> Mazda 3 - ok but I like the Mazda 6 better

Did you look at mazdaspeed 6 or you have made your mind and
the desire to get a 6 pot boat anchor is cast in stone?
Mazda is the only one that offers standard transmission with
any powerplant in case you like to row.
And according to the reviews their 2.3L 4s are silky smoooth.

 

> Mazda 3 - ok but I like the Mazda 6 better

Did you look at mazdaspeed 6 or you have made your mind and
the desire to get a 6 pot boat anchor is cast in stone?
Mazda is the only one that offers standard transmission with
any powerplant in case you like to row.
And according to the reviews their 2.3L 4s are silky smoooth.

 

> Mazda 3 - ok but I like the Mazda 6 better

Did you look at mazdaspeed 6 or you have made your mind and
the desire to get a 6 pot boat anchor is cast in stone?
Mazda is the only one that offers standard transmission with
any powerplant in case you like to row.
And according to the reviews their 2.3L 4s are silky smoooth.

 

Body Roll wrote:
>> Mazda 3 - ok but I like the Mazda 6 better
>
>
> Did you look at mazdaspeed 6 or you have made your mind and
> the desire to get a 6 pot boat anchor is cast in stone?
> Mazda is the only one that offers standard transmission with
> any powerplant in case you like to row.
> And according to the reviews their 2.3L 4s are silky smoooth.
>
mazda, like their ford brethren, use cast iron cranks. that's why their
2.4's are rated much lower in power per liter than honda or toyota.

 

Body Roll wrote:
>> Mazda 3 - ok but I like the Mazda 6 better
>
>
> Did you look at mazdaspeed 6 or you have made your mind and
> the desire to get a 6 pot boat anchor is cast in stone?
> Mazda is the only one that offers standard transmission with
> any powerplant in case you like to row.
> And according to the reviews their 2.3L 4s are silky smoooth.
>
mazda, like their ford brethren, use cast iron cranks. that's why their
2.4's are rated much lower in power per liter than honda or toyota.

 

Body Roll wrote:
>> Mazda 3 - ok but I like the Mazda 6 better
>
>
> Did you look at mazdaspeed 6 or you have made your mind and
> the desire to get a 6 pot boat anchor is cast in stone?
> Mazda is the only one that offers standard transmission with
> any powerplant in case you like to row.
> And according to the reviews their 2.3L 4s are silky smoooth.
>
mazda, like their ford brethren, use cast iron cranks. that's why their
2.4's are rated much lower in power per liter than honda or toyota.

 

Body Roll wrote:
>> Mazda 3 - ok but I like the Mazda 6 better
>
>
> Did you look at mazdaspeed 6 or you have made your mind and
> the desire to get a 6 pot boat anchor is cast in stone?
> Mazda is the only one that offers standard transmission with
> any powerplant in case you like to row.
> And according to the reviews their 2.3L 4s are silky smoooth.
>
mazda, like their ford brethren, use cast iron cranks. that's why their
2.4's are rated much lower in power per liter than honda or toyota.

 

jim beam wrote:
> Body Roll wrote:
> >> Mazda 3 - ok but I like the Mazda 6 better
> >
> >
> > Did you look at mazdaspeed 6 or you have made your mind and
> > the desire to get a 6 pot boat anchor is cast in stone?
> > Mazda is the only one that offers standard transmission with
> > any powerplant in case you like to row.
> > And according to the reviews their 2.3L 4s are silky smoooth.
> >
> mazda, like their ford brethren, use cast iron cranks. that's why their

Whoaaa! There has an Ford equivalent of Mazdaspeed 6? Please let me
know
which one is that. Last time I checked they were peddling secretary's
six packs.

> 2.4's are rated much lower in power per liter than honda or toyota.

So does Mitsubishi in the Lancer Evolution. I hope you'd agree that
both Evolution and Mazdaspeed 6 are way more fun than Accord. Both will
leave you
high hp per liter s2000 in a straightaway and chances are Evo would
obliterate s2000 in twisties as well.
Besides, try using higher boost in an aluminum block and see where the
engine parts
would end up. The rumor is that Evo X has aluminum block (along with a
shitload
of electronics in the drivetrain). Some people would buy it regardless.
I guess it's people like you.

In a non turbo car I think aluminum block makes a lot of sense though.

 

jim beam wrote:
> Body Roll wrote:
> >> Mazda 3 - ok but I like the Mazda 6 better
> >
> >
> > Did you look at mazdaspeed 6 or you have made your mind and
> > the desire to get a 6 pot boat anchor is cast in stone?
> > Mazda is the only one that offers standard transmission with
> > any powerplant in case you like to row.
> > And according to the reviews their 2.3L 4s are silky smoooth.
> >
> mazda, like their ford brethren, use cast iron cranks. that's why their

Whoaaa! There has an Ford equivalent of Mazdaspeed 6? Please let me
know
which one is that. Last time I checked they were peddling secretary's
six packs.

> 2.4's are rated much lower in power per liter than honda or toyota.

