Mazda 6 2.2D PS129

half empty

(Think I posted this in the wrong forum the first time )

Hi , Can anyone tell me how good the power of PS129 2.2 unit is compared to an Audi A4 or similar? I've read the spec but they often don't tell the real story.
There is one available and I'm thinking of going for it , I know it will be down on power compared to Bhp 163 & 185 engines on 0-62 but for overtaking will there be a big difference?
The reason I'm asking is because there is a similar priced Bhp 163 Mazda 6 2.2D for sale in the U.K, but don't want the hassle at the mo.
My previous car was a 407 1.6 Hdi 110Bhp which I found much too under-powered , and poor for overtaking.

Back in the 90's had a CRX 1.6i 130Bhp ...ah those were the days.

Thanks for your help.

pburns

I reckon you'll have to try drive one to find out - preferably one that has a few thousand miles on and is loosened up. Go test-drive a s/h one perhaps?

Have a look at this also:
http://thenextgear.com/2011/02/27/mazda-6-2-2-ltr-diesel-video-test/

For some unfathomable reason they don't bring the 160bhp model into Ireland - at least I've seen none on driving.ie. The are some decent specs in the current 6 now but 129bhp - on paper at least - is a long way from being competitive with others in the class - especially with a 2.2.

AFAIK the base diesel spec in the forthcoming CX5 is around 150bhp - unless they rustle up a Paddy-spec lo-power special.

johnos1984

I know someone who went from a 170HP diesel to one of these Mazdas and he is very happy with it so far. Lots of power and good for overtaking and cruising.

If you have any questions just ask and I'll find out for you

CiniO

half empty wrote: »

Back in the 90's had a CRX 1.6i 130Bhp ...ah those were the days.

Hence that this CRX was probably about half a weight of your Mazda.

I have a Mazda 6 (2004 so older model) with 2.0 petrol 141 BHP, and it's not really that fast. It's OK for overtaking, but nothing spectacular.

Newer Mazda which you are talking about is about 200kg heavier than mine, so with 129BHP engine, it might be kinda slow

According to data I have, this 129BHP mazda does 0-62 in about 11 seconds, while 163BHP in 9 seconds.
That's a huge difference.

MuppetCheck

The newer six, model on model, is lighter than the old. Mazda cars are getting the emissions down by going light weight. Unless they have a decent spec they can be pretty miserable inside.

CiniO

MuppetCheck wrote: »

The newer six, model on model, is lighter than the old. Mazda cars are getting the emissions down by going light weight. Unless they have a decent spec they can be pretty miserable inside.

That's interesting.
That 129BHP which OP was writing about, weights 1560kg.
Mine (04 Mazda 6 2.0 petrol) weights 1300kg.

MetzgerMeister

CiniO wrote: »

That's interesting.
That 129BHP which OP was writing about, weights 1560kg.
Mine (04 Mazda 6 2.0 petrol) weights 1300kg.

Diesel engines are heavier than petrol because they are made from cast iron.

CiniO

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

Diesel engines are heavier than petrol because they are made from cast iron.

The old Mazda with 2.0 diesel was only 1330 or 1385 kg depending which version was it. Still way lower than current ones.

MetzgerMeister

CiniO wrote: »

The old Mazda with 2.0 diesel was only 1330 or 1385 kg depending which version was it. Still way lower than current ones.

Interesting! Was there a 2.2 diesel in the JMZ models?

CiniO

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

Interesting! Was there a 2.2 diesel in the JMZ models?

No. Only 2.0

MetzgerMeister

It doesn't really make sense, especially for Mazda to make newer models heavier.

Where are you getting these figures?

CiniO

MetzgerMeister wrote: »

It doesn't really make sense, especially for Mazda to make newer models heavier.

Where are you getting these figures?

I have my sources (Polish website) and I don't have any reasons to suspect this data is incorrect.

MetzgerMeister

CiniO wrote: »

I have my sources (Polish website) and I don't have any reasons to suspect this data is incorrect.

I'm not saying that you're wrong, I'm just asking!

