But for a brief interregnum in the late 1990s/early 2000s, Mazda has always made one of the best mid-size sedans on the market, or at least one of the most interesting. It’s that kind of consistency that has made Mazda Australia’s number two best-selling brand. While their styling has oscillated between conservative and fussy in the past, their latest design language, known as Kodo, has resulted in a very attractive lineup. The 6 is the best example.
The 6 has such graceful, clean lines, neat detailing and elegant proportions. Does anyone feel this isn’t the best-looking mid-sizer on the market?
Great comparison shot!
I do like the current Mazda6, but for whatever reason it just doesn’t do much for me. Definitely better than say, a Camry or Sonata, but I just find it kind of dull and boring – I know, the exact opposite opinion of just about everyone else.
I still prefer the aggressive Ford Fusion, the luxury car-like Kia Optima, and the clean-looking Accord, especially with the 2016 facelift.
The Fusion is a rebadged Mondeo those and the 6 share quite a lot of DNA, development happened before the divorce, Early mazda 6s are noisy to ride in like theres no underseal or floor sound deadener but the later sport version my sister has is quite nice though we only get the 2.5 here no 6 banger.
A couple of friends have ex JDM imports that have suffered engine failures at low 200,000kms and rust is a big problem on imports but generally they seem like a fairly good car.
For the folks who insist the Fusion is a re-badged Mondeo….you have it backwards. The current Fusion, on which the current Mondeo is “based” went on sale in the U.S. nearly 3 years ago. As I understand it from reading the British mags CAR and EVO, the criticism of the new Mondeo is that the car is hitting the European market at the time the U.S. version will get a mid-cycle “makeover”.
Sure, the Mondeo has wagon bodystyles and diesel powertrains that the U.S. version does not have and will never enjoy….
As for the idea that the Mondeo/Fusion/Mazda 6 are all peas in a pod, so to speak, that ignores the fact that car design takes years. The current Fusion was somewhat based on the past model Mazda 6, but both cars are a generation, so to speak, from that car developed for sale starting in 2006. You might resemble your father or grandfather, but it would be a stretch to imply you could pass as “twins”.
The introduction of the current Fusion / Mondeo in Europe was delayed for a few years because Ford closed down its Belgian plant. The Fusion isn’t based on the Mondeo, nor the other way around, because it was the same car since day one.
You know, one world-one Ford: Fiesta, Focus, Fusion / Mondeo, Transit.
Years of introduction: Fiesta 1976, Focus 1998, Mondeo 1993 and Transit 1965.
In 1995, Ford introduced the car sold since 1993 as the Mondeo, to the U.S…..it was called the Contour. In 1997, when the Mondeo was heavily revised, Ford U.S. did a mid-cycle re-fresh on the Contour. In 2000, the Contour was dis-continued in the U.S. Meanwhile, Europe continued to “get” the Mondeo.. In 2006, when Ford U.S. introduced the 1st generation Fusion…Ford of Europe continued selling the Mondeo…two different cars. From 2006 until 2015, the Fusion was produced and the Mondeo, a different car, was produced until 2014. The Fusion AND Mondeo first became “one car” in 2015.
Ford U.S. is tentatively planning a “new” 2016 Fusion for the U.S. The European market will probably get a new Mondeo in 2017.
Sorry for the caps, but really, BEFORE 2015, the Mondeo was “closer” to the old Contour….a car not produced for 15 years, than the Fusion.
You have left out the Escort. Ford in Europe got 2 generations of RWD Escorts before Ford “gave” the U.S. the FWD Escort. As I understand it, the 1981 Euro and U.S. Escorts shared all of 6 or 8 common parts. As time wore on, the designs differed even more. In 1991, Ford U.S. introduced an Escort based on the Mazda Protege and as that design aged and was revised the Euro and U.S. Escorts had even less in common.
History repeats itself with the Mondeo and Fusion….perhaps in reverse?
Howard beat me to it.
The current Mondeo would technically be a re-badged Fusion, if it makes any difference – it’s a Ford built and sold world-wide. Various arguments can be made about the evolution, but there is little doubt that the current Fusion was being produced and sold in North America two years prior to the current Mondeo, mostly a product of North American design and engineering.
The 2005 – 2012 Fusion and 2008-2012 Mazda 6 were on the Mazda designed GH platform which Ford shared as its CD3 platform. During this time the Mondeo was on the Ford / Volvo EUCD platform.
