By on May 1, 2015

Mazda-6-Modelljahr-2015-fotoshowBigImage-345f48b6-825173

The current Mazda6 is revered for its Skyactiv naturally aspirated gasoline engines and nimble, light-footed handling. Replacing one of the last great N/A engines in its class with a turbo-diesel seems a bit like heresy. Opting for an automatic transmission and four-wheel drive is mutiny. But, will those choices make a great driver’s car boring? Or will they actually make it better?

Being invited to the press launch of a bunch of facelifted models isn’t much reason to celebrate for most automotive journos. But, when I got a chance to attend a recent Mazda press conference, I jumped at the chance; not to prove there’s such a thing as a free lunch, nor because it was – conveniently – about three miles from my house. I was eager to go because, between the end of my gig at the Czech edition of Top Gear and the point when my own website really got going, I managed to miss a whole generation of Mazdas.

From what I’d heard and read – both from my colleagues at home and on TTAC – the new crop of Mazdas was really good. So I wasn’t in it for the deer with creamy sauce (although it was delicious). I was in it because I wanted to drive the cars.

First, I drove the Mazda3, which wasn’t even new. It was great, but you already know that. Derek liked one so much he bought it.

Then it was time for the facelifted Mazda6. I went for the best one: gasoline sedan with manual transmission; lightest of the bunch with an engine that’s legendary (easy to do, being a large, naturally aspirated 2.0-liter four in a world of downsized turbo plants) and a lovely manual gearbox.

It was as good as I expected. For a large sedan – in Europe, non-premium sedans don’t get much better than this – it shows a great dose of sportiness and provides an unusual amount of fun. You have, especially with the facelifted version, all the bells and whistles to which you’re accustomed. At the same time, there’s a whiff of jinba ittai (a horse and a rider as one) from the Miata. It’s easy to find a proper driving position; steering wheel close to your chest, seat low and the backrest at nearly vertical feels comfortable. The gearshift is gloriously precise with a deliciously short throw. The suspension works exactly as you want; compliant when presented with ruts and potholes and still stable and resists roll remarkably well.

mazda-6-modellpflege-2015-5-850x478

The engine isn’t going to spoil the fun, either. It’s hungry for revs. With its aforementioned enjoyable gearshift along with nicely placed and spaced pedals, the Mazda6, especially with the European-spec 2.0 engine, just begs to be revved. Rev-matching downshifts are a breeze. For many buyers, the engine will be the main reason for buying the Mazda’s family sedan – more so than the suspension, and maybe even more so than all those new, shiny and clever things they told us about at the press event (and which I wasn’t able or willing to try out on my short drive). Most competitors use touchscreens, which can be annoying and even dangerous, but the Mazda6 uses an iDrive-esque control that’s more to my liking.

Then – something strange happened.

With no great expectations, I jumped behind the wheel of a CX-5 crossover with a diesel engine. I wasn’t really surprised that flinging it around my favourite backroad (conveniently located some two miles from the event venue) was much more fun than any family crossover has the right to be. Yet, what really got me interested was its engine.

I’m afraid that I will be condemned by JDM fans, purists and petrolheads all around the world, but I enjoyed the diesel version even better than the Last Mohican of the N/A gasoline engines. That might be caused by my affinity to large engines with their deep exhaust notes, dislike for revs, and lots of grunt low down, but I found the diesel engine’s growl more pleasant than the shriek of its gasoline counterpart. While revving the N/A four was fun, the turbodiesel was quite happy in the upper part of the rev counter as well – allowing for relaxed driving without having to shift all the time.

Thinking about this on the way back, I got a hunch. If the CX-5 is still fun and if the diesel engine can sound more pleasant (to my ears) than the gasoline one…could the diesel Mazda6 actually be the better option? Maybe the newly introduced AWD could, in fact, improve the driving experience.

2015_CX-5_Mazda6_launch__jpg72-1024x494

With that in mind upon returning the CX-5, I requested a diesel wagon with AWD with the automatic. All the previous cars were manuals (yes, in our part of the world, the standard transmission is still that – standard). If the diesel is so good in a CUV, it should be even better in a wagon, right? And AWD should help, too. The modern part-time AWD systems are good enough to be useful even on dry pavement – a comparison a few years back of a standard Passat with one equipped with 4Motion proved that.