So does Mitsubishi in the Lancer Evolution. I hope you'd agree that
both Evolution and Mazdaspeed 6 are way more fun than Accord. Both will
leave you
high hp per liter s2000 in a straightaway and chances are Evo would
obliterate s2000 in twisties as well.
Besides, try using higher boost in an aluminum block and see where the
engine parts
would end up. The rumor is that Evo X has aluminum block (along with a
shitload
of electronics in the drivetrain). Some people would buy it regardless.
I guess it's people like you.

In a non turbo car I think aluminum block makes a lot of sense though.

 

jim beam wrote:
> Body Roll wrote:
> >> Mazda 3 - ok but I like the Mazda 6 better
> >
> >
> > Did you look at mazdaspeed 6 or you have made your mind and
> > the desire to get a 6 pot boat anchor is cast in stone?
> > Mazda is the only one that offers standard transmission with
> > any powerplant in case you like to row.
> > And according to the reviews their 2.3L 4s are silky smoooth.
> >
> mazda, like their ford brethren, use cast iron cranks. that's why their

Whoaaa! There has an Ford equivalent of Mazdaspeed 6? Please let me
know
which one is that. Last time I checked they were peddling secretary's
six packs.

> 2.4's are rated much lower in power per liter than honda or toyota.

So does Mitsubishi in the Lancer Evolution. I hope you'd agree that
both Evolution and Mazdaspeed 6 are way more fun than Accord. Both will
leave you
high hp per liter s2000 in a straightaway and chances are Evo would
obliterate s2000 in twisties as well.
Besides, try using higher boost in an aluminum block and see where the
engine parts
would end up. The rumor is that Evo X has aluminum block (along with a
shitload
of electronics in the drivetrain). Some people would buy it regardless.
I guess it's people like you.

In a non turbo car I think aluminum block makes a lot of sense though.

 

jim beam wrote:
> Body Roll wrote:
> >> Mazda 3 - ok but I like the Mazda 6 better
> >
> >
> > Did you look at mazdaspeed 6 or you have made your mind and
> > the desire to get a 6 pot boat anchor is cast in stone?
> > Mazda is the only one that offers standard transmission with
> > any powerplant in case you like to row.
> > And according to the reviews their 2.3L 4s are silky smoooth.
> >
> mazda, like their ford brethren, use cast iron cranks. that's why their

Whoaaa! There has an Ford equivalent of Mazdaspeed 6? Please let me
know
which one is that. Last time I checked they were peddling secretary's
six packs.

> 2.4's are rated much lower in power per liter than honda or toyota.

So does Mitsubishi in the Lancer Evolution. I hope you'd agree that
both Evolution and Mazdaspeed 6 are way more fun than Accord. Both will
leave you
high hp per liter s2000 in a straightaway and chances are Evo would
obliterate s2000 in twisties as well.
Besides, try using higher boost in an aluminum block and see where the
engine parts
would end up. The rumor is that Evo X has aluminum block (along with a
shitload
of electronics in the drivetrain). Some people would buy it regardless.
I guess it's people like you.

In a non turbo car I think aluminum block makes a lot of sense though.

 

« Paul »" <"=?x-user-defined?Q?=AB?= Paul =?x-user-defined?Q?=BB?=
wrote:
> L Alpert wrote:
>>
>> « Paul »" <"=?x-user-defined?Q?=AB?= Paul =?x-user-defined?Q?=BB?=
>> wrote:
>>> I have been looking at 03-05 Accord coupes, V-6, but have not yet
>>> driven one. The interior is very comfortable.
>>> Any thoughts about good, bad, future problems, etc?
>>> How's the torque curve? Can I spin the tires from a standing start?
>>> (I've done a bunch of reading but would like comments from real
>>> people.)
>>
>> I have the '04 EX 6 cyl. Can you spin the tires? Have done so
>> accidentally a few times when taking off in tight spots. I'm sure
>> if one wanted to leave a good amount of their tire investment on the
>> pavement, it could be done (though the 6 isn't as good at it as my
>> Vmax was).
>>
>> When testing, the 4 was actually peppy, but the 6 could easily merge
>> onto a CA freeway with 4 or 5 people in the car easily (up to 75 mph
>> well before the end of the ramps).
>>
>> Good torque at the low end, speeds through the gearing quite well.
>> Good performance, 29 MPG actual on the highway (driving at 70+ most
>> of the time), 21-22 around town.
>
> Thanks. That is the kind of info I was looking for. I have read
> that the Honda
> 3.0 has poor low end torque but your response says the opposite.
> Eventually I
> will road test however I am still narrowing down between 6 cyl
> Accord, Camry,
> Mazda, Nissan, etc.
> I like the inside and outside looks of the Accord better than the
> others. Better
> to spend a few minutes here rather then a few hours at the dealers.
> Paul.

Happy hunting.

