Help! Mazda 6, petrol or diesel?

alienmuppet · 21 Oct 2015 at 18:58

Hi,
Long story short.. I'm looking at getting a Mazda 6. I don't drive many miles, mostly local, long trip once a fortnight maybe.

I found a red Mazda 6 2.0 Takuya 2011 that I really took a shine to. Good price, local garage, 3 year warranty thrown in (1 year Mazda, 2 Ford Gold Protect).

Now.. I test drove it, and it felt a bit sluggish lower in the rev range. I figured this was just due to me being used to a TDI (1.4 polo 14 years old.. still felt nippier!).

I put a deposit down as I did enjoy driving it, but this did play on my mind. If it was like that with 2 of us in the car, what about 4 people and fully loaded?

I test drove a 2.2 diesel. The low down torque was great, but it felt heavy in comparison, and ... I am slightly averse to the sound and smell of diesel, but I can perhaps get passed that.

So I'm confused what to do. Has anyone else tried a 2.0 petrol Mazda 6? How did it feel? Regret buying?

Any advice would be much appreciated.

Thanks.

[TW]Fox · 21 Oct 2015 at 19:02

What you are experiencing here is the difference in power delivery styles between a normally aspirated engine and a turbocharged one.

It's not that the 2 litre petrol is sluggish, but it develops it's power higher up the rev range - so you need to hang onto the gears for longer or perhaps down-shift where you wouldn't normally have done so.

Jono8 · 21 Oct 2015 at 19:05

Low power diesels can feel nippyish at first but it is all over very quickly. I think that is why everyone in an Audi or Golf TDI thinks they are in a super car. I am not a fan myself. Though I agree sometimes NA engines can feel sluggish if you don't use the gearbox properly.

Large displacement petrol NA or petrol turbo is my preference.

Scrutinize · 21 Oct 2015 at 19:06

I have a 2.2 diesel and power delivery is much better and more usable than the petrol for this type of car imo. Combined I manage 49mpg and that is driving hard.

The second hand prices reflect the disparity.

iaind · 21 Oct 2015 at 19:15

[TW]Fox;28711247 said:
What you are experiencing here is the difference in power delivery styles between a normally aspirated engine and a turbocharged one.

It's not that the 2 litre petrol is sluggish, but it develops it's power higher up the rev range - so you need to hang onto the gears for longer or perhaps down-shift where you wouldn't normally have done so.

Yep. Have just gone from a 2.0 turbo petrol with 250bhp to a 2.5 n/a petrol with 200bhp. The 200bhp petrol still does 60 in about 8s so not sluggish but the difference is huge. If you're used to expecting a surge of power then going to something that doesn't have a surge can feel quite slow

[TW]Fox · 21 Oct 2015 at 23:22

iaind said:
Yep. Have just gone from a 2.0 turbo petrol with 250bhp to a 2.5 n/a petrol with 200bhp. The 200bhp petrol still does 60 in about 8s so not sluggish but the difference is huge. If you're used to expecting a surge of power then going to something that doesn't have a surge can feel quite slow

The difference is huge because there is an enormous power difference between the two cars! The Jag is only 194bhp, which it makes only at the top of the rev range.

iaind · 22 Oct 2015 at 07:25

[TW]Fox;28712309 said:
The difference is huge because there is an enormous power difference between the two cars! The Jag is only 194bhp, which it makes only at the top of the rev range.

20% is a big chunk but wouldn't say it's enormous - my point was that it feels like a greater difference than it is because of the power delivery. I should probably have compared to the 2.0T skoda on the standard map which is the same power (give or take) but still feels significantly quicker.

[TW]Fox · 22 Oct 2015 at 08:15

It feels like a greater difference because it's an actually quicker car, it isnt just a perception thing.

Even with the same bhp it would likely be quicker - just like the 245bhp 528i Turbo is quicker than the 272bhp 530i n/a 6 pot. In almost all situations your Jaguar just isn't making 194bhp whereas you'll often have been nearing the peak power output of the Skoda.

iaind · 22 Oct 2015 at 08:49

[TW]Fox;28712800 said:
It feels like a greater difference because it's an actually quicker car, it isnt just a perception thing.

Even with the same bhp it would likely be quicker - just like the 245bhp 528i Turbo is quicker than the 272bhp 530i n/a 6 pot. In almost all situations your Jaguar just isn't making 194bhp whereas you'll often have been nearing the peak power output of the Skoda.

