2009 Mazda6 Face Revealed!

[hbalek]

Now this is a more agressive front end than I ever could have imagined! I hope the CD3 refreshes are at least half as good.

 

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/08/07/mazda6-...t-in-frankfurt/

[suv_guy_19]

Wow....that looks amazing...is this for real?

[wescoent]

Won't put a dent in Camcordima sales, but still a lovely design... I see a lot of RX-8 and even some Lotus Elise in the styling. Anyone see some Fusion in the headlights?

 

That being said, I can't wait to see the new Fusion, Milan, and MKZ.

[Michael Reynolds]

Since when were Mondeos riding around with D35 engines? The 6 rides on an EUCD platform or CD3?

 

Digging the aggressive front end, might have to check one of these out come 2010.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Michael Reynolds

[NLPRacing]

Since when were Mondeos riding around with D35 engines? The 6 rides on an EUCD platform or CD3?

 

Digging the aggressive front end, might have to check one of these out come 2010.

 

Autoblog is pretty notorious for getting details completely wrong. There always so quick to "break a story" that they never seem to fact check. From waht I've heard, is that the 6 is on the CD3-2, which will underpin the updated 09 Fusion/MKZ and will go to EUCD2 along with the Fusion/MKZ/Mondeo later on.

[MERKURXR4Ti]

I like it, let's see the rest of it...

 

can't wait for the mazdaspeed 6

[NickF1011]

As a current Mazda6 owner I will say I'm impressed!! :happy feet:

[silvrsvt]

can't wait for the mazdaspeed 6

 

The MZS 6 is going away

[2005Explorer]

That's HOT! Wow! Just wait though...the next Camry will again copy it. Toyota does not have any imagination when it comes to styling, well expect for the Prius, which is beyond ugly.

[ANTAUS]

Why stop at Prius...Scion Xb Anyone? FJCruiser? etc.

[rkisler]

Autoblog is pretty notorious for getting details completely wrong. There always so quick to "break a story" that they never seem to fact check. From waht I've heard, is that the 6 is on the CD3-2, which will underpin the updated 09 Fusion/MKZ and will go to EUCD2 along with the Fusion/MKZ/Mondeo later on.

 

I agree with this statement. The CD3 is a relatively new platform and there is no advantage going to EUCD at this point for either Mazda or Ford NA.

 

I assume Ford NA, Ford Europe, and Mazda are already having a "knock down, drag out" series of discussions on next generation CD platform. Mondeo does not accomodate a V6. As long as large, powerful optional V6's are the price of admission for sedans in NA, that means the front structure likely will have to be unique. Whether Mazda and Ford NA keep the SLA vs. the cheaper Mondeo macpherson struts is probably under discussion. There could be some potential to commonize the rear ends by moving to the cheaper (but effective) Mondeo blade design vs. Mazda multilink.

 

But timing has always been an issue with these platforms. If you assume platform life is around 8 years, then they are almost completely out of phase. In other words, unless one party decides to "short sheet" their platform life and make additional in-cycle investment, the other party gets a platform that is already 4 years old. And he who gets the 4 year old platform would have to make an additonal platform investment in 4 more years to get back on pace. So far, neither side has given in. The answer might come in steps or in a "cut and paste" method.

 

This is a good looking, aggressive front end. The present generation Mazda6 design was lifted by Camry and to some extent even Mondeo. Good to see they are staying ahead of the curve.

[NickF1011]

So far, neither side has given in.

 

Sure it has. Ford NA midsize sedans WILL use EUCD2 with their next generation. The Mazda6 should follow suit with its next redesign also. The ones getting short-shifted are the NA products, which deserve to be. EUCD2 will just be an evolution of EUCD, whereas it would be entirely different from bottom to top compared to CD3.

[NLPRacing]

The MZS 6 is going away

 

It is for 2008 for sure, but I bet it returns late 2009 or 2010.