 

« Paul »" <"=?x-user-defined?Q?=AB?= Paul =?x-user-defined?Q?=BB?=
wrote:
> L Alpert wrote:
>>
>> « Paul »" <"=?x-user-defined?Q?=AB?= Paul =?x-user-defined?Q?=BB?=
>> wrote:
>>> I have been looking at 03-05 Accord coupes, V-6, but have not yet
>>> driven one. The interior is very comfortable.
>>> Any thoughts about good, bad, future problems, etc?
>>> How's the torque curve? Can I spin the tires from a standing start?
>>> (I've done a bunch of reading but would like comments from real
>>> people.)
>>
>> I have the '04 EX 6 cyl. Can you spin the tires? Have done so
>> accidentally a few times when taking off in tight spots. I'm sure
>> if one wanted to leave a good amount of their tire investment on the
>> pavement, it could be done (though the 6 isn't as good at it as my
>> Vmax was).
>>
>> When testing, the 4 was actually peppy, but the 6 could easily merge
>> onto a CA freeway with 4 or 5 people in the car easily (up to 75 mph
>> well before the end of the ramps).
>>
>> Good torque at the low end, speeds through the gearing quite well.
>> Good performance, 29 MPG actual on the highway (driving at 70+ most
>> of the time), 21-22 around town.
>
> Thanks. That is the kind of info I was looking for. I have read
> that the Honda
> 3.0 has poor low end torque but your response says the opposite.
> Eventually I
> will road test however I am still narrowing down between 6 cyl
> Accord, Camry,
> Mazda, Nissan, etc.
> I like the inside and outside looks of the Accord better than the
> others. Better
> to spend a few minutes here rather then a few hours at the dealers.
> Paul.

Happy hunting.

 

« Paul »" <"=?x-user-defined?Q?=AB?= Paul =?x-user-defined?Q?=BB?=
wrote:
> L Alpert wrote:
>>
>> « Paul »" <"=?x-user-defined?Q?=AB?= Paul =?x-user-defined?Q?=BB?=
>> wrote:
>>> I have been looking at 03-05 Accord coupes, V-6, but have not yet
>>> driven one. The interior is very comfortable.
>>> Any thoughts about good, bad, future problems, etc?
>>> How's the torque curve? Can I spin the tires from a standing start?
>>> (I've done a bunch of reading but would like comments from real
>>> people.)
>>
>> I have the '04 EX 6 cyl. Can you spin the tires? Have done so
>> accidentally a few times when taking off in tight spots. I'm sure
>> if one wanted to leave a good amount of their tire investment on the
>> pavement, it could be done (though the 6 isn't as good at it as my
>> Vmax was).
>>
>> When testing, the 4 was actually peppy, but the 6 could easily merge
>> onto a CA freeway with 4 or 5 people in the car easily (up to 75 mph
>> well before the end of the ramps).
>>
>> Good torque at the low end, speeds through the gearing quite well.
>> Good performance, 29 MPG actual on the highway (driving at 70+ most
>> of the time), 21-22 around town.
>
> Thanks. That is the kind of info I was looking for. I have read
> that the Honda
> 3.0 has poor low end torque but your response says the opposite.
> Eventually I
> will road test however I am still narrowing down between 6 cyl
> Accord, Camry,
> Mazda, Nissan, etc.
> I like the inside and outside looks of the Accord better than the
> others. Better
> to spend a few minutes here rather then a few hours at the dealers.
> Paul.

Happy hunting.

 

« Paul »" <"=?x-user-defined?Q?=AB?= Paul =?x-user-defined?Q?=BB?=
wrote:
> L Alpert wrote:
>>
>> « Paul »" <"=?x-user-defined?Q?=AB?= Paul =?x-user-defined?Q?=BB?=
>> wrote:
>>> I have been looking at 03-05 Accord coupes, V-6, but have not yet
>>> driven one. The interior is very comfortable.
>>> Any thoughts about good, bad, future problems, etc?
>>> How's the torque curve? Can I spin the tires from a standing start?
>>> (I've done a bunch of reading but would like comments from real
>>> people.)
>>
>> I have the '04 EX 6 cyl. Can you spin the tires? Have done so
>> accidentally a few times when taking off in tight spots. I'm sure
>> if one wanted to leave a good amount of their tire investment on the
>> pavement, it could be done (though the 6 isn't as good at it as my
>> Vmax was).
>>
>> When testing, the 4 was actually peppy, but the 6 could easily merge
>> onto a CA freeway with 4 or 5 people in the car easily (up to 75 mph
>> well before the end of the ramps).
>>
>> Good torque at the low end, speeds through the gearing quite well.
>> Good performance, 29 MPG actual on the highway (driving at 70+ most
>> of the time), 21-22 around town.
>
> Thanks. That is the kind of info I was looking for. I have read
> that the Honda
> 3.0 has poor low end torque but your response says the opposite.
> Eventually I
> will road test however I am still narrowing down between 6 cyl
> Accord, Camry,
> Mazda, Nissan, etc.
> I like the inside and outside looks of the Accord better than the
> others. Better
> to spend a few minutes here rather then a few hours at the dealers.
> Paul.

Happy hunting.