2006 Mazda 6 TS 1.8 petrol

Summary:

With better rust protection, this could have been the ideal car!

Faults:

Rust, rust and more rust! This car had the usual wear and tear as any car, and servicing costs were also reasonable, but advisory after advisory about serious under chassis rust made me scrap it, failing an MOT test at 11 years old. The car was otherwise reliable enough and OK. For the naysayers - no, a car shouldn't rust this bad at only 11 years, I have had similar cars at 15 years old with no rust. The car was looked after, washed correctly on time.

General Comments:

I have had many cars in the large family / small executive range over the years - Ford Mondeo, Nissan Primera, Honda Accord, and so on, but the Mazda 6 was just as capable if not better than all of them, I really liked this car, so it's a shame the rust got the better of it.

TS model is well equipped, drives smooth and comfortable, 1.8 is fast with 37 mpg. More reliable than the diesels also!

The car handled very very sharp, fun to drive. Good looking also. Roomy stylish interior.

The car was barely 4 or 5 years old when I bought it with low mileage and already rust was appearing around the arches. Honestly put me off the brand, but I quite like Mazda. Why oh why Mazda did you not give this otherwise fine car better rust protection?

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 6th March, 2023

13th Feb 2024, 17:49

All cars with steel underbody and chassis parts will rust on underbody and suspension components after a number of years... especially in northern climates, and dramatically so if road salt is used in winters...

... There is a simple way to slow this down... do as they do in the USA "winter salt" states, if you want to keep a car for many years...

... When everything is 100% dry before winter begins, get the car up on a garage lift stand... or get underneath (trickier and with car NOT just supported on a car-jack !!!)...

... and apply appropriate spray grease or winter-lanolin product to ALL steel components and members, including in through all the drain holes in suspension components and beams - they are not painted inside (!), and rust from inside as well... same goes for pipe clips etc under the bonnet...

... A partial repeat application after 3 months is ideal, but only possible if you can get most of the mixed winter dirt off AND get it all 100% dried out before application...

... If you do this grease application... do NOT do underbody car washes, which washes off all the protective grease layer(!)... at least not until after winter has finished.

In reply to 13th Feb 2024, 17:49

15th Feb 2024, 02:09

Wouldn’t underbody car washes which wash the salt away be easier than all of that?

In reply to 13th Feb 2024, 17:49

17th Feb 2024, 17:41

I think the point is however that Mazda of this generation rust earlier than your average car. It's pretty well documented elsewhere on the internet, not just here.

2006 Mazda 6 TS 2.0 diesel

Summary:

Diesel - never again!

Faults:

Seized rear brake caliper, replaced twice, still keeps seizing! Couple of hundred pounds so far.

Faulty injector - quoted over £1000 to replace.

DMF - over £1000 to replace.

DPF filter light always coming on even after a "re-gen" - nearly £900 to replace!

Other than that, fine, consumables, servicing, etc. Generally reliable and didn't break down. But faults were too expensive when it did go wrong.

General Comments:

A very nice and sharp car to drive and look at - the 2002 - 2007 Mazda 6 is one good looking car. Nice interior with all the toys, cruise control, electrics, the lot. The 140 BHP diesel engine pulls strong while doing about 47 MPG average.

Very comfortable to be in. Overall an excellent car and I would buy a petrol one, but a diesel - never, never, never again. Shame really. The cost of repairs far out weighs any savings made by fuel consumption, so what's the point? I was looking at nearly £3000 worth of repairs after only 2 years on a low mileage good example. Get yourself a petrol one of these and save in the long run. The irony I know. And I know it's not just this car - many diesels in the last 10 years or so have the same problems for owners with DPF and injectors causing nothing but trouble. And that's with long drives - I don't do short runs, which the dealer explained to me might be the problem and tried to justify their ridiculous repair bills with "parts and labour".

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Yes

Review Date: 11th February, 2016

13th Feb 2016, 23:33

Know what you mean mate - see my review of a 2012 CMax diesel - Ford engine again - total dog. The car before was a petrol and the Ford's replacement is a petrol - and a Nissan. Last Ford and last diesel I intend to have.

In reply to 13th Feb 2016, 23:33

14th Feb 2016, 12:47

Correct my friend - I think I have read your C-max review and it reflects typical modern diesel cars problems all too well, and I agree with you. What do you drive now? I've written a few reviews on here of cars I've had over the last 10 years or so - and it's not all negative - my current car, a Skoda Octavia diesel from 2002 - no problems whatsoever. No wonder taxi drivers love them - but they were developed in the 90s so they don't have the DPF and other fancy modern stuff. Also had a few 90s Ford Mondeos with no problems either.

I think it's a sad fact that in the year 2016 you have to go back to the 90s to have a car that is economical to run for thousands of miles and years. At least diesel ones anyway. But here's a new problem - petrols are now getting more complicated, they don't have DPF, but some do now have a Dual Mass Flywheel (DMF) which is a very expensive repair, and the high pressure injectors. The long term reliability of these remains to be seen, but for now I'll stick to older cars, because it seems the more I paid for a car and the newer it was, the more problems I got - which you would think would be the opposite.

I'm not going to deny newer cars are better in terms of safety, general reliability and driving dynamics and so on, but manufacturers need to do more to reduce the costs of things like DPF and injector problems if these are going to be consumable parts in the long run. So my advice to anyone would be to try a petrol car again - they aren't as bad on fuel as you think, cost less to run and service, smoother and quieter, and costs less to buy initially - diesels also command a premium over the equivalent petrol model purchase price, which as we now know simply isn't worth it.

View 6 more comments

2006 Mazda 6 S 1.8

Summary:

Good so far - looks good, drives well, bargain

Faults:

Just bought it - nothing so far!

General Comments:

Surprised by how easy it is to drive. First gear revs quickly and I usually drop it into second from low revs - there's a good amount of torque.

Looks almost 'as new' inside. Apart from the usual scratches, it only has one bubble of rust on a front wheel arch - you wouldn't get this on a Honda or Toyota.

Pleasing handling and ride balance for an underpowered FWD.

Taxi-like cloth seats are at least hard-wearing and haven't aged at all.

Would you buy another car from this manufacturer? Don't Know

Review Date: 19th August, 2014

27th Dec 2014, 21:29

Over 10,000 miles on and it's a very solid car.

No repairs and no non-starts, just some maintenance and tyres is all it's required.

The handling with summer tyres is among the best of any car I've owned, including Jaguar and BMW, and it's a relaxing cruiser.

It's just lacking another 50 BHP, a more appealing engine noise and leather seats; those things would make a good car great.

Downsides:

- Annoying creaks from the Ford-assembly dashboard in cold weather.

- The tedious 4 cylinder engine is smooth at low revs, but sounds like a mid 90s diesel above 4000 RPM, only minus the kick of a turbo.

- Surprising little bits of rust emerging (just two or three), which will probably be a major problem in 3 years or so.

- Lack of traction control can be a problem on icy hills etc.

Good points,

- Good looking.

- Comfortable.

- Hard-wearing interior.

- Seemingly reliable.

- Good handling.

- Understated car.

- Smooth if you drop it into second gear from low revs.

Breakdowns:

- None.

Replacement parts:

- None.

Would buy again?

- I would consider it - but with a fruitier engine, leather, automatic transmission and more power. Would the V6 be ideal?

View 3 more comments