After getting the keys, I set off with great anticipation. This should, in theory, be the best car of the lot. But it didn’t begin well. While the FWD, gasoline sedan was admirably compliant and comfortable, the diesel AWD wagon wasn’t. For some reason, the ride was noticeably more choppy and even small imperfections of the road were transmitted into cabin. I suspected the wheels, but both cars were fitted with 19s.

It has to be something else. There are two main suspects. The AWD system may have something to do with it, but I lean towards blaming it on weight. The wagon itself is a bit heavier than its trunked counterpart, and the diesel engine is probably much heavier than gasoline one. I’ve seen several cars ruined by a heavy engine and the stiffer springs/shocks that go with it.

On my favorite back road, though, the news was much more positive. As in the CX-5, the diesel engine is unexpectedly pleasant – in its sound, hunger for revs or lots of torque everywhere. I wouldn’t say it’s really better from a driver’s perspective, but it’s not worse, either. I can imagine drivers that would prefer each one of them.

Mazda6-Wagon-2013-2

Next big difference is the AWD. It was useful from the beginning, helping me to launch from the side road without front tires scraping for traction. And it made itself worthwhile on the open road as well. You probably won’t notice it in sweeping curves, but in tighter ones, no more spinning of the inner wheel; just lots of nice, clean traction. It even helps mitigate the understeer a bit.

So, is this the best possible Mazda6? Of course not. It’s not a diesel manual wagon. While that may sound like a cliché (at least in North America – in Europe, it’s a pretty standard and boring mode of transportation), the manual transmission would really enhance the driving experience. While the automatic isn’t really bad, it’s far too slow for someone spoiled with DSGs and modern automatics, like the ubiquitous 8-speed ZF. A click of the paddle right before the corner, when you would just snap in a lower cog with a nice throttle blip, usually produces nothing more than information on the displey in the dash. Something like “we’re working on it“.

Expecting an automatic in a diesel family wagon to act “sporty“ is a bit unrealistic, especially from a small-ish automaker like Mazda. But if someone buys it for the driving experience, they would probably pick the manual and can rest assured that even by choosing the boring combo of diesel wagon with AWD, he didn’t sacrifice much of the wonderful handling for which this car is synonymous.

@VojtaDobes is motoring journalist from Czech Republic, who previously worked for local editions of Autocar and TopGear magazines. Today, he runs his own website, www.Autickar.cz and writes for various other Czech outlets. After a failed adventure with importing classic American cars to Europe, he is utterly broke, so he drives a ratty Chrysler LHS. His previous cars included a 1988 Caprice in NYC Taxi livery, a hot-rodded Opel Diplomat, two Dodge Coronets, a Simca, a Fiat 600 and Austin Maestro. He has never owned a diesel, manual wagon.

Photography courtesy of Mazda

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

61 Comments on “2016 Mazda6 Wagon 2.2D AWD A/T European First Drive...”


  • avatar
    CaptainObvious

    That wagon sure is a looker.

  • avatar
    Sammy B

    Forget the AWD. If Mazda could get us a 4 cyl 6MT wagon, that would be ideal. They might actually have a shot of selling some! The 1st gen was V6 only which pushed the price up. I imagine if they could hit about $24-25K they could sell a few thousand per year, which would be enough to justify the investment perhaps.

    But I am mindful of Jack’s article from a few days ago…I know it’s not going to happen :(

    • 0 avatar

      They’d sell more than that. The Golf SportWagen is in that range, which is a considerably smaller vehicle.

      • 0 avatar
        Atenza

        There might not be as much difference as you think—the 6 wagon’s on a smaller wheelbase and a bit swoopier, so it wouldn’t entirely surprise me if this is another V60-vs-Golf-hatch situation.

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        The larger the car, the less Americans are willing for it to be a wagon–they prefer SUVs at that point.

        Also, it’s not clear if the wagon market is saturated. Just because the VW sells doesn’t mean there’s enough unsatisfied interest for another player to get a share.

