By on April 13, 2017

2017 Mazda 6 Sport

Before we start this Ace of Base, we need to get one thing clear: no one listens to automotive journalists. We can carp about bad cars and exhort the good ones, but at the end of the day, customers go out and buy whatever they want.

I’m saying this with tongue firmly in cheek, of course, but there is a nugget of truth. The Mazda 6 is one of the best driving sedans in the mid-size segment, wrapped up in a good-looking body with plenty of interior space. Naturally, it sells at approximately the pace of glacier progression.

The base Mazda 6, effectively labeled by marketing mavens as the Sport model, is awash with standard features like natty 17-inch aluminum alloys, air conditioning, all manner of power options, and connectivity. Most of that is available on the base models of its competitors. What’s not found on most of its opponents is a smidgen of driving dynamism mixed with a manual transmission.

Mazda has a great history of foisting tongue-twisting and/or inscrutable acronyms on the automotive public. (SKYACTIV sends Microsoft Word’s spellcheck into a snit befitting a Hollywood diva.) Mazda’s most recent effort to grenade my typing program is G-Vectoring, which at least has a tangible benefit on driving pleasure.

G-Vectoring is a gee-whiz movement control baked into most Mazdas that operates in the background during a spirited drive, allowing the car to attack corners with more vigor. By slightly adjusting and fine-tuning power delivery, it shifts around the car’s weight on initial turn-in. This improves steering response when hustling along a back road. Every Mazda 6, regardless of pedal or option choice, is powered by a 2.5-liter inline-four making 185 horsepower. Even on models absent of G-Vectoring, one can feel the sporting spirit of the team that made Zoom-Zoom its mantra.

Keyless entry, push button start, and a backup camera are all aboard for the ride. In terms of colour, Mazda has an annoying habit of charging extra for Soul Red Metallic, but at least the sharp Blue Reflex Mica is a $0 option. Anything off the grayscale is good by me. Sporty handling, room for the family, snappy styling, and a stick shift for $21,945? Job done. And yes, I do think those front fenders are a good nod to the RX-8.

While I currently deploy an aggro-Charger as our family daily, we had a 2006 Mazda 6 hatchback (manual shift, natch) for several years. The interior of that one was decidedly Playskool compared to the current model, but it sure beat the hell out of the other family sedan options at the time.

Starting at $21,945 plus destination, the Mazda 6 Sport is a great sedan at a great price. At the current rate of sales, it’s also one of the industry’s great secrets.

Not every base model has aced it. The ones that have? They help make the automotive landscape a lot better. Any others you can think of, B&B? Let us know in the comments. Naturally, feel free to eviscerate our selections.

The model above is shown with American options and is priced in Trump Bucks. As always, your dealer may sell for less.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

133 Comments on “Ace of Base: 2017 Mazda 6 Sport...”


  • avatar
    StudeDude

    I’m glad you finally recognized this one. I bought a 2016 Sport with auto trans and fog lights—on balance it’s the best car I’ve ever owned. The folks who constantly comment re: the lack of a V6 option or Turbo 4 probably have never driven the car—it works great with the NA 2.5.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      Weird question, but does your Sport have any kind of adjustable lumbar support for the driver? I sat in one once, couldn’t find it. I really didn’t like the seats. That would be a dealbreaker for me.

    • 0 avatar
      duffman13

      I don’t see the problem with the 2.5 that everyone complains about here. It is similar in power/torque to every other 4-pot in the segment, in a chassis that weighs less and communicates more.

      Seeing as the take rate on NA 4-cyl versus the I4T and V6 options is basically 9 to 1, I don’t think most buyers do either.

    • 0 avatar
      notwhoithink

      So I’ll say it: I’m the guy who test drove a Mazda 6 GT (in Blue Reflex Mica, no less) and opted for a Fusion Titanium. The Mazda was a great car, but it absolutely was underpowered for its class. Perhaps having an MT would have made the power curve more usable than with the AT. And of course the road noise and harshness was an issue, even in the 2017 model that had improved sound insulation. It probably would have been acceptable in a $22k base model, but on a $34k model that puts it squarely in the entry-level luxury price range it couldn’t be excused.

      The interior was absolutely the best in it’s class, though.

      • 0 avatar

        @notwhoithink: Exactly my story – I ended up with Fusion Titanium. It was 2014 and 6’s interior felt outdated, engine unrefined, cabin noisy, ride harsh and speed slow. I did not get what GT mean, it certainly was not a Grand Touring. For most people Toyota Camry feels like luxury car compared with cars like Mazda6 or Altima. Fusion is European type of sedan so it is in different league. Most people in US for whatever reason prefer Asian cars and in this group it is difficult to beat Camry since it is the closest thing to idea of American car. So I can understand why Mazda6 is not popular – it is not as good as German sedan and is not as good as Camry or Accord.

        • 0 avatar
          notwhoithink

          In my case I was comparing 2017 to 2017. I really liked them both, and I thought that the Mazda6 definitely had the better interior of the two. But it lost out because it was underpowered and noisy. Things that would not be an issue at a $22k-$24k price point were unacceptable at the $34k price point (the cost of a fully loaded 6GT).

          • 0 avatar

            Yeah, agree.Updated Mazda has higher quality interior and Fusion update did not much to improve interior quality, it is not that it is bad but quality is improving in all cars. I still prefer European feel of Fusion and even Regal. Asian cars feel unsubstantial compared with German cars.

      • 0 avatar
        George B

        notwhoyouthink, when I test drove the Mazda6 my impression was that the throttle response and automatic transmission behavior was programmed to maximize EPA fuel economy numbers above all else. You have stomp on the accelerator pedal to persuade the Mazda6 you really do want to use the available 185 hp.

  • avatar
    jgcaulder

    I test drove one and loved it. Great styling and a blast to drive. This is definitely on my short list in the future.

  • avatar
    tremorcontrol

    I’ve always liked the 6. The current *wagon* version of the Mazda 6 though is BEAUTIFUL. Mazda should bring the wagon to N. America. If Buick of all companies can bring a wagon, surely Mazda can…

  • avatar
    NotFast

    I hate to be the guy that complains about a lack of power, but I was THIS close to buying a 6 a few years back but realized the power delivery with AC turned on was sad.

    Please Mazda, give us 50 or more HP and I’m sold!

    • 0 avatar
      arach

      I’m not going to gripe on a lack of power.

      It has plenty of power for someone who doesn’t care about cars.

      The problem is that everything else about this car… the handling, the design, the ergonomics, are PERFECT for people who don’t hate cars.

