I really liked the presentation. Showing close-ups of the interior and stuff like headlights, tailights both during day and night As for the car, it's a crying shame we're not getting a new generation. Although, I must admit, the last facelift (this model) with modified front grill and interior it's almost like a new generation. One of the best looking cars you can still buy (well, at least in Europe)
Der Mazda 6 ist einer der schöneste Mittelklasse Limousine seine Segment. Geht gut ab sieht hochwertig aus ich finde aber meinem 2019 Toyota Camry Hybrid besser und würde mich immer wieder für den Toyota Camry entscheiden. Aber anstatt Vw Passat zu kaufen würde ich mich lieber für den Mazda 6 entscheiden. Ich liebe japanische Autos. Schöne Grüße aus NRW bleibt gesund 👍
do you guys get a whining sound while accelerating between 60 to 80 KM/HR ( this is in addition to engine sound n wind) I just bought brand new Mazda 6 2022.
Naja, Mazda macht halt immer so Mini-Facelifts. Grundsätzlich wurde genau der gleiche Test mit dem genau dem gleichen Modell ja schonmal auf diesem Kanal gemacht. Das zeigt auch sehr gut, dass die Messwerte trotz aller Mühe zur Vereinheitlichung (ebene Autobahn), sich nur bedingt reproduzieren lassen.
Ecu tune like versa.etc, helps alot. These cars are tuned very modestly out the factory. I've even heard of some tunes not only granting more usable power, but also better fuel economy.
I get the impression, you have got a personal problem with Mazda and developed a unreasonable bias towards them. It shows because you are blaming something without reasoning and especially because you are blaming certain parts and just ignore the fact, that a car is a whole system and not just the engine.
@@supermutant01 Well 7.7l is definitly high, especially as the step from 100 to 120 km/h is way higher (1.9l) than the step from 120 to 140 km/h (0.9l), which should be the other way, It seems there was more wind at this part, as this would easily explain the wierd difference (1.9 to 0.9), while every other constant factor (engine, gearing, roll resistance etc.) cannot. It takes about 5 km/h of frontal air stream, to increase the consumption from ~6.5 l/100 km to ~7.7 l/100 km and it isn't that unlikely, especially as flat roads offer a lot of space for wind blows. Usually you would expect an increase of about 30% from 120 km/h tp 140 km/h (which in the other video of the same model on this channel was the case), so there has to be something else, which is increasing the consumption in this case, with wind beeing the most common explanation. If you compare it from the other side, there is no way for the consumption to only increaese by ~11% when driving 140 km/h instead of 120 km/h, so the consumption figure at 120 km/h has to be increased by something. Of course the 2.5 G would benefit from longer gears, as it is common with engines at about 250 Nm, The engine family itself is most likely not the problem, which is why the comment of sic22l is trash, to say it objectivly. The skyactiv X in particular proves him wrong, so i can only assume, he wants to spread fake and biased information. More so, this channel already tested this model in 2020 ( ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-L0NKu6w15bI.html ) and got lower consumption figures (6.3 l/100 km at 120 km/h), so there is that as well. Those 6.3 l/100 km seem to be way more accurate, as they fall into line with the expected increase in consumption.
@@sic22l Where is the prove of your claim? You still resist to use arguments to support your claim, so what is your point? This channel already tested this model and it only got slightly higher consumption figures as turbo charged engines with about 250 Nm get in compareable cars. So Mazda's claim stands true, as they indeed get only slightly worse consumption while delivering more power (those 250 Nm turbocharges gas engines mostly only deliver up to 110 kW). This is even more impressive, if you consider the difference in the transmissions used in those cars, as mazda is the only one to use a 6 speed tcAT, while everyone else uses at least one more and longer gear (at least 7 with the dct and 8 to 9 with the other tcAT). So in fact it is mostly better than those turbocharged options, it only lacks those additional gears but that is part of the transmission and not the engine family (and is part of the lower price point, try to get a compareable Mercedes Benz C-Class, BMW 3-series or Audi A4 for 45 k€, they cost at least 5 k€ more). You don't even consider the difference in gearing but instead insist on blaming the engine. But truth be told: The 2.0 Skyactiv X, which is part of the Skyactiv family and also part of Mazda's philosophy, is way better than every turbocharged engine with ~250 Nm, as it consumes noteably less while delivering more power. If you won't believe it, just watch the videos of this channel and do some reasonable comparisons: Mazda 3 X-186: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_vgYax2sTSM.html Golf 8 150 TSI: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-2Dl8EGJQJVY.html Mercedes Benz A 200: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-KlMqimxg4mQ.html Audi A3 35 TFSI: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-uH9s0wX3Sh0.html BMW 118i: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-jbRiEHRe00o.html Just imagine the Mazda 6 with the Skyactiv X (which will come in the near future) and your whole argument is dissipated, not even considering the announced inline 6, which will be noteably more powerful (350 Nm with 200 kW would be my guess) and could still get about the same consumption figures as those 250 Nm turbocharged engines.
