[Sydtron]

The Accord has 235/45R18 94V M+S Michelin Primacy MXM4 on 8" wide wheels compared to 225/45R19 92W M+S Dunlop SP Sport 5000 on 7.5" wheels for the 6, should account for some of the braking and handling measurement differences. Mazda was aggressive on wheel diameter, but not so much on wheel width, tire width or tire type, based on reviews of the Dunlop. Maybe the Dunlop is better in snow though, I know the MXM4's on the 1st Gen 6 were great everywhere but snow. I wonder what numbers the 6 would put out with the exact same wheel/tire as the Accord, they may even be swappable if the hub/et are the same, would make a fun comparison.

If I were to get a new 6, I'd probably try to sell the stock set and buy 8" wide 18's. Would likely make for much cheaper tire replacements at a 225/18 or 235/18 size. Different tires would be a given.

*edit* Also, tuning for great handling doesn't mean just mean high measurable static numbers on a test surface, it also means being great at communicating those limits and being able to transition up to them in a satisfactory way. I was able to finally drive the new Sonata this past week, rental wise, and while I'm sure the thing has comparable lateral G measures, it felt like it did not want to go around a corner. It did fine from a grip point of view, but from behind the wheel it was like pulling a dog who is trying to take crap in someone else's yard, not enjoyable or confidence inspiring.

 

[Sydtron]

A wider tyre means a larger contact patch with the road surface, which in turn means higher rolling resistance and poorer fuel economy. I for one would trust Mazda's engineers to have hit the balance with everything (handling, confort, fuel economy) and not care for a 1% difference in extreme handling, which could very well come down to tyre brand, type etc.

I'd mainly go to 18"s just to get cheaper tires, a better selection and lighter wheels. Same width on something like a Pilot Super Sport would save well over $200 a set versus 19"s, even on a cheaper Bridgestone it'd be over $130 a set. Plus you'd have a little extra sidewall for compliance, or potholes . I'd probably trade 1% more handling for 1% less fuel economy, Mazda's balance doesn't necessarily meet up to mine. (God bless the aftermarket) After driving the new 6 with the 19"s and remembering what the 1st gen felt with MXM4's (2 gen MXV4's are just blah, even my bro-in-law hates them in 245's on his TL SH-AWD), the MXM4's were definitely a more sporty tire. Agree with other posters, summer tires needed.

 

[Sydtron]

I agree and for me it wasn't just about the driving dynamics (although I do believe the Mazda6 does a great job with it). Even though the accords cvt transmission was nice for a cvt, I still didn't want a cvt. overall I felt Mazda did a better job, whether that's interior/exterior there isn't anything the accord has that I could have equal or better in the mazda6. I also prefer having my power band in the low/mid range unlike the accord and most Hondas that don't make power until the upper rpm range when Vtec kicks in.

The Earth Dreams I4 is supposed to be much better at low revs versus the old K24, torque peak is not far off Mazda's at 3900 RPM. That said, I was surprised at how well Skyactiv 2.5L will lug, in the 1500-2000 RPM levels; felt not far off my 3.0L V6, probably the same when you count that the gearing is actually taller versus my Aisin 6 speed. No other I4 (non-turbo) car I have driven was able to sustain any meaningful, however low, thrust at those engine speeds; they were always trying to get above 2000 RPM even when just breathing on the throttle. 2nd gen 6i was one of the worst with the Jatco auto, torque converter locking and unlocking all the time, no power below 2 grand either.

 

[Sydtron]

I test drove both cars before making my decision. 3900 vs 3250 rpms peak tq and 5700 vs 6400 rpms peak hp. Redline 6800 accord vs 6500 Mazda6. The Mazda makes peak tq 800rpms before redline while the accord is only 400 rpms away from redline at peak tq. I've had older civics in the past and while this accords power band isn't extremely high I prefer more lower/mid rpm range power and not have to damn near redline the car before max hp. It's a preference of where I like my power at. Again although other things like a cvt transmission are not for me, as well as styling which is subjective.

You've confused single RPM torque and horsepower measurements for a powerband, and there's nothing wrong with making power at the redline as long as thats not the only place you make power. I haven't driven the new Accord, but if reviews are to be believed the powerband is better than the old K24 (and how most past Honda I4's made power), and also looks better via the single point measurements. I have driven the new 6 though and was very impressed with the powerband, torquey from low (1400) RPM and held power all the way up the tach. I suspect the locked-up transmission had a lot to do with the low rpm feel, that thing is fantastic! I like both low end torque and high RPM power though, and I never felt compelled to rev the new 6 past 6k; it wasn't going soft, but it definitely wasn't building more power. If the new Accord feels like the Sonata, gutless and won't hold rpms below 2 grand, then the 6 is better to me without considering the high rpm rush. I regularly run my 1st gen 6s up past 6k, because it makes power there, but I also lug it around well below 2k quite often because my commute, if lights are timed properly, keeps me moving between 30-45mph with no stops or rapid acceleration events. Glad you picked the 6 though, I am transmission jealous. Are you going to trade up for stickier tires?

 

[Sydtron]

Auto Mag post that they ran the 6 on winter tires, compared to everyone else on all-seasons. If they didn't just misprint, an odd, if not dubious, choice. Also, they misquote that it is a revised platform, not all new. Their only quote for the blurb was "It's a little too lively, as if it's a Mazda 3 in disguise," which I always thought it drove like a Mazda 3 because both the 3 and the 6 drive like Mazdas!