        That said, Mazda probably would sell a thousand or two 6 wagons a year. Is that enough for them to do it? Probably not.

  • avatar
    sportyaccordy

    I would def give one of these a look. Most ideal would be a Mazda 3 wagon though (not hatch). 6 is a good size but still big for my tastes.

  • avatar
    r129

    Looking at that photo of the CX-5 and the Mazda6 wagon right next to each other, and knowing that the overwhelming majority of people would choose the CX-5 if given a choice pretty much sums up everything that’s wrong with the US automotive market.

    • 0 avatar
      Vojta Dobeš

      The 6 is a superior car in most respects. Bigger inside, better fuel economy, better handling, more comfortable, much prettier.

      • 0 avatar
        r129

        Most of the compact CUVs are priced comparably to the manufacturer’s respective midsize sedans. Nobody ever seems to notice or realize that with the CUV, they are essentially buying a tall compact car that is inevitably not as nice as the midsize, granted they are nicer in ways that most people don’t care about.

      • 0 avatar
        rpn453

        But which one excels at driving over cratered roads, seeing around large SUVs, and protecting its occupants from the high bumpers of brodozers? The CX-5 is the obvious choice for North America. My buddy just bought one with a 2.0 and manual as his family/wife vehicle.

        • 0 avatar
          Vojta Dobeš

          I don’t believe that it will be that much of a difference in crash protection.

          And on cratered roads, the sedan/wagon will be better.

      • 0 avatar
        Dave M.

        Essentially you’re looking at the Forrester-sized CUV v. the Outback-sized midsized sedan. The wagon has a longer wheelbase, plusher ride, etc.

        Much prettier is a matter of opinion.

  • avatar
    thegamper

    I own a 2014 Mazda6 6MT presently. A year and a half on I still love to look at it and drive it. If Mazda offered this beautiful wagon in the US with a manual option, I would be at the Mazda dealership with a downpayment in hand at my earliest possible convenience. I most definitely would buy one, not just talk about it.

    But alas, why sell the 6 wagon here when Mazda can charge a premium for a CUV that is essentially a wagon with more ground clearance. Very disappointed that I cannot get my hands on a the 6 wagon.

    • 0 avatar
      legacygt

      The bad news is that we will not see the 6 wagon in the US. The reality is that Americans don’t like this bodystyle and Mazda is a relatively low volume automaker anyway. I would buy this unicorn of a wagon with AWD and a diesel but it will not be. The good news is we will get a version of this car but it will be the CX-9. I’m very interested to see what Mazda does with this car because the 3 row CUV segment hasn’t really progressed despite many new entrants. The current CX-9 dates from 2007 and it’s still competitive. The new one could really impress if they manage to get some great skyactiv tech and really improve fuel economy. The question is going to be the powerplant. The current CX-9 relies on a Ford engine. The existing skyactiv engines are probably too small and they have not been able to get their diesels certified for the US. Will be interesting.

      • 0 avatar
        Dave M.

        The current CX-9 is definitely a looker, but interior space and mpgs are very disappointing. Mazda could, and will, do better.

      • 0 avatar
        wmba

        The Mazda V6 engine is not much like the 3.7 Ford actually makes in the cylinder head department, and it is certainly made differently. Trick Mazda machining center, details at

        http://articles.sae.org/11783/

        I suppose that the Mazda MZR engines including the 2.0 & 2.3 Ecoboost Ford cranks out are now as different from the original Mazda engines as Mazda’s 3.7 V6 is from Ford’s. Same bore and stroke and layout, but modified in detail.

        The Skyactiv engines are a generation newer than the MZR’s Ford uses, are much lighter and actually get real fuel economy, the MZR’s shortcoming.

        There is going to be a 2.0 Turbo Skyactiv which is slated for the CX-9 from what I’ve read. The 2.0 Skyactiv is so much nicer than the 2.5, which is a 100mm long stroke chuffer that isn’t particularly happy at high revs so the turbo may well make a very nice engine for the upcoming MS3.

