2008 Mazda6 Classic Wagon Review
28 Nov, 2008
66 Comments 
2008 Mazda6 Classic Wagon Review & Road Test
It’s so good looking that adult supervision is needed at all times
Model Tested:
- 2008 Mazda Mazda6 Classic Wagon five-speed automatic - $35,490(RRP)
Options:
- None fitted.
Gorgeous styling; pricing; safety features; interior room
Lack of power at times; no rear parking sensors
CarAdvice Rating: 
(4.25)
- by Paul Maric
When the first pictures of the new Mazda6 hit the web, motoring journalists were collectively stunned at what can only be described as a damn sexy car.
The sculpted front end, along with flowing lines really drew attention to this family trooper. With that said, the car has been a massive sales success in Australia, the previous generation sold well and the new generation is selling even better.
I adopted a Copper Red Mazda6 Classic Wagon for the week to see what all the fuss was about. Every single angle is flattering, including the rear, which is not generally the norm with stationwagons.
Mazda only sells the Mazda6 Wagon in one grade – Classic – due to the wagon only making up around 10 percent of monthly sales. This means that you can’t option up any of the fancy features inside or outside the car. It is well equipped as standard, but it would be nice to fit it out with leather and the like.
Interior build quality is very impressive. All the plastics feel rigid and well placed. The dashboard has a good feel to it and the seat trimmings are nice to look at, as well as sit on.
Rear leg room is quite good for a mid-sized wagon, so fitting kids is an easy experience. Entry into the rear is also easy, another important factor when hauling kids.
Visibility is great through the windscreen, but not so good when looking back. Parking is tricky – mainly due to the lack of rear parking sensors, a massive oversight in a family wagon. You can never be too safe when it comes to kids, parking sensors and reverse cameras are features which can’t be ignored in this sector, especially when you consider they’re not even an option on the Wagon.
The tailgate has a clever cargo blind arrangement which lifts with the tailgate, meaning that your goodies can’t be seen by would-be thieves.
What’s it like to drive then? Well it’s a mixed bag really. There are times when the engine needs to be revved out to move up hills with a full load on board, but, once things are moving it’s generally a pleasant experience.
At higher speeds, the car tends to bounce around a bit, mainly due to the comfort biased suspension setup. With that said, the steering feels good at all speeds. It is lightly weight at slow speeds, but firms up as the car picks up speed.
The five-speed automatic transmission seems to know which gear is appropriate and never needs to be pushed hard to drop down gears for hill climbs.
Under the bonnet, the Mazda6 uses a 2.5-litre, 125kW, 226Nm, four-cylidner engine. Fuel consumption, according to the ADR regulations, is a miserly 8.9-litres/100km, which I was able to match during the test. Beware of minimum 95RON petrol requirements.
When it comes to handling, this wagon will leave you pretty impressed. Turn-in is sharp and precise, it carries through a bend with confidence but will understeer if you are too heavy handed when entering the corner. Brake pedal feel is uniform and instils confidence when stretching the ‘6’s legs.
The Mazda6 range comes in Hatch, Sedan and Wagon. Pricing begins at $27,990 for the Limited Sedan and maxes out at $42,990 for the Luxury Sports Hatch. The Classic Wagon being tested retails for $35,490.
A long list of standard safety features had me impressed. These include: Electronic Stability Control; driver and front passenger airbags; driver and front passenger side airbags; front and rear passenger curtain airbags; traction control and front active head restraints.
The stability control is a bit intrusive when taking off in the wet. Uphill stretches of road leave the front wheels scampering for traction, so it becomes a bit awkward when trying to clear out of traffic in a hurry. This is of course a disadvantage most front-wheel-drive vehicles encounter.
Although it hasn’t been officially tested by the EuroNCAP body or our local ANCAP body, the Mazda6 has achieved five-stars in American crash tests.
The new Mazda6 really amazed me. Although the engine lacked in some instances, the rest of the package well and truly made up for it. I thoroughly enjoyed driving the car and it would make the perfect addition to a busy family.
A diesel engine (which is on the way) would make this the perfect family car. The extra torque and mid-range pickup will really help the Mazda6 in a big way. It will also see even better fuel consumption figures – which can only be a good thing.