@OP - A mod who used be on here recently bought the 2.2D 129bhp.

He said that he was very happy with it and although the power figure is low, it stuck to the road.

Before the 6, he had an Octavia vRS diesel so if he was happy, I don't see why you wouldn't be since you're coming from a 1.6 407

Bobo78

Cinio question for you.
I owned Mazda 6 1.8 petrol untill last year, and I dont know is it just me, but I find that Mazda petrol engines are quite lazy to rev and have quite lazy acceleration say comparing to Vokswagen petrol engines.
They do provide good torque but I was dissapointed with acceleration.
Do you find the same issue with you Mazda?

CiniO

Bobo78 wrote: »

Cinio question for you.
I owned Mazda 6 1.8 petrol untill last year, and I dont know is it just me, but I find that Mazda petrol engines are quite lazy to rev and have quite lazy acceleration say comparing to Vokswagen petrol engines.
They do provide good torque but I was dissapointed with acceleration.
Do you find the same issue with you Mazda?

1.8 is only 120HP, while 2.0 is 141. That makes some difference, and I would probably find 1.8 very slow.

What do you mean by saying they provide good torque? Do you mean the manufacturer spec figures?
In reality those figures say nothing about acceleration, as this is just torque on the engine. What you really need to know is the torque on the wheels, and that depends on transmission ratios.

Those mazda, being big family saloons (or hatchbacks whatever) have quite long gearbox ratios, which allows them to reach quite big speeds (my 2.0 petrol mazda is able to do up to 210km/h) but keeps acceleration, especially at lower speeds quite poor.
But that seems to be common with any car that size.
I remember about 12 years ago, when I had Cinquecento Sporting 1.1 (55BHP) we were doing a little trail with my friend in his Opel Vectra 2.0 petrol (136BHP).
Up to about 60km/h we were accelerating head to head, and only above 60km/h he went to front and I was left far behind.
It's all thanks to low gearbox ratios in Cinquecento Sporting.

half empty

Thanks for the replies , yeah I guess i'll take a spin in one and see ... I feel that 163bhp version looks right for 2.2D and with the minimal saving 138g/km co2 of the 127bhp (129ps) does get me into band B having said that just noticed the newer uk 163 version is now quoted at 140g/km which is also B !.
Also anyone coming from a vRs to a Mazda 6 129Ps and being happy is a great endorsement of it
Off the topic ...the new problem bugging me is if the new VRT system being mentioned will change the current existing system and send motor tax for 2.2's into the old system pricing:(
or does anyone think it will only be for cars registered next year on ?
I know this is a bit of an unknown at the mo.

Regards.

Bobo78

Yeah it was 1.8 (120bhp) petrol version.
I actually didn't mean power from figures (likes magazines and stuff), but actuall power delivery when your driving the car. When your driving the car it has enough power (torque) for overtaking but it just seems that the engine is quite lazy to rev and as well lazy to accelerate quickley.

For example I drive Passat 1.6 (only 102 bhp) petrol B5.5 now and you can notice the lack of power (torque) as soon as you start driving it but defo likes to rev and accelerate comparing to Mazda that I had. It just seems that you can drive it faster comparing to Mazda and it seems much nippier.
But then that could be just a subjective feeling.

But I googled some reviews on internet and I found good few people to have the same opinion regarding acceleration and revving on Mazda.

Regarding gearbox I actually though it has quite short gears beacuse because as soon as pull in 1 st gear you have to change in 2 straight away and you can easily drive it in 4 gear at 50 kph.

Ardennes1944

Sigh.....if only HE was here to provide an opinion on this

Tea 1000

CiniO wrote: »

I have my sources (Polish website) and I don't have any reasons to suspect this data is incorrect.

Can't remember exact figure, but I had a diesel Mazda 6 of that era and the NCT cert showed a figure in the high 1400's for it.

Bobo78 wrote: »

Cinio question for you.
I owned Mazda 6 1.8 petrol untill last year, and I dont know is it just me, but I find that Mazda petrol engines are quite lazy to rev and have quite lazy acceleration say comparing to Vokswagen petrol engines.
They do provide good torque but I was dissapointed with acceleration.
Do you find the same issue with you Mazda?

