Don’t do anything that you’ll regret in the morning! Just say no the to the diSABLE. =) The Taurus and Sable nameplates are actually the most annoying and distasteful things about the cars! Ford Five Hundred and Mercury Montego sounded much better and the new-old names haven’t had any measurable impact on sales. Just another farkakteh decision on their part…

Seriously, though, is there some reason you’d choose an ‘08 Mercury Sable (with incentives) instead of an ‘08 Mazda6 in Touring or Grand Touring trim? Although if you are in a situation where you can hold off on making a final decision until you get to see and drive the ‘09 Mazda6, that would probably be the best way to proceed.

Besides, in a few more weeks, the ‘08 Mercury Sable and the ‘08 Mazda6 will probably be even lower priced than they are now. The ‘08 Mazda6 has a rebate of $2750 currently and the Sable has a $1500 rebate.

Final thought- have you given any consideration to the Mercury Milan? Just thinking out loud here…

This dealership also sells Merc Sables, & with end-of-season rebates are hard to pass-up, but I’m seriously thinking of doing that for the looks of the 2009 Mazda 6.

Before she got the car I was dead-bent on buying another Honda. That has changed.

1) the V6 does have noticeable hesitation in the low rpms which would make you think the car has turbo lag if you didn’t know better

2) the Bose sub in the 5 door is boomy. The problem with the Bose system is that it very hard to improve without replacing the entire system

3) the V6 with the end of model fire sales is a solid new car value, but the biggest problem with this car is that it reminds you all the time of how could it could have been. Put the turbo 4 at 244 hp from the CX-7 and this car would be transformed

The mileage beef is largely due to the driver as Ive NEVER achieved below 26mpg on any of the V6 cars. The Speed6 was the winner at 29mpg average over 19K miles.

The michelins are absolute crap. They are awful in anything but decent weather and are vastly outperformed by several other tires which completely transform an already well sorted out chassis. Falken Zeix, Yokohama, Pirelli and others come to mind.

The build quality between the domestic 6 versus the japanese Speed version is night and day….dometic being FAR superior in quality of materials and control.

The drivetrain has a couple little oddities such as a notchy first to second linkage and also a well kept secret hesitation in the low rpms that resulted in the 220-215hp revision. Most people would hardly be aware of the issue.

The car rides significantly better on the 17s than the 18s and also performs better due to less unsprung weight. Tire choice and reduced cost are added benefits of going the 17 route.

The 5 door, while my favorite in terms of utility and style, is far less rigid than the sedan…and the bose subwoofer in the 5 door sounds like crap while the superior rear deck mounted sub is adequate for most average listeners.

Overall, I never bothered with the 4 banger version because the V6 was a better package (Im a 100 mile commuter so your criteria may differ). Everyone praises the 3 but Ive never found it to be better in any category and it costs more feature for feature.

Little details to note are the door panels in the 2004-2005 were better tooled than later models, the center stack in the later models is better in black and the drivetrain was smoother in the low rpm range after 2006+. I consider the very zenith of this model to be 2006 V6 MT sedan in touring form when you add Bose and Sunroof. I bought that car for just over 19K out the door. This combo was never offered in any other year as they migrated to the value editions. Lastly, residual values, in MY experience, have been FANTASTIC. I highly recommend this car.

We picked up the 4-door in March ‘07 and it currently has 16K miles on it. We paid just over $17K for it with leather, sunroof, 6-disc CD, etc. It has the PZEV version of the 2.3L so it’s rated at 146HP tied to the 5-speed automatic. Plenty of power for most people. The car hasn’t had one issue, it has been perfect. The 17″ Michelin Pilots are wearing well and should go 40K miles. This car averages 28 MPG in mixed driving, better than we expected under the heavy foot of a 19 year old. The 5 star crash ratings beat the VW Passat we were considering so we have peace of mind.

We picked up the second Mazda6 in December ‘07 after our oldest totalled his ‘04 Dodge Stratus with 85,000 on the odometer. The Stratus had been a great car from the start so he was interested in getting another Dodge/Chrysler. Unfortunately, the Dodge/Chrysler dealers weren’t discounting Avengers and Sebrings very much and with a limited budget from his insurance settlement we needed a deal to keep his payments in line. He ended up with a Mazda6 hatchback for under $16K with cloth seats, 6-disc CD, rear spoiler, etc. He currently has 10K miles on it, and it too has been flawless. My in-laws wish their Camry XLE were as reliable as these two Mazdas.

Compared to the styling of the Accord, Camry, Passat, etc., the 6 is far sportier. Only the Altima comes close in the minds of my kids. They couldn’t see themselves in one of those cookie-cutter cars and pay more money and get less equipment to do so.