The pricing, along with horde of safety features demolish the competition in a big way. A test drive will have you sold – guaranteed.
CarAdvice Overall Rating:
How does it Drive: 
How does it Look:
How does it Go:
Specifications:
- Engine: 2488cc inline four-cylinder
- Power: 125kW @ 6000rpm
- Torque: 226Nm @ 4000rpm
- Induction: Naturally aspirated
- Transmission: Five-speed automatic
- Differential/Driven Wheels: Front-wheel-drive
- Brakes: ABS brakes with EBD and BA
- Top Speed: N/A
- 0-100km/h: N/A
- 0-400m: N/A
- CO2 Emissions: N/A
- Fuel Consumption: 8.9-litres/100km
- Fuel Tank Capacity: 64-litres
- Fuel Type: 95RON premium unleaded
- ANCAP Rating: N/A
- Airbags: Eight
- Safety: Dynamic stability control with traction control
- Spare Wheel: Full-size alloy
- Tow Capacity: 1500kg (braked), 550kg (unbraked)
- Turning Circle: 11.0m
- Warranty: 3-years/unlimited km
- Weight: 1507kg
- Wheels-Tyres: 17-inch alloy -215/50 R17 91W
Location: Home / Mazda, Behind the Wheel, Diesel / ...
Rate Post: 
(9 votes, average: 3.22 out of 5)
Loading ...
-
Print it:
November 28th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
It is a good looking wagon, but I think I would rather a Mondeo, an Insignia or a V50. I could get a diesel in all of those and I think they look better, especially the Insignia.
(Report)
November 28th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
I generally agree with the review as I test drove this with my dad and brother. The car is very good except for one thing..
The rear seat is SOO bumpy! Me and my dad sat at the back in turns and we both agree it was bumpy. Not good.
We tested the hatch after that to see if it was as bumpy but it wasn’t. Oh well.
(Report)
November 28th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
I have noticed allot on the road, mazda must be very pleased if the wagon makes up 10% of its sales.
(Report)
November 28th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
looks good, dont like the rear view of the boot, too overstyled imo, liberty wagon still looks better i think and has awd, so no torque steer or wheel spin, and much safer handling!!
(Report)
November 28th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
I would go for the Volvo V-60 particularly as you get all the things you would expect in a modern car such as ABS EBD T/C C/C; AWD; as well as a few innovative features including Blind-Spot Warning System; Distance Braking Control etc not to mention Volvo’s Legendary safety,
(Report)
November 28th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
the 6 is a great combination of value, style, quality ect but its true, it lacks the wow factor of the previous gen.
id rather a mondeo wagon, honda euro tourer if it were available or a suby liberty wagon.
Skoda Octavia would be worth a look to.
to me the 6 is now, i hate to say it, but all to familiar and bland.
(Report)
November 28th, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Wheelnut:
The V-60 is very nice, but isn’t that a $60,000+ vehicle.
Mondeo looks the part, but again does anybody have a price on it?
(Report)
November 28th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Agreed Frenchie,
its important to compare apples with apples and as Paul Maric said it will knock off direct competitors.
That said, I wouldn’t even consider test driving it. Not until they have a diesel auto or turbo petrol and more options available. Looks aren’t bad however I can’t help feeling it is less attractive than its predecessor. Running on min 95 RON isn’t a good thing either unless they could have put a low-boost turbo in. I still can’t understand why turbo engines aren’t more common. Manufacturing doesn’t need to be much dearer and efficiency gains can be fantastic.
(Report)
November 28th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
Frenchie: I admit there is a considerable differnece in terms of Price However; you get what you pay for….
I mean by the time you add the various options available on the Mazda such as the BOSE Stereo [ and others which are standard on its rivals] you would probably be closer to $50K.. and as Cameron says the Mazda doesn’t have a Turbo unlike a number of its rivals including the Volvo.
Then there’s the fact the Volvo comes with AWD which gives you more assurity and control in slippery conditions…. and the Blind Spot Warning System and Braking Distance Control system on the Volvo are new innovations which [as far as I am aware] aren’t on any of its rivals - That’s why my fiance and I are looking at the Volvo
(Report)
November 28th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
I’d rather take the Laguna Estate, which is a very stylish car itself… Also a lot more premium feel to it. Loaded with standard kit and as with nearly all Renaults - 5-Star safety rating. I still do like this Mazda though. Nice.