      And if you don’t hate cars, this doesn’t have enough power, plain and simple.

      turbocharge it. get some more low end torque, and this would be the best DD on the market.

      • 0 avatar
        stuki

        It has about the same power curve as the E34 525i. Pretty much a gold standard engine for midsize sedans for “people who care about cars.” Or at least for “people who care about driving cars” on public roads. As opposed to “people who care about dragracing cars”, “people who care about idling around in cars”, “people who care about pretending their sport sedan is a Cummins diesel,” and “people who care about benchracing cars.”

        Turbos, and the mentality that brought them to be, ruined what was left of the 5 series as a driver’s car. Mazda “may” be more careful, but I wouldn’t count on it.

      • 0 avatar
        turbo_awd

        10x this. It’s a sporty chassis (which is good for car fans, bad for appliance fans) with an appliance engine – low on power, with no obvious upgrade path. They need to make a Mazdaspeed version of this – and a better version than the old Mazdaspeed 6.. That one seemed to disappear after a few years – rarely hear about it anymore.

        I drove an ’05 Outback with the 2.5i (175 hp) and with 4 people, it couldn’t get out of its own way. I bought the ’05 Legacy GT (several months before that) and it was night and day. Mind you, some other 2.5s I’ve driven (Altima, Camry) seemed better. So, it’s probably ok for its class – but it’s class, by-and-large, doesn’t WANT sporty – they want appliance-y.

        These days, as a car fan in my 40s with somewhat of a budget (around 40k), I won’t look at anything under ~300 hp. STI is kind of my “base”. Have also looked at SS, Charger Daytona 392, etc. Haven’t seriously decided yet – am going to take the LGT to the track a little and go from there. Ok, I’d probably daily a Honda V6 Sedan if they added the paddles from the Coupe. It wasn’t bad when I drove it, good for some fun, and not that expensive.

        This car has the same problem as the Miata – great chassis, underpowered for the majority of non-hardcore-racers. I wouldn’t daily a Miata because I’m not tiny, have kids, there’s traffic, etc. I wouldn’t daily a 6 because it would frustrate me not being able to easily pass a Camry or Civic..

        But, I’m far from “everyone”.

        • 0 avatar
          Tele Vision

          A friend bought an STi – his dream car – a few years ago. He sold it on within six months. I never drove it but he said that, until you’re into the boost, it’s a dog: a heavy; AWD; 4-holer dog. He isn’t a bad driver but he said he either had to bog off of the line in traffic or give it a second or two, then hoon it.

          Also, he said everyone wanted to race him. Every day. Everywhere he went.

    • 0 avatar
      Flipper35

      This, I got 100hp more than this car for less money. No, it doesn’t have they driving dynamics of the Mazda but it is buttoned down and drives really well. I don’t take advantage of the driving dynamics everyday on my commute, but the extra power is nice for passing on rural 2 lane roads during tractor season and hay season.

  • avatar
    a5ehren

    Also has $1500 on the hood or 0% Apr right now, I think.

    • 0 avatar
      LeMansteve

      The offer is 0% APR plus $500 on the hood OR alternative financing with $1,500 on the hood.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      That is the problem for everage Joe. Sonata now has $7000 on the hood. You can get loaded to the gills limited for around $20,000

      • 0 avatar
        LeMansteve

        That is outstanding. I wonder why incentives are so large on the Hyundai. $7k on the hood of the Limited 2.4L, which starts at $27k, is enormous. MSRP too high to begin with?

        • 0 avatar
          duffman13

          Sonata is selling poorly and is due to be replaced or at least facelifted in 2018.

          I think it’s mostly due to the fact that midsizers are down across the board, but the fact is you can get an equivalent trim Sonata for roughly the same price as an Elantra right now.

          For fun: some of the dealers around me are advertising Limiteds all the way down in the 16s.

    • 0 avatar
      seanx37

      Except Chevy is officially offering $6k on Malibu’s, and the dealers are throwing at least another $3-5k at buyers. At this point, you can get a load Premier for low 20s.

      • 0 avatar
        ponchoman49

        The Premier Malibu’s are selling for $28,995-31K not low 20’s. The only Malibu’s that I found on a search that were selling for low 20’s were the base LT’s. Chevy’s website is only showing 1500 0ff but i got these figures by doing various dealer searches and the 6K off was only on the top Premier trims. The LS and more equipped LT’s were in the 3-4K off bracket.

  • avatar
    DearS

    Test drove one with an auto and a new Accord. Both good cars, Mazda definitely more responsive and engaging, but also louder. Neither was worth 400% more than my current Accord or Mazda3 but the Mazda is on my radar for future purchase.

  • avatar
    Carrera

    I test drove a 2015 Mazda 6. Unfortunately the dealer didn’t have any manuals in stock and didn’t seem interested to get one for me either. Since it comes with the same manual transmission as the 3, I tried a 3 to see how the transmission behaves. The transmission was probably the best in the business in the 3 I drove. The 6 had the 6 speed automatic and was good as well. To me it had plenty of power and at that time I was trading in a V6. Power wasn’t the issue. The car felt sort of small and confining inside. After the 6, I test drove an Accord Sport manual. Power wise, the Accord felt the same or slightly better, but I liked the manual transmission better in the Mazda. What the Accord had was a very airy feel in the cabin and less blind spots. Not sure which one is bigger inside when it comes to numbers but the Accord feels bigger and more comfortable for sure. Also the Mazda had a very weird agricultural clatter noise at start up that would go on for about 1 min or less. I know that’s because of the DI engine. Well somehow Honda also a DI engine, managed to muffle that noise out or make it disappear all together. Great looking car though. Enough negatives to make me not buy it though.

    • 0 avatar
      USCTrojan4JC

      The Mazda SKYACTIV®-G engines use an Accelerated Warm-up System to help the catalytic converters get up to operating temperature quickly upon cold start. This system is needed due to the longer 4-2-1 exhaust manifold used by SKYACTIV®-G engines which reduces exhaust pressure from other cylinders disturbing the exhaust gases from a cylinder where combustion just occurred. This allows the engines to run a 13:1 compression ratio on 87 octane (AKI) gasoline.

      You can learn more about Mazda’s SKYACTIV®-G engine here: http://www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/skyactiv/skyactiv-g/

  • avatar
    Zackman

    I did briefly look at the Mazda 6 once while waiting for an oil change when we owned our MX5 at the local Mazda dealer.

