Mazda 6 Forums banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I just got my copy of Autoweek and I can tell you that I think a lot less highly of that magazine now than I did before... The acceleration numbers they got were way off of what other mags have gotten. 0-60 in 7.25 and the 1/4 mile in 15.66. They also went on to say that it wasn't as fun as they expected and didn't do as well on the track as they thought it would. WTF? Are they driving the right car? They were very so-so with the whole article. Very different from all of the other glowing reviews that this car has been given. I thought these jokers knew what they were doing... I guess not.

Jon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,771 Posts
Reading Topic: Autoweek review of the 6s manual

Yeah, I read my copy last night and I couldn't believe what I read. Then I realized two things. First, they tested a 5 spd auto. Second, it may be a production line variation as far as speed. As far as being less fun than others, I think they're smoking the proverbial crack pipe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
652 Posts
Reading Topic: Autoweek review of the 6s manual

I stopped reading Autoweek years ago. They are on crack.

Either that, or they tested the Saleen S7 before they drove the 6 :)

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,477 Posts
Reading Topic: Autoweek review of the 6s manual

The automatic would be slower than the 5-speed MTX...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,771 Posts
Reading Topic: Autoweek review of the 6s manual

Yep. I think the real issue with the time was that the 7.25 reported for the auto is even slower than what most other mags reported on the auto.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,898 Posts
Reading Topic: Autoweek review of the 6s manual

It's amazing to me how Autoweek still seems to have subscribers. I had a one year subscription with them (I got it free); i read maybe 1 or 2 articles for my entire subscription. I basically used it as eye candy to look at the cars. The writing was terrible and always seemed to favor some cars over others.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,924 Posts
Reading Topic: Autoweek review of the 6s manual

i'm not defending the mag, because I never read it, but 7.25 0-60 doesnt seem that bad, since most other tests have it doing 0-60 in 6.8 for the five speed mtx. I also thought it was on the autoweek tv show that they said it significantly improved the the times if they torqued it up b4 they launched but I cant remember what numbers they gave.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,477 Posts
Reading Topic: Autoweek review of the 6s manual

Yup. I almost subscribed a few months ago. I subscribe to Car & Driver and I love it. Good read every month. Motor Trend is pretty good as well, but they seem to slack on timely reviews.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,806 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Autoweek review of the 6s manual'

QUOTE
Originally posted by davecoyne


            Yep.  I think the real issue with the time was that the 7.25 reported for the auto is even slower than what most other mags reported on the auto.[/b]
Different day, different driver, different location, different car. Never put a lot of stock in 0-60 numbers in magazines.

One spec I used to look at was "passing exposure time" 40-70 or something like that but I don't think any mag uses it any more. That is more real world to me than 0-60. Too many ways 0-60 can be affected.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,126 Posts
Reading Topic: Autoweek review of the 6s manual

I remember seeing stats of a "real-world" launch (or something to that effect). It rated a 5-60 time rather than a 0-60. Haven't seen any of those stats lately, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
319 Posts
Reading Topic: Autoweek review of the 6s manual

My beef is companies build cars to get good stats.

For instance, rather than require a 2-3 upshift to get to 60mph (adding precious 1/10's); automakers will widen the gears just enough so the 2-3 shift isn't required. Thus the 0-60 is slightly faster. However, in the real world, this often means the cars fall out of the meat of their powerband. And nobody does 0-60 blasts in their cars either. I'd rather have the real world gearing than the stat gearing any day.

Subaru did this on the WRX STi. The car requires a 2-3 upshift to 60. The Lancer Evolution does not, thus the Lancer is slightly faster to 60. However, the STi catches up later on. Gimme the Subaru gearing, I want my speed all over, not to stop at 60.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,216 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Autoweek review of the 6s manual'

QUOTE
Originally posted by applejax


            I remember seeing stats of a "real-world" launch (or something to that effect).  It rated a 5-60 time rather than a 0-60.  Haven't seen any of those stats lately, though.[/b]
I think Car and Driver is pretty much the only one that does the "street start" 5-60. It is definitely indicative of real world driving conditions. A WRX or S2000 loses about a second or more comparing between 0-60 vs. 5-60. A torque monster like the 350Z loses nothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Autoweek review of the 6s manual'

If it is with an automatic, it is excellent and I don't understand anyone complaining.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
168 Posts
Reading Topic: Autoweek review of the 6s manual

If the manual does it in 6.8, then 7.2 isn't far off what the auto should do...autos are always slower than manuals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
269 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Reading Topic: Autoweek review of the 6s manual

Folks,
They are quoting times for a 5 spd MTX... That's why I was suprised. He is a quote:
"In accelleration our V6-powered car fell just a little short of the competititon. Its 0-to-60 time of 7.25 seconds lagged behind all but the Camry in the above group of cars we tested recently for AutoFile, by a full second in most cases. We expected more out of a 3.0 liter, dohc 24-valve V6, especially attached as it was to a five speed manual."

There can be no questioning that they tested a manual. They must not know how to launch it or something. I agree I would like to see other performance metrics like 5-60 which takes out the skill of the launch and lets you compare one car to another.

Jon
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,392 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Autoweek review of the 6s manual'

QUOTE
Originally posted by Jerome81
Subaru did this on the WRX STi.  The car requires a 2-3 upshift to 60.  The Lancer Evolution does not, thus the Lancer is slightly faster to 60.  However, the STi catches up later on.  Gimme the Subaru gearing, I want my speed all over, not to stop at 60.[/b]
But the STi has 6 speeds and the Lancer has 5.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,392 Posts
Reading Topic: Reading Topic: Autoweek review of the 6s manual

Well God forbid anyone to disagree with our sentiments!

My only problem would be the comparison to the other cars. Are they saying they enjoyed the overall feel of the Accord/Altima over the 6? This is where I would think they are severly flawed.

But as far as acceleration numbers, they're not too far off and even so, they are somewhat right. The power of the 6 lags behind those competitor cars, hence the times will be slower. They just appear to put more stock in straight line performance than we do.

Remember, all it is is an opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,477 Posts
Reading Topic: Reading Topic: Autoweek review of the 6s manual

I read the article at Autoweek.com and it seemed generally favorable on the 6.

One think I couldn't look past is the Slaloom numbers they got. They claim the Mazda6 got beat by both the Altima and Accord in the Slaloom, when i'm almost certain C&D had the Mazda beating everyone in that test. What car was Autoweek driving?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,806 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Autoweek review of the 6s manual'

OK, first thing is that Autoweak has not tested a 2003 Accord Sedan. The figures they used are the 2003 Accord Coupe V6 6sp MT ($28,360). It's my understanding that is a car that is so scarce that many dealers have never seen one. (IIRC one report was a max of 2 per dealer)

" The 6 is priced about mid-pack, starting at around $19,000 for the four-cylinder model. A fully loaded version hits about $27,000, depending on your definition of “fully loaded.” That’s a little higher starting point than the cheapest Accord and Altima, but tops out well below a gold-kit Camry. "

Once again a Magazine compares the Base 4i price against stripped bases of the Altima and Accord (no AC / Drum brakes). Mazda doesn't play that game.
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top