        • 0 avatar
          legacygt

          A 2.0 Turbo Skyactiv may be a challenge in something as big as the CX-9. The 2.0 Ecoboost in the Ford Explorer isn’t a very satisfying drive, only comes with FWD and doesn’t nearly meet the promised mpg numbers. Volvo is about to try this with the XC90 but there will be electric motors on board too. The right turbo in the right car can work nicely but I think something like the CX-9 may need something bigger than a 2.0L turbo. (Ford now has a 2.7L and 3.5L ecoboost in its heavier cars and trucks)

          • 0 avatar
            wmba

            All true, but it all depends, doesn’t it. The Ford 2.0 Ecoboost isn’t very impressive, but the new Mazda is unlikely to be so slothful – more likely to act more like the BMW 2.0t B48 or Volvo 2.0t than an Ecoboost.

            And if they want to, it will cost Mazda almost nothing to keep the 3.7 V6 for North America, as the article I referenced shows.

            Ford needs to put as much effort into their I4s as that great new 2.7 Ecoboost they’re making.

          • 0 avatar
            redav

            If they can cut the weight out of the CX-9 that should be cut out, a 2.0L turbo may not be unreasonable.

  • avatar
    baabthesaab

    I rented a 6 wagon in Reykjavik last February for 3 days. Diesel with a 6MT, front-drive. I just LOVED that car! I was tempted to drive it to the port, load it into a container bound for the USA, and keep it.

    That was not going to go well, though.

    A truly delightful drive, and I, too, would be at my dealer’s door with my checkbook if I could buy one here.

  • avatar
    ringomon

    If they offered this beautiful wagon in the US I would head down to the nearest dealer in my current paid off Mazda3 and trade-it in as soon as was convenient. (After an argument with my wife about why I need a new car payment).

    …and I say this as someone who has had a 3 hatchback, a 3 sedan, and currently also a Mazda5. A real customer. Now when the 5 is paid off I’m probably going to replace my 3 with either a CX-5 (to make my wife happy) or go looking somewhere else.

  • avatar
    Zykotec

    As a European that doesn’t really like diesels at all, mostly because of the sound when cold, I did really enjoy driving the last generation Mazda 6 wagon with the 2.0 diesel (and manual offcourse) It was in many ways very similar to the 7th gen. Accord Wagon (1st generation Acura TSX, and yes,it was actually a brown manual wagon too) I had for a testdrive, except the interior is ‘more European’ in quality. I think Mazda has learned a lot from being part of Ford for so long (my 01 Mondeo shares the platform and engine with the even earlier Mazda 6) both when it comes to handling and general layout/ergonomics. Add some Japanese quality and you have a great car, and they seem to sell a lot of them here now. (either that or they just stick out a lot more than the usual Passat/A4 wagons that litter the streets )

    • 0 avatar
      Vojta Dobeš

      They briefed our on the sales numbers at that press launch. Of course, I remember almost nothing of it, but I do remember that their sales are showing a MASSIVE increase with the new generation of cars.

    • 0 avatar

      Ford also learned few things from Mazda. So you saying 1st gen Mazda6 was based on older Mondeo platform?

      It is interesting that Mark Fields was Mazda CEO and brought all that zoom-zoom to Mazda – Ford Europe was very good on chassis design. Ford learned quite a bit about 4 cyl engines and more effective engineering from Mazda. So it was very productive cooperation. You cannot say same about GM and its Japanese partners.

  • avatar
    TMA1

    That wagon looks a lot like the TSX wagon from the A-pillar on back. And I think that car’s gorgeous. I’d love to see the 6 wagon in America.

  • avatar
    George B

    Vojta, I’m surprised you liked the NA 2.0 liter engine in the Mazda6. I test drove the Mazda6 with the larger 2.5 liter engine and the larger engine felt underpowered. However, i drove a car with the automatic and that transmission appears to be programmed to score well on fuel economy tests. Kept having to stomp on the accelerator pedal to get it to downshift during normal 50 mph to 70 mph acceleration on freeway entrance ramps.

    • 0 avatar
      Vojta Dobeš

      In Europe, cars are slower and we’re more used to really push them. The 2.0 with MT is totally fine here.