    The styling really appealed to me, however, the interior made my 2012 Impala LTZ look like a Lexus by comparison!

    Unfortunately, “fun to drive” generally means a rough ride, which is good when one is young – myself included – but those days are long behind me, and I demand comfort and a smooth ride.

    Now, since I am retired and no longer have that stupid 100-mile-a-day commute, something that has a bit more zip around town – perhaps even going back to a manual – may be in my future when my ride becomes less than reliable. Who knows? If my eyesight holds out…

    I believe also that Mazda’s rusty reputation gave me pause as well at the time.

    • 0 avatar
      Corey Lewis

      Congratulations on your retirement finally being here! Does it feel weird to not have to get on 275 every morning? Is there an urge there to get in the car?

      • 0 avatar
        Zackman

        Thank you, Corey.

        Does it feel weird? Absolutely not! It feels great, plus I’ve been very busy ever since. Only urge to get in the car is to run errands. My gas mileage will suffer, though. Tuesday was my first fill up since retiring. Sure beats every three or four days, regardless.

        Eventually things will settle down, but I don’t miss work. In fact, when my wife and I left after the luncheon, I never looked back.

        We are going to Johnnie’s for a nice dinner on Saturday, though – fedora and all! Right over or around the hill from where I live.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      Mazda solved its rust issues around the 08-09 model years. My 3 was built 9 years ago, and has not a speck of rust on it. Take a look at the models they’ve had out since then, I doubt you’ll see rust.

      • 0 avatar
        slavuta

        Mazda still has hardware rust issues. Hose clamps, bolts; it actually got worse. This is not subjective, but fact based. When I still had ’98 Protege, I compared. Bolts on door latches in old Protege didn’t rust, but on ’11 ‘3 did. Then again, look at the main exhaust pipe. I have similarly aged Toyota and similar pipe is only looking brown while on Mazda it is rust-fuzzy brown. Look under car where only one layer of paint used. All that has rust spots. And of course, all the suspension parts.

    • 0 avatar
      JohnTaurus

      Echoing Corey, happy retirement. Glad you’re enjoying it. :)

      Keep us posted about this future, possibly manually shifted, car.

  • avatar
    White Shadow

    I test drove one as well and didn’t like the feel. It’s hard to pinpoint exactly what I didn’t like about it, but somehow it just felt cheap to me. More like an economy car (which it is, I suppose) than a touring car.

    I don’t know that it was one single thing or a just a combination of things that made me not like the car. I did really like the styling though, especially on the red.

    • 0 avatar
      Carrera

      I had a rental Mazda Sport for about one week. It had about 16k miles on it. It was 1 year old. Seemed very aged inside. I know it was a rental but…
      Also the seat back felt very confining. It was squeezing my sides. Drove very “tight” though.

      • 0 avatar
        duffman13

        The base model Mazdas just feel very base to me. he difference in trim levels is super apparent, where it is less blatant when you increase trim level on something like an accord or Camry (aside from the obvious stuff like leather, etc.

        They had a number of them when we went to the DC auto show this january, and the difference in interior feel between a Sport and a Touring was astounding.

        • 0 avatar
          ponchoman49

          The exterior doors sound wafer thin and the door handles give a cheap hollow sound when opened and closed. None of the other mid size cars I looked at sounded like this. Was an instant turn off for me and makes it obvious where they cut back on sheet metal thickness and or sound deadener.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      I’m sure part of the “economy” car feel is unavoidable. Simply because economy cars are pretty much the only cars around that has any kind of road feel anymore.

      Aside from stripped out race cars like that wheelying Fiat, of course. In every other segment, dulling any input from outside, in order to ensure there are no ripples forming on the surface of mommy’s starbucks while undere way, and junior’s cartoon watching space matches THX specs for isolation, has now become the norm.

      • 0 avatar
        highdesertcat

        “I’m sure part of the “economy” car feel is unavoidable”

        My best friend tried to buy a 2016 Mazda6 Sport/Manual when they first came out, but the dealer was too proud of it and had to make too much money on the deal.

        His impressions were that it was fun to drive, but that the 4-banger was underpowered for a four-door sedan.

        Maybe little too much road-noise in the cabin, but excellent handling, ride and braking.

        Some higher trim levels come with better materials.

  • avatar
    John R

    Yeah…the Suzuki Kazashi was a good steer, too. As much good as that did.

    The fact of the matter is the Honda Accord with a manual exists. It’s better looking now. It makes as much power with the 4-cyl and is somehow faster and with a set of aggressive rubber is there THAT much difference between them?

    Does the Accord cost a little more? Sure, but you’re going to thank yourself when it comes time to resell.

    It used to be that you’d buy a Mazda6 because of the way it drove, but Toyota and Honda have caught up. Or least caught up enough to obviate that deficiency in the eyes of most consumers.

    Meanwhile Mazda continues to make cars with looks their boat-anchors can’t cash. Subaru has their niche, Mazda needs to find it’s own. When it comes to fuel efficiency they can’t out Toyota and Honda at being Toyota and Honda; Mitsu and Suzuki tried that and it didn’t pan out.

    • 0 avatar
      psarhjinian

      “It used to be that you’d buy a Mazda6 because of the way it drove, but Toyota and Honda have caught up.”

      This really is true. The 6 might be slightly more fun to drive, but the Accord and Camry aren’t at all bad, while roomier, more fuel-efficient (in 4-cyl trim) and/or faster (especially in V6) and less noisy.

      Mazda’s niche isn’t really very meaty.

      • 0 avatar
        Corey Lewis

        I pick the Accord out of these options. At present, it’s a looker.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          Agreed. I’d take an Accord Sport in that cool red, with a manual.

          • 0 avatar
            duffman13

            Accord Sport SE is the sweet spot, but I’d note that Mazda includes CarPlay/Android Auto all the way down to the base model, where to get it on the accord you need to step up to the EX.

            I know that’s not a dealbreaker for many here, but it is something i absolutely want in my next car.

            At the same time, the 6 doesn’t include heated seats until you get to the Grand Touring trim or with a $3k option package on the Touring, which is staggeringly stupid option pairing IMO, especially considering a Camry XLE or XSE has them with real leather for $26k. And the modern infotainment phone integration.

          • 0 avatar
            LeMansteve

            @ Duffman

            Mazda currently offers their Connect infotainment system. They do not offer CarPlay on any of their 2017 models, at least not yet. They have announced their intent to offer CarPlay but it’s not clear when, nor is it clear exactly which models could be retroactively upgraded.

