2018 Mazda6 Signature 0-60 MPH Review / Highway MPG Road Test
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 1 фев 2019
- MPGomatic.com puts a 2018 Mazda6 Signature to the test. [Get Local Mazda6 Pricing: mpgomatic.com/1800/fyt.html ] This installment documents one Highway MPG loop along with a 0-60 MPH acceleration run.
The 2018 Mazda6 Signature is fitted with a turbocharged 2.5-liter Skyactiv four mated to a six-speed automatic. The EPA rates the 2018 Mazda6 Signature at 23 city / 31 highway / 26 combined MPG.
MPGomatic produces car review videos with a unique focus on gas mileage, in-cabin technology, and driveability. Yep, we're the folks that shoot those 0-60 MPH tests.
More MPGomatic ...
RUclips Channel: / mpgomatic
Website: www.MPGomatic.com
Twitter: #!/MPGomatic
Facebook: / mpgomatic 
Авто/Мото
Love this car!! Definitely will be my next vehicle.
Keith Dehmann it’s so slow though. Is this the NA? Or turbo?
What elevation are you testing at also. Thanks in advance. Great review.
35 for a quick 2.5T with Mazda premium feel, ride quality & reliability is Fantastic.
The 2.5 non-turbo sees 40mpg highway often in the Sedans
Great Review Mr. Gray. Can you do one these tests on the 19 CX-5 Signature next?
canonlybeme4life Thanks! I’m hoping to get one on the schedule, but I don’t know when or if it’ll happen. Stay Tuned!
A balanced package and the review I have been waiting for. I must have missed it if you said, but what fuel octane was in the 6 during this test. It might make a diffrrence in 0-60 time.
Which octane gas did you use?
Beautiful vehicle
I need your advice which car is better gmc yukon 2007 or tahoe 2007
Solider 76 Do they roll off the same assembly line, at the same plant, using mostly the same parts?
@@mpgomatic In your opinion which one ?
Solider 76 Define better. They are (often) essentially the same vehicle underneath the cosmetics. The GMC looks more premium. The Tahoe costs less. Neither is better, IMHO, just different.
@@mpgomatic Thanx :)
10:07 SUV and box truck in the side view video but not until 10:33 in the front view video
lfsracer79 Had a camera sync issue on the run.
Hey Man, do you happen to still have the file of the 3d-printed sparco r100 handle?
Leonardo Bernaschina I need to contact the modeler. It’s been a while. What’s up?
I just bought myself a pair of R100 but one of them has a broken handle (just the plastic part is broken, the mechanism still works). I was wondering if you still had the file so that I could 3d print it and fix the mess
I saw this car finishing the quarter in 14.04 seconds which is good and it was stock
I'm the type of person that questions things that anyone can post online (sometimes people lie - such as claiming stock when not). This is a car that runs high 14s - low 15s 1/4 mile and 6.3 - 6.7+ 0-60 depending on octane. I question the credibility of anyone claiming to run a 14 flat (almost) 1/4 mile in stock form, 1 sec doesn't sound like a lot, but there is a good gap between a 14 sec car and a 15 sec car. Even if weather was favorable during such runs, turbos particularly, love colder weather, I'd still question it. I own a '16 ecoboost mustang and American Muscle did a baseline 1/4 mi run to test the BAMA tune on a '15 EB mustang during cold weather. On the stock run, they got 13.64 1/4 mile (with the tune installed the car did a 12.98sec, btw). '15-'17s are rated at 13.9 sec stock. So while the favorable weather did help get a lower time, it was not a dramatic 1 full second reduction. I highly doubt that those running 14 flat are 100% stock, as claimed.
In the example I gave, the colder weather AND TUNE helped the mustang run a full second quicker than what they are rated at.
@@M4B21S88 There is a guy who owns one here on youtube. I have seen his videos. He is running 14.0-14.2 at 98mph stock in his. I was surprised as well but I have seen the proof. I am guessing he is running 93 octane and has had experience running it many times to achieve those numbers.
J30A4V6er
a car with only 250 crank hp (on 93 octane) but has a weight of 3600 lbs, wont have a flat 14 sec 1/4 mile.
Unless, its a cold night...
I own a ‘16 EB mustang and on a cold night it can run 13.64 sec.
