    1450 kg    12.8 km/L

Sonata 2.0    1555 kg    12.5 km/L

 

This shows that Mazda is much better than the others in the same normally aspirated (NA) engine category.  It is the engine tech that matters more than the weight of the car.  Note that the other Japanese manufacturers are still re-using their same old NA engines and hence only small improvements can be made.  Mazda took the big step of radically re-designing their engine and went from a very thirsty car (prior to 2010) to the most efficient NA car.  Worse off are the Korean cars which uses even older tech for their engines.

 

As a conclusion see the numbers for Subaru BRZ. a smaller size and lighter car:

 

BRZ 2.0       1278 kg   14.1 km/L

This is worse than the Mazda6 2.5 which is heavier and has a bigger capacity engine.

 

[ER-3682]

Subaru Boxer Engine will known for heavy FC....i heard the Legacy 2.5 AWD get as low as 8 km/L.