      • 0 avatar
        ponchoman49

        I’ll go with the Accord, especially in Sport trim but the Camry, even in SE trim is ho hum and still drives much like it did years ago with numb steering and ther 2.5, while adequate is well behind the Accord 2.4 in both power and mileage. This is going with a day worth of driving a 2017 Camry SE 2.5 rental that my friend’s wife had while her Sonata was having body repair work done. It was a bit better than the 2014.5 we had for a weekend but still nothing to rave about. Surprise! His wife likes her Sonata SE better and knows nothing at all about cars and could care a less about which brand it is.

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      Manual-to-manual maybe the Accord wins, but I’m a lazy automatic owner and I prefer the 6A in the Mazda to the CVT in the Honda.

      • 0 avatar
        Carrera

        The Mazda manual I thought was slightly better than the manual in the Accord and the HR-V. Not an easy feat to accomplish. The AT was good as well. Never drove a CVT Accord so I can’t judge.

    • 0 avatar
      stuki

      The sweet spot for the 6, is the base model. With 17s and all seasons. You can go through left-right transitions at a pace allowing some modest onset of slip in that one, without slamming from rightside to leftside bumpstops.

      Sticking larger rims and grippier rubber on it, like on any other car mainly designed for transportation, really requires suspension work. And only serve to make them less entertaining at anything resembling street speeds.

      Remember: The closer you can get to the power, engine characteristics, wheelsizes and tire grip of an E34, the better off, as a street car, your midsize is.

  • avatar
    Coolcar2

    I too test drove one of these back in 2013 when I was looking for a new midsize sedan. Loved the way it drove and actually thought the engine was responsive but the packaging of options turned me away. For some reason the 2014 launch 6s could not be had with a sunroof for the mid-level Touring model. I wanted a sunroof but did not want to spend the cash to move up to the Grand Touring trim. In the end I went with a Kia Optima SX. The car has been great with all the extra options, even if the steering is a bit dead. Tit for tat.

  • avatar
    noorct

    Residual is everything. 2016 mazda 6 sport MT is at 41% after 36 months
    2016 Honda accord LX MT is at 50% after 36 months.

    On 23000 that 10% is 2300 or so. That gap holds true roughly at every point in year 1-5.

    On balance, you’re getting a quieter, faster car that does the family thing better (back seat, noise levels, reliability equal or better). And a lease over 3 years/36000 miles would be in the $70-100 less a month range. And Mazda doesn’t do the domestic thing and put cash on the hood to make the numbers work generally (current 1500 offer is an outlier)

    You’d have to really love the Mazda to make the emotional side overpower the rational.

    All numbers run with 3 year 36k at MSRP from http://residuals.cula.com/vehicleresidualcalculator/consumerlease.aspx

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      This. It’s hard to understate how important leasing has become, and Mazda’s at a disadvantage when it comes to this.

      When I bought my car last fall, I had a very illuminating talk with a Toyota salesman. He told me that an overwhelming majority of his Corolla buyers (and Camry buyers) lease, and simply chuck the old one in on a new one every three years. I’m sure the same is true of Honda. And both Honda and Toyota have incredibly attractive leases on their entire line of compacts and midsizes. Toyota throws in a few years of scheduled maintenance.

      Meanwhile, I had a 3 on my short list last fall, but it as much as I liked it, it didn’t make the final cut – because of the bad Mazda residuals, the payment was going to be quite a bit more than I had budgeted for. In the end, the car wasn’t worth it.

      Mazda’s losing initial and repeat sales as a result.

      Worth noting: Mazda doesn’t have a captive leasing arm – it’s all done through Chase, apparently.

      • 0 avatar
        Corey Lewis

        “Worth noting: Mazda doesn’t have a captive leasing arm – it’s all done through Chase, apparently.”

        I didn’t know this, but I wonder if in the end it makes a difference to the customer with regard to money. Given the size of Chase, I would think not. Hmmmm.

        • 0 avatar
          FreedMike

          I wondered that too, Corey, but all I know is that when it comes to leasing, Mazda’s not really all that competitive. That’s a very good sized chunk of sales that they’re basically giving away to Honda and Toyota.

          They’re also giving buyers to VW, if you think about it – both brands appeal to the same basic type of buyer (performance oriented). And VW has a FAR better leasing program. That one really mystifies me – given VW’s troubles, they could clearly pick up a lot of their old customers. If the 3 had been decent to lease, that’s the one I’d have ended up with. It just wasn’t worth another $75-80 a month over the Jetta I ended up with.

        • 0 avatar
          duffman13

          Chase does their purchase financing too, or at least they did in 2010 when we bought our 3 from them at the promotional 0% rate.

        • 0 avatar
          notwhoithink

          It does make a difference. With a captive financing company (GMAC, Ford Credit, Honda Credit, etc) the primary purpose is to make it easier to sell more cars. They can offer finance terms where they make very little money on financing so long as it gets another car sold. On the other hand, Chase isn’t going to make those kinds of thin deals, because they don’t care if Mazda moves more units. What they care about is the profitability of the financing.

          So yes, it makes a difference.

    • 0 avatar
      slavuta

      If you do rational, you grab Limited Sonata right now for $20K

      • 0 avatar
        noorct

        The other part of this is used car pricing. Again, driven by residual you’ll see a 2-3 year old Accord on the lot for not that much off the price of a new car (this is atrociously obvious on CRVs too with 1 year old models at 2-3k off sticker at 15k miles).

        So if you’re on the Honda lot, even if you’re not leasing you are seeing reinforcement that the decision to buy new will not bite you in the short term.

        Contrast with a Mazda dealer where they are dealing with a 1 year, 5-6k drop off. For instance below is a 24K touring spec with 1 year and less than 3k miles (so probably a loaner?) advertised at 19k with no negotiation yet. You probably don’t feel great buying a new one even if you know nothing of residuals or resale. In any case, lease or loan, the decision to buy the one that retains value is better.

        Slavuta – agree on the Sonata. That’s the other way to worry less about residual – pay way less than sticker price (e.g. a 10% discount makes the effective residual 10% higher when compared to paying MSRP, or slightly more since the denominator is changing)

        http://www.tascamazdari.com/used/Mazda/2016-Mazda-Mazda6-db23e2ff0a0e0ae841d6a6b238409fed.htm

    • 0 avatar
      SPPPP

      This is a very good point. However, I find it interesting, though, that the fact-based payments are very much based on used car demand, which is largely emotion-based.