Steve
(Report)
November 28th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Nice wagon but underpowered.Premium unleaded for no benefit it would seem.
(Report)
November 28th, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Nice car I suppose, but a few crucial things.
Firstly, if the wagona ccounts for 10% of 6 sales, why the heck is there no manual or any other spec apart from the Classic?
Secondly, a car with not very special performance that only runs on premium fuel is abit disappointing.
If it were my money I’d buy a Skoda Octavia 1.8TFSI or 2.0TDI wagon - both have either more power and/or torque plus they are much better value and I’d know, because I bouth one…though it was the fancy RS version which goes like the clappers!
Why are Mazda Oz so slack to their base wagon?
(Report)
November 28th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Wheelnut,
I agree that the Volvo is a great proposition.
much better interior and comfort too (you forgot that)
but please, just please dont become like that tool on the G6ET post and rant on how a BMW at 3 times the price is better because its got “Lane change assist” or as Volvo say “Blind spot Warning”
into perspective please.
yes you do get what you pay for (age old saying, and i say it a lot), BUT…….. what about getting all you can pay for????
some cant afford to pay double the asking price of the Mazda, but im sure they are still getting good kit for their loot.
double the price is a lot considering Volvo dont give you 10 wheels, 2 engines and trannys or 10 seats.
put a price on all the extra features and im sure it wouldnt equal the premium.
yes the Volvo is a great car, but i know you are smarter than that
(Report)
November 28th, 2008 at 8:04 pm
The (hopefully) upcoming Mondeo wagon is a much better proposition. Having seen and driven the 2.2l diesel, i think Ford will have trouble keeping up with demand. For wagons like these, you really do need that low down torque for day to day driving.
But at this point in time, we will just have to wait as Mazda and the like are introducing these tempting wagons and wait patiently for the mondeo!
(Report)
November 28th, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Mazda have just released the 2.2 diesel here (UK) it the engine i’d go for. Especially having driven 2.2d Mondeo and the 2.2X-type jag recently is was pretty impressed at the performance which pretty much match my 3.0CDTi Vectra.
Alex - you made note of the Insignia wagon - great car but sadly lacking in space compared to the voluminous Vectra. Apparently with the back seats down it has 300litres less space then the current Vectra. A BIG backward move I think.
(Report)
November 28th, 2008 at 9:46 pm
Hey CA, I was wondering if you could also add a power to weight ratio, like X number of kilos per kilowatt, to the bottom where it has all the other technical info.
(Report)
November 28th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
I mean just in general when you review any cars, just to clarify.
(Report)
November 28th, 2008 at 11:07 pm
The question is Cupid, how big is the Insignias boot next to the Mazda? Why are people talking about a car that doesn’t exist? There is no Volvo V60. The is a V50, which is priced about the same as this, a V70 which is more in competition with the Audi A6 Avant and BMW 5 Series Touring and the XC60 which is a compact SUV that is not in competition with this. It’s the V50 that people should be talking about as it’s in the same size class and it’s also in the same price class. i saw an ad for it the other day that said it started from $42,950 which isn’t much more than this and you see deals on them all the time. It also looks much better and will hold it’s value.
(Report)
November 28th, 2008 at 11:36 pm
The Volvo V50 is significantly smaller than the 6 wagon. The V40/V50 are small cars - based on the Ford Focus platform, and are about the same size. Compare lengths - V50: 4514mm, 6: 4765mm. Big difference - 250mm. The 6 is also a little wider.
(Report)
November 29th, 2008 at 1:35 am
In the test the drivers seat is not mentioned.
The seat base is very flat and does not have a range of movement at the front to lift the cushion as in the higher spec sedans or hatch or the previous model’s wagon.
I could not get comfortable in the wagon in the seat due to this omission and the lack of leather was also a turn off.
Unfortunately the upper spec hatches and sedans which had the good electric seats also had sunroofs and my head hit the roof. We were looking at buying a wagon but the fact I couldn’t get comfortable was a deal breaker.
