Mazda CX-60 Fast Fleet test – 7000 miles in the straight-six SUV

Mazda’s CX-60 should have been one of those off-radar cars evo could get behind: a straight-six turbodiesel – newly developed in a world where this never happens – in an unassuming, well-packaged, right-sized SUV built to Mazda’s ‘everything you need and nothing you don’t’ engineering approach. It was never going to be an MX-5 but there was a hope it would prove that such cars don’t need to be the size of a small housing development and have more power than a top fuel dragster.

Sadly, this wasn’t the case. There were positives in its design: clean and distinctive, no fussy enlarged features for the sake of it. Well proportioned, too. Some would say unadventurous, but this is a functional car to do a job. Although after six months we’re still not sure what that job is.

> Mazda MX-5 2.0 Fast Fleet test – 12 months in the featherweight roadster

It had space to play with inside and Mazda’s ergonomics meant there was a logic to its controls – no touchscreen (hoorah!), just physical dials and buttons – and how they were laid out. And it felt like a quality product, with higher-than-expected material fit and finish. Ten days of eCoty graft left it wearing most of Scotland’s weather on the outside and its landscape on the inside, but after a thorough clean there wasn’t a blemish to be found. As a workhorse to live outside while the Caterham/Elise/other toy is snuggly parked up inside, the CX‑60 has an appeal.

Unfortunately this appeal subsides with every mile. Its 3.3-litre six doesn’t want for technology – not only does it have a 48-volt mild-hybrid system to allow for silent coasting, but Mazda has also developed something called ‘Distribution Controlled Partially Premixed Compression Ignition’ or DCPCI. It’s designed to lower emissions by better control of the fuelling, and along with Mazda’s philosophy of using a less-stressed, larger-capacity engine rather than a smaller four-pot that’s constantly working at its peak, the claims are more effortless performance and improved efficiency.

16

Which isn’t exactly what we found. Its 406lb ft arrived at 1500 but was all done by 2400rpm, with the 250bhp over by 4200rpm, which made for an engine that needed to be worked hard. This didn’t help on two fronts: it made for quite a harsh soundtrack, and it wasn’t brilliant economically, either.

Now, between locations on a photoshoot, where the boot is full of Peli cases and the chasing pack all have at least 600bhp, any ‘regular’ car is going to be sweating litres of fuel in order to not hold anyone up. As was the case with our Mazda. But it was on regular commutes, one-up, travelling the UK’s A-road and motorway network, that it struggled to stay in the low-40s mpg-wise. Mazda claims 54mpg.

16

Its eight-speed automatic gearbox was well judged, but with no manual override you are at its mercy if you want any engine braking. But by far the biggest hurdle to overcome was the CX-60’s ride, which never settled, and while it didn’t suffer from any wallow it was borderline harsh. There was a sensation that all four corners were overreacting to every imperfection the road surface presented. It made for a tiring drive, a fuzz permanently percolating through the cabin and the body constantly fidgeting like an unsettled partner as they build up the courage to tell you they might have caught a kerb with one of their car’s wheels. The one you’ve just had repaired.

Not the greatest long-termer we’ve had on the fleet, then. Much of our disappointment came from having such high expectations from Mazda, which, commendably, is still prepared to innovate and carve its own path while others plod on down a well-trodden route. Unfortunately, with the £45,630 CX‑60 3.3D 254PS AWD, Mazda took the wrong turn.

This story was first featured in evo issue 324.