      Knowing that the used Mazda costs $2,300 less than the used Accord, the used car shopper’s rational decision would be to buy the Mazda. But somehow, the demand exists for the used Honda, which props up the used price, and suppresses the lease price.

      Surely, Honda has a good reliability reputation. (Somehow not too much sullied by the V6 Accord fiasco a decade ago.) But Mazdas are very reliable in my experience as well. But people are preferring the Honda $2,300 more for whatever reason, which may not be all rational.

  • avatar
    PrincipalDan

    Make mine a Touring model. I can still get the stick shift and the vinyl masquerading as some sort of leather will be easier to clean up my 2 year old’s spills.

    • 0 avatar
      Corey Lewis

      Do they offer the white interior in vinyl?

      That’s so Monte Carlo if they do.

      • 0 avatar
        TMA1

        There’s a beige vinyl, but white is leather only in the GT trim.

      • 0 avatar
        PrincipalDan

        Yes they do. I’ve even found a few on dealer lots with dark exterior colors and a “linen” or “cotton” or “whatever-they-call-it” interior. 6-speed manual + dark paint + white vinyl interior = SPORTS BROUGHAM!

        (I’m really strongly thinking either whisper quiet battleship or manual transmission while my knees can still enjoy it for my next ride. I’m so bipolar in my automotive desires.)

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          BATTLESHIP.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            Well I was raised on Battleship/Brougham, with the Celebrity being an aberration that my father always regretted.

            70s Cutlass Salon, 78 Monte Carlo, 87 Cutlass Supreme Brougham, 92 Bonneville…

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            LOL, Dan, those are light cruisers!

            Now, my first car – a ’75 Olds Custom Cruiser – was a REAL battleship. And my dad’s Caddies were freakin Yamato-style dreadnoughts.

          • 0 avatar
            PrincipalDan

            @FreedMike, yeah but being born in 1977 and living in the land of the RustMonster (NW Ohio) that’s the best I was going to do. (Now if I was 10 years older…)

      • 0 avatar
        LeMansteve

        The Touring can be had with Sand (tan) or Black interior. With the sand, only the seats and part of the door panel take that color.

        The Grand Touring can be had with a Parchment (near-white) or Black/Espresso interior. Unlike the Touring, the interior color on the Grand Touring extends to the lower dashboard and center console. This is a very nice touch.

        • 0 avatar
          Corey Lewis

          Yes, but the Grand Touring is the same price as an Accord EX-L V6. $30,xxx.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            This. One more example of why Mazda’s car line isn’t working – the base models are highly competitive, but as the price goes up, they get blown away by the competition. The 6 is one example. If it had comparable performance to an Accord or Camry V-6, it’d be fine, but it’s the same (slightly underpowered) 2.5 you find in the base models. No wonder no one buys it.

            Same problem exists with the 3 – as you move up to the $25,000 price point (easy to do), the performance doesn’t compute. I mean, what do you buy for 25 grand – a 3, or a GTI? A couple of grand more puts you in a WRX. Duh.

            The brand’s denying itself a ton of profit by doing this.

            If Mazda can start building engines with some balls, then the bellyaching about road noise and ride will end – people who like performance cars (i.e., their target market) will put up with a bit more of that stuff if the power is there. But in current Mazdas, it isn’t. And that’s the problem. They want to appeal to folks like me but they’re not closing the deal.

          • 0 avatar
            LeMansteve

            @FreedMike

            I have researched and driven both cars. It comes down to this: dollar for dollar, the 3 offers more features while the GTI offers more performance. The 3 compares closer to the regular Golf.

            Notable features found on the 3 Grand Touring that are absent on the base GTI S: sunroof, real leather seats, proximity key, automatic climate control, rain sensing wipers. If you want all of that in a GTI, you’re looking at an Autobahn for around $30k.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Steve, we’ll go back to the original comparison:

            3 Grand Touring hatchback base with manual (and leather seats, no nav, no roof): $26120

            Base GTI manual (very similar equipment, just no pleather): $25595

            GTI sport (adds more HP, sport diff, keyless start): $27995

            For less money, a GTI offers at least 35 more hp (45 in the sport), sharper handling, a vastly better back seat, and more cargo space.

            In fact, if I’m not too far off, a Golf 1.8TSI with the manual is more than a match power-wise for a 3 with the 2.5, and runs about $4,000 less for the Wolfsburg edition, which has a panoramic sunroof and pleather.

            And this illustrates what I’m talking about when it comes to Mazda: the uplevel trims don’t offer enough performance to justify the higher price. The 3 is a brilliant $19,000 car. It’s not brilliant for $25,000 (or more). They need more performance at the more expensive trim levels to justify the pricing. This is particularly true of the 6 – how do they move any $31,000 models of this when you can go down the street and spend the same money on an Accord with leather and a V-6?

  • avatar
    sutherland555

    Mazda does have that 2.5 turbo in the CX-9 now. Hopefully they drop it into the 6 next year and make a Speed3 with it. Maybe have it as an uptrim on the CX-5 too.

    • 0 avatar
      Der_Kommissar

      It’s just dumb that the 2.5 turbo did not make it to the Mazda 6 for 2017. Unless they are 1) honestly afraid of the reliability of it and want to limit their exposure or 2) are already moving to a new engine architecture and don’t want to waste their time with it. I think there are some hints of #2, but I’m not sure they will solve the performance issue.

  • avatar
    Corey Lewis

    The 6 is just a hard sell because of three very considerable reasons.

    -Driving public shrugs at driving involvement.
    -Mazda dealers are sad, and few and far between.
    -Mazda does not have the reputation of the other two, or really even of the Koreans.

    My personal issues with them:
    -They don’t have powerful cars, no matter how much money you spend.
    -The value proposition gets quite poor when you start adding options, as the 6 gets expensive quickly.

    • 0 avatar
      duffman13

      You forgot reason 4 – high prices relative to the volume sellers, lack of factory finance incentives, and lower residuals without domestic-level cash on the hood leading to higher lease rates. Why pay an extra $50 a month to get the mazda over the camcord?

      Oh, and poor option/trim level pairing jacks the price up for things available at lower trims on competitors. For example, you can’t get heated seats until you hit $28k MSRP, where most competitors get them around $25k.

  • avatar
    Kyree S. Williams

    I thought it was too noisy, but I drove a pre-facelift, and it was a Grand Touring with the ridiculous 19″ wheels.

    • 0 avatar
      LeMansteve

      The 2017 Mazda 6 addresses a lot of the noise complaints with thicker front door glass, more sound insulation at key spots and “optimized” door seals. The Grand Touring goes further, adding acoustic-laminated front door glass.