You need to look at your spec’s Mazda as omissions such as these are turning away buyers.
(Report)
November 29th, 2008 at 7:35 am
Most Mazda dealers offer aftermarket leather in the 6 wagon for $2500 fitted. This includes the seats, door trim inserts, console lid and gear shift knob. Seat warmers are $750 extra. The quality is every bit as good as the Mazda leather and you get to choose from a wide range of colours and textures. This is also available a most other car makes as well.
Foprd have said the Mondeo wagon is not coming to Australia as the demand ius too low.
The Mazda 6 disel is not going to be available with auto trans until 2012 at the earliest. This was stated by Mazda Australia’s MD some weeks ago in an interview. Mazda say they don’t have the sales in USA to justify it (they get a 3.0litre V6 and diesel is not polular) and Europeans don’t buy auto’s in enough volume to make it viable yet. This will also effect the CX7 diesel as well.
(Report)
November 29th, 2008 at 8:12 am
i just cant see why someone would want an auto with a diesel - a manual would get better fuel economy and would be much better matched to the engine. The VW/every other VW-owned company except Lambo and Bentley DSG is apparently the only auto that is really suited to a diesel engine.
apparently the honda accord euro diesel is being released next year as auto only which is incerdibly stupid. Yes there will be alot of auto sales, but what about the proportion of real drivers who can actually want and can drive a manual? It doesnt cost them any money for cars that arent even brought into the country….
(Report)
November 29th, 2008 at 12:19 pm
^Jake there is nothing wrong with having a choice of an autobox, the Mazda6 diesel launched soon will be manual only. As for the Accord Euro diesel, I’ve heard that it too will be manual only, if launched in Australia, as they currently is no auto option. I doubt Honda would only opt for an auto only.
(Report)
November 29th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
I don’t get why anyone would want a diesel in the first place, let alone an auto diesel. Just stick the 3.7L V6 in there from the CX-9 (and the US Mazda6) - plenty of power and torque, problem solved.
(Report)
November 29th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Small detail, but one that would constantly annoy me with this car, is the fact the hand brake is on the passenger side of the car. I expect all the controls to be oriented for me as the driver, not the passenger. Any manufacturer that breaks that rule, looses a sale from me from the start.
The fact the previous generation didn’t have this fault, makes it all the more obvious that its cost cutting that has decided this.
All that aside it’s an ok looking car, but not as sporty as the original ones and I hate to say this as I like Mazdas (I own one), but the front end looks way too much like a Toyota Aurian for its own good. Its just an ok car, not as good in its strengths as the original series Mazda 6 wagon. You just can’t get excited about this generation.
Hopefully the new Mazda 3 will be better.
Dan
(Report)
November 29th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Mark Greenburg, it isn’t problem solved because the 3.7 V6 uses about 14 of 15 liters of fuel per 100kms (and that’s not even in the city) and a nice 2.2 4 cylinder diesel would use about 6 or 7 liters per 100kms. And you’d probably get more torque from the diesel.
Jake02, a good diesel is actually often better with an automatic. The high up BMW diesels (the only ones i’ve driven) all work better with an automatic, same with Mercedes and Audi. And as you said, the Volkswagen ones are also really good. Renault and Peugeot do it well. It’s only really the really crappy diesels that are better with a manual and they’re not usually nice engines to start with.
(Report)
November 29th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
If I needed a wagon and I like driving a manual a diesel 6 would be the first on my list. For what you get in the Classic package 6 wagon is not bad against what is offered at the same price and yes it would be nice to up spec or even have a limited for the sales teams….
It has a modern look for a wagon and Mazda have tried to keep it simply. Now let me think here isn’t a wagon usually a family hauler and not a dragster…
and this guy would not be caught dead in a bloody Volvo regardless how they have evolved
Well done Mazda and lets hope that your turbo diesel 6 wagon attracts the buyers.
(Report)
November 29th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
Alex, you’re wrong. Diesel only offers 25-30% better fuel efficiency than a petrol engine. The 3.7L V6 would use approx. 10L/100km combined cycle, if other similar V6s are anything to go by.
