the new mazdaspeed 6
Thread Starter
Registered!!
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,566
Likes: 0
From: so cal
Rep Power: 303 
the new mazdaspeed 6
anyone seen the new mazda 6. its supposed to be pretty damn bad. awd 274hp and around $30k just like the evo and sti
http://www.modernracer.com/mazdaspeed6.html
sorry if this is a repost i did do a search and turned up nothing
http://www.modernracer.com/mazdaspeed6.html
sorry if this is a repost i did do a search and turned up nothing
Nice..I think there was a posting on this though.
The engine is pretty slick if you ask me. How much more is a TL though, I would rather that - remember seeing a tuned one at a car show, very hot.
The engine is pretty slick if you ask me. How much more is a TL though, I would rather that - remember seeing a tuned one at a car show, very hot.
Thread Starter
Registered!!
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,566
Likes: 0
From: so cal
Rep Power: 303 i think its about time ford stepped into the import platform. this should be pretty equal to a evo or sti from what i read. but i would take it over the tl anyday because of the options you have with a AWD turbo.
Drunken Master-7thgen Ninja
iTrader: (21)
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,976
Likes: 0
From: georgia
Rep Power: 336
Originally Posted by fraga
Since when does Ford = Mazda...
also using the same suspensions, and frames also. so yes, it could be said that ford = mazda. the motor, suspension, framework and other stuff...
Originally Posted by familycar
anyone seen the new mazda 6. its supposed to be pretty damn bad. awd 274hp and around $30k just like the evo and sti
http://www.modernracer.com/mazdaspeed6.html
sorry if this is a repost i did do a search and turned up nothing
http://www.modernracer.com/mazdaspeed6.html
sorry if this is a repost i did do a search and turned up nothing
RESIDENT ROTOR HEAD
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,207
Likes: 0
From: , Other, ZEBRA
Rep Power: 328
Originally Posted by familycar
actually mazda =ford. mazda is ford import just like acura is honda import and lexus is toyota import, etc.
Mazda was established in the late 1800's in Hiroshima, Japan as a steam engine auto manufacturer. Read on the early beginnings of Mazda here:
http://www.triplezoom.com/news/publish/printer_56.shtml
Mazda nearly bankrupted itself on benchmarking its lineup on sports cars in the early to mid nineties. During this time, the baby boomers were growing up and didn't want sporty cars, but rather SUV's. Mazda nearly died because of it, but a few execs at Mazda were able to convince Ford to bail them out. Ford came in, and bought 33% of Mazda's stock. This makes them the majority share holder, but they are by no means controlling Mazda's R&D or quality control.
Ford owns a 33 percent share in Mazda, Volvo, and they outright own Aston Martin, Jaguar, and Range Rover. Your blanket statement that Mazda=Ford shows how ignorant you are. Ford is an international conglomerate. They buy out large shares of their competitors from each piece of the market. Luxury, Sporty, Euro, Japanese, and domestic. They own large shares, however, they reserve brand identity, and with the exception of Jaguar these daughter companies are independently operated from Ford. Why? Business. Diversity is what keeps Ford afloat these days. What with the nose dive of the Domestic auto stock, these companies are now pulling Ford up.
Ford does, however use its daughter companies designs in its own R&D, but does not force any on Mazda. The only thing Ford controls is the wallet. In essence, Ford is the best thing that has happened to Mazda because it's Ford's dollars that made it possible for the current lineup, two of which are on Car and Driver's 10 Best, and Mazda is the only company to get two cars on the 10 best, RX-8 and Miata.
So please, avoid your blanket statements. By your logic, Subaru is a GM, and Mitsubishi is not too far off either. Toyota and Chevy have cross swapped designs for years. So please, educate yourself before making ill informed comments.
Registered!!
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 980
Likes: 0
From: Sacramento, California
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by nookiemonster
WRONG.
Mazda nearly bankrupted itself on benchmarking its lineup on sports cars in the early to mid nineties. During this time, the baby boomers were growing up and didn't want sporty cars, but rather SUV's. Mazda nearly died because of it, but a few execs at Mazda were able to convince Ford to bail them out. Ford came in, and bought 33% of Mazda's stock. This makes them the majority share holder, but they are by no means controlling Mazda's R&D or quality control.