      I never drove a pre-2017 Mazda 6, but my 2017 6 is just as quiet or quieter than my 2004 3-series. No complaints.

      • 0 avatar
        notwhoithink

        “The 2017 Mazda 6 addresses a lot of the noise complaints with thicker front door glass, more sound insulation at key spots and “optimized” door seals. The Grand Touring goes further, adding acoustic-laminated front door glass.”

        That may be true, but the 2017 GT that I test drove was still louder than anything else that I drove in that class or at that price point. Being quieter than prior model years is commendable but you’re not going to score points until you can match the competition.

    • 0 avatar
      ShoogyBee

      The 19″ wheels sure look sharp and fill the wheel wells nicely, but they really should be part of an extra-cost Sport package of some sort. 18″ wheels and tires with taller sidewalls might have been a better choice for a slightly smoother and quieter ride.

    • 0 avatar

      In addition to the larger wheels, I just thought that Mazda had a reputation of putting less sound dampening material in their cars compared to other manufacturers, which all contribute to NVH.

  • avatar
    FreedMike

    Everyone says Mazda’s central issue is noise and roughness, but that’s bunk – anyone who wants a (relatively) cushy compact or midsizer buys an Accord or Camry instead.

    Mazda’s problem is that it pitches performance, but the reality doesn’t live up to the pitch. Every car in their line has all the makings of a great car for the enthusiast driver – steering, suspension, brakes, shifter, etc – but they’re all slightly underpowered. So, yeah, when a 6 is louder and rougher-riding than an Accord, and isn’t noticeably quicker, prospective buyers call BS on Mazda’s zoom-zooming and shop elsewhere. It makes sense.

    Solution? Small-displacement turbos. Something like the Passat’s 1.8 TSI engine in the 6 would be utterly transformative.

    And with performance to match the hype, all the whining about road noise and “rough ride” would disappear. Why? Because enthusiast drivers will put up with a bit more noise and roughness if it nets them real performance.

    Double down on real performance, Mazda. You heard it here first.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      “Solution? Small-displacement turbos”

      I do not understand Mazda and thus am inclined to not disagree, but I will point out this pretty much sucks in every other application in the industry.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        I own a car with a 1.4 turbo and you can make some valid criticisms of it (primarily, it’s pretty easy to catch it napping at low RPMs), but “suck” is the last word I’d use to describe the engine. What’s your definition?

        • 0 avatar
          28-Cars-Later

          Poor mileage, low power until you step on the boost, jerky auto transmissions, some reliability and emissions issues.

          –> These things above.

          Oh and did they ever figure out a better way to deal with the carbon soot left from DI? I seem to recall the Toyota solution being DI and MPFI simultaneously but I do not know if this has become commonplace. Although this is a problem with DI and not a turbo’d motor per se, turbo’d motors tend to be DI.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            28, I don’t know about long term reliability – that may be a valid concern. I’m leasing, so I’m the wrong guy to ask about how long the engine will last. Time will tell. But as far as the other stuff is concerned…

            I’m averaging 35 mpg in 1.4 T Jetta in mixed city/suburban/freeway driving, and I don’t drive slowly. The “you can have power or eco but not both” observation is pretty apt, but when I first got the car, I drove it like Cole Trickle and got around 30 mpg. Make of that what you will.

            And as far as jerky automatics are concerned, I tried automatic versions of the Jetta and Golf, and if anything, I found them better matched to the engines’ torque curves. A lot of this depends on whose box you’re talking about.

            Try one out for yourself and come to your own conclusions.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I haven’t driven a VW in many years but have bee subjected to the turbo-crutch on other newer marques hence my cynicism. I do also recall reading on these hallowed pages the VW TSI is actually supposed to be pretty good (30mpg sounds impressive) so perhaps you are experiencing the best as opposed to the norm to which I refer.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Try one out and see for yourself, 28. VW’s done a great job with the 1.8 and 1.4 TSI engines. You can indeed catch the engine in turbo-lag mode (generally, from a stop, or on 5-4 or 4-3 downshifts), but generally, the power feels very linear starting around 1800 rpm, all the way to 5500. I’ve got 5,000 miles on mine, and I’m very, very pleased. Early on, I know…

            I’ve never known anyone who drove them and wasn’t impressed.

            I didn’t get a chance to try out the turbo 1.5 in the Civic but I hear good things about it too.

          • 0 avatar
            gtemnykh

            I drove a Jetta 1.4T quite briskly on a all highway trip, moving 80+ at times with traffic, and still got an indicated 41 mpg. Was very impressed. The questionably uneven idle when cold was a bit concerning, however. And reports of main seal leaks and the usual PCV culprits on the latest EA888 1.8Ts is not encouraging for long term owners.

          • 0 avatar
            Ryoku75

            As far as reliability goes, I had a Volvo 745 turbo with like 197k on it. If an old crude turbo can last that long I’m sure a modern one could. That being said the “sleeping”, bad mpg, jerky auto, these were all correct.

            I should add that while the turbo was fine, about everything else on the car was about done!

        • 0 avatar
          stuki

          The best metric I can think of for evaluating a street car driveline is,

          1) enough power somewhere in the power band, and a shifter making getting there a non chore.

          2) How close behind the car in front can you comfortably tailgate up and down San Francisco hills at bumper to bumper traffic travelling in the 0-25mph range? 2-3 liter NAs with manual transmissions and well sorted fueling excel at this. Micro turbos are a disaster. They go from too much torque to stall up steep hills as you cross their cliffwall boost cutoff. Requiring all kinds of clutch slippage where a larger NA is much more progressive. Then goes the other way as you cross the cliffwall while accelerating. And then, once pointed downhill, engine braking is just as unpredictable. Or even non existent in some instances. So you end up doing the brake light disco strobe show with the slushboxers.

          And don’t get me started on tight parallel parking downhill. Clutch slip galore. Interestingly enough, the Cummins turbo diesel does this OK, as there is enough idle torque to make it work without effort. But the micro gas turbos…. just plain undignified.

          Slush boxes and keeping some distance to the guy in front do cover up many of the practical issues. But then again: Toupees and combovers covers up bald spots.

      • 0 avatar
        ajla

        I’m not sure if they’ll hold up, but Volkswagen’s turbo offerings are decent. I’ve read good things about Honda’s 1.5T but I don’t know if that’s legit or internet Hondaphile wank.