I can tell you right now im 100% (which i am) then go to the track and run mid 13s on a regular day (80s temp+). Trust me, it wouldnt be stock if i was running 13.6 on a regular. A tune is all you need to make turbo cars go fast. Im sure this guy has a tune and probably a tire mode, for sure.
Honda accord 2.0t has a 14 sec run in stock form. Its makes the same hp as the mazda6 but it is 250 lbs lighter and has a 10speed.
Just saying, ppl lie.
Most are in the 14.8- 15.5 , on a good run.
@@M4B21S88 Hey, I run at the track all the time and understand What you are talking about, but I have not seen one of those vehicles Dyno, so maybe it is underrated. They do make 310 torque crank which is much stronger than the accords 272-lb of torque. I'm just saying that I've seen it with my own eyes. There have not been many running up the track and I don't trust magazine times as my times are much quicker than what the magazine shows for my fusion. Either way it's cool to see one hit low 14s. Who knows
J30A4V6er im not debating whether you go to the track or not.
Do You know how much torque a semi trucks make? A shit ton.
Torque is the force that propels a car forward, HP is what keeps it moving fast , or slow, depending on how much it makes.
Yes, the mazda makes 40 lb/ft more torque, but its also 250 lbs heavier, it kind of needs it, as opposed to the much lighter accord..
The mazda keeps its torque figure even on 87 octane but yet is slower to 60 than the accord.
HP and weight would assist more in a 1/4 mi run.
Im just questioning how would it be possible, in stock form, for a much heavier mazda6 with identical HP on 93 octane , to run the same 14.2 sec as an accord runs.
Even my car, similar in weight as the mazda 6, runs a 13.9 , under good conditions, but has an additional 60 hp...
So yeah, i find it hard to believe if you ask me.
Im pretty sure the mazda its not being underrated. It makes about 215-220 on 93 to the wheel.
Very disappointed at that 7 seconds 0-60 time. Might as well get the NA stick just as fast and better mpg. 35 is pathetic especially considering he was going speed limit
I saw a stock one finishing the quarter mile in 14.04 seconds so it quick
Most get 6.3 out of this.
It's also cold and he had a bit of crowding. If temps were in the 70s and with absolutely no traffic, I think it'd be 40 mpg
The title says Mazda6 but video says Mazda3 lol
Did I mess up again? D'oh!
Go to pump and do the math so it even more accurate
I thought the same thing. I know some cat magazines have gotten 36mpg on highway
lol I'm getting 30-34 mpg in town with my cruze turbo diesel manual and 53ish on the highway. i'll pass on this mazda…
hordak82 Cruze Diesel gets crazy great MPGs! I’m bummed that Chevy is phasing the Cruze out. AFAIK, Mazda is still planning to bring their new Diesel engine to the USA. How are diesel fuel prices in your area? They’re through the roof here in NJ. Hopefully they will get better quickly this spring.
@@mpgomatic I read about that somewhere- the SUV will have a diesel option, right? Should be exciting! Diesel is pretty high here as well in the California (SF Bay Area). I've seen prices range from $3.55 to $3.99. Eek!
@@mpgomatic my 2.0tdi dag gets 66mpg(Uk) on highway
Aw man, 35 is kinda bad actually. VW turbos seem to do a better job.
I did better than this in my old V6 Maxima from the 90's.
VW is claiming 36 highway out of their 2.0. I think Mazda can do a lot better.
Really dude lol you're comparing 250hp/310tq to 180/200
@@daphenom45 Yes, i am. Mazda's 2 liter can easily make 250hp which would be plenty for the Mazda 6.
Ford uses a mazda-derived 2.0 in the ecoboost turbo and gets better fuel efficiency. That engine is in a lot of cars, especially in Europe, and makes up to 250hp.
I'm just saying Mazda could have done better if Ford is working with a copy of their engine design.
@@neptronix This vehicle has a 2.5 turbo, not a 2.0 - Ford is working with a Mazda L-series engine block for their 2.0/2.3 EcoBoost engines. The only thing they share is the block itself, that's it. Everything else is different. Mazda's 2.0 and 2.5 (NA & Turbo) are in no way related to the L-series. Mazda can do better in theory, absolutely
However, they are an incredibly small automanufacturer compared to Ford, Toyota, Honda, VW, and even Mitsubishi. They have to stick with a tried-and-true approach when planning their next vehicles because of that budgetary constraint. The new SkyActiv-X powertrains seem promising, although they have not made their way over here to the U.S. yet.