Mazda nearly bankrupted itself on benchmarking its lineup on sports cars in the early to mid nineties. During this time, the baby boomers were growing up and didn't want sporty cars, but rather SUV's. Mazda nearly died because of it, but a few execs at Mazda were able to convince Ford to bail them out. Ford came in, and bought 33% of Mazda's stock. This makes them the majority share holder, but they are by no means controlling Mazda's R&D or quality control.
just ease up though... i dont think the guy fully knew 100%.
i'd rep you but i dunno how... so just +1...
.. 
<EDIT> MY 666 POST!!!
Registered!!
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Rep Power: 0 While I agree with nookiemonster in general, there are some minor points on which I disagree.
Conglomerate implies a big company with many diversified business units - such as GE, which has (or used to have) insurance, airplane engines, lighting, etc.. Ford has sold off many business units, such as Visteon and Hertz, that have no relation to its core business of building & designing cars. I wouldn't describe Ford as a conglomerate these days.
While Ford has acquired foreign carmakers for various reasons in the past, ie..global diversification, brand prestige, access to global markets, and elimination of competitors, Volvo and Mazda are the only brightspots in Ford's portfolio. Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston Martin, and Ford itself is suffering huge losses. Volvo and Mazda's recent financial contributions, however impressive, are too small to effectively hedge against losses from other brands.
I would say that Ford is more actively involved in its various divisions than before - and not just with the wallet. Ford brought in many Ford execs to rescue Mazda few years back. Mark Fields, the current Ford President, is seen as the man resonsible for the turnaround. (He's one of the guys that gave the go-ahead for RX-8 among other successful Mazda cars). The various European brands, Aston Martin, Land Rover, Volvo, etc are under one Ford umbrella called PAG.
The involvement is mutual - as Ford is adopting many of its divisions research & designs.
Mazda 6 chassis & engine in Fusion
Mazda engine and Volve S4 platform, in European Focus
Ford (or was it Jaguar's???) engine in Land Rover
Ford/Yamaha engine in Volvo SUV
Volvo S8 chassis in Ford Five Hundred
Volvo rollover safety technology in the new Explorer
and so on...
Conglomerate implies a big company with many diversified business units - such as GE, which has (or used to have) insurance, airplane engines, lighting, etc.. Ford has sold off many business units, such as Visteon and Hertz, that have no relation to its core business of building & designing cars. I wouldn't describe Ford as a conglomerate these days.
While Ford has acquired foreign carmakers for various reasons in the past, ie..global diversification, brand prestige, access to global markets, and elimination of competitors, Volvo and Mazda are the only brightspots in Ford's portfolio. Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston Martin, and Ford itself is suffering huge losses. Volvo and Mazda's recent financial contributions, however impressive, are too small to effectively hedge against losses from other brands.
I would say that Ford is more actively involved in its various divisions than before - and not just with the wallet. Ford brought in many Ford execs to rescue Mazda few years back. Mark Fields, the current Ford President, is seen as the man resonsible for the turnaround. (He's one of the guys that gave the go-ahead for RX-8 among other successful Mazda cars). The various European brands, Aston Martin, Land Rover, Volvo, etc are under one Ford umbrella called PAG.
The involvement is mutual - as Ford is adopting many of its divisions research & designs.
Mazda 6 chassis & engine in Fusion
Mazda engine and Volve S4 platform, in European Focus
Ford (or was it Jaguar's???) engine in Land Rover
Ford/Yamaha engine in Volvo SUV
Volvo S8 chassis in Ford Five Hundred
Volvo rollover safety technology in the new Explorer
and so on...
RESIDENT ROTOR HEAD
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,207
Likes: 0
From: , Other, ZEBRA
Rep Power: 328
Originally Posted by slowcoupe03
While I agree with nookiemonster in general, there are some minor points on which I disagree.
Conglomerate implies a big company with many diversified business units - such as GE, which has (or used to have) insurance, airplane engines, lighting, etc.. Ford has sold off many business units, such as Visteon and Hertz, that have no relation to its core business of building & designing cars. I wouldn't describe Ford as a conglomerate these days.
While Ford has acquired foreign carmakers for various reasons in the past, ie..global diversification, brand prestige, access to global markets, and elimination of competitors, Volvo and Mazda are the only brightspots in Ford's portfolio. Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston Martin, and Ford itself is suffering huge losses. Volvo and Mazda's recent financial contributions, however impressive, are too small to effectively hedge against losses from other brands.