Bobo78 wrote: »

Yeah it was 1.8 (120bhp) petrol version.
I actually didn't mean power from figures (likes magazines and stuff), but actuall power delivery when your driving the car. When your driving the car it has enough power (torque) for overtaking but it just seems that the engine is quite lazy to rev and as well lazy to accelerate quickley.

For example I drive Passat 1.6 (only 102 bhp) petrol B5.5 now and you can notice the lack of power (torque) as soon as you start driving it but defo likes to rev and accelerate comparing to Mazda that I had. It just seems that you can drive it faster comparing to Mazda and it seems much nippier.
But then that could be just a subjective feeling.

It's more a subjective feeling. That VW engine is an 8 valve unit, and 8 valve engines offer their best at low engine speeds, so regular driving and taking off from stopped etc and anything below around 40mph and the 8 valve engine will feel quicker. But that VW engine and it's 2 litre sibbling were terrible. Push them hard and all you got was a diesel-like harsh unpleasant noise and absolutely nothing happening to the speedo worth mentioning. The Mazda would eat it from about 35mph upwards, or at any speed from around 3k revs up.

OP, I'd recommend buying the 129 model and getting it remapped. You know that engine is good for 185 from factory, so a remapping isn't going to strain it much!

Bobo78

Yeah petrol Volkswagen do inded sound like diesel, it may well be that it's because it's 8 valve engine, my family member had Punto 1.2 8v untill last year and boy that car was fast and nippy

When I sat to drive Mazda 6 after Passat it just seemed to me that Mazda had good acceleration up unitll certain point. Say for example when you suddenly press acceleretor and want to accelerate fast, it just seems that it accelerates very fast and suddenly untill certain speed and then just like takes a pause for 1 or 2 second and then delivers another punch of acceleration and so on.
While in passat it seemd to me that it constantly delivers equil acceleleration.

MetzgerMeister

Bobo78 wrote: »

Yeah petrol Volkswagen do inded sound like diesel, it may well be that it's because it's 8 valve engine

The Mazda6 MPS can often sound like a diesel too for some reason!

r3nu4l

johnos1984 wrote: »

I know someone who went from a 170HP diesel to one of these Mazdas and he is very happy with it so far. Lots of power and good for overtaking and cruising.

If you have any questions just ask and I'll find out for you

On the other hand, I drive a 170PS A3 and only a few weeks ago when hunting for a second car for the house I test drove two Mazda 6 2.2s. I didn't find either to be anywhere near up to par with the 170PS and decided that I couldn't live with it so we walked away and instead bought the 15oPS Nissan Qashqai and find it a much better car (nevermind the fact that the toys and spec are incredible).

If you're coming from a 170PS car to 129 then you'll notice it big time imo, especially if the 170 is a lighter car than the Mazda.

pburns

I went from a 1.8 petrol Mazda 6 to a Legacy diesel and although I liked the Mazda, rate them and would have another one, that engine was disappointing.
Less refined and not as smooth as the Subaru Diesel (I repeat, that's a DIESEL). Having said that they are bullet-proof and torquey.

Why won't Mazda import the 163 if it's the same tax band as the 129? That's just numbskullery... A 163 6 in Sport spec with leather etc would be a great competitor to the much vaunted Superb (for those who don't need oil tanker proportions).

Jaysus i hope they don't bring in a CC-based system. That just makes a pariah out of cars just over a nominal cut-off point. I'd prefer to see a sliding-scale system as well - perhaps based on car class or dimensions.

r3nu4l

r3nu4l wrote: »

............. I test drove two Mazda 6 2.2s. I didn't find either to be anywhere near up to par with the 170PS and decided that I couldn't live with it so we walked away and instead bought the 15oPS Nissan Qashqai and find it a much better car...........

Do you rate handling at all?

gyppo

pburns wrote: »

Why won't Mazda import the 163 if it's the same tax band as the 129? That's just numbskullery... A 163 6 in Sport spec with leather etc would be a great competitor to the much vaunted Superb (for those who don't need oil tanker proportions).