[one2gamble]

not bad if its real

[rkisler]

Sure it has. Ford NA midsize sedans WILL use EUCD2 with their next generation. The Mazda6 should follow suit with its next redesign also. The ones getting short-shifted are the NA products, which deserve to be. EUCD2 will just be an evolution of EUCD, whereas it would be entirely different from bottom to top compared to CD3.

 

We all have to be careful about the definition of platform and the PR that goes with it. For instance, Ford calls the Edge a CD3 even though it has little or nothing in common with the CD3 platform. The S80 and LR2 are called EUCD even though the amount of common components is suspect from my perspective.

 

I have no doubt that Ford will call the next generation CD car in NA an EUCD, and the next generation Mazda will also likely be called EUCD just like the examples I mention above. I have no doubt that all the parties will work very hard toward a common design to ensure best economies of scale with minimal engineering changes. But I'm suggesting that if Ford is still projecting the use of large, powerful V6's and AWD in our midsized sedans in NA, there will have to be major differences in the front structure, front suspension, and rear underbody for AWD. Or, Ford Europe will have to roll over and change the front end of their derivatives which will cost them money and weight. Accomodating a V6 is something Europe refused to do when Ford had the chance to commonize CD platforms previously due, in part, to the EUCD's C1 origins and the dismal sales performance of previous Mondeo V6's

 

This cannot be simply a dictated platform from Europe. The midsized cars are the heart of the market in NA, but are lower volume in Europe where the C cars are higher volume. As such, they are much more important to NA business than they are to Europe. The NA market is owned by the Japanese, and Ford has to be responsive to and competitive with those products. Ford Europe has not shown through previous programs that they understand what it takes to have a successful product in NA.

 

From a strict platform standpoint (forget styling), there is little or no benefit in going to EUCD right now, and I'm not quite sure why you think the CD3 would deserve to get shorted. On the plus side, there are some lower cost components on EUCD, but Ford NA/Mazda would have to incur a major investment to change three assembly plants (Hofu, AAI, Hermosillo) along with the supply base early. Next generation, it might be a different story, particularly if there is C2/CD sharing, or component sharing with a new Escape.

 

So, like I said there are probably tough meetings going on now to determine the nature of the next generation EUCD that would be suitable for Ford and Mazda branded Europe, NA, Japan/Asia, and other Rest of World applications. This is normal. I'm sure the C1 meetings with Mazda/Volvo/FoE were very tough, and C2 is probably even worse with NA there.

 

From my perspective, it looks like the upcoming Mazda and Ford freshenings most certainly will be on the CD3, and the CD platforms would seem to come together some time in 2011-12 or so. Which would mean Ford is into pre-program investigation now. But I'm not on the inside of Ford, so perhaps someone else has a better explanation.

Edited August 7, 2007 by Austin

[LSFan00]

Iosis lives in NA?

[NickF1011]

We all have to be careful about the definition of platform and the PR that goes with it. For instance, Ford calls the Edge a CD3 even though it has little or nothing in common with the CD3 platform. The S80 and LR2 are called EUCD even though the amount of common components is suspect from my perspective.

 

I have no doubt that Ford will call the next generation CD car in NA an EUCD, and the next generation Mazda will also likely be called EUCD just like the examples I mention above. I have no doubt that all the parties will work very hard toward a common design to ensure best economies of scale with minimal engineering changes. But I'm suggesting that if Ford is still projecting the use of large, powerful V6's and AWD in our midsized sedans in NA, there will have to be major differences in the front structure, front suspension, and rear underbody for AWD. Or, Ford Europe will have to roll over and change the front end of their derivatives which will cost them money and weight. Accomodating a V6 is something Europe refused to do when Ford had the chance to commonize CD platforms previously due, in part, to the EUCD's C1 origins and the dismal sales performance of previous Mondeo V6's

 

This cannot be simply a dictated platform from Europe. The midsized cars are the heart of the market in NA, but are lower volume in Europe where the C cars are higher volume. As such, they are much more important to NA business than they are to Europe. The NA market is owned by the Japanese, and Ford has to be responsive to and competitive with those products. Ford Europe has not shown through previous programs that they understand what it takes to have a successful product in NA.