I would say that Ford is more actively involved in its various divisions than before - and not just with the wallet. Ford brought in many Ford execs to rescue Mazda few years back. Mark Fields, the current Ford President, is seen as the man resonsible for the turnaround. (He's one of the guys that gave the go-ahead for RX-8 among other successful Mazda cars). The various European brands, Aston Martin, Land Rover, Volvo, etc are under one Ford umbrella called PAG.
The involvement is mutual - as Ford is adopting many of its divisions research & designs.
Mazda 6 chassis & engine in Fusion
Mazda engine and Volve S4 platform, in European Focus
Ford (or was it Jaguar's???) engine in Land Rover
Ford/Yamaha engine in Volvo SUV
Volvo S8 chassis in Ford Five Hundred
Volvo rollover safety technology in the new Explorer
and so on...
Conglomerate implies a big company with many diversified business units - such as GE, which has (or used to have) insurance, airplane engines, lighting, etc.. Ford has sold off many business units, such as Visteon and Hertz, that have no relation to its core business of building & designing cars. I wouldn't describe Ford as a conglomerate these days.
While Ford has acquired foreign carmakers for various reasons in the past, ie..global diversification, brand prestige, access to global markets, and elimination of competitors, Volvo and Mazda are the only brightspots in Ford's portfolio. Jaguar, Land Rover, Aston Martin, and Ford itself is suffering huge losses. Volvo and Mazda's recent financial contributions, however impressive, are too small to effectively hedge against losses from other brands.
I would say that Ford is more actively involved in its various divisions than before - and not just with the wallet. Ford brought in many Ford execs to rescue Mazda few years back. Mark Fields, the current Ford President, is seen as the man resonsible for the turnaround. (He's one of the guys that gave the go-ahead for RX-8 among other successful Mazda cars). The various European brands, Aston Martin, Land Rover, Volvo, etc are under one Ford umbrella called PAG.
The involvement is mutual - as Ford is adopting many of its divisions research & designs.
Mazda 6 chassis & engine in Fusion
Mazda engine and Volve S4 platform, in European Focus
Ford (or was it Jaguar's???) engine in Land Rover
Ford/Yamaha engine in Volvo SUV
Volvo S8 chassis in Ford Five Hundred
Volvo rollover safety technology in the new Explorer
and so on...
Hmm thanks for the updates, I wasn't aware, as I don't follow Ford as closely as I should.
Haha if you wanna see something interesting take a look at the Ford Lupis
Hello, RX-8. There is also a RX-8 based jaguar concept floating around somewhere.
Thread Starter
Registered!!
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,566
Likes: 0
From: so cal
Rep Power: 303
Originally Posted by nookiemonster
WRONG.
Mazda was established in the late 1800's in Hiroshima, Japan as a steam engine auto manufacturer. Read on the early beginnings of Mazda here:
http://www.triplezoom.com/news/publish/printer_56.shtml
Mazda nearly bankrupted itself on benchmarking its lineup on sports cars in the early to mid nineties. During this time, the baby boomers were growing up and didn't want sporty cars, but rather SUV's. Mazda nearly died because of it, but a few execs at Mazda were able to convince Ford to bail them out. Ford came in, and bought 33% of Mazda's stock. This makes them the majority share holder, but they are by no means controlling Mazda's R&D or quality control.
Ford owns a 33 percent share in Mazda, Volvo, and they outright own Aston Martin, Jaguar, and Range Rover. Your blanket statement that Mazda=Ford shows how ignorant you are. Ford is an international conglomerate. They buy out large shares of their competitors from each piece of the market. Luxury, Sporty, Euro, Japanese, and domestic. They own large shares, however, they reserve brand identity, and with the exception of Jaguar these daughter companies are independently operated from Ford. Why? Business. Diversity is what keeps Ford afloat these days. What with the nose dive of the Domestic auto stock, these companies are now pulling Ford up.
Ford does, however use its daughter companies designs in its own R&D, but does not force any on Mazda. The only thing Ford controls is the wallet. In essence, Ford is the best thing that has happened to Mazda because it's Ford's dollars that made it possible for the current lineup, two of which are on Car and Driver's 10 Best, and Mazda is the only company to get two cars on the 10 best, RX-8 and Miata.
So please, avoid your blanket statements. By your logic, Subaru is a GM, and Mitsubishi is not too far off either. Toyota and Chevy have cross swapped designs for years. So please, educate yourself before making ill informed comments.