(Report)
November 29th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Alex,
i find it hard to believe the 3.7 V6 uses 15L/100k on the open road.
come on, there aint no wool being pulled over these eyes
the mazda diesel would achieve similar to the mondeo, so expect low 7’s.
you could expect high 9’s for the 3.7L V6.
only looking at about a 25% saving as mark says.
with diesel asking on average a 30% premium on price at the bowser, plus the initial purchase premium, diesel wont save your pocket.
(Report)
November 30th, 2008 at 12:36 am
Perhaps he’s thinking of the 3.7L V6 in the CX-9 - which could very well come close to that figure due to the vehicle’s size/weight. The same engine in the 6 would be more economical, obviously. That said, a family member who has a E320 (3.2L V6) Mercedes has a trip computer which read outs an average of 18L/100km.
(Report)
November 30th, 2008 at 3:19 am
Andrew M, I read a review in The Australian recently for the Mazda CX 9 and they said that although a good car, in town it used as much as 20 liters per 100kms and the open road wasn’t much better. In fact, I think I have read that it officially uses about 15 liters per 100k, not sure though.
Mark Greenburg, why would you write “10L/100km combined cycle, if other similar V6s are anything to go by” and then one comment later say that a family members E320 used 18 liters per 100k? You can say a diesel only saves 25 to 30 percent but the 2.0 diesel Mazda 6 gets 50.4 MPG which is about 6 or 7 liters per 100k. I think you would find that the 3.7 liter V6 would still be quite thirsty in the 6, probably around the 12-14 liter per 100k mark because it’s just generally a thirsty engine.
Apart from anything, this ones already using 8.9 liters per 100k and it’s only a 2.5 4 cylinder.
(Report)
November 30th, 2008 at 3:26 am
Actually Mark, I have just realized something - the 25 - 30 percent economy saving is probably right but that would be against a petrol of the same size (2.0 4 cylinder petrol v. 2.0 4 cylinder diesel) so for instance, the 2.2 diesel that has just come out over seas probably has about the same amount of torque as the 3.7 V6 petrol, but with smaller engine size and much better economy.
(Report)
November 30th, 2008 at 5:58 am
Ok Alex, fair point, so against a 3.7L V6 the smaller diesel might gain another 10% efficiency… or around 35%. It’s still not a huge advantage.
(Report)
November 30th, 2008 at 10:04 am
A V6 will cost more to register year on year. The fact mazda opted for a 4 cylinder in all its 6’s would suggest that the V6 isn’t a viable option. Not sure it would even fit!
It is a wagon option for would-be camry buyers. As already stated, it’s running 95 RON which closes the price gap a little more on diesel. Mazda know people want a diesel option thats why they have had one and there are more comming. Lots of people want an auto for an every-day driver. The problem has been mating the huge torque of the diesel to the transmission. So much so that the manual box used with the diesel engine was lifted from the MPS.
(Report)
November 30th, 2008 at 10:14 am
Alex,
have a look at the 4cyl camry and 6cyl camry fuel consumption figures. that shows that a V6 isnt always thirstier than the 4cyl equivalent..
a V6 wont struggle as much as a 4cyl pushing the mazda6 around so i wouldnt expect a spike of near double as you suggest.
the consumption in the CX9 probably isnt much to go off as its a much bigger car
(Report)
November 30th, 2008 at 10:51 am
A friend has this exact wagon albeit with 20″ chromes but it is still a nice car - tyre roar can be quite load but I attribute that to the low profile tyres China tyres. I feel the dash is very well put together for it’s price, much better than the 3 - if you press on some of the plastics in the 3 they do seem a little loose. Soft touch parts everywhere but I am not a fan of the monocolour of it. Stereo is less confusing than the 3 as well. NVH is definitely improved in this new 6. I really do like the cargo lift cover (like the hatchback at the back).
I did notice however, that the centre console dash, where the gearbox extends too, seems very wide and it is in fact very easy for your left leg to rest against it. I have not sat in the drivers seat but if the 3 is anything to go by - I find it too narrow on the left side and my left leg is always resting against the console (makes it feel cramped). Also, the driver’s rear quater window (the last window) has the anti-fog thing, but the other side doesn’t? Why is this?
