Ideally Mazda should employ platforms independent of those developed and used by the Ford Motor Company core brand group. However, if Mazda is to share platforms with Ford then EUCD is obviously a better choice than CD3.

That ius what rumours have indicated...for the most part. But, after seeing the car I am not entirely convinced of this.

That aside, under Mulally's plan all Mazda products will eventually reside on 'global' corporate platforms. To be blunt when this scenario unfolds completely, and we are getting close now, there wont truly be Mazda platforms anymore wether or not they are designed in Hiroshima...all platforms in question will be nothing more than Ford designs created in a Japanese office that happens to have a Mazda logo on the door.

If that is to be the case I question the value of maintaining a stake in the Mazda brand at all since Ford could have just as easily spent the money invested in Mazda during the last twenty years in Mercury and gotten much the same effect.

 

I'd wait until they definitively say which platform it's on before making a call. I've seen claims going both ways.

JS, I simply don't get your opinion on platform sharing. Platform sharing does not equal Global Cars, as I pointed out the CX-9 and Edge share a platform and are vastly different vehicles. For that matter, the C30 and Kuga are VASTLY different vehicles on the same platform. Sure, the Ford brand itelf is going to have fewer market-specific vehicles, but the non-Ford brands aren't rebadges, Mazda will continue to be distinct and with any luck Lincoln will become more distinct. Platform sharing cuts down on alot of duplicated R&D, allowing the various brands to focus that money and those man-hours on making their finished product instead. How is that bad?

 

if they would make a four wheel drive version i would buy it i just dont like front wheel drive

 

Fair enough......an explanation is in order. First, when discussing platform sharing on a global scale and specifically where production is to take place in locales that are vast distances apart, any money saved is much, much less than most people seem to think. For instance, you cannot realistically expect to save a significant sum of money (or arguably any money) on tooling which is one of the most expensive components of production and an area typically pointed out as an example of how money can be saved through platform sharing.

The reason for this is simple. Put simply the company creating the tooling for a facility in Spain is extremely unlikely to be the same company manufacturing the tooling for a 'sister platform' plant in Alabama. The obvious reasons for this is that there will not be any significant cost savings once you spend the huge sum of money to transport what is an extraordinarily heavy and bulky item. The same can be said for many other supplier costs (tier one or otherwise) for that matter even if global synergy can often make these items look better on paper. In the real world logistics do the same thing here that they do to the supposed tooling advanatges mentioned above.

Put bluntly any real advantages gained by global 'synergy' aren't significantly improved by a move to global product. I think we are seeing such a wave of support behind this concept because many people want to believe that the same advantages component sharing brings to the table will work just as well for platform sharing. But in reality the scale between these two differs so much that a serious and honest comparison cannot be made.

So, what is left to save on in the brave new world of global platforms? Realistically speaking R&D, just like you mentioned in an earlier post. Unfortunately it is difficult to make a good case for global platforms on the basis of R&D savings alone. Yes, money saved is money saved no matter how you look at it. But if we are discussing simple global platforms here, and realistically using the term platform somewhat loosely, then gains made in the area of R&D aren't as significant as they might otherwise. I say this because when the concept in question is simply a global platform and not a global car we still have engineers lengthening and or widening frames, redesigning exterior surfaces, tweaking engine packages, etc. which means that a rather large amount of regional R&D will continue meaning the cost savings are minimnized relatively speaking. When you consider that cost savings were generally blown well out of proportion even back when the push was for global cars the notion that huge sums of money can be saved by moving to global platforms just doesn't hold up to scrutiny. For example of the above note that it is well known that Ford was seriously disappointed with the cost savings of the original Mondeo/Contour with the Focus as well, the latter of which was a very well executed car which had as close to unviersal appeal as one could seriously hope for. And without question part of GM's ever growing problem with their new global RWD product line is that cost savings simply haven't materialized on the level which they had hoped for.

What do companies like Ford and GM give up to gain the above? Realistically speaking....all possibility of building a truly unique and distinctive automobile that can easily adapt to suit whatever needs may arise in distinct market areas and which possesses a character generic globalism cannot provide. This isn't a problem in some instances where cars can be expected to sell virtually as is in more than one market because they are well suited to both markets. But to dictate that all offerings under the FoMoCo umbrella adapt to the specifics of one platform, which obviously limits what each brand can do with their offering, seems like a lot to ask just to gain some cost savings in some areas of R&D.

 

While I like it, it still looks like an amalgam of every other Japanese jellybean design out there.

 

But a very good-looking jellybean, indeed.

 

True enough.

 

The current rumor is that the European version (as pictured) will use the EUCD platform, and North American will get their own version based on the modified CD3 platform being used by the Fusion/Milan/Zephyr.

Maybe that is already old news though. Personally I am hoping for some serious incentives around Christmas-time on the abbreviated '08 model year. I think the current 6 is still a great car.

 

HIGHLY doubt it, big no-no in Mullaly's eyes.

 

Very nice looking sled. Nissan and Mazda are definitely the Japanese brands with inspiration. Toy/Honda make nothing but mind-numbing toasters. I can't fathom why anyone is knocking the 6, it's an excellent car for the money. <--period.

 

- except Mazdas look way better than Nissans IMO. In the looks dept., most Nissans don't seem to age gracefully.

 

Not true, we're getting the same car Europe is getting, minus a few small changes, supposed to look better than the Euro version too.

 

Is this a first for the US market - getting Euro-based(?) vehicle that actually looks better on this side of the pond?

 

Dunno.

 

Beautiful car. Can't wait to see the Speed6

 

Yea, they usually feature a gimmick in the styling that can get old quickly. But drive the Accord, the Camry, then the Altima SE-R

 

Unlike Nissan w/its Altima SE-R, Honda and Toyota don't even dare to go there! Hoping a better-sorted out Mazdaspeed 6 will put Mazda at the top of the heap in styling and performance.

 

I like it lots! I have to resist Mazdas, they just flat out don't like me.

 

Confirmed by Car and Driver:

http://www.caranddriver.com/autoshow...a-6atenza.html

http://www.caranddriver.com/autoshow...-6.html?al=132

And AutoWeb (down near the bottom):

http://autoweb.com.au/cms/A_109215/t...wsarticle.html

 

Well, unless the "big, fat american" version looks absolutely awesome, I say this sucks for us.