Mazda 6 Forums banner

Upgraded to 2020 6 GT from 2017 sport

7K views 52 replies 18 participants last post by  lltfly 
#1 ·
Just traded 2017 6 sport to get 2020 gt 6.not supper excited about the upgrade because honestly I like the 2.0T accord sport better on:
1. exterior, wheel
2.dashboard design
3. power-train, the 2.0t engine pulls all the way to the redline, whp is very close or even higher than stated on the paper

However, I could not pull the trigger on accord sport, it just really is overpriced for what it is
1. 1000 + dollars expensive than 6 gt
2. less features than 6 gt for example, trash speaker, no auto dimming rear mirror, no leather seat, no double glazed glasses etc

but for 6 gt
2.5t engine is really tuned too soft with short shift AT, which really kills a lot of fun out of 6
some says put on better tires, 93 fuel, ecu learing etc. I just do not buy those arguments. the truth is 6 with turbo is tuned way slower than accord 2.0t
accord takes 87 fuel is fine putting out 250 hp, which feels way faster that stated honestly.

Hopefully, Mazda will change the characteristics of this 2.5t with higher redline and no short shift like what they done on the 2019 ND Miata.
And some third party tunes can be applied on current 6 2.5t to wake it up
 
See less See more
#2 · (Edited)
I know you said that value for the Accord 2.0T Sport is lousier... but it seems like the performance issues / differences bug you. I am a bit sad for you... that you made that choice because my sense is that most buyers these days seem to gloss over the basic drive quality and then really go after the features. To be sure the 6GT is less sports oriented than the Honda. It DOES do a good job though at its stated purpose. It is pretty refined. Me, I have a '17 Sport 6mt... lack of features and actually lower performance than your (assumedly) 6AT Sport had. I still find it smooth and refined though... and I can make it go down the road swiftly enough ☺. I also find it pretty unique - a bit of a unicorn. Pretty big 4 dr sedan - though with that strange contraption called a manual transmission haha.
 
#4 ·
I need to drive 100 miles a day round trip to work and home. the 2017 sport 6at was very very good on gas no matter how I drove it. it constantly gave 34 miles/gallon. but since I drive so much a day, the 6 sport was too noisy, too basic on the speaker, less luxurious interior and some how slower(I need some fun after work). those are the reason I traded it.
so you would say 2020 6 gt is perfect for you that very luxurious interior with 11 speaker Bose. and 2.5t with 310 lb of torque, very good handling. so win win. it also true, that is why I got it for the best decision I could make.

though, I still am very wanting an accord 2.0t sport. I also looked at it twice if I saw it on the road or mirror. could be that I had 2017 6, even with the refresh, and same steeling wheel and gear shifter, it did not give me complete fresh feeling. and 19 inch wheel is not as attractive as accord's.

I think maybe I ask for too much, with better overall features but I ask for more engine performance,
accord, better engine performance, I ask for more features and luxurious. (however, Accord is really really overpriced I am 200% sure).
 
#3 ·
Interesting conversation! I have a 2016 MT Touring6. I guess the driving is okay, but I come from a background of much smaller, lighter, far sportier cars, so it's not great. Yes, I'm very happy to have the creature comforts of the big sedan.

I am, however, furious that in order to get the manual transmission (in a USA car) I had to give up LED headlights, heated seats, radar cruise control and many more of the increasingly-important luxuries.

I also feel the NA 2.5 Mazda motor is worse than anemic and should be putting out 220ish hp even normally aspirated. And hate the low rev limit.
 
#5 ·
Interesting conversation! I have a 2016 MT Touring6. I guess the driving is okay, but I come from a background of much smaller, lighter, far sportier cars, so it's not great. Yes, I'm very happy to have the creature comforts of the big sedan.

I am, however, furious that in order to get the manual transmission (in a USA car) I had to give up LED headlights, heated seats, radar cruise control and many more of the increasingly-important luxuries.

I also feel the NA 2.5 Mazda motor is worse than anemic and should be putting out 220ish hp even normally aspirated. And hate the low rev limit.
I also have an Acura TL 2012 with j35 motor, sure, all premium features. this J35 revs high and fast, sweet.refined.
TL is ok on gas but it takes Premium only, for 100 miles a day cruise, will cost too much on gas. and love it, want to keep it even longer. own it for 5 years already.

I think my expectation is too high on both motor and features. so why not just give 2.5t a little bit more, Mazda!!!
 
#8 · (Edited)
Yeah.... it is more coarse. Startup - it's running with the exhaust valves a bit open, purposely, to light-off the pre-cat quicker. But after less than a min. (usually after 20 sec's) that ceases. But it is more coarse as the revs build in normal operation.

Can't argue with the car's overall reliability though.
 