The 2013-current Fusion moved on to the CD4 platform.
The 2013-current Mazda 6 was completely redesigned and Mazda considers this car to be on their GJ platform.
The 2015-current Mondeo is on the Ford CD4.
Put it another way, and the Fusion and 6 spent some time with a strong design relationship that has since come unfused. Now its the Fusion and Mondeo that are fused together.
There has never really been a three peas in a pod Fusion/Mondeo/6 relationship as you put it so well!
OK, I understand. Yet the “two years prior” is exactly the delay in Europe due to the fact that Ford closed down its own factory in Genk (Belgium) where the Euro-production of the Fusion / Mondeo was initially planned.
I checked Ford’s website to see what powertrains the Mondeos have these days.
Gasoline: 1.0 / 1.5 / 2.0 liter EcoBoost.
Diesel: 1.5 / 2.0 liter TDCi.
Transmission is either a 6 speed manual or a 6 speed automatic.
Furthermore there’s a Hybrid Electric with an eCVT-transmission.
My personal favorite would then be the (180 hp) 2.0 TDCi with the 6 speed manual.
In the U.S. the Fusion does not have the same engine choices…yet. Only a very few Fiestas here have the 1.0 liter, with the possibility of it going into the U.S. Focus in the near future. No more manual transmissions in U.S. Fusions, and no diesel engines. But there is an electric only Fusion, I think.
The 1.0 liter EcoBoost is very common here in the Fiesta and Focus, the most powerful is good for 125 hp.
A co-worker has a Ford Focus wagon with the 1.0 liter. No complaints, it takes him everywhere he wants, including vacations to Italy and such.
They seem to hold on well in the long run too.
My rental in Europe is a Focus wagon with the 1.5 ecoboost and automatic. I was hoping for a Golf diesel, but this was the best of the remaining choices.
But it’s a great driver, and yesterday it took us from the hills of the Piedmont (near Turin) over the famous Stelvio Pass, and over the Reschenpass and back into Tyrol. Lots of autostrada miles clicked off effortlessly at 150-160 kmh, with some faster moments. And the pass drive was highly memorable…more when I get back.
The Focus has terrific handling, is very quiet inside, and has plenty of power, but it does growl a bit when given the spurs; not in a bad way.
Nice !
Another co-worker recently ordered a new Ford Focus hatchback with the (150 hp) 1.5 liter EcoBoost. With the 6-speed manual, and in a classy shade of metallic blue.
Exactly 20 years ago I got my new 105 hp Ford Escort 1.8i GT. Of course I also looked at the RS 2000 (picture below), but financially it was a bit “too much” back then. The RS 2000 had a 150 hp naturally aspirated 2.0 liter engine, and a 5 speed manual. Of course it was substantially lighter than the current Focus, but you were the man with a stunning 150 hp in your C-segment hatch !
Enjoy the rest of your vacation.
I think that the Mazda6, Fusion, Accord, and Optima are all attractive in their own distinct ways. Anyone who complains that all of today’s cars are ugly and/or look the same just need to look at every other era in automotive design. It’s all subjective.
But if I had to pick one of those mid-size sedans to drive, I’d…get a compact CUV. I’ve never gotten accustomed to sitting with my butt dragging on the ground, and now thanks to the CUV boom, I don’t have to.
But that’s just, like, my opinion, man…
I had a blast in a recent Ford Kuga the Mondeo on stilts as it looks with 2.0 Pug/Ford diesel and auto nice car to drive plenty of grunt for what it is and yeah very easy to get in and out of.
The Kuga was out in Europe for a year or two I think before it became the new Escape in the US. So sometimes things go the other way with Ford.
I always thought that the Kuga was a “Focus on stilts”? The dimensions, such as width and wheelbase, would seem to support that conclusion.
And as far as the Kuga becoming the new Escape….again, backwards.
Yes, the car previously called the Kuga has been in production for a few years. The car called the Escape started production with the 1st generation going on sale in 2001. But as part of “One Ford”, these 2 different cars were merged into 1 when the current generation of Kuga/Escape went into production. One may have preceded the other into production by a few months, but it was planned years ago that they would use one design.
The Kuga is based on the Focus’ C1 platform, not the Mondeo. You guys need to realize that our dear friend in NZ, Bryce, makes a lot of mistakes in his comments, like the earlier one above about the Mondeo/Fusion.
If only he’d take 30 seconds to check wikipedia or such before he comments, there would be a lot less confusion stemming from his comments.