(Report)
November 30th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
Daniel Darcy, I agree the handbrake on the passenger side is annoying, however I dunno if it is an example of cost-cutting to suite the LHD market. Because if you look at the LHD Mazda 6, the handbrake is on the right side. Why Mazda did this, I have no idea, they definitely should have known better.
(Report)
November 30th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
wow.. very cool
(Report)
November 30th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Better access to the cup holders? Since lots of people like to drive and drink coffee?
(Report)
November 30th, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Does the Mazda 6 wagon have a larger or smaller luggage space than the Holden Commodore Sportwagon?
(Report)
November 30th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
“Although it hasn’t been officially tested by the EuroNCAP body or our local ANCAP body, the Mazda6 has achieved five-stars in American crash tests.”
But is the American Crash Testing Mob tests easier to pass than the ANCAP Tests?
P.S. What is the American Crash testing mob called? eg. you’ve got ANCAP and EuroNCAP etc.
(Report)
November 30th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
Love the look of this. I’ve been happy with how well the sedan goes and Mazda now have one of the better looking wagons on the market.
(Report)
November 30th, 2008 at 4:48 pm
have just got rid of a rubbish ve sv6,replaced it with a 6 wagon.i am so impressed with this car.its a joy to drive and the build quality is superb.no more holdens ever.
(Report)
November 30th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
This car is a lot better looking than anything else in its class (thats currently sold in oz).
The diesel thats about to go on sale makes i think about 136kw and 400nm and Mazda are expecting about 5.9l/100km. Very impressive i reckon.
(Report)
November 30th, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Falcodore said “This car is a lot better looking than anything else in its class (thats currently sold in oz).” True, but if you think about it, there aren’t any other wagon variants in the 6’s class on sale in Australia. In Europe, the Passat, 407, Laguna and C5 are sold as family cars. In Australia, they’re sold as Euro luxury sedans and wagons and are much more expensive than Japanese ones. The previously listed cars all start at about the same price as the 6 in Europe and it all seems to be knocked out of balance here so all the competing wagons start at a much higher price. I think Honda should really get onto bringing the Accord wagon to Australia, same with Ford and the Mondeo.
(Report)
November 30th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
^^^^Same with Holden (Opel), the Igsinia or whatever it’s called!
(Report)
November 30th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
Alex: Honda sold the previous model Accord “Aerodeck” wagon in Australia.. and it was about as popular as syphilus.
(Report)
November 30th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Duck - I’d say the American equivalent of ANCrAP is US-CrAP…!
(Report)
November 30th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
To BM, I had never heard of the Accord Aerodeck until just then, so I did a Google image search on it and that’s not the previous generation, thats years ago! And back then you didn’t get Honda quality or even the tiny bit of prestige Honda has now, it was ugly and undesirable. The new accord wagon, although not quite as good looking as the Mazda, is a nice looking desirable and classy estate and it apparently drives very very well. Honda seems to have a much larger market for all their cars in Australia now and I think, along with a lot of other people from this website that have made comments in the past, that it would sell well.
PS - It’s spelt syphilis.
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 11:07 am
CA says:
“The stability control is a bit intrusive when taking off in the wet.”
C’mon CA, get it right! You’re talking about traction control there, not stability control!!!
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 11:16 am
Duck Says:
“What is the American Crash testing mob called? eg. you’ve got ANCAP and EuroNCAP etc.”
A little bit of Google or maybe Wikipedia research would’ve answered that question for you - NHTSA.
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 11:55 am
VW Freak:
The stability control incorporates traction control in its operation.
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 12:53 pm
I can’t help drawing a comparison here to the VW R36 wagon and its ilk. I know the 6 isn’t in the same league but both vehicles target identical tasks. Families.
At a smidge over ½ the $$ of an R36 I think the Mazda6 offers sufficient quality, ride, handling, performance,economy,looks and features that anyone expects a family wagon to offer with the bonus of a $33grand saving!
Sure, it maybe no rocket ship with as many toys but most child chariots don’t need to be.
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Have one and it is brilliant. Got aftermarket leather through the dealer for $2K including doors which sets it off! for
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 4:53 pm
WVB:
Sorry, but the Mazda6 wagon offers to comparison against the R36.
