2018 Mazda 6 - The Turbo Lands at Last

2018 mazda 6 the turbo lands at last

Mazda had already promised a turbocharged four-cylinder would be available on the refreshed 2019 Mazda 6, and the company delivered.

Upper trims gain the 2.5-liter turbo four, while the naturally aspirated 2.5-liter remains on lower grades. Mazda promised an announcement on specs closer to the on-sale date in the spring of 2018.

Mazda may not have listed figures for the 6’s Skyactiv-G 2.5T during the model’s unveiling at the 2017 Los Angeles Auto Show, but the engine makes up to 310 lb-ft of torque and 250 horsepower in the CX-9 crossover.

It’s unclear if there’s any change to the base engine’s power numbers, but Mazda does add cylinder deactivation for the 2018 model year.

If saving the manuals matters to you, be prepared for mixed feelings – you can still get a stick with the base engine, but it appears to be (six-speed) automatic only with the turbo mill.

Mazda made no mention of a diesel, at least not that I heard.

Key standard or available features include LED headlights that integrate fog lamps, a 360-degree camera, a 7.0-inch gauge display, an 8.0-inch infotainment screen, heads-up display, cooled front seats, and radar cruise control.

The chassis bracing and body are reinforced, as is the sheetmetal around the rear-wheel wells.

The most noticeable change on the outside is the new grille, and the painted surfaces extend lower on the body. Seventeen- and 19-inch wheels are available.

Changes are more pronounced on the inside, where Mazda claims only the steering wheel and some minor trim pieces carry over.

Snap judgment: This should make for a 6 that offers a little more power – enough to better compete with the Accord and Camry – while continuing to reign as one of the best-looking and better-handling cars in the class. Whether that’s enough for buyers to stop ignoring the 6 remains to be seen.

[Images © 2017 Forest Casey/The Truth About Cars]

Join the conversation
4 of 76 comments
  • Stuki Stuki on Nov 30, 2017

    I personally wouldn't want the turbo with a manual anyway. Turbos and electronically controlled autos, are a match made in heaven, as each goes some ways towards cowering up the other's inherent suckiness. With a nice, Mazda grade, manual, the most important property of an engine, is responsiveness and precision. Something no turbo can ever hope to match virtually any NA engine at. Heck, I even feel the 2.5 Skyactiv is a bit sluggish, compered to the livelier and revvier, albeit less powerful, 2.0. The latter is the one I would want in a 3. Or even CX5, if it's stil offered. But compared to the dullorama that is a 4cyl "tuned for torque" turbo, the 2.5 in the 6 is still pure bliss when paired with a stick.

    • See 1 previous
    • NormSV650 NormSV650 on Dec 02, 2017

      You can thank Toyota Unintended Accleration for the laziness. Also the smaller engines do have a like a two and half liter will have a bigger throttle body than does a 2.0T by about 10-15 mm. That makes for a big difference in throttle tip in. Find a ecu tuned 2.0T and you would change your mine. Add in a 3.6l throttle body on a Ecotec 2.0T and you'll changed for life.

  • Slavuta Slavuta on Nov 30, 2017

    "Heck, I even feel the 2.5 Skyactiv is a bit sluggish, compered to the livelier and revvier, albeit less powerful, 2.0." Hey - I like my pre-skyactive 2L better than 2.5L skyactiv. Although, I have to admit, my driving in '17 Mazda6 returns 1.5mpg more than same driving in '11 Mazda3 2L. Also, it is quiet ride in more comfortable seats, and my right knee doesn't constantly rub the trim. But if you asked me, what is the worst part of your car, I would say, the engine [and transmission]. although, I just learned to deal with tranny. I just bypass 5th gear in regular driving. It solves issue of needless shifting of too-closely-spaced-gearbox.

  • MaintenanceCosts The sweet spot of this generation isn't made anymore: the SRT 392. The Scat Pack is more or less filling the same space but it lacks a lot of the goodies, including SRT suspension, brakes, and seats. The Hellcat is too much and isn't available with a manual anymore.
  • Arthur Dailey I am normally a fan of Exner's designs but by this time the front end on the Stutz like most of the rest of the vehicle is a laughable monstrosity of gauche. The interior finishes suit the rest of the vehicle. Corey please put this series out of its misery. This is one vehicle manufacturer best left on the scrap heap of history.
  • Art Vandelay I always thought what my Challenger really needed was a convertible top to make it heavier and make visability worse.
  • Dlc65688410 Please stop, we can't take anymore of this. Think about doing something on the Spanish Pegaso.
  • MaintenanceCosts A few bits of context largely missing from this article:(1) For complicated historical reasons, the feds already end up paying much of the cost of buying new transit buses of all types. It is easier legally and politically to put capital funds than operating funds into the federal budget, so the model that has developed in most US agencies is that operational costs are raised from a combination of local taxes and fares while the feds pick up much of the agencies' capital needs. So this is not really new spending but a new direction for spending that's been going on for a long time.(2) Current electric buses are range-challenged. Depending on type of service they can realistically do 100-150 miles on a charge. That's just fine for commuter service where the buses typically do one or two trips in the morning, park through the midday, and do one or two trips in the evening. It doesn't work well for all-day service. Instead of having one bus that can stay out from early in the morning until late at night (with a driver change or two) you need to bring the bus back to the garage once or twice during the day. That means you need quite a few more buses and also increases operating costs. Many agencies are saying for political reasons that they are going to go electric in this replacement cycle but the more realistic outcome is that half the buses can go electric while the other half need one more replacement cycle for battery density to improve. Once the buses can go 300 miles in all weather they will be fine for the vast majority of service.(3) With all that said, the transition to electric will be very good. Moving from straight diesel to hybrid already cut down substantially on emissions, but even reduced diesel emissions cause real public health damage in city settings. Transitioning both these buses and much of the urban truck fleet to electric will have measurable and meaningful impacts on public health.