I partially agree with you, if we’re talking 4 door cars this is possibly the strongest era for that design ever, 2 doors were clearly the focus in past eras though and I’ll argue to death 2 doors between brands then were much more distinctive from each other, 4 doors often looked like a universal sedan entire passenger was inserted in the middle of a coupe design.
Also two years often separated the eras back in the day. Familiarity breeds contempt regardless of era, and with modern design cycles lasting half a decade or more it shouldn’t be surprising that an otherwise attractive car starts looking like an amorphous plastic blob after a while, or just like one another. No doubt there were duds in the 50s-60s-70s, but back then an ugly design could often be remedied(or, often, vice versa) by the next annual styling change or redesigned completely a year later.
I’ll also argue when there were mandatory parameters to cling to like chrome bumpers fore and aft, and well as universal sealed beam headlights there were actually benefits, a two fold one in fact. It prevented designs from running amok with REALLY goofy designs(as evidenced by many concepts and developement illustrations/clay models) and also gave us, the consumer, a certain expectation in what a new car would have no matter what, akin to expecting to see 4 tires and a steering wheel on one side of the car. Now it’s so convoluted with everything being organic monotone, and designed to have some kind of long term 5+ year staying power all that can really be made distinct is the grille and the badge, and we are witnessing in full effect the fallout of that.
I think you’re generally right about the four-door versus two-door dichotomy on older cars. There were some exceptions, but they just tend to prove the rule. That’s shifted somewhat, but it’s more because of the gradual disappearance and decline of two-door models.
As for the sameness, well — I think that in any given era, mainstream cars tend to look more alike than different. There are some that either set the tone or wear the look the best (e.g., Pontiac in early to mid-60s), but if you’re not familiar with the cars of the era, they all tend to look pretty much the same. A lot of us are pretty clear on the distinctions between cars of eras we’ve lived through or studied, but not many of us (including me) can easily tell the difference between the workaday cars of the ’20s or ’30s. We can recognize the ones that stand out, like the Cord, but the rest kind of look the same.
I’ll concede to that. I kind of rambled on in my comment but my main point re sameness was more the time span between significant updates compared to the days of old, not so much a current Fusion looking like a current Optima and such. Time travel a popular 2015 car into 2005 and it wouldn’t really look out of place to most people, but do the same with a 1995 car in 1985, an 85 in 75, 75 in 65 and so on and it will likely be noticed.
That’s certainly true. The irony is that manufacturing technology is better than it’s ever been, with the capability to create complex forms that would make past designers weep, but everything is now so expensive that the amortization schedule has to be like the orbital period of Pluto.
I’d pick the Euro-market Passat as the best looker (unfortunately, the American-built car of that name is a snoozer). The Optima always seems to catch my eye and fool me into thinking its from a luxury brand. And though I like the Chrysler 200’s appearance, its driving dynamics and interior comfort don’t live up to what the stylish exterior set you up for, unlike the Mazda6
The Mazda 6 certainly looks very good. My favorite in this segment is still the Peugeot 508 though. Clean on the outside, clean on the inside. For a modern car it looks stretched and relatively low. Its rear end goes down instead of up. These days the strong wedge-shapes result in a way too tall / fat ass (too much bodywork around the rear wheel).
Fine except for the rear end of the horse front fenders and the universal tail light shape. Been around in modern times since the Contour and further than that with the Edsel.
Great grille and profile though. Mid 2000 Mazda 6 wagon still looks better.
I have a 2016 Mazda6, so I have some bias. It’s a great car and I do think it’s more interesting to look at than the Accord or Camry. However, I’m also struck by how it shares a number of design elements with other cars on the market. Even after owning a Mazda6 for four months, I have to stare at a Dart, Fusion, and Optima for a couple of seconds before I can tell it’s not a Mazda6.
The new Mazda6 is very attractive, but I also like the Capella/626 next to it! My parents had two 626s of that generation and they were excellent cars. They later had a Mazda6 V6 5-speed that was a lot of fun to drive, but with a short geared 5-speed it got pretty lame gas mileage – like low 20s on the highway. It really needed a 6th gear with a tall overdrive; the 3.0L V6 could have easily handled such a gear in a 3200 lb car.
The last model U.S. Mazda6 did have the 3 liter V6 and a 6 speed, didn’t it? I seem to remember several reviews of that powertrain combo that said the top gear was so overdriven it could barely pull the car up any kind of slope without a downshift. That was one of my “dream” new cars….if I had the money. Another was a Mazda6 wagon.
