Mazda 6 Forums banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,130 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I just got off the phone with my local dealer and the truck literally just pulled in. I'm going out to see it in a few hours.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Houston has the 6'

Sounds like me a few hours ago: I was there waiting when they were ripping off the plastic and inspecting them so they could be driven :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,130 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Replying to Topic 'Houston has the 6'

I had the chance today to look at a Glacier silver U.S. Mazda6 I, a base version with an automatic tranny and the 16 inch wheels with covers(not alloys). This model did not have the sports package and I was only able to sit in it(no test drive, that will be later this week) and look it over.

Note: I was mistaken about the various option packages for the car, it appears that for now, what you see on MazdaUSA.com is what you get, that’s the only way the dealers can order it.

Build Quality – door has a nice thunk when you close it, not as solid as a BMW but good enough. Very little gap in side panels, paint looks uniform with no swirls. Under the hood, everything looks well laid out, few if any wires running off in strange places. For the inline 4, there is quite a bit of room to work with for aftermarket parts, its seems to me like there is plenty of room for a cold air intake with the inline 4. stitching in the upholstery looked solid and even. Overall, I would put it above Nissan and right on the coat tales of Honda and Toyota, which is pretty damn good. My only reservation about calling it the same quality of Honda and Toyota is the lack of history on the model.

Exterior – Man this car looks good in person, I hate the wheel covers(not getting them so it doesn’t matter); but the car has a great aggressive stance. Proportions are perfect, its bigger than I thought but not to big. Mazda really made good use of the space, front and rear overhangs are not excessive. The front grill looks easy to detach, so those looking to de-badge the car will not have a problem both removing the Mazda logo or the chrome bar on top of the grill, both a not part of the actual grill and can be removed in pieces.

Wheels – I really think the wheel covers are bad, my protégé has better looking ones, but that’s what the alloys or aftermarket is for. As for size, 16’s look good, not to small, if the stock alloys are light enough I may not swap them out. Tires leave something to be desired the are Michelin Energy MXV4, but that’s easily fixed.

Interior – The layout of the dash and the center console is great, I like the red backlight. Even the base I has a height adjustment on the drivers seat. The dash materials are quality, the center console seems to be as well. I‘m not worried about the silver scratching as it appears very durable. Even if it was scratched, it is detachable, in fact there are several console plate options available if you want to have a tape/minidisk player, so hopefully it won’t be tough to get aftermarket stereo equipment in the car. Cloth seats are a good quality material, they have a kinda sticky quality to them that makes me think of sports seats meant to really hold you in place in a turn. I don’t care for the material used in the doors, its not bad but its not the same as the material used in the seats.

Interior Room – cabin seems roomy both from and back (I’m 6ft, and more torso than legs); this car had no moon roof and I had a good 2 inches of headroom with the seats all the way up(not reclined). The back seat was a little tight on head room, I’m not sure what the moon roof would do to the rear head room. Leg room in front and back was not an issue, but if your 6ft 3 inches+ I could see you having issues in the back. I personally don’t like moon roofs so I’m getting mine without it.

Overall, the car is a winner. I wouldn’t let the options issue be a concern, just get what you need aftermarket. I plan on spending more time looking over the car tomorrow, in better light and without mosquitoes (and its November…what the hell is up with that…I love Houston); hope my thoughts are useful….damn I re
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Houston has the 6'

Thanks for the info I'm in H-ville and I'll have to drive that way to check out the 6, this may be my new car in Feb.


Hey was the interior gray?? If so is it a dark or light?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,423 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Houston has the 6'

QUOTE
Originally posted by Steve 6er


            ...ally need to go now??

...member I have food on the stove???

...??[/b]
HA! Funny Steve :D


Hey Brillo, thanx for the comments. That was pretty detailed. I'm going to call up my local dealers this weekend to see if they've got any yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
837 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Houston has the 6'

Thanks Brillo,

Michelin Energy MXV4...hmmmmm...

I don't really like the tire choice either but I guess it has something to do with fuel efficiency and inexpensive for Mazda.

I was really hoping to get Bridgestone like what someone else mentioned on another thread.

I guess I can live with the MXV4 until it wears down. I will be driving on Blizzak anyway when I get the car in the middle of winter. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
244 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Houston has the 6'

QUOTE
Originally posted by hieppo

I was really hoping to get Bridgestone like what someone else mentioned on another thread.[/b]
Would'nt wish for Bridgestones if I were you. The B390-s that came with my 6 were the worst tires I've ever had - really noisy and no grip whatsoever on wet road. Moreover, because of my lazyness I ended up driving around with them in a snow for a couple of days before getting tires changed - the scariest experience of my life (replaced with studded Nokians for winter - I never ever use studless, ever).

Well, maybe you'll get different Bridgestones, but the B390-s are really the ones to be avoided.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
837 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Houston has the 6'

That is true Sigvard!

I don't know what model is the Bridgestone. The B390 are pretty garbage. :)

I would like OEM to give us some decent tires but I guess that is not going to happen. Beancounter at work, please do not disturb. :)

BTW, where I am driving now in Canada, studded tires are not allowed. That is why the Blizzak are the best choice I can think of for non-studded.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,130 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Replying to Topic 'Houston has the 6'

The interior grey cloth is a nice titanium color, not super dark, but not as light as some I've seen, it looks good with silver or just about any color as far as I can tell. As for your discussions about tires, I would stay away from bridgestone and goodyear, as I find their tires are expensive and heavy. Since many of you have the inline 4 engines, lighter wheels and tires will really help with performance. I would suggest either Dunlop SP8000/9000 or Toyo T1-S, they are Z rated, really light weight, and stick like glue wet or dry. One advantage to living in Houston is the ability to have year round summer tires, I realize for many of you in Europe, summer tires right now are not a option, but for next spring I would look into these.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
244 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Houston has the 6'

Thanks for the tip, Brillo. I'll definitely check out these tires in the spring. The weight of tires (and alloys) really makes a difference. I had a set of superlight alloys with Michelin TRX tires (steel threads replaced with nylon) on my BMW and it felt a lot better when driving hard.