The R36 feels totally different in terms of the ride and handling, the engine and gearbox is totally different, as is the level of features.
The Mazda6 is certainly superb value for money, but it’s certainly not comparing apples with apples.
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Paul’s right and that’s exactly what one would expect and hope I think. I wouldn’t want to get an R36 and have people drawing comparisons to a Mazda wagon and I don’t think they would.
It’s like when I first came to Australia a couple of years ago, there were ads on the television for Wheels magazine saying that the V Series Commodore was as good if not better than a BMW 5 Series. Well you can imagine what image that gave me of Australia almost straight away. No Commodore will ever be as good as a 5 Series and it turned out it wasn’t because I had to rent one once.
Anyway, the point is that just as you can’t compare a Commodore to a 5 Series, you can’t compare a 6 Wagon to an R36.
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 6:23 pm
No manual gearbox, no AWD and needs to run on premium fuel for a std not overly powerful 4cyl, plus one model only. Thats anough reasons for me not to buy one..
(Report)
December 1st, 2008 at 8:23 pm
when thecommodor3e was brand new it rivaled the 5 sereies.2 years on it has aged horribly and the interior is terrible compared to others in its class.Yet the 5 sereies though older is still better than the commodore.
(Report)
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:27 am
O, that comment doesn’t make any sense. Both cars have gone unchanged since the latest Commodore came out so how is it that it used to rival the 5 Series, but not any more? Even so, I had to rent a Commodore once a couple of years ago and it was a V Series and I thought it was truly horrible. No spirit. I had been driving a 525i a couple of months before and I would have paid anything for that car back. The 525i was the previous generation and it was still so much better!
(Report)
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:07 am
WVB you are right 6 v R36 is no comparrison - they are like cheese and chalk. Drive an R36 and you’ll confirm your thoughts. The 2.0 diesel tho is fantastic in DSG (that’s auto in VW speak) for $42k. Is quicker than manual, you get enough torque, awesome economy and you can get leather too …. or try the Skoda Octavia. That’s great value for money.
(Report)
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:59 am
Why try to compare an R36 with a Mazda6? However, the diesel with DSG is not too far above the Mazda in price but the extras in the VW certainly make up for it. Also I believe the VW is a better drive with more room and better economy.
OR - go a little extra (around $2.5K ) and get the 125kW 350Nm diesel - now there is a nice car to drive. I wish it came in 4Motion, though.
(Report)
December 2nd, 2008 at 11:03 am
On another point - why all the talk about Volvo V60 and Mondeo wagons … I have checked both the Volvo and Ford sites and neither vehicle is available in Oz.
(Report)
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Peter neither Mondeo or V60 wagons are available in Oz at the Moment.. However; both are expected to be here by March next year..which isn’t rally that far away.
So it would make sense for those in the market for a medium sized sedan to look at what will be available in the current months and decide whether or not they shoulfd hold off until then or go ahead and buy a car from the current crop
My fiance has done so and as a result is leaning more towards the Volvo.. I suggest you read the article in the current issue of Wheels and you’ll see the V60 is an impressive bit of kit
Sure the Volvo V50/V60 may cost more than the Mazda 6 but by the time you add all the various options on the Mazda which these days you would expect to be standard [ as they are on the Volvo ] but unfortunately aren’t.. you would be pretty close to the same price as the Volvo
The Volvo also has a number of unique special features that no other car in its class does which I expect maybe one day you will see on other cars including the Mazda.
(Report)
December 11th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Just to clarify a few things here. The author stated that parking sensors are not available. They are actually, my new 6 Wagon got them and it was through the Mazda website.
Also as for the handbrake being on the left hand side I find this configuration better as it allows me to grab things from the cupholders without intrusion. Love my 6 Wagon.. only wish Sat Nav was an option
(Report)
December 11th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
SNC:
Right you are.
It’s not listen on the options list, you have to go through the configurator to find the details.
(Report)
December 18th, 2008 at 12:37 am
i asked for park assist on my new wagon and was quoted $1100 yet the mazda website says $326.darwin prices?so no park assist
(Report)