No, the previous generation had a 3.7L but was only available with an auto. Perhaps the four-cylinder + manual is the one you’re thinking of.
I had a 94 626, which was a good drive, if a little dull. A friend has a 2006 Mazda 6 which I really like. Very competent car, well put together. I lked the look of it as beeing understated but well proportioned and lines which are easy on the eye. This model is apparently very good, and it’s nice to see a bit of individualism. But for me it’s just a little bit try-hard.
I think the current 6 is awful. The front fenders are just weird and they don’t flow well with the rest of the rather generic design from the a-pillar back. And don’t get me started on the “cheap tablet glued to the dash” interior.
“don’t get me started on the “cheap tablet glued to the dash” interior”
You should, as I don’t understand how anyone thinks this is cheap for the class of car and dollar amount we are talking about. You’d rather it be further down the dash and out of sight lines?
I just don’t get people who think technology should advance but still look like a manually tuned am/fm receiver…
Who said it needs to look like a manually tuned radio or be far down on the dash? It just shouldn’t look like somebody took a budget tablet and glued it on top of the dash. There are many examples of high mounted screens that are integrated into the overall design better.
And for the record, all touch controls suck. They are impossible to use without taking your eyes off the road for long periods of time. But that’s not a Mazda problem, I have yet to see a good (safe) implementation of a touch screen in any car. The ones with hard buttons and knobs along the side to change modes tend to be best IMO.
Fair enough (but I notice you aren’t giving examples).
Regarding touch controls; this may be a generational “thing” I guess, as someone who straddles being a Millennial or a Gen X’er, depending on who you ask. Remember T9 text? Nobody was watching the screen when they used it; same thing I feel with current iPhones. I set it and forget it. I know where to touch and how fast to do it. Just like the redundancy controls people say are so much easier…
Just like the redundancy controls people say are so much easier…
Well considering the backlash the so much who say so seem to outnumber those who rely on muscle memory enough to drive manufacturers to actually add redundancy, I’d say they’re right. Not to mention that muscle memory is going to vary from car to car much more than it is phone to phone.
Off the top of my head the ones that come to mind are Town and Country, Durango, and Sienna. Not the best looking dashboards but at least the touchscreens don’t look like afterthoughts.
I’m willing to bet you DO look at your iPhone screen as well. I sure do on my phones and tablets, admittedly to a fault in social situations. Other than gesture commands, which aren’t in cars, you do have to look to see what you are doing. There’s nothing tactile.
You do realize it’s mounted in the same exact place it was in the 2015 cars right? The only difference is the dash dips downward to make it look like a gimmicky stand up thingie. From the drivers view it looks exactly like a navigation unit suction cupped to the windshield, sans the suction cup.
This is going to be one of those fads we’ll all look back on and make fun of. Right there with pillow top seats and motorized seatbelts.
The front fenders always reminded me of the 71 Javelin, which I’m probably in the minority of actually liking. I don’t like the 2016 stand up tablet thing at all though, 2015s don’t have that issue…
And that screen is a hell of a lot smaller, so…
Well the JDM version is a lot bigger, so…
And that’s a pre 2015 JDM interior so not exactly relevant to the conversation. It’s not even a nav screen head unit…
http://www.mazda.co.jp/cars/atenza/feature/interior/
That IS a 2015 JDM interior, the 2016 has the stand up display 😉
It’s relevant because it was designed for a large screen, a screen that resides in the exact same area, not in any way out of the sight lines. Why the US models didn’t get the larger JDM screen, I don’t know… To make the gimmicky 2016 stand up version seem like an upgrade???
Look at where the screens line up relative to the gauge cluster. It is higher. Regardless, It’s splitting hairs. I still am envious of your Cougar Matt, and no hard feelings.
I’m good, I didn’t mean to be argumentative. My Dad found the standup one to be a aesthetic dealbreaker between the 15s and 16s on the lot, preferring the integrated look. Me personally I’m old at heart and still prefer single din receivers like my Cougar has, I’m really the last person who should be arguing over touch screen placement lol
With you on the exterior, as for the interior, I haven’t bothered looking.
Stick a Maserati badge on it and it would be called a design classic.
Someone been to the Chermside Westfield?
😛
How did you know? That could be any car park!