      • 0 avatar

        Typical engine displacement in Europe is 1.6L or smaller. 2.0L is considered to be a larger displacement. Over 2.0L – you can forget about it unless you are rich. I never owned anything larger than 1.6 and yes with manual transmission. To say that they are slow to accelerate compared with cars in America is understatement. You have to push them really hard to make it move and remember you control the gearbox. Pedal to metal was a normal technique to accelerate fast. Buying anything larger than 2.0L was cost prohibitive because of taxes and is essentially luxury.

  • avatar
    stevelovescars

    Perhaps I missed something in the meantime, but when the Mazda6 was introduced a few years ago Mazda said that a SkyActive Diesel would be made available in the U.S. Did they drop this idea in the meantime? I know gas prices are lower now and perhaps their ability to meet emissions regs without urea injection didn’t make it feasible any longer? I was really intrigued by the idea of a Japanese Diesel option, especially in a fun car.

    Then again, the Mazda6 sedan gets pretty good fuel economy already and I (like a lot of potential buyers) would end up doing the math and realizing the ROI on the Diesel wasn’t there?

    • 0 avatar
      legacygt

      You missed something only because Mazda hasn’t really been publicizing this. The skyactiv diesel is available in other markets and (as mentioned in this review) by all accounts fantastic. Either Mazda has been unable to get the diesel to meet US emissions regulations or they determined that there is no business case for this engine (or maybe a combination of the two).

      • 0 avatar
        Redshift

        My understanding is it has been issues with meeting emissions while keeping the required reliability. (All of the stuff required to pass creating durability problems.)
        They certainly intended to, as they have been using the Tudor Championship to promote their SkyActive Diesel that they don’t currently sell here.
        They raced a Diesel 6 sedan in 2013. Now, their lack of success vs their previous RX8 program does give rise to some questions about how good this has been as a promotional exercise.

    • 0 avatar
      TMA1

      From what I’ve read, they can’t get it to pass US emissions without a urea tank, which they want to avoid.

      • 0 avatar
        redav

        For further clarification, they can pass emissions without the urea, but the performance suffers so much that the engine would no longer an upgrade.

        They still insist that it’s coming here, and it will have urea if necessary, but the rumored turbo four for the CX-9 & Speed3 may make it into the 6 instead.

  • avatar
    Redshift

    If Mazda brings a MT 6 Wagon to North America, it will be on my list. Canada does seem to be a more successful market both for wagons and for Mazda, so maybe there is a slight chance. It will look great in my black sheep automotive fleet.

    Mazda are small, but, they need to take some chances if they are going to break out of their “not a Honda” rut. I’m an admitted Mazda fan and root for them. They need to swing for the fences.

    A few years ago at a Rolex race during an owners corral session with one of the Mazda executives, I made a comment about them building the Furai. He joked about “Will you buy one?” He didn’t know what to say when I offered him my Visa card to put down a deposit right then and there in front of the group.

    • 0 avatar
      BrunoT

      And I’m sure they’ll sell all 175 MT wagons they import here. More than than, probably not. Traffic jams. Everywhere. At 2:30 pm. We have traffic reports on Sundays now.

  • avatar
    tremorcontrol

    Mazda really needs to bring this over — they could grab a share of the niche that goes Subaru as well as people who go for Audi/Volvo wagons. Admittedly, these aren’t massive customer bases but Mazda could become a cool alternative. I know I would seriously consider one (doesn’t have to be diesel, but does need some amount of pep).

    • 0 avatar
      legacygt

      @tremorcontrol: I want this car. I take it you do too. But you’re talking about a share of a niche that is less than a niche. It essentially doesn’t exist. Subaru hasn’t sold a Legacy wagon here in years. The Outback is more crossover than wagon at this point. Volvo also abandoned wagons years ago although they are giving it another try with the V60. VW? No Passat wagon in years. The only real wagons are those offered by the Germans although they cost a fortune and sell in miniscule numbers.

    • 0 avatar
      Atenza

      Odd coincidence: my family used to be Audi/Volvo, now it’s Mazda/Subaru, with the cost of running/servicing/etc. (plus both, especially Audi, moving upmarket) being the big thing that caused the shift.

