Anyone any thoughts on the mid2000's versions of these! I think the economy figures on the 2.4l are better, so is it a better sorted engine or just detuned for economy! Also interested in the 4wd versions of both.
phillip.weston,
Mar 3, 8:52pm
They are quite similar vehicles on paper, the styling of both is pretty good, I would perhaps take the Honda over the facelift Mazda 6 but it would be a very close race, with the pre-facelift Mazda 6 lagging behind a bit. The 2.4L Honda engine is a real honey of an engine, very smooth and willing to rev and provides plenty of power while delivering great fuel economy - though much the same could be said about the 2.3L Mazda engine also. The Honda 4WD system is a bit of a gimmick, it is mostly FWD until it detects slip from the front wheels where it will send up to 50% of power to the rear wheels. Even though it's FWD most of the time the rear wheels still have to spin the rear driveshafts and a differential and fuel economy suffers a little bit. The Mazda 4WD system is 50/50 split and could be regarded as more of a true AWD system. I would be weary of the Mazda 6 4WD auto transmissions at higher kms, I have heard of some failures up around the 200,000kms mark, but I don't think the Honda 4WD box will be any better.
Either way they are both great cars and you can't really go wrong with either - it would just come down to personal preference to which ride/styling of the two that you prefer.
smac,
Mar 3, 9:16pm
Thanks for, especially the about the 4wd, might do some more reading on that. I think I like look of the newer mazda a bit better, but drivetrain is important to me as I do 25-30k a year.
scotty20001,
Mar 3, 9:47pm
take a 2002 and up VW Passat V6 4motion for a drive and see what you think, you clearly enjoy driving the Passat light years ahead of them both, the V6 also does 35mpg pretty easy.
smac,
Mar 3, 10:36pm
Ya been looking at them too. I'm struggling to get past the fact the Brethren over the road have one.
scotty20001,
Mar 3, 10:38pm
LOL! classic, they are very nice cars though, how much are you looking to spend!
smac,
Mar 3, 11:10pm
meh.dunno.$15k maybe. Not in any hurry.knowing me we'll stuff around another 6 months.
Maybe by then I can get a V36 Skyline for under $20k and I'll go that way :)
vtecintegra,
Mar 3, 11:39pm
The gearboxes in the Honda both auto and manual are significantly nicer IMO.
The Mazda has a bit more of a drivers chassis but significantly less power and in some cases only a four speed auto
phillip.weston,
Mar 4, 1:48am
Mazda 6 is 4 speed auto for 2.0L models, 4 speed tiptronic for 2.3 models up to 2004 (pre-facelift), and five speed tiptronic for facelift 2004 onwards 2.3 models.
smac,
Mar 4, 2:30am
Ah, was wondering when the change point was 'cause I've seen both 4 and 5 speed advertised. Thanks. Definitely after a 5 (or more!) next time I buy.
bexx13,
Mar 4, 8:12am
Dude Ive got an 04 Atenza wagon (pre facelift) , its a really good car, goes stops and handles nicely. Just had the 4 speed tiptronic tranny serviced at 50,000 kms its smooth as silk. Mrs uses it all the time running kids around work etc and she loves it too. Personally I like the slightly aggressive styling and the sporty(ish) interior. I would go for the Mazda over the honda anytime.
carkitter,
Mar 4, 8:23am
Both are very good cars. I think the Honda has the sweetest drivetrain and the best driving position while the Mazda has the best looks and the best chassis setup. Personally I'd take the Honda but it'd be a tough choice. I'd forget the VW, it's met its match in the Accord and the Mazda 6.
phillip.weston,
Mar 4, 9:00am
at that age the VW would already have the interior surfaces peeling off around the door handles, center console etc.
fordcrzy,
Mar 4, 10:23am
geez 13 posts and no "you know who"
bigfatmat1,
Mar 4, 6:18pm
Thats cause Scotty is his apprentice is in training. Let me. 'Have you considered a multipla. blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah
yeah thanks for shagging an otherwise constructive thread guys.
Anyone know the name of the 4wd system used by the Honda and the mazda! I have to say I'm a bit dubious about some of these part time systems when they used with a conventional diff. Seems to me that there are situations you'll still end up with no power.
phillip.weston,
Mar 4, 8:43pm
I don't think either have a name, both Honda and Mazda just put a '4WD' badge on the bootlid of each model.
Well it will have a name. The Honda one could be SH-AWD, or maybe VTM-4. Makes a big difference on how it works and performs. Not sure about the Mazda one yet. Some are more geared toward low speed off-seal work, some are more geared toward general stability during normal driving.
smac,
Mar 5, 2:42am
Come on a bunch of you guys sell these things. What do you say when the customer says "how does it work!"
phillip.weston,
Mar 5, 2:48am
did you not read the link above!
phillip.weston,
Mar 5, 2:50am
It's also important to note that the 4WD Honda Accord was not ever sold new in NZ, the only ones we have here are used imports from Japan with little documentation available. The 4WD Mazda 6 however was sold new here as in the turbocharged direct injection Mazda 6 MPS, and from what I understand it's the same system used in the non-turbo import Atenza 4WD models.
smac,
Mar 5, 2:59am
Yup I read it. Firstly there's no indication that's the system used in the Accord, and secondly it's presumably the system used now, not necessarily 5 years ago. The fact that it talks about using the electronic stability controls to prevent slip makes me think it's not relevant.
I have read elsewhere that the rear diff in the Honda's is just a standard one, which means if you have a slipping front and rear tyre you have zero traction. I've also found reference to some cars disengaging the 4wd above a certain speed. However as per your comments above about which markets have which cars, it's hard to tell what actually applies to the JDM spec cars.
SO, I'm just trying to dig out a little relevant info, if there is any.
phillip.weston,
Mar 5, 3:13am
Yes, I would agree that the Honda system is mediocre, the diffs certainly aren't LSD and there's no way to lock the torque split between front and rear at 50/50. We had an early 2000's Honda Odyssey 4WD which would chirp the front wheels leaving intersections, and there would be a noticeable delay for a few seconds until the rear wheels started propelling the car forward. The rear diff is small in size, as are the rear driveshafts which resemble twigs. The Mazda 4WD system would be on par with Subaru, Mitsubishi and VW/Audi systems in slippery conditions, though the Mazda 4WD boxes aren't known to be the most robust.
Do you need a 4WD model specifically! If so I would go for the Mazda, or even start looking at Legacy wagons.
smac,
Mar 5, 3:38am
Not necessarily. Just these two models are kinda on my short list.and when I realised the 4wd models are about the same price I figured I'd look for more info. My interest in the 4wd is more from a handling/safety perspective than any off road aspirations.We hit the gravel or snow occasionally, but not enough to justify a specific purchase.
As far as the subarus.I think I've been put off by too many experts in the pub slagging reliability. Still seem a bit thirsty too compared to their competition.
Since the public registrations are closed, you must have an invite from a current member to be able to register and post in this thread.
Have an account? Login here.