Mazda was established in the late 1800's in Hiroshima, Japan as a steam engine auto manufacturer. Read on the early beginnings of Mazda here:
http://www.triplezoom.com/news/publish/printer_56.shtml
Mazda nearly bankrupted itself on benchmarking its lineup on sports cars in the early to mid nineties. During this time, the baby boomers were growing up and didn't want sporty cars, but rather SUV's. Mazda nearly died because of it, but a few execs at Mazda were able to convince Ford to bail them out. Ford came in, and bought 33% of Mazda's stock. This makes them the majority share holder, but they are by no means controlling Mazda's R&D or quality control.
Ford owns a 33 percent share in Mazda, Volvo, and they outright own Aston Martin, Jaguar, and Range Rover. Your blanket statement that Mazda=Ford shows how ignorant you are. Ford is an international conglomerate. They buy out large shares of their competitors from each piece of the market. Luxury, Sporty, Euro, Japanese, and domestic. They own large shares, however, they reserve brand identity, and with the exception of Jaguar these daughter companies are independently operated from Ford. Why? Business. Diversity is what keeps Ford afloat these days. What with the nose dive of the Domestic auto stock, these companies are now pulling Ford up.
Ford does, however use its daughter companies designs in its own R&D, but does not force any on Mazda. The only thing Ford controls is the wallet. In essence, Ford is the best thing that has happened to Mazda because it's Ford's dollars that made it possible for the current lineup, two of which are on Car and Driver's 10 Best, and Mazda is the only company to get two cars on the 10 best, RX-8 and Miata.
So please, avoid your blanket statements. By your logic, Subaru is a GM, and Mitsubishi is not too far off either. Toyota and Chevy have cross swapped designs for years. So please, educate yourself before making ill informed comments.
Premium Member
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
From: Cornwall
Rep Power: 261 The new car and driver mag has a comparison test on it up against the Acura TSX,Honda Accord EX V6, Pontiac G6 GTP, VW Jetta GLI.It came in forth out of the five entries.They gave first to the VW but it's actually the Accord that won.
Words on a User Title
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,905
Likes: 0
From: Puerto Rico
Rep Power: 334
Originally Posted by nookiemonster
By your logic, Subaru is a GM
Originally Posted by familycar
first off who the hell do you thin kyou are to call someone ignorant. that makes you idiotic because you have no clue who i am nor what i know. so in response to your idiotic statement why dont you go do some more research and see just how many cars that ford and mazda share the same platform for. there rent many anymore that mazda doesnt share with ford. look at the tribute and the escape i can go on and ona bout this but its really not worth an argument. but your idioscism shows for stating that i am ignorant when i am far from it guy.
Secondly: you got 0wned... accept it.
Thidly: Ford Escape / Mazda Tribute; Ford Ranger / Mazda B-Series; Honda Fit Aria / Suzuki Aerio sedan (correct me if I'm wrong on this one); Honda Passport / Isuzu Rodeo; Chevy Colorado / GMC Canyon / Isuzu i-Series; GMC Envoy / Isuzu Ascender / Chevy Trailblazer; Dodge Dakota / Mitsubishi Raider... see my pattern?
They might own part of all of the brand (or not) but, as nookiemonster stated previously, they share what their daughter companies (or sister companies, depending on relationship) make on their R&D but they don't tell them what to do and what not to do. They have a liberty to do things as they please (if the money is there, of course).
Fourth:
[EDIT]
Fifth:
Originally Posted by familycar
sorry if this is a repost i did do a search and turned up nothing
Link: http://www.7thgencivic.com/forums/sh...ht=mazdaspeed6
Last edited by ramcosca; Jan 7, 2006 at 04:00 PM.
Registered!!
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
From: Bay Area
Rep Power: 0 
well this topic is crackin'. what i want to know is why the mazdaspeed 6 got owned by the STi and Evo?
another turboed AWD four banger. should be neck n neck with the evo and keeping up with the STi.
as for my choice. I would take the STi over that just cause i've decided that one day i'm going to buy an STi and leave it super stock and keep it in super mint condition.
another turboed AWD four banger. should be neck n neck with the evo and keeping up with the STi.
as for my choice. I would take the STi over that just cause i've decided that one day i'm going to buy an STi and leave it super stock and keep it in super mint condition.