#9 ·
I seriously considered the Honda 2.0T Sport instead of my Mazda6 GT. What killed the Honda considerations for me were:

- no shift knob (push buttons?? really Honda? REALLY?)
- stereo system is comical
- brakes have 'unsatisfying' feel
- Not a fan of the 'Sportback' look
- No Honda incentives (Mazda loyalty = $1,500)
- No leather seating
- Too much exterior chrome
- weak fit and finish
- No SIRIUS XM
- Questionable tuning 10sp AT; noticeable turbo lag
- No NAV w/ 6 speed transmission


My $.02
 
#13 ·
I seriously considered the Honda 2.0T Sport instead of my Mazda6 GT. What killed the Honda considerations for me were:

  • no shift knob (push buttons?? really Honda? REALLY?)
  • stereo system is comical
  • brakes have 'unsatisfying' feel
  • Not a fan of the 'Sportback' look
  • No Honda incentives (Mazda loyalty = $1,500)
  • No leather seating
  • Too much exterior chrome
  • weak fit and finish
  • No SIRIUS XM
  • Questionable tuning 10sp AT; noticeable turbo lag
  • No NAV w/ 6 speed transmission


My $.02
apart from the engine opinion on the 2.0t accord, reasons I chose the 6 GT is pretty much same as yours.
As you mentioned about turbo lag on the 2.0t, other than the lag, what do you think about 2.0t compared to 2.5t in terms of the pull and high end power?
 
#10 ·
You guys and your straight line worries - the 6 drives circles around Accords (and all others in its segment) day in and day out, and is the reason I went with it. Slap some nicer/wider tires on it, get some better brakes and suspension, and every corner can put a smile on your face with minimal effort; that's the premise behind everything Mazda designs: making driving fun.

Besides....... the accord is such a cookie-cutter car, at least I feel somewhat unique in the 6 :)

As for not getting MTX in higher trims, blame that on the increasingly-lazy segment of drivers :\
 
#11 ·
I only drove the 6mt Turbo's... both the 1.5T and the 2.0T. I didn't mind the latter... but I didn't find it to be a torque monster down low. Was not so impressed that it made my 6 irrelevant... especially for the $. Also... bit of a "humpback" in side profile view?
 
#15 ·
Just traded 2017 6 sport to get 2020 gt 6.not supper excited about the upgrade because honestly I like the 2.0T accord sport better on:
1. exterior, wheel
2.dashboard design
3. power-train, the 2.0t engine pulls all the way to the redline, whp is very close or even higher than stated on the paper

However, I could not pull the trigger on accord sport, it just really is overpriced for what it is
1. 1000 + dollars expensive than 6 gt
2. less features than 6 gt for example, trash speaker, no auto dimming rear mirror, no leather seat, no double glazed glasses etc

but for 6 gt
2.5t engine is really tuned too soft with short shift AT, which really kills a lot of fun out of 6
some says put on better tires, 93 fuel, ecu learing etc. I just do not buy those arguments. the truth is 6 with turbo is tuned way slower than accord 2.0t
accord takes 87 fuel is fine putting out 250 hp, which feels way faster that stated honestly.

Hopefully, Mazda will change the characteristics of this 2.5t with higher redline and no short shift like what they done on the 2019 ND Miata.
And some third party tunes can be applied on current 6 2.5t to wake it up

I agree with most of what you are saying and I was also looking at the Accord 2.0t when I got my 2018 GTR.
The Mazda has been a very good car. It is more luxurious than anything else in its class, and I also think it looks the best in the midsize class too.
But like you I have been frustrated by the engine. It is a truck engine, something that was clearly designed for the CX-9 and they just shoved it in their midsize car without altering the tuning whatsoever. The lack of high rpm grunt is frustrating and the redline is much too low for a sporty car like this. Now there is not much lag at the low rpms and the Accord definitely had more, but the way the accord gets up to speed is more fun, the engine note is better and it feels like it rips through the gears. The mazda engine gets the job done but with no drama. But in these days where people are raving about electric cars acceleration (while not realizing how boring they truly are) I suppose the lack of drama has become more prevalent among cars. Some of us old enthusiasts get it, the newer, hip guys don't get it so it's totally ok to put a truck engine in a car.
 
#17 ·
I agree with most of what you are saying and I was also looking at the Accord 2.0t when I got my 2018 GTR.
The Mazda has been a very good car. It is more luxurious than anything else in its class, and I also think it looks the best in the midsize class too.
But like you I have been frustrated by the engine. It is a truck engine, something that was clearly designed for the CX-9 and they just shoved it in their midsize car without altering the tuning whatsoever. The lack of high rpm grunt is frustrating and the redline is much too low for a sporty car like this. Now there is not much lag at the low rpms and the Accord definitely had more, but the way the accord gets up to speed is more fun, the engine note is better and it feels like it rips through the gears. The mazda engine gets the job done but with no drama. But in these days where people are raving about electric cars acceleration (while not realizing how boring they truly are) I suppose the lack of drama has become more prevalent among cars. Some of us old enthusiasts get it, the newer, hip guys don't get it so it's totally ok to put a truck engine in a car.
Mazda 6 is not the majority in the market. so even the tune is not easy to find, not like honda. Orange is not doing the Mazda anymore.
 
#21 ·
Youre on crack if you think the 2.5T is a slouch.
 