It’s too bad that Mazda has decided to drop the wagon version because I’d consider one for myself. Up until last year I’d never even considered a Mazda. Now we’re glad we did. No disappointments and the dealer has treated us well with an excellent service department.

On both my 1953 and 1955 Packards, the Ultramatic transmission locked the torque converter at speeds as low as 20 mph (about 850 rpm) but, to improve smoothness, more modern transmissions lock the converter at a higher speed at the expense of efficiency.

In the future, it may be that continuously variable transmissions with no torque converter will regularly deliver more mpg than manual transmissions.

Yup, but that normally assumes straight highway cruising above the stall speed of the convertor.(usually around 2000rpm) Depending on gearing, this means highway only cruising to get 100% lockup.

The other thing is that just about anyone who owns a stick shift turns into a smooth operator after a few hundred miles of practice. Its one of those necessities after you make the monthly payments. (which is why so few MT vehicles are available, nobody even wants to try!)

p00ch: I recently read that in-gear coasting is more efficient than popping into neutral. Even if true, the difference is probably negligible and the driver’s timing is everything.

Funny you mentioned it, I recently read counter-arguments that say its a crock. If I can dig it up on the internet, I’ll post it. The computer can’t lower fuel to levels similar to (warm) idle and achieve smooth performance, especially above 2000rpm. Not to mention the lean condition engine concerns you get when you bait the Laws of Thermodynamics.

I have one of those trip computers that’s connected to the duty cycle of my car’s fuel injectors and it tells the same story: instant fuel economy goes up 5-10% when you pop into neutral and the car idles at 800rpm at speed.

And those in the know already learned that when you pop a manual in neutral (to coast to a stop) the fuel economy goes through the roof.

I recently read that in-gear coasting is more efficient than popping into neutral. Apparently when lifting off the throttle while in gear (a higher gear at low rpms), fuel supply is almost completely cut off, whereas neutral makes it switch to ‘idle’ mode, which uses a little more fuel. Even if true, the difference is probably negligible and the driver’s timing is everything.

Almost always, a skilled driver with a manual transmission can beat an automatic, but most drivers are not that skilled.

As you say, automatics are less efficient, but once the torque converter is locked up, the difference is probably

I agree in theory too, but I question the automatic outperforming manuals overall. Mostly because you’re neglecting the fact that autoboxes are 5-7% less efficient because of the torque converter. More power and more economy come “standard” with a standard. It’s gonna take a lot of bumper to bumper traffic with drivers who never ride the learning curve to compensate for that gain.

And those in the know already learned that when you pop a manual in neutral (to coast to a stop) the fuel economy goes through the roof.

Honda has been one of the few companies to offer an extensive lineup of models+trim levels available with a manual transmission. While some competitors offered a manual only in basic and/or sporty trim levels, Honda has typically offered the choice across entire model ranges. Even in 2008, you can walk into a Honda dealership and get an Accord EX-L 4-cylinder with a 5-speed manual. Try to find (or even order) a Nissan Altima, Toyota Camry or even the Mazda6 i with similar equipment to the Accord EX-L and with a manual transmission- you’re out of luck! The Altima 2.5S has a 6-speed manual standard, but you can’t select ANY of the option packages offered- the CVT must be selected if you want any upgrades. The Toyota Camry LE and SE have a 5-speed manual, but if you want an XLE it’s automatic-only. The Mazda6 i Sport and Sport VE are the only trim levels with a 5-speed manual, the Touring and Grand Touring models with all the goodies are automatic-only.

The outlook is a little bit better for compact models. The Mazda3, thankfully, can be had with 5-speed manual in ALL trim levels, including the Grand Touring (leather/Bose/Xenon/Navigation). Honda offers a manual in all trim levels of the Civic, even the top-of-the-line EX-L w/Navigation (the Civic Hybrid is considered a separate model, otherwise it would be the only Civic trim not available with manual). Mitsubishi doesn’t offers a manual across the Lancer range, but the Nissan Sentra and Toyota Corolla only have a manual available in their lower one or two trim levels.

Shockingly, the Ford Focus, Dodge Caliber AND Chevrolet Cobalt have manual transmissions standard in even the highest trim level (Caliber with AWD is CVT-only). Unfortunately, you’d still be driving a Ford Focus, Dodge Caliber or Chevrolet Cobalt! Bad idea! Reviews of the Caliber and Cobalt have also made it clear that the manual shifters in both are pretty much the worst out there. I’d take a slushbox Corolla over any of the domestics…

I wonder if we’ll see the manual transmission make a comeback with today’s fuel prices?

It has been noted that manual transmissions are becoming more and more rare. But, consider this.