      That said we’re in very much in the minority—went for the V6 (putting us in about ~10% of buyers) with the hatch (putting us in some smaller percentage). Ultimately it’s a compromise between power, economy, and practicality, and most people seem to go further in the direction of one of those three directions.

    • 0 avatar
      r129

      What if Mazda gave it the Outback/Allroad/Cross Country treatment and sold it here with AWD? I’m not saying I would prefer that type of configuration, but I wonder if they would be able to sell enough in the US to make a business case for that. Not that I ever think it would happen.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        You know, they have done that precisely one time, EVER.

        The MPV All-Sport trim.

        • 0 avatar
          r129

          See? They already have a name to recycle. The Mazda6 All-Sport. Just don’t call it a wagon.

          I remember those ads. There was Subaru, with the “first sport utility wagon,” then Mazda with the “first sport utility van.”

  • avatar
    CoreyDL

    Funny how in other places the 6 is considered a large sedan. In my ‘Merica ways, I’d call it on the smaller side of mid-size, having seen them in person. I think the Camry and Accord are larger?

    • 0 avatar
      Atenza

      Per wikipedia their dimensions are almost identical, and the 6 is actually a little longer than the Camry. I currently live in Europe and see a fair number of new 6 sedans (mostly company cars, which is basically the market for this segment of sedan, and there’s no Camry here and Accords are pretty scarce) and they look huge to me. I think it’s the combo of cab-rearward and front overhang.

      • 0 avatar
        CoreyDL

        Interesting thanks.

        I know Honda is dropping the Euro Accord (which we had as the Acura TSX, which also went away).

        Mazda won’t give us any non-CUV AWD items either, which is a mistake. I see an opportunity for market share there from the Subaru crowd.

        • 0 avatar
          legacygt

          Subaru has certainly distinguished itself with AWD in non-CUV but that’s just the Impreza and Legacy (no wagon). There are a few others giving this a try. You can get a Fusion or 200 with AWD but I have no idea what the take rate is on those models. The Passat no longer comes with AWD. I would like to see more AWD alternatives but if the market were making a strong case for it, we’d see more of them.

          • 0 avatar
            r129

            Let’s not forget the XV Crosstrek. Oh, wait, do people actually consider that to be a CUV?

        • 0 avatar
          Atenza

          I don’t really know why, either—my gut reaction is “it’s just a Haldex, why bother” but a number of people who latch onto AWD as some kind of be-all end-all.

          I don’t know if Mazda could realistically make a go for Subaru and its unimpeachable brand loyalty—I know there’s some disappointment over Subaru’s non-WRX models going softer, but that’s another ultra-small group of people to be chasing.

          • 0 avatar
            Vojta Dobeš

            Haldex changes A LOT since the crappy first generation that used to let the front wheels spin a bit before engaging the rears. The current versions are able to engage rears before they’re even needed. It makes difference even on dry pavement.

          • 0 avatar
            wmba

            Votja, Haldex is indeed quicker to react than it used to be. Also 4WD is engaged from a stop to prevent front wheelspin.

            However, the new GKN, American Axle and Borg Warner AWD setups that resemble Haldex are changing. To get better fuel economy, the driveshaft to the rear is disconnected, and in addition, the halfshafts are also disconnected. This in normal motoring to gain fuel economy.

            In the Chrysler 200 AWD, it takes at least 0.4 seconds to engage (time spent spinning up the driveshaft is the culprit) according to an interview with Chrysler Engineering on allpar.com. Which explains to me why that car feels like a ponderous front driver most of the time in V6 form. Cannot see much point in operating it that way if AWD is what is required – half a second reaction time is longer than the first Haldex! Borg Warner is trying to sell Ford on the same equally dumb kind of system:

            http://articles.sae.org/14123/

            The Ford Escape and Mazda CX-5 currently use a knockoff of Haldex, not the real thing, I believe.