Words on a User Title
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,905
Likes: 0
From: Puerto Rico
Rep Power: 334
Originally Posted by Spracto
well this topic is crackin'. what i want to know is why the mazdaspeed 6 got owned by the STi and Evo?
another turboed AWD four banger. should be neck n neck with the evo and keeping up with the STi.
as for my choice. I would take the STi over that just cause i've decided that one day i'm going to buy an STi and leave it super stock and keep it in super mint condition.
another turboed AWD four banger. should be neck n neck with the evo and keeping up with the STi.
as for my choice. I would take the STi over that just cause i've decided that one day i'm going to buy an STi and leave it super stock and keep it in super mint condition.
Premium Member
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 979
Likes: 0
From: Cornwall
Rep Power: 261
Originally Posted by Spracto
well this topic is crackin'. what i want to know is why the mazdaspeed 6 got owned by the STi and Evo?
another turboed AWD four banger. should be neck n neck with the evo and keeping up with the STi.
as for my choice. I would take the STi over that just cause i've decided that one day i'm going to buy an STi and leave it super stock and keep it in super mint condition.
another turboed AWD four banger. should be neck n neck with the evo and keeping up with the STi.
as for my choice. I would take the STi over that just cause i've decided that one day i'm going to buy an STi and leave it super stock and keep it in super mint condition.
1/4= 14.0@99
curb weight 3554
I don't know what the Subies or Evo's weigh.Still them times are good for a four banger.Also the Intercooler is small and top mounted so that may have something to do with performance.
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 7,097
Likes: 0
From: Jacksonville, Fl
Rep Power: 374 car and driver didnt give it a good rating, and rated it 4th of 5 cars. actually the new jetta gli won out of 5 cars.... i dunno, i think mazda is good stuff, im just a fan of those looks compared to those of the first 6's.
Registered!!
iTrader: (11)
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,576
Likes: 0
From: Lakewood, 562
Rep Power: 320 edmunds did a review on the mazdaspeed 6. I think the best summary of the car is its a grown up evo or sti. The interior is much nicer then the evo and sti and offers much more features then both. The set back to this is that the car is a lot heavier because of the extra features and the chassis reforcement from the extra drivetrain parts.
I read that it was going to offer different power split options too. For example, stock mode it was going to be a 60 40 front to rear split for gas. Snow mode it was going to be perfect 50 50 split and sport mode it offers 40 60 front to rear split.
The car is designed for older people who wants the power of a evo or sti but want the luxury features offered in a lexus. Thats why the mazdaspeed 6 doesn't look like a ricer boy car like the evo or sti does. its designed more to be subtle. I think its little too subtle though in my opinion. Also Have you seen the interior of a evo? It sux ***, its barely better then the 04-05 civic interiors. I would even say the 04-05 civic has better interior materials. In this sense the car doesn't directly compete against the evo or sti.
If you want a car with just straight speed, your better off with just a base evo.
I read that it was going to offer different power split options too. For example, stock mode it was going to be a 60 40 front to rear split for gas. Snow mode it was going to be perfect 50 50 split and sport mode it offers 40 60 front to rear split.
The car is designed for older people who wants the power of a evo or sti but want the luxury features offered in a lexus. Thats why the mazdaspeed 6 doesn't look like a ricer boy car like the evo or sti does. its designed more to be subtle. I think its little too subtle though in my opinion. Also Have you seen the interior of a evo? It sux ***, its barely better then the 04-05 civic interiors. I would even say the 04-05 civic has better interior materials. In this sense the car doesn't directly compete against the evo or sti.
If you want a car with just straight speed, your better off with just a base evo.
Last edited by TemjinX2; Jan 7, 2006 at 05:44 PM.
Registered!!
iTrader: (11)
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 4,576
Likes: 0
From: Lakewood, 562
Rep Power: 320
Originally Posted by 04hemiboy
0-60 = 5.4
1/4= 14.0@99
curb weight 3554
I don't know what the Subies or Evo's weigh.Still them times are good for a four banger.Also the Intercooler is small and top mounted so that may have something to do with performance.
1/4= 14.0@99
curb weight 3554
I don't know what the Subies or Evo's weigh.Still them times are good for a four banger.Also the Intercooler is small and top mounted so that may have something to do with performance.
Registered!!
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 1,051
Likes: 0
From: Anniston, Alabama, US
Rep Power: 306 It always amazes me how some people throw out blanket statements without any proof, get a valid argument from someone else that invalidates that statement, and then, with an illiterate response, claim that no one can ascertain their intelligence.
The fact remains that people do make assumptions on your intellect based upon your written thoughts. They do it in business, in school, and in public.
The fact remains that people do make assumptions on your intellect based upon your written thoughts. They do it in business, in school, and in public.