 

From a strict platform standpoint (forget styling), there is little or no benefit in going to EUCD right now, and I'm not quite sure why you think the CD3 would deserve to get shorted. On the plus side, there are some lower cost components on EUCD, but Ford NA/Mazda would have to incur a major investment to change three assembly plants (Hofu, AAI, Hermosillo) along with the supply base early. Next generation, it might be a different story, particularly if there is C2/CD sharing, or component sharing with a new Escape.

 

So, like I said there are probably tough meetings going on now to determine the nature of the next generation EUCD that would be suitable for Ford and Mazda branded Europe, NA, Japan/Asia, and other Rest of World applications. This is normal. I'm sure the C1 meetings with Mazda/Volvo/FoE were very tough, and C2 is probably even worse with NA there.

 

From my perspective, it looks like the upcoming Mazda and Ford freshenings most certainly will be on the CD3, and the CD platforms would seem to come together some time in 2011-12 or so. Which would mean Ford is into pre-program investigation now. But I'm not on the inside of Ford, so perhaps someone else has a better explanation.

 

CD3 deserves to get shorted because from all accounts I have read, EUCD is simply a MUCH more adaptable platform (Just compare the S80 and LR2 to see my point). The ease at which EUCD can be changed to accomodate a V6 would likely be much simpler than adapting the overall CD3 architecture to appease the tastes of Europeans.

 

Yes, there will likely continue to be pretty vast differences between uses of the architecture like there is now with the LR2 and S80, but that's the beauty of it. A lot of the underlying structure can be carried over to largely unique vehicles.

 

In the end, CD3 really won't be getting shorted much anyway. Its roots started with the Mazda6 which debuted in 2003 or 2004. By the time it gets replaced by EUCD2, it will be a 7-8 year old platform. From what I understand, EUCD2 won't be much of a "new" platform compared to what is already riding on EUCD. It will just be an evolutionary change, likely similar to what the CD3 is compared to what the Mazda6 currently uses -- so it won't really be shorting the current generation of EUCD vehicles either.

[g48150]

Kinda looks like a vagina, seriously. :happy feet:

[ANTAUS]

So what does the Subaru WRX look like with all it's multiple scoops? A Pre-Op transvestite?

[rkisler]

CD3 deserves to get shorted because from all accounts I have read, EUCD is simply a MUCH more adaptable platform (Just compare the S80 and LR2 to see my point). The ease at which EUCD can be changed to accomodate a V6 would likely be much simpler than adapting the overall CD3 architecture to appease the tastes of Europeans.

 

Yes, there will likely continue to be pretty vast differences between uses of the architecture like there is now with the LR2 and S80, but that's the beauty of it. A lot of the underlying structure can be carried over to largely unique vehicles.

 

In the end, CD3 really won't be getting shorted much anyway. Its roots started with the Mazda6 which debuted in 2003 or 2004. By the time it gets replaced by EUCD2, it will be a 7-8 year old platform. From what I understand, EUCD2 won't be much of a "new" platform compared to what is already riding on EUCD. It will just be an evolutionary change, likely similar to what the CD3 is compared to what the Mazda6 currently uses -- so it won't really be shorting the current generation of EUCD vehicles either.

 

Of course, Ford/Mazda will ultimately end up with a single platform and I still think my guess on the 2012 or so timing for convergence should be about right.

 

Much of what you have read is propoganda. There is absolutely no inherent reason why EUCD would be any more flexible than CD3. As a matter of fact, some of the derivatives like S-max are strikingly similar to CD3 derivatives that were considered at the start of Ford's CD3 program when the program team was looking for derivatives to fill 2 plants.

 

I can't prove how common some of the EUCD derivatives are or aren't, but calling some of these derivatives EUCD might be generous at best. If you looked underneath at the structure you might find a lot of differences.