        Everyone else’s turbo options range from ‘meh’ to ‘where’s my cyanide?’

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      I think the big reason the 6 is a failure is that it doesn’t have the halo effect of a more powerful model in the way that an Accord or Camry does.

      I bet there a lot of Camcord shoppers who show up expecting to drive away in a V6 car, and then find out that either the 4 is satisfactory or that the V6 costs too much. But the V6 got them in the door.

      Mazda just doesn’t have that. People write it off without even giving it a chance, because it loses so badly on paper.

      • 0 avatar
        kvndoom

        It’s kind of surprising that after 4 or 5 years of Skyactive development they don’t have a V6. Maybe the 2.5T from the CX9 will eventually make it into the 3 or 6 though.

        • 0 avatar
          sutherland555

          Mazda had and has limited funds (relatively speaking) and had to turn everything in-house in a very short time after Ford dumped most of their stake. The designed all of their current engines is based on the same architecture and is basically modular, regardless of the engine size (as long it’s a 4 cylinder). It’s my understanding that it would’ve been very difficult and expensive for them to develop a V6 from this architecture. A V6 is nice but a luxury for small automakers these days.

          • 0 avatar
            FreedMike

            Yeah, no V-6. But that’s OK – Mazda’s engineering philosophy is all built around low weight, so I’d prefer to see something like a 2.0 turbo as base in the 6, and the 2.5 turbo from the CX-9 in the top of the line models.

            Then you’d have a car that lives up to the “zoom zoom” hype.

    • 0 avatar
      whitworth

      “Everyone says Mazda’s central issue is noise and roughness, but that’s bunk – anyone who wants a (relatively) cushy compact or midsizer buys an Accord or Camry instead.”

      _______

      You can have a quiet car that also has class leading performance. It’s not a zero sum game.

      For me, a loud car is an instant deal breaker. The fact that EVERYBODY including auto enthusiasts that usually don’t care all that much tells you its a real problem they need to solve.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        “You can have a quiet car that also has class leading performance.”

        Except…when it comes to chassis / handling dynamics, neither Accord nor Camry are class leaders. The 6 has it all over either of them. And, yes, it’s a touch louder, and the ride is probably a touch rougher. But if it had demonstrably superior powertrain performance, or was demonstrably quicker, then the noise / rough ride would be a lot more acceptable.

        In any case, someone who’s going to buy a Camry or Accord probably isn’t going to buy a 6 (or a Legacy, or a Malibu, or a Sonata, and on and on). The 6 is aimed at drivers who prioritize driving feel. It’s not alone in this niche – the Passat is aimed at the same kind of buyer. It’s not the fattest part of the market, but it’s worth a lot of sales nonetheless (almost 120,000 units if you combine the 6 and Passat). And VW should be an easier target after the diesel fiasco.

        Mazda’s focus should be to make the car irresistible to the buyers in this part of the market. MOAR POWER would do that.

    • 0 avatar
      notwhoithink

      “Solution? Small-displacement turbos. Something like the Passat’s 1.8 TSI engine in the 6 would be utterly transformative.”

      They don’t even need to do that. They already have a 2.5L turbo in the CX-9, and the head of engineering said that they specifically designed it so that it could fit into the CX-5 and the 6. Obviously there is some additional effort in testing, tuning, and getting a 2.5T Mazda6 approved for sale in the US, but they already have all of the pieces that they need. They just need to put them together.

  • avatar
    Scott_314

    I noticed the local dealer has a few new 2016 models in stock.

    Good deals must be available.

  • avatar
    LeMansteve

    I just bought a 6 Touring with manual transmission. I chose the Touring over the Sport because I had to have the proximity key, non-black leatherette seats and rain-sensing wipers. The 19s were a bonus, and look pretty good. These are the main things you give up with the Sport. Otherwise, it has the same great interior, ergonomics and chassis.

    I would have liked to have the ability to option-in the Lighting Package with the Touring manual. That package is only offered on the Touring automatic and Grand Touring trim, which is automatic only. Bummer, but I understand the OEMs cannot please everyone.

  • avatar
    3800FAN

    I test drove one once and it was one of the biggest automotive let downs I’ve ever had.

    “sporty handling” does not equal punishing rough ride where you feel every pebble in the road. Honda proved this long ago yet the ride of the 6 reminded me of the old GM N-bodies from the 90s.

    THe skyactive 2.5 is anemic. It doesn’t have that high-rpm power that you need if you want an engaging 4 cylinder. Instead it cuts off just as you expect it to take off and you need to shift.

    Matthew Guy’s opening paragraph stated not to listen to automotive journalists and the 6 is the perfect example as to why that’s true.

    • 0 avatar
      LeMansteve

      The Skyactiv 2.5 is not designed to be a revvy engine. For efficiency reasons, it’s designed to generate peak torque at a relatively low rpm (3,250rpm). This is much earlier than competing NA 4-cylinders from Honda and Toyota. Even the redline is fairly low (6,200rpm).

      For the few times you might wind the engine out, yeah, it’s kind of a letdown. For everyday around town driving, it provides a decent enough shove to merge with traffic, without having to wind the engine up.

    • 0 avatar
      SPPPP

      Punishing ride? Yikes. I wouldn’t say that at all. I would say it’s composed and not floaty. Certainly not a rough ride in my opinion.

      I also don’t think the 2.5L is underpowered for this car. (If you live at very high altitude, then maybe it is.) I found it easily cruised hilly interstates at well above the speed limit. Acceleration is not brutal, no … but generally fast enough for any trip that doesn’t end in a jail cell.

  • avatar
    VW4motion

    With not so great Mazda resale value . This Mazda 6 would be a great 2-3 yo auto purchase.

  • avatar
    benznotmercedes

    Finally created an account because of this post!

    I have a 2009 Mazda6 Sport with no options at all (manual seats, cloth, no trip computer, etc) with the detuned 3.7L V6 derived from the one in the Mustang. Don’t think I’ve seen another one with this combination of options, but it’s been a great car so far.

    Re: the new one, a friend of mine has a completely base 2014 6 with a 6-speed and it’s surprisingly nice inside and great to drive.

  • avatar
    orenwolf

    I have a 2016 Mazda 6, though optioned to the max with the Tech safety package.

    Coming from the RX8 I was amazed at how the car felt to drive, I was *sure* I was going to miss the handling, but not so. It’s still a blast to drive, and for any normal driving condition (including outrunning someone being dumb in a merge or somesuch), the paddle shifters and the sport mode for the auto work just fine. I have yet to feel like I didn’t have the power I wanted (though I do giggle a bit when I stomp for acceleration and the engine acquiesces but also cries at the effort.