Sorry for the offtopic. Can't help it. After all, I have Steve6er as a role model :p
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,097 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Houston has the 6'

Yes, and me being the raw model puts the bar quite high, doesn't it?:D

Sit, Bobo, sit!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Houston has the 6'

QUOTE
Originally posted by hieppo

That is why the Blizzak are the best choice I can think of for non-studded.[/b]
If you just had the Nokia Q (studdless winter tyres); it is way better for wintery conditions (like ice) than others... On snow the studdless ones are more or less equal. But I guess the Nokia tyres production is so small that it doesn't sell much outside Finland?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,097 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Houston has the 6'

No, Nokian are available world-wide.

But Blizzak is indeed better according to tests. I have those, and they work great for me. I've had such ones for four years now. They are better than studded ones too (because I include comfort in the equation).

And I drive a LOT on winter roads with lots of snow and ice...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Houston has the 6'

QUOTE
Originally posted by Steve 6er


But Blizzak is indeed better according to tests. I have those, and they work great for me. I've had such ones for four years now. They are better than studded ones too (because I include comfort in the equation).

And I drive a LOT on winter roads with lots of snow and ice...[/b]
It depends how it is tested, what things are more important and gives more scores in the test like usually (also when we talk about car tests). Here is braking distances and acceleration times between Nokia Q and Bridgestone Blizzak WS-50 (both tested with same Saab 9-5 and 195/65R15 tyre size):

Total winter conditions:
Braking on SNOW (from 80km/h): N 52,0 m; B 53,5 m
Braking on ICE (from 50km/h): N 52,5 m; B 53,5 m
Acceleration on SNOW (5 to 30 km/h): N&B: 4,1 s
Acceleration on ICE (5 to 30 km/h): N: 13,6 s; B: 14,2 s.

But if you include summer / mixed conditions:
Braking on WET (from 60 km/h): B 22,5 m; N 24,0 m

These are solid facts... There is no big differences with Bridgestone Blizzak and Nokia Q (2003 winter models, there is difference if you have one set from last year since they are better every year). There was bundles of other things like handling etc. tested but those are not pure facts, since the drivers have to give estimates and it is more difficult to stare at those and trust them. But these are just pure measurements I listed. In this test Nokia Q and Bridgestone Blizzak were way above other tyres.

So I am not saying that Blizzak is bad tyre. It is about the same as Nokia Q in many ways if you stare at the statistics.... And so they were in this test (scores 7,9 and 7,8 show that they scored almoust the same amount out of 10, when other studdles tyres got closer to seven).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Houston has the 6'

SO the "way better than all" was a overstatement from me before. :)

THen there was another test I remember from one month ago... There they tested more how the tyres lasted and had grib after they are not so fresh anymore...

I will check how that went...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Houston has the 6'

This test was made with different car... That ofcourse makes a difference also how the tyres work - even if we are not talking about Formulas (in F1 the tyre manufacturer makes usually tyres for one car - like Bridgestone for Ferrari - and the others have to live with that).

This test was made with SEAT Ibiza and Audi A4 and who knows what cars? And that makes me sceptical already over the consistency of the results... You have to use the same car and also see that the tyres are well balanced etc. If you fake on anything, you can easily effect on the test result... So don't look at these test results with anymore trust than the others... I just put them here if anyone is interested?

Braking on ICE (25 km/h):
Nokia Q: NEW 26,1, OLD 25,6 (meters)
Blizzak: NEW 28,5, OLD 29,3

Braking on SNOW (40 km/h):
Nokia Q: NEW 32,7 OLD 31,0 (yes older Nokia Q brakes better than a new one)
Blizzak: NEW 31,9 OLD 31,8

So the basic point was that Nokia Q was infact the worst at braking on snow when it was still new (difference between all the 5 tyres tested around 2 meters - but the speed wasn't so fast either)... BUT after Nokia got a bit older its behaviour got way better, when others stayed the same or got worse... And same happened also with the ice bahaviour...

Another measurement which was interesting is the FRICTION given to car (increase of fuel consumption)... Check this out:

Blizzak: 1%, Nokia Q: 0,8%... But that is not really important factor for safety. Just that Q doesn't have so much friction as blizzak UNLESS you are braking or accelerating. But not on normal driving - it doesn't increase the fule consumption so much... Why - don't ask me??? Don't have a clue how is this even possible.

On this test - which tests how badly your tyres will wear out Bridgestone Blizzak was infact the last:

Nokia Q: 91,9
Blizzak: 87,3 (out of 100)

(IN between Continental, Michelin Maxi Ice)... But as I said, don't trust this test anymore than the others... Just that this test got a reasult that on long run the Nokia Q would be the safest bet... But who knows for sure?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
355 Posts
Replying to Topic 'Houston has the 6'

Just for Steve... The comfort is the same class in these winter tyres... There is some which are way more comfortable - but those are made for all year around, not just for winter...
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top