 

It remains to be seen if simply "sprucing up" the EUCD in 2012 is going to be sufficient. This platform will have a few years on it and will have to last until 2020.

 

Let me just use one example to illustrate how many tough decisions have to be made:

. The Volvo S80 mounts a 60 degree V8 with (I suppose) substantial front structure revisions from the basic EUCD platform.

. The D3 engine mounting is different than Volvo even though it was originally derived from the Volvo P2. In fact, Ford has done an outstanding job to commonize the engine mounting for the Duratec's across the CD3, CD3s (Edge), and D3 so the engines leaving the engine plant are virtually identical across these models.

. Changing front structure is very expensive because there is so much going on in terms of crash, styling, engine package, suspension, etc. The Taurus just went through an expensive change to accomodate pendulum mounting.

. So....does EUCD use pendulum mounting so NA could just pick it up and use it without substantial change on the V6's? I don't think so. The basic configuration of EUCD is relatively inflexible with sideways I engines. Which means the front structure will either have to be revised for NA or FoE will have to eat the change on their end.

 

This won't be easy, but Derek K. has experience in this area with C1 and he is the captain of the boat.

[TomServo92]

Kinda looks like a vagina, seriously. :happy feet:

 

How would you know?

 

Unless of course, you have one.

 

[LincolnFan]

How would you know?

 

Unless of course, you have one.

 

 

Did you just come out of 4chan or something?

[TomServo92]

Did you just come out of 4chan or something?

 

4chan?

[LincolnFan]

4chan?

 

Oh yea I forgot everyone around here is over 30, nvm.

Edited August 8, 2007 by LincolnFan

[Biker16]

Of course, Ford/Mazda will ultimately end up with a single platform and I still think my guess on the 2012 or so timing for convergence should be about right.

 

Much of what you have read is propaganda. There is absolutely no inherent reason why EUCD would be any more flexible than CD3. As a matter of fact, some of the derivatives like S-max are strikingly similar to CD3 derivatives that were considered at the start of Ford's CD3 program when the program team was looking for derivatives to fill 2 plants.

 

I can't prove how common some of the EUCD derivatives are or aren't, but calling some of these derivatives EUCD might be generous at best. If you looked underneath at the structure you might find a lot of differences.

 

It remains to be seen if simply "sprucing up" the EUCD in 2012 is going to be sufficient. This platform will have a few years on it and will have to last until 2020.

 

Can CD3 fit the 3.2l I6 used by Volvo?

 

can EUCD fit a V6? It can fit a 60 degree V8. so a 60 degree V6 should fit.

 

honestly we don't know enough about either platform to quote which is better.

 

FWIW CD3 had to use struts on the Edge to handle the mass. the IRS was completely redone as well.

 

The LR2 does use Rear struts instead of control blade. needed ~9in of travel.

 

Let me just use one example to illustrate how many tough decisions have to be made:

. The Volvo S80 mounts a 60 degree V8 with (I suppose) substantial front structure revisions from the basic EUCD platform.

. The D3 engine mounting is different than Volvo even though it was originally derived from the Volvo P2. In fact, Ford has done an outstanding job to commonize the engine mounting for the Duratec's across the CD3, CD3s (Edge), and D3 so the engines leaving the engine plant are virtually identical across these models.

. Changing front structure is very expensive because there is so much going on in terms of crash, styling, engine package, suspension, etc. The Taurus just went through an expensive change to accomodate pendulum mounting.

. So....does EUCD use pendulum mounting so NA could just pick it up and use it without substantial change on the V6's? I don't think so. The basic configuration of EUCD is relatively inflexible with sideways I engines. Which means the front structure will either have to be revised for NA or FoE will have to eat the change on their end.

 

This won't be easy, but Derek K. has experience in this area with C1 and he is the captain of the boat.

 

The S80 uses the same TRA mounts that are used in the Focus. are also shared with CD3 and the Newest D3 revision, they dumped the volvo enginemounts for the lighter TRA mounts.

 

I believe TRA is the "pendulum mounting" you speak of.