    I guess coming from the RX8 which was under 300hp anyway, I don’t feel the power loss as much. I autocrossed the RX8 and got pretty good driving it toward its’ limits, so perhaps the driving dynamics for the 6 are close enough that the animal instincts part of my brain are still “comfortable” with nearly 100hp less. Of course, I’m not autocrossing the 6, so :)

  • avatar
    Jim123

    I test drove a 2017 Mazda6 Touring 6-speed and a 2016 Honda Accord Sport 6speed the same day one weekend. I was nearly at my wits end with my aging E60 BMW and just wanted something efficient, Japanese, and somewhat engaging to drive. Drove Accord Sport first and came away generally underwhelmed. I once had a 1987 Accord LX-i hatchback that logged 330k miles and a pretty garbage 1998 Accord EX-V6 sedan that I got 200k out of after 3 trannys, so I was hoping the Accord would bring back some memories. Positives: it has a nice design that will probably age very well (minus the hideous wheels on the Sport), good efficiency/reliability/resale, great shifter. That’s it. There are a significant number of negatives, however….my kid nephew’s Little Tykes Car has more steering feel, the wack 4 speaker stereo is a joke…it belongs in a government-spec Chevy truck, anyone over 6ft tall will find the front psssenger seat a torture device lacking both legroom and a too-flat seat bottom ( yet you can stack humans in the back seat with plenty of legroom). Also, Hondas are still under-insulated…I can still hear the conversation in the next car over just like my last two Hondas. For $26k the Accord lacks in features (no push button start or passive keyless entry, even?). Eh, the package as a whole was disappointing.

    Test drove the Mazda next, and honestly it was night and day. First thing I noticed was the interior quality…sure it was mostly vinyl, but it was nice that it was stitched vinyl in all of the areas at eye level. There was even a padded area on the side of the console next to the shifter to rest your leg. The dash has nice soft touch vinyl tastefully applied (compared to the hard plastic dash and door panels in the Accord). Like the Accord, it was loud inside on the hwy and the engine is a bit industrial in nature, but somehow that didn’t detract from the overall package for me. The Mazda6 Touring is an outstanding buy considering you get blind spot monitoring standard, standard music streaming apps, rear seat vents, push button start/passive entry, the option of a great manual tranny, fantastic styling inside and out, and the dealer will generally throw in the SD card for navigation activation. The dealer wanted a sale and was prepared to give it to me at $5k off of the asking price ($20,500). I ended up keeping my BMW as for now, it was more financially responsible to fix a paid off vehicle vs going into debt on another. However, I was surprised at how disappointed I was in the Accord and impressed with the Mazda…

    • 0 avatar
      LeMansteve

      Jim, my thoughts exactly. The Accord Sport appears to be a competitor, until you line up the spec sheets. The Mazda simply offers more creature comforts for the money.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    Given my screen name this is probably no surprise, but there’s no way I’d get one of these over an Accord Sport. The Accord is just as nice to drive, while being as much as 1 second faster to 60/through the quarter. I’d bet on Accord resale value and reliability too.

  • avatar
    Jim123

    How hard is it to import a Canadian model? You can get a manual in the top Grand Touring trim and that includes heated rear seats!

  • avatar
    joc6812

    I’m car shopping right now, mostly in the compact hatch, small suv/crossover segment. Have driven a lot of cars recently. So far, I like the Mazdas far more than anything I’ve tested, but…..as noted in this thread, the financing, leasing and incentives (or lack of), are just not there with this brand. Residuals are bad, you’ve got to really want a Mazda to pay quite a bit more than for competing brands. My biggest beef is the dealers. I’ve lived all over the country, the Mazda dealerships are always the most run down with the sleaziest and least knowledgeable sales people. I’ve got to believe if they upgraded their facilities and staff they’d do a lot better. Every dealer where I live is a nicer place and better experience than the Mazda guy.

    • 0 avatar
      highdesertcat

      Mazda vehicles are a blast to drive. They have Zoom-Zoom built-in at the factory.

      Way back when, I bought a used V6 626 and a used 929 for our family’s ever increasing needs for wheels.

      The kids loved them. Took them to college with them. And only traded them off for new rides after they had graduated and found their first job.

      I have very good experiences with the Mazda cars of old.

    • 0 avatar
      This Is Dawg

      I hit 55k miles on my 2014 Mazda6 this morning, my only issues with the car are small rattles that started after it was T boned while parked on the street, and armrest ergonomics since my elbow doesn’t easily rest on the door shelf with the seat all the way back. I’ve actually drag raced it against my brothers base E46 and they kept identical pace up to 60mph when we let off. Wind and road noise are undeniable, but I drive with the windows down often so it’s a non issue to me.

      As for dealership experience, I simply emailed every dealership in 100 miles and requested offers on a base model. Heard back from 4, 2 were helpful, one offered it for $18,900 and he was only 20 miles away. Easiest car purchase I’ve ever dealt with.

  • avatar
    ShoogyBee

    Wish one could get a power driver’s seat in the base Sport model. Not interested in having to get a higher-level trim with 19″ wheels just to get a power driver’s seat.

  • avatar
    05lgt

    This is almost exactly the price I saw a 14 MKS w 30k for… The heck with base.

  • avatar
    Funky

    I figured I might as well jump in and mention again that I own a 2017 Mazda 6 Touring with a manual transmission. Mine is very quiet (sometimes I don’t notice how fast I am driving). Having also owned a BMW 5 series (fifth generation with all wheel drive and six cylinder engine), I can say, based on real experience, I believe the current Mazda 6 offers a more pleasing drive (to my tastes, anyway). The Touring model interior is tasteful. The sound of the engine is nice. So far, in mixed driving (admittedly, maybe a little more highway than in-town), I am getting more than 30 MPG on average. My kids (both over 15 years of age) both commented they like the amount of room they have in the back seats and they like the comfort of the back seats. My experience with the car, so far, is fantastic and I have no complaints. From my point of view, it is a decent vehicle which is fun to drive which also has upscale features including an attention to detail in manufacturing and design.


Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Contributors

  • Matthew Guy, Canada
  • Seth Parks, United States
  • Ronnie Schreiber, United States
  • Bozi Tatarevic, United States
  • Chris Tonn, United States
  • Corey Lewis, United States
  • Moderators

  • Adam Tonge, United States
  • Kyree Williams, United States