I drove a 163 version one of these a few months ago, and thought it was a lovely drive. I can't figure out why its not available in this country either.

Jaysus i hope they don't bring in a CC-based system. That just makes a pariah out of cars just over a nominal cut-off point. I'd prefer to see a sliding-scale system as well - perhaps based on car class or dimensions.

Thats a fear I would have too. The CC target is an easy one, and probably the simplest one to implement by our simple-minded government.

Tragedy

r3nu4l wrote: »

On the other hand, I drive a 170PS A3 and only a few weeks ago when hunting for a second car for the house I test drove two Mazda 6 2.2s. I didn't find either to be anywhere near up to par with the 170PS and decided that I couldn't live with it so we walked away and instead bought the 15oPS Nissan Qashqai and find it a much better car (nevermind the fact that the toys and spec are incredible).

If you're coming from a 170PS car to 129 then you'll notice it big time imo, especially if the 170 is a lighter car than the Mazda.

The 127hp Mazda 6 has (almost!) the same peak torque as the Audi A3 168hp so subjectively should 'feel' as fast in most driving situtations - it's only when you drive hard that you would notice a different e.g. A3 max power comes at 4200rpm(210 lb-ft) while Mazda 6 is at 3500rpm(190lb-ft).

r3nu4l

RoverJames wrote: »

Do you rate handling at all?

Well it's a second car and it's for taking our daughter to nursery where my wife works which is a 35 mile commute, 33 of which are on dual/triple carraigeway...no need for great handling there!

Also our Qashqai has very comfy heated leather seats, cruise control, panoramic sunroof, a slightly higher driving position, bluetooth etc., which makes the trip extremely comfortable. That on top of the massively high safety ratings meant it was the best buy for us. The 150PS is greater than the 129 in the 2.2 Mazda so makes lane changes and overtaking more bearable.

So for our circumstances the Qashqai was the best buy and handling was very unimportant.

However, despite all of that, I drove both the Mazda 6 2.2s on the same day, on windy country roads (rural Essex dealer) and still felt it was a car I couldn't live with. I was disappointed that I didn't like the Mazda 6 because I think it's a very good looking car.

Nonoperational

My old fella has the 129PS, and before this he had the 2.0 (143ps I think). The older car definitely had some more raw power, but also had more turbo lag before the boost kicked in. The new one is perfectly fine. It's quite smooth and to be honest it's quite a nice drive. I drive a 200hp Golf and I'm certainly not tearing my hair out driving the 6. I suppose it depends how much influence you place on power but it certainly has plenty for day to day driving. I could see myself driving one to be honest, I think they're a real underrated car. They look good, are cheap enough, reliable... I wouldn't put anyone off one.

CiniO

Tragedy wrote: »

The 127hp Mazda 6 has (almost!) the same peak torque as the Audi A3 168hp so subjectively should 'feel' as fast in most driving situtations - it's only when you drive hard that you would notice a different e.g. A3 max power comes at 4200rpm(210 lb-ft) while Mazda 6 is at 3500rpm(190lb-ft).

Your torque figures won't tell you anything, until consider gear ratios (and tyre size). Only then you will get a torque figure on the wheels, which will acutally tell you exactly what acceleration car has.

Tragedy

CiniO wrote: »

Your torque figures won't tell you anything, until consider gear ratios (and tyre size). Only then you will get a torque figure on the wheels, which will acutally tell you exactly what acceleration car has.

We already know the Audi A3 accelerates faster than any of the Mazda 6's, acceleration often has little to do with how subjectively fast a car feels. Diesels usually feel faster than petrols, and turbos faster than N/A car.

At least in my experience!

Bobo78

r3nu4l wrote: »

Well it's a second car and it's for taking our daughter to nursery where my wife works which is a 35 mile commute, 33 of which are on dual/triple carraigeway...no need for great handling there!