From time to time, we read about accidents resulting from unintended acceleration. Contrary to what one might think from news reports, there is general agreement among safety experts that the cause is almost always driver error, i.e., the driver presses the accelerator pedal instead of the brake pedal. With a manual transmission, that error would be far less serious since, unlike an automatic transmission, a manual transmission would not automatically shift to the lowest available gear when the accelerator is depressed. Also, that type of accident most commonly occurs while parking at which time, with a manual transmission, the driver would normally have his foot on the clutch so pressing the accelerator in error would not cause unintended acceleration. Then too, if the driver has his left foot on the clutch, he’d be less likely to put his right foot on the wrong pedal.

Unfortunately, there seem to be no accident statistics indicating the percentage of accident-involved cars which have automatic transmission. Thus, there are no statistics which would make it possible to compare the accident rate of cars with automatic transmissions with cars with manual transmissions. Although there is no proof, I suspect that manual transmissions are safer. If that could be proved statistically, the percentage of cars sold with manual transmissions might increase.

I had a similar experience in 2004.

When I returned to the U.S. after living out of the country for 10 years, I decided to buy a Mazda 3. I was favorably impressed after doing a test drive, but then the sales manager left me sitting in the showroom for about 20 minutes, after which I left and went to another dealer. I don’t know what the matter was with those people.

According to another poster, the manual transmission provides better economy and performance than the automatic. I agree, at least in theory. However, even most people with manual transmissions do not know how to use them well so with the average driver, the automatic would out perform the manual in both economy and performance. Part of the problem is a lack of adequate instruction on how to use a manual transmission well.

With a manual transmission, best economy is obtained by starting out with a heavy foot but upshifting at the lowest speed at which the engine will still run properly and smoothly after the upshift. That does not result in particularly smooth operation because there is an abrubt interruption in power at each upshift, followed by a sudden resumption of power, assuming that the shifts are executed in a manner to maximise econony, i.e., no feathering of the throttle while shifting, but rather, instantly releasing it and then instantly depressing it. Thus, on every upshift, the passengers heads will move forward, then back again, which they probably would not like. If the car is accelerated slowly, too much time is spent in the lower gears and maximum efficiency is not obtained ’til the car is in the highest gear. With an automatic transmission, the driver has less control so probably moderate (not slow) acceleration is best, followed by slow acceleration from the speed at which the transmission can be made to shift into top gear with the torque converter locked up.

A serious source of inefficiency with a spark ignition engine is the throttle valve. Unless it is fully open, power is wasted sucking air into the engine past the throttle valve, which is why the engine is more efficient with the accelerator depressed most of the way. A principal reason that Diesels are more efficient is that they do not have a throttle valve. In general (there may be some exceptions), maximum economy is obtained at the lowest speed at which top gear can be used (and, with an automatic transmission, with the torque converter locked). The power to drive the car increases with the cube of the speed so, as you drive faster, the engine becomes more efficient but the power to drive the car increases faster than the engine efficiency, which is why driving at higher speeds reduces fuel efficiency.

With a manual transmission, a skilled driver can probably beat the EPA fuel mileage estimates.

I’m not blaming Mazda. Matter of fact, I’m praising them they were one of a handful of companies that offered a midsize car with a V6/MT combo (Honda was the other for a while until recently).

Doesn’t anyone ever teach their kids to drive a stick anymore?

This car would’ve been perfect…

Note to Robert: Perhaps there is an interesting piece here on the percentage of MT cars by manufacturer and model. It’s getting smaller and smaller as people are unable to crank their own windows and operate a three-pedal car…

The Mazda6 is also on my list of potential next car to get. I’ve always loved the styling of these cars and after driving the snot out of them at a recent Zoom Zoom Live event, I’m hooked.

Why the hell is it so hard to find a 5 door V6 model with a MT? Or any 6 with a V6 and a MT? In the event that I can’t afford the Speed3 (crossing my fingers) a nice used 6 with a V6/MT combo would be great!

One can only hope that Mazda knows what they’re doing with the new version of the 6. The styling looks nice and all but why is there no MT option for the V6? I’d assume that it would be keeping with the car’s sporty nature to offer a MT across the model range.

+1

I’m 5′10 and another person the same height could sit behind me in perfect comfort in the 6. Then again, when reviewing a car, my driving position is less than ghetto fabulous.

In fairness, in my own personal 2-door coupes, I sometimes lay back to relax a bit in traffic and crank up the tunes. But its a coupe and nobody’s behind me.

So I guess I can see where both parties have ground, but I don’t think making bigger and fatter cars is the right answer. Especially in today’s climate.

To the person that only gets 20-22 mpg from mostly freeway driving, is it much stop and go or slow and go? I get 20 mpg when I’m driving around town, mid 20’s on the rare occasion that I do a significant amount of freeway miles along with in town driving, and high 20’s on long trips. I also like quick starts and driving about 5 mph over the speed limit; so, I’m not babying it. I’ve tracked my mileage from the first fill up in December 2004.