#25 ·
I've heard the comment at Mazda3Revolution.com that comparing a Mazda6 T to a Mazda3 2.5 - the latter with an OVT tune (with some throttle mapping added - "25%" was mentioned) gives the 6T a run for the money in the "fun-to-drive" sense. Now that car (the Mazda3) is decidedly lighter - but what they were saying is that the 6T has bottom-end-focused power (torque) delivery which was less dramatic in how it "came-in" - and that the tuned Mazda3 drivers were not missing-out a lot. Now with our own TalonTsi90 Mazda6club member with his throttle-controller equipped Mazda3 - maybe he can comment on this?
 
#26 ·
Im still trying to adjust to the immediate response. But comparing it to the 2.5t? No way. The turbo will stomp it all day long.
 
#27 ·
Thx. Like I said though - T is definitely faster but a tuned, throttle enhanced 2.5 (in at least a 3 - certainly a lighter car by 250# ?) apparently makes at least a similarly-fun-to-drive car... That's what one guy's opinion is, for what it's worth.
 
#28 ·
Yea, but i drove the 2.5T for over a month and im telling ya, theres no comparison. Unless the 2.5t was on 87 bringing the hp down to 250 and the 3 was tuned to around 230whp.
 
#30 ·
Talon Tsi90 - I would be interested in hearing whether, having driven the 2.5T for a month - certainly a decently-long period of time to get a good sense of what the car is like- anyways, I would be interested in knowing whether for your next car you would give up on the 6MT - and instead, go for a turbo-car with at least a 6AT - like the Mazda6 T... or whether you would continue with a 6MT? The plus-side for the 2.5T with automatic - is continuous acceleration, not interrupted by shifting gears. But certainly less driving involvement.

When it comes right down to it - for me - if I want a car that has a lot of power / acceleration - I think I would go for an automatic... a conventional automatic. I find when I drive my 6MT - it is more of an involvement with the car, the smoothness of the drive, etc... I certainly do like that. I just generally, in the city, don't really accelerate- or attempt to accelerate quickly with my 6MT. But I don't hold up traffic. My 6MT really comes into its own at suburban speeds, on curvy undulating roads. However, in the city I often worry about the unexpected (to the driver behind me) pause in my acceleration as I shift gears... well, especially from 1st to 2nd. Manual transmissions are so, so rare -- that the driver behind you often gets p*ssed with you as you start-off at a decent rate of acceleration... then you pause.

Opinions... Others?
 
#31 ·
Ill never not own a manual car. I drove the T in manual mode all the time unless i was like eating an ice cream cone or steadying something in the passenger seat. Ive never seen anyone get mad over the slight pause, even when it bounces off of 2nd instead of going into gear.
 
#33 · (Edited)
For me, that pause in shifting gear from 1st to 2nd, often has me starting in 2nd gear (when I can... i.e. on a down-gradient, and obviously then I start at a lesser acc. rate than if it were in 1st gear). I barely raise the revs above idle, regardless of starting in 2nd vs.1st (in deference to clutch slippage/wear). Yes, I do concern myself about clutch slippage/wear, despite sometimes using this start-in-2nd method...

I do this 'cuz I figure better the driver behind get used-to my acc. rate from the start of moving-off than encountering that unexpected no-acceleration pause AFTER moving off. Of course when doing this start-in-2nd method, the start-off acc. is slower, but once the clutch pedal is up the rate of acc. is quick and never holds up the driver behind.

Due to how the car is geared, and also due to how far I get in frt of the driver behind using this method, the 2nd to 3rd shift never causes this concern for me.
 
#36 ·
Bro then if you are looking at hondas after having a better car like Mazda then your are not a big Mazda enthusiast , the 2.5T will give you enough power and it may not be as the Honda but you also have to consider the better premium quality interiors which are no match with plastics on Honda (Just watch reviews on youtube and everyone says that) and the pleasure of driving it. you can also change the stock wheels to add some power to your car and there you go
 
#41 ·
honestly, for the driving dynamic, I like Mazda. but in terms of engine, I am still thinking Honda is the best in the balance of the performance, smoothness, fuel economy, reliability.
but 10th gen accord, the driving dynamic is very very good. I can say it is tuned better than 6. and engine is brutal even with small displacement.

6, 2.5NA, it is so raw. in terms of smoothness, it is not on the same par as K24 on 9th gen accord
6t, 2.5T, it is tuned too soft. lower redline, short shift. why do I put 93 fuel in order to get to the 250hp, the accord can get with 87? also apply to the tire, why do I speed 800 dollars for a set of better tires to achieve the handling competitor has with stock tires?
I own the 6t. I like it. but just do not understand, why Mazda took so much characteristics off this 2.5t. it could have done better with larger displacement.
 
#38 ·
The 1-2 ratio in these cars is a bit... odd. And, until you get used to it, can and does make for some interesting dynamics.

It's the one thing I consider a "bug"; everything else is as expected it to be (e.g. power level, fuel economy, etc) -- but that one, well, yeah, it really does annoy me.

On the other hand after 200k miles under the tires, it doesn't annoy me much these days, and even now there are a few times that shift isn't real smooth.

Oh well. One annoyance out of what has otherwise been and remains one of the most-pleasant and cost-effective vehicles I've ever had.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top