Also our Qashqai has very comfy heated leather seats, cruise control, panoramic sunroof, a slightly higher driving position, bluetooth etc., which makes the trip extremely comfortable. That on top of the massively high safety ratings meant it was the best buy for us. The 150PS is greater than the 129 in the 2.2 Mazda so makes lane changes and overtaking more bearable.

So for our circumstances the Qashqai was the best buy and handling was very unimportant.

However, despite all of that, I drove both the Mazda 6 2.2s on the same day, on windy country roads (rural Essex dealer) and still felt it was a car I couldn't live with. I was disappointed that I didn't like the Mazda 6 because I think it's a very good looking car.

Can I ask you why didnt you like the Mazda? What were the things that were putting you off the car?

MetzgerMeister

Tragedy wrote: »

We already know the Audi A3 accelerates faster than any of the Mazda 6's

No it doesn't :P

r3nu4l

Bobo78 wrote: »

Can I ask you why didnt you like the Mazda? What were the things that were putting you off the car?

It was partly a comfort thing and partly a 'quality of interior' thing. For us the car was always going to be a commuting buggy, doing a minimum of 350 miles a week in it with my wife being the main driver and me in the other car.

We both felt that the steering wasn't as responsive as we would like and there was too much play in the wheel (on both cars we tested). This was the case with both cars we tried. I thought the interior looked cheap and to be fair, they are a cheap car. That much I really liked!

Comfort wise, no amount of steering column adjustment and seat adjustment felt right to me and the seats weren't particularly comfortable. The ride itself was okay but I just felt the car was 'dull'. More importantly, my wife felt the same and as she was going to be the main driver, she had to feel comfortable in the car.

There was nothing particularly 'wrong' with the Mazda 6, especially for the price but for us it just wasn't right. Bear in mind too that my opinion could be coloured by the particular cars I drove, both were previously company cars driven by salesmen...

As for the A3 being 'faster' than the 129, I can't comment on that, I'm sure that on the 0-60 it is faster accelerating and probably at higher speeds too, mid range, I dunno. However, I think that because mine is a quattro that probably means I'm a little spoilt in terms of better handling than in a regular FWD A3 and therefore perhaps not as impressed by the Mazda as I might otherwise have been.

I still love the look of the 6, especially the facelifted version! Then again, I love the look of the insignia too!

half empty

Well as promised today I got to drive the Mazda 6. Initial impressions are that it did look quite sporty (Being the Sports model!). Very well put together and solid - very nice door close sound as per Honda..good layout in cabin, plenty of extras.... more so than 407.
Now for driving.I i would describe it as gusty but not fast...It meets expectations in terms of take off and is good on overtaking - I think that the new engine (PS129) is targeted more-so in terms of making use of the torque and gear change at speed while making the best in terms of emissions.
The only real negative was road noise! .. My wife found it real noisy as I guess those low profile 18" tires didn't help. But road noise was well above that of a normal car and did at least remind me of the CRX ! Hard suspension which makes the car feel agile and precise has it's downsides.
The jury is still out on this one as of today.

Thanks to everyone who has given responses....All info/ experience is of value.
I like to try to get it right first time.

MetzgerMeister

You could always get smaller alloys for it?

half empty

TBH I'm at my maximum spend on this as it is. I don't fancy on spending on alloys that may improve something that is prevalent...as that is guess work.
Don't get me wrong road noise is not a major problem to me as it helps tell the road surface I'm driving on , but as my wife will be using this car mainly ,for driving the kids around I have to bare this in mind.
As far a longevity is concerned I would put my money on this car.

bazz26

Only the Sport model comes with the stiffer suspension and 18" alloy wheels. Why not test drive a different model?

Leonard Hofstadter

bazz26 wrote: »

Only the Sport model comes with the stiffer suspension and 18" alloy wheels. Why not test drive a different model?

+1. They'll be more comfortable with the smaller wheels and (presumably) softer suspension, plus the fact that they'll be quieter because of the smaller wheels. Larger wheels look better and usually result in better handling and grip, but in fairness a standard car with 17 inch wheels should have more than enough handling prowess and loads of grip - it's a front wheel drive diesel saloon not a sports car after all.