I’ve been going there since 1973. The car park is very familiar to me. I’ve been there often and recognized it. Its also very close to the Kedron-Wavell RSL, where you found and wrote about that Corolla.
I do like it – as said above, you could stick a Maserati badge on it. I did look at it recently but it was too big for my needs so I went for the 3, which again has a bit of an Italian air about it (well, it’s a bit of an Alfa Romeo Giulietta crib). Still getting familiarized with the electronic helpers, but I agree it is very difficult to use the infoscreen without momentary lose of concentration (at the very least) and I have so far resisted the temptation when not stationary.
I like the Alfa Romeo, inside and out. Except for its headlights, hence a picture from the rear.
Mazda…
Your test-drive 3 ?
Two doors less in this segment. I like them all.
I own a 2015 Mazda6 Touring with 6sp manual. I purchased it not because of its styling, but because it was 1 of 2 D-segment midlevel non-German sedans available in the US market with a manual transmission. A manual is mandatory for me, and I don’t trust German “reliability”. The other option, Honda Accord Sport manual, which I drove the same day, had an uncomfortable (for me) driver seat, and did not have split folding rear seatback, which I require. I purchased the Mazda6 for purely practical reasons.
Styling among the family sedan segment leaders seem to share the bolt-upright grille and long, flat hood feature. Kia Optima, Hyundai Sonata, Ford Fusion, and Mazda6 are most similar in this regard. I have learned this is largely necessitated by both US and European pedestrian safety design requirements. It appears that being hit mid-femur promotes survivability….but who am I to second guess the “experts”?
The Mazda is a good performer. Its handling is quite sharp. The long-stroke SkyActive 2.5L engine has a nice torquey feel. It is smooth at low RPM and does not require frequent downshifting, but does run out of steam fairly quickly. Fuel consumption is quite good–I have gotten 36 mpg on a few tanks. I find the seating comfortable, I like the factory un-branded audio system. The rear seat and trunk are roomy. The only significant demerit I have found is that entry and egress to the front seats is tight. I must crane my neck quite deliberately when getting in and out of this car. I am not a small framed Asian that the car was likely designed for.
By comparison I put 600 miles on a rented 2016 Ford Fusion last week. I like the Ford’s appearance more, and found its ride more compliant than the Mazda, but it was also less sharp in the handling department. The engine (the base 2.5L) was underwhelming, but certainly adequate. Getting in and out of the Fusion was easier compared to my M6.
Mazda is the perennial Also-Ran of the US market. It has a core customer base who appreciates its chassis tuning philosophy. It does seem to consistently offer its cars with horsepower ratings at the low end of each segment, and I imagine this is a turn off for some US buyers. A few Mazdas have also had some well documented reliability issues, like the transmissions in the discontinued CX-7, which may also be reflected in its market share.
This is A LOT of car for the $24,600 I paid. I am a pleased customer so far.
The Accord Sport manual is easily the best manual in the class and the Accord engine sounds better plus it’s way faster than the Mazda6 manual.
Way faster.
“Best” is a tricky term. “Faster” or “sounds better” are not a priorities for me. My well-larded butt is a better fit in the M6 seat, so that is “Best” for me. The split rear folding seat in the Mazda allows me to schlepp my hockey sticks while still allowing a rear passenger, which the Honda can’t. I agree the Honda engine is a beautifully finished jewel, but so is the Mazda engine, in its own silky smooth way. On more than one occasion I have been at highway cruising speed and looked down to see I was still in fourth or fifth gear–not sixth. The M6 engine is that smooth!
That two such great cars are on the US market for less than $25k is remarkable. This is indeed a “golden age” for cars.
Exactly. So many people these days ignore personal observations and blindly go with whatever the media and specs tell them they should like.
I found the same issue with the Odyssey. On paper and in reviews it is the top of the class. But 10 seconds in the driver’s seat told me the cockpit was unbelievably cramped for such a large vehicle and there’s no way I could be comfortable driving it long distances. At that point all the accolades and recommendations didn’t matter one bit.
Let’s face it, the mainstream media is overly critical and nitpicky about things most people would never notice if they didn’t read about it. Yet for some reason they tend to gloss over major shortcomings that make a difference on a day-to-day basis, like overly intrusive dead pedals and terrible visibility.
I may have been rather harsh above in my criticism of the styling. But the reality is that if I were in that market and observed the same things you did my qualms about the styling wouldn’t prevent me from purchasing it.