          • 0 avatar
            TrailerTrash

            Not sure about the differences of all the AWD GKN, American Axle and Borg Warner AWD setups out there.
            I am familiar a little with the Ford. They use a Haldex from previous partnership but with Ford changes.
            Not sure how they compare. My experience with the 2 MKS cars I owned is they are irritatingly slow to react. In many snow storms I feel my car spun to quickly and for to long before the AQWD set in.
            Plus, my Ecoboosted MKS seems to have developed an irritating clunking they are saying comes from this system.
            Somewhere.
            Getting all sorts of excuses such as wear n tear or its normal and in spec to it might be the trans or something else altogether.

            Oh, well…I am guessing all these system suffer if there is any disconnection taking lace..

          • 0 avatar
            rpn453

            Dodge is using a Borg-Warner system in the 1500. It’s quite slow to react. You feel it engage every time you accelerate from rest in the winter. It usually feels like a shift under lighter acceleration, but it can be a harsh clunk if you really gun it off the line. It’s incapable of taking off quickly like a real 4WD. It probably wouldn’t take any more than a software update that locks it for starts from rest and actually allows full locking in 4LOCK to make it a decent system

            The Mazda CX-5 and Ford Escape systems look pretty good from the wet ramp video I watched on youtube. All four wheels appear to spin together equally and immediately. That’s exactly what I want an AWD system to do and they would have made it up the ramp with some decent tires. Once again, the CR-V’s system is shown to be a complete joke.

            youtube.com/watch?v=wLkvqsQEV2Q

    • 0 avatar
      legacygt

      The first Mazda6 was smaller than most US mid sized sedans but the current an previous generations are right there with the Accord, Camry, etc.

  • avatar
    TrailerTrash

    First things first…
    This was a great review. It agreed with my personal feelings and experiences with Mazdas. This is, IMO, the finest independent auto maker today. Anybody who is not a fan…is brain dead.

    Last…this was a mean review. Of ALL the cars I have a wish for, there is none more powerful than the 6 wagon. They promised us a 6 in a diesel…and we never got one. And now I get to read about these Euro trash intellectually perfect eco minded uppities(?) enjoying my dream car!!!

    Breath.

    But nice review.

  • avatar
    Driver8

    I would have bought one. Gas/FWD/auto would be fine and it doesn’t even have to be brown.
    Cash money!

  • avatar

    The 2.2 Diesel engine is a delight. The low compression tech means it loses weight and gains revs while being great on fuel.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I saw a Mazda6 the other day and boy, do they look nice.

    I would have to say the styling is fantastic. I as of yet had the chance to drive one.

    A sad fact of life is the US will have issues receiving the Skyactive diesel. US diesel quality will not allow the successful operation of a the low compressions required to make the diesel produce it’s low levels of NOx.

    Maybe one day the US will join the rest of us and use better quality diesel fuel.

  • avatar
    BrunoT

    Looks like another automotive journalist with “princess and the pea” ride quality sensitivity.

    Thousands of people drive fwd gas Mazda6 sedans alone. Then with 250 lbs of passengers. Think their cars suddenly get harsh riding because of it?

    It rides fine. It’s not soft. Want soft, buy a Camry.

    • 0 avatar
      rpn453

      I think he’s saying that the relative suspension stiffness with that trim. It would certainly feel softer loaded down with passengers.

    • 0 avatar
      Vojta Dobeš

      Laden with passengers, the car will be plusher riding. But it’s likely that because the extra weight, the diesel has got a firmer springs/shocks (else it would go into suspension stops under heavy load/heavy cornering), thus making it firmer.

  • avatar
    bludragon

    More weight should actually help the ride, since the ratio of sprung to unsprung mass will improve (partly why bigger wheels make ride worse is they send that ratio the wrong way, as well as stiffening the tire “spring”).

    If the ride got worse, it may be to do with the load rating of the wagon. Mazda probably put stiffer springs in the rear to allow it to carry more weight (think of a pickup).

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • 28-Cars-Later: Very likely but its apples to oranges.
  • 28-Cars-Later: Shouldn’t the sales dept. simply intercept potential Explorer buyers at the door and redirect...
  • FormerFF: For looking at, sure, for driving, no way, the Corvette would be a much better car to drive.
  • FormerFF: It is a bigger car, and it drives like a bigger car.
  • FormerFF: Do it!

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber