Mazda 6 new 2.5L turbo

[kevm14]

http://www.motortrend.com/news/2018-maz ... C3EFC1C554

I was underwhelmed initially and the MPG ratings don't change that.

That engine delivers a welcome 250 hp and 310 lb-ft of torque when running premium fuel, and now we know what kind of gas mileage it gets.

Official fuel economy estimates for the 2018 Mazda6 line were posted recently on the EPA’s fueleconomy.gov, and the 2.5-liter turbo version is rated at 23/31/26 mpg city/highway/combined.

The 2018 Mazda6’s 2.5-liter turbo-four is for the most part on par with the turbo 2.0-liters of the midsize class. The new engine comes in 1 mpg shy of the 2018 Honda Accord Sport 2.0T (22/32/26 mpg) in highway mileage but has a 1-mpg advantage in the city. Versus the 2018 Honda Accord EX-L 2.0T (23/34/27 mpg), however, the Mazda6 is rated the same in the city and down 3 mpg on the highway. Meanwhile, the Mazda beats the 2018 Chevrolet Malibu 2.0T (22/32/26 mpg) by 1 mpg in the city, but comes up 1 mpg short on the highway. Compared to the 2018 Ford Fusion 2.0 EcoBoost (21/31/25 mpg), however, the Mazda6 turbo is more efficient in the city. Up against the 2018 Toyota Camry equipped with the 3.5-liter V-6 (22/33/26 mpg), the Mazda is more efficient in the city but sacrifices 2 mpg to the naturally aspirated six-cylinder on the highway.

Basically it is par for the course and nothing that elevates it above its peers. However, it is possible that the real world figures exceed EPA and that data point could potentially differentiate it. So far though, nothing suggests that would be the case. In conclusion, Mazda still has an engine lineup problem.

Just look at the Camry V6 comparison. Combined MPG are identical and the Mazda 2.5 turbo has less power, but more torque. It does 1 better in the city but 2 worse on the highway. I don't really see a major breakthrough there. And I'd still take the N/A V6 just for simplicity. The Mazda engine also wants premium. I'd need to look up the competition there.

Or the Malibu 2.0T. Same power, basically the same efficiency (trades blows in city/highway, while the combined is the same). I do not see a major powertrain breakthrough comparing 2.0T offerings or N/A V6 offerings. I am posting this because when I mentioned the 2.0T compared to the new Mazda 2.5 turbo, Bill scoffed that it was "garbage." Yes, I remember these things.

The Accord 2.0T exceeds all MPG ratings of the new Mazda engine. The Accord has 252 hp. So, again, I don't see this as any kind of contributor to fixing Mazda's engine lineup problem. Unless real MPG testing reveals ~5 mpg better realworld. I guess we will have to wait for a review.

[Bob]

Mazda's strength has never been their powertrains, so even if they get to parity with the competition, that might be enough to sway some buyers when you consider the car has a superior chassis. Of course, the number of buyers who value steering feel and suspension tuning above all else in this segment is small.

[kevm14]

That Accord 2.0T runs a 14.1 sec @ 102 mph by the way, which is between the 2.0T and V6 Camaro (ET of the 2.0T and trap of the V6). The 2.0T ran a 14.1 sec @ 97 mph so same ET as the Accord (which means the same 0-60). The Camaro 2.0T also gets the same EPA fuel economy as the Fusion in the quote I pasted. I don't know that this means anything but just comparing I guess.

[kevm14]

The 2.0T in the Camaro, by the way puts out 275 horsepower and 295 pound-feet of torque. So Mazda's best engine is about as good as the Camaro's worst engine.

[kevm14]

And speaking of the Accord, its numbers are basically the same as the Camaro. Camaro numbers are manual. Wish I had automatic data.

70-0
Accord 2.0T: 170 ft
Camaro 2.0T: 170 ft
Accord 2.0T manual: 164 ft

Skidpad
Accord 2.0T: 0.88g w/ stability control inhibition
Camaro 2.0T: 0.89g
Accord 2.0T manual: 0.87g w/ stability control inhibition

5-60:
Accord 2.0T: 6.1s
Camaro 2.0T: 6.4s
Accord 2.0T manual: 7.0

Did I mention the Accord is a sedan and as light as the Camaro 2.0T, which is the lightest pony car you can buy? And the Accord sedan 2.0T manual is 134 lbs LIGHTER than the lightest pony car you can buy?

This is why the Mazda 6 is not selling. That's how tough the competition is in this FWD sedan segment.

