First MS6 Review

I'm still amazed at how slow the 0-60mph time is. 6.6 seconds for an AWD car with that amount of power is bad.
 
I think it'll be faster then that, it's a factory estimate and I'm sure they're being conservative. I'm willing to bet that the magazines will have it around 6.
 
For you Bill:

Mazda launched the MPS6 at the ex-Formula One TI Circuit near Hiroshima. At very high speeds the hot 6 feels inspiringly secure and civilised. In the dry, only extreme mid-corner provocation will unstick the rear end - this is no lurid smoke-pluming drift king. In the wet through, it should prove more adjustable. Most of the time, it simply goes where you want it to with a tail-up eagerness. The rest of the time it simply understeers.
 
I read. That review looks like crap to me - It makes the 6 look horribly unappealing.

250hp? Nice figures. 0-60 .1 second faster than the 6s. I'll wait until a more distinguished evaluation comes out;) The STi understeers like a champ too, so I don't find that too odd.
 
Last edited:
im sure thats launching it without ass raping the clutch and drivetrain...itll be quick once you get going, im positive
 
"Oh, and this car must run on 98Ron unleaded - any lower octane-rated fuel will result in a noticeable drop in performance (Mazda reckons up to 15 percent less on 91Ron fuel)."

Mazda can suck my cock for pulling something like that if it's true. Who the hell has 98 octane? The best I've seen in MI is Sunoco 94, and I don't want to have to be limited to over 91 for a stock car.
 
Spooled said:
"Oh, and this car must run on 98Ron unleaded - any lower octane-rated fuel will result in a noticeable drop in performance (Mazda reckons up to 15 percent less on 91Ron fuel)."

Mazda can suck my cock for pulling something like that if it's true. Who the hell has 98 octane? The best I've seen in MI is Sunoco 94, and I don't want to have to be limited to over 91 for a stock car.

Those are british "petrol" octane ratings. I think it might be similar to regular vs. super or plus.
 
I thought that direct injection was better for withstanding detonation. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that direct injection was like a diesel where the fuel isn't injected until the combustion stroke. That would drastically decrease the chances of pre-ignition and detonation.

[edit]: Diesels use the heat of the compressed air to ignite the fuel on contact, where-as I thought that direct injection gasoline engines inject on the power stroke (but still need a spark plug). Just thought I'd clear up my thoughts.
 
RON is Researched Octane Number, PON is Pump Octane Number (Also known as CLC, with is RON+MON/2), and MON is Motor Octane Number. Direct comparisons are close to this:

91 RON = 87 CLC
95 RON = 91 CLC

You're used to seeing the Cost of Living Council numbers at pumps. That's the standard for US pumps. =) So, 98 is about 93 octane, presumably.
 
Well one important piece of info was in this review. Weight is 1540kg's, which is 3388lbs. Which is much less than the 3500lbs some people were claiming. Also keep in mind the N.A. spec car is rated 274hp.
 
The review is based on old spec press releases. They didnt' actually review anything. You see this stuff all the time in the computer hardware industry...sites just throwing crap together to get some hits. I'd take any and all information with a grain of salt.
 

New Threads and Articles

Back