Makes sense, I wasn't disagreeing, was backing up your point with recent real world experience. The jag sounds a hell of a lot nicer though

Back to the OP - I've not driven the 2.0 petrol Mazda 6 but I have driven the 2.2 several times. It's not bad to drive, for a diesel but it is still very diesely - they do feel reasonably quick but it's all in one big lump, not hugely refined. We had several of them as pool cars in my last job and I always preferred them over the other options, but there was normally at least one back at Mazda for a DPF issue. I wouldn't dream of one of those for low mileage. I'm sure the 2.0 petrol is perfectly capable and it'll just be a case of getting used to it

Diagro · 22 Oct 2015 at 09:12

I understand that the Mazda6 2.2 has the same engine as the Mazda 3 2.2.

My 3 is fine, power on tap when you need it, although there is some serious Turbo Lag, good 1 second when in low gears.
But this can be mapped to give an improvement.
Also the DPF will clog up if you do small miles...

does around 45mpg mixed town and motorway. I drive her hard though

Dogbreath · 22 Oct 2015 at 09:38

Jono8 said:
Low power diesels can feel nippyish at first but it is all over very quickly. I think that is why everyone in an Audi or Golf TDI thinks they are in a super car.

Exactly. The high torque at low RPM of smaller diesels initially makes them feel quite powerful, but it's only when you ask it for more that you realise you're already using almost everything it's got and it starts feeling very flat.

Dangerous Dave · 22 Oct 2015 at 10:38

I recently borrowed a Mazda CX7 with a NA 2L petrol, it wasn't great the engine needed plenty of revs to get up to speed, on the motorway at 70mph with 5 people and luggage foot to the floor resulted in very little acceleration on a large hill it could only maintain the speed. To pick up speed I had to drop a gear or two on the motorway which I don't want to be doing when cruising.

In everyday driving I think the diesel would have been the better engine due to the lack of torque from the petrol, of course a turbo petrol would be ideal but no one would ever buy one so unless you are in America they were never offered.

alienmuppet · 22 Oct 2015 at 11:31

Dangerous Dave said:
I recently borrowed a Mazda CX7 with a NA 2L petrol, it wasn't great the engine needed plenty of revs to get up to speed, on the motorway at 70mph with 5 people and luggage foot to the floor resulted in very little acceleration on a large hill it could only maintain the speed. To pick up speed I had to drop a gear or two on the motorway which I don't want to be doing when cruising.

In everyday driving I think the diesel would have been the better engine due to the lack of torque from the petrol, of course a turbo petrol would be ideal but no one would ever buy one so unless you are in America they were never offered.

I think the CX7 only comes with a 2.3 not a 2.0? So that's worrying if you were struggling that much - and they are meant to be 0 to 60 in 8 seconds...

Dangerous Dave · 22 Oct 2015 at 11:59

alienmuppet said:
I think the CX7 only comes with a 2.3 not a 2.0? So that's worrying if you were struggling that much - and they are meant to be 0 to 60 in 8 seconds...

I was totally getting my models confused it is a Mazda 5 MPV, thought it was a 7 as it had 7 seats !!

Definitely a 2l NA engine, older model so 143bhp never felt any thing other than slow also noisy past 5k. In terms of power delivery my wife's old 150CDTI Zafira was much better and on the motorway at least offered similar acceleration in 6th to the Mazda in 4th !

Parkers says 0-60 in 9.9 and a top speed of 121mph.

alienmuppet · 22 Oct 2015 at 12:14

Dangerous Dave said:
I was totally getting my models confused it is a Mazda 5 MPV, thought it was a 7 as it had 7 seats !!

Definitely a 2l NA engine, older model so 143bhp never felt any thing other than slow also noisy past 5k. In terms of power delivery my wife's old 150CDTI Zafira was much better and on the motorway at least offered similar acceleration in 6th to the Mazda in 4th !

Parkers says 0-60 in 9.9 and a top speed of 121mph.

Yeah, slightly less BHP and torque I think, and a fair bit heavier car by maybe a couple of hundred KG.

Was it something like this? http://www.dwsmithmotors.co.uk/used-cars/mazda-mazda5-2-0-furano-ii-5dr-huntingdon-201509297347523

I take your point though, but yeah I expect to have to change down in an N/A petrol to get power. Just depends how much ;-)

I'm just worried I'll buy it, and then when I have to take 5 people to Peterborough on Sunday (including me) it will barely move.. that's my worry..

Dangerous Dave · 22 Oct 2015 at 12:25

alienmuppet said:
Yeah, slightly less BHP and torque I think, and a fair bit heavier car by maybe a couple of hundred KG.

Was it something like this? http://www.dwsmithmotors.co.uk/used-cars/mazda-mazda5-2-0-furano-ii-5dr-huntingdon-201509297347523

I take your point though, but yeah I expect to have to change down in an N/A petrol to get power. Just depends how much

I'm just worried I'll buy it, and then when I have to take 5 people to Peterborough on Sunday (including me) it will barely move.. that's my worry..

Yeah looks like that, think it is a slightly newer model (car I drove has a private plate).