[kevm14]

That Accord 2.0T runs a 14.1 sec @ 102 mph by the way, which is between the 2.0T and V6 Camaro (ET of the 2.0T and trap of the V6). The 2.0T ran a 14.1 sec @ 97 mph so same ET as the Accord (which means the same 0-60). The Camaro 2.0T also gets the same EPA fuel economy as the Fusion in the quote I pasted. I don't know that this means anything but just comparing I guess.

Just to take another opportunity to illustrate the difference between ET and trap speed, as I mentioned the Accord 2.0T sedan trapped 102 through the 10-speed automatic. The Camaro (with 23 more hp) trapped 97 with a manual, which is NOT fair but it's what I have. I will say a 143 lb lighter Accord sedan with manual trapped 98 so that 10-speed auto actually adds a LOT of performance.

But anyway. The Accord sedan did the 0-60 in 5.5s and the Camaro 2.0T manual in 5.4. I already posted the 5-60s. And the 1/4 mile ETs are both 14.1. However, that 5 mph difference in trap speed really shows up at higher speeds, when the proportion of the run that is NOT traction challenged goes up. For example, the 0-100 of the Accord is 1.4 seconds faster than the Camaro. That is significant. This also matters at lower speeds where you are not traction limited.

The 0-100 of the Accord manual is actually 0.3s slower than the Camaro 2.0T manual. The traps were about the same so this makes sense.

And for a packaging blow to Alpha, the Accord sedan weighs the same as the Camaro 2.0T, and only has a 0.7 inch longer wheelbase. Yet the Accord is pretty close to a Chevy Impala in interior size (quite large) with a very good back seat.

[bill25]

Most of my ridiculing of the 2.0T was that it was going to be in a Cadillac and what is supposed to be a legit sports car. Car magazines don't even acknowledge the 2.0T Camaro because it sucked. The Cadillac is supposed to be world class with an engine that belongs in a WRX.

That being said, if that was going into the new Corolla, good deal. Same for the Mazda3 or Mazda6. The Mazda3/6 isn't a track or luxury car. It is an above average daily driver. This engine should be a decent upgrade from current options.

[kevm14]

The Camaro 2.0T doesn't suck. It's just not as good as the V6 or SS. There is little reason to buy it but that is because the V6 and SS are better, not because the 2.0T is bad. There IS a difference. You aren't going to flash your way to +50 hp in the V6 Camaro but I have no numbers on how many 2.0T owners have done this. I don't even have numbers on how many 2.0T cars have sold...

As for the Cadillac comment, I suggest you read up on where the industry is going before making a declarative statement that Cadillac can't use a 2.0T.

The new G30 BMW 5-series 530i uses a 2.0T which has the following specs:

turbocharged and intercooled DOHC 16-valve 2.0-liter inline-4, 248 hp, 258 lb-ft

Oh, you're saying that doesn't count because the G30 is brand new? Nope. The 528i since 2012 has been using a 2.0T as its engine. You may have something with the CT6 but to suggest the CTS shouldn't use a 2.0T is just completely ignorant of the current market. Audi and Mercedes are doing the exact same strategy.

Whether you like it or not (I'm not saying I am a huge fan), the 2.0T is no longer a 2002 WRX thing. That was 16 years ago. Everyone has 2.0T engines. I think literally every manufacturer does.

On the CT6 thing, only BMW offers a 2.0T in their flagship (730i which we don't get here anyway). Mercedes and Audi currently do not. Then again, the CT6 is a half step above a 5 and below a 7. The CT6 is not a world beating flagship so when they release such a model (CT8) and it has a 2.0T, then we can talk about it.

Adding fuel to your fire on the CT6, the Continental does not offer a 2.0T. However, I don't think engines are as important as general market positioning and pricing. And on that, the Continental starts at a very low $45,160 (the CT6 bases at $54,095). But that doesn't seem to take away from people saying the Black Label is REALLY nice, does it? Nobody is saying "man I really like this Black Label, but I am passing because someone may confuse it with a $45k base model." I don't think that offering lower priced models OR engines is necessarily damaging. I think a Black Label Continental is probably a nicer luxury car than a CT6 Platinum, even though I'd take the CT6 every day of the week because it drives better. And that's that.

[Bob]

I have been thinking lately that if I was an automotive column writer, I would write something about how the proliferation of 2.0Ts across premium platforms is the first foot in the grave for powertrains as a point of differentiation between brands with the second being the transition to electric drive. This represents the reality of the market, which is that many buyers just don't seem to care about the character of an engine anymore. I have rented many premium models with 2.0Ts and none of them inspire me at all. The only car I have driven recently with a 2.0T that I found engaging is the Evo, but that isn't one of those engines that makes peak torque at 1600 but it's all finished by 5000.

[bill25]

I don't think that offering lower priced models OR engines is necessarily damaging.

Cimarron.