Here is another thought....vehicles like the JX and "mainstream" versions of the Q50 (assuming both sell well) will pay the bills to keep Infiniti viable and able to invest in performance versions of the car. The M division surely is given the $$$ for R&D from the thousands of sales of 328's to Moms/GMom's/etc who don't care about performance, but want the image and prestige associated with BMW.

 

They could have done this with the G. (IPL doesn't count)

 

Haha I will if they build me a 6mt. Not my future . Just knowing the whole driving experience is synthesized doesn't make it worth it for me to pay for an "upgrade" that didn't need upgrading. I actually agree with most expert reviews I read, when I compare to my own test drives.
Agree with other posters, the market will tell if its a failure or not.

 

I drove a stick for 12 years and I got tired of it in traffic day in and day out. So a manual for me is a non-starter on my daily driver.

I actually would welcome a high-tech synthesized drive; the car doesn't need to be faster in a straight line or in the curves...now talk about fuel economy is a different story.

I find I don't really agree fully with expert reviews.

 

i wonder if anyone else noticed this

 

^^^
Yep. If you're not interested in all the gadgets and are OK with forgoing sport-sedan performance, then it's a slam-dunk savings of $20,000 to get a virtually identical looking vehicle. And quite frankly, one with a 10x better looking front-end.

Seen the new Mazda a few times, and sat in it once. It's very nice.

 

If you zero in on the lug nuts you will find plagerism left, right and center.

 

You need to drive one. Sitting in it is not the same as driving one. And if you are used to balance and poise of the G, well the Mazda has little.

 

But the Mazda is Front Wheel Drive. For me, the comparison abruptly ends at this point.

 

No argument from me, there. I'm just saying, for the consumer who doesn't know or care about the differences... the Sonata would be a contender for them as well.

 

One of my buddies in rochester just got a new mazda 6 touring with the tech package. It has all the same gadgets as my car, and a few extras (like HD radio). The refinement of some things isn't quite the same (ie the nav system). Makes sense, the G was redesigned in 2009 (and hasn't changed much since a while prior), and all that stuff trickles down every ~5 years or so.

I haven't driven it yet, but I'm excited to see if the 6's automagic works as well as the reviewers say it does.

 

Why? The majority of G sedan owners have no idea which wheels are driving their car. I spoke to quite a few middle aged cougars at the dealership whilst getting my car serviced and all they kept pestering me about was the lack of MPGS...they could care less they have a RWD car.

The old Mazda6 were no slouch either, especially the mazdaspeed6. MS3, Focus ST, shows you what a good FWD car can do if the geometry is set up right.

Sure you get all the bells and whistles of the new Q sedan, but I can't get past the economy car styling now that Mazda is doing it.

Question is who stole from who? The new mazda6 came out long before the Q.

 

I agree. The enthusiasts on forums are not the masses. The general public who use their car as a daily driver can care less about FWD or RWD when sitting in traffic or putting around town. I drove a Maxima and dare I say, it drove and handled just as well as my G, if not slightly better. The Mazda 6 looks great, gets better MPG, more interior room, and has most of the tech available. I think it is a great contender if you want to save a bundle.

 

The Q is derived from the 2009 concept. It's DNA is in that.

 

It really doesn't matter who stole from who. I'm pretty sure every manufacturer has their concepts. And perhaps Mazda had that styling cue long before. We don't know everything. The fact remains, they look very similar. Does knowing who came first make you feel better or change the fact that they look alike?