Which Petrol Engine is better performed?

[tommace]

Hello All,
I have a question about two cars.
1.Mazda 6 Atenza 170KW@5000 RPM
420NM@2000 RPM
2.Subaru WRX 197KW@5600 RPM
350NM@2400-5200 RPM

Which car has quickest response ? i.e from 0-100km/h
Why Atenza is not a performance car?

[Dave B.]

Originally Posted by tommace

Hello All,
I have a question about two cars.
1.Mazda 6 Atenza 170KW@5000 RPM
420NM@2000 RPM
2.Subaru WRX 197KW@5600 RPM
350NM@2400-5200 RPM

Which car has quickest response ? i.e from 0-100km/h
Why Atenza is not a performance car?

It's a complete coincidence that I own one of each of these cars. The engine tuning and transmissions make the difference. The Mazda is a larger, heavier car with more interior room. It handles very well on the open road and gets reasonable fuel mileage. The Mazda has a 2.5 liter normally aspirated four cylinder engine while the WRX has a 2.0 liter turbocharged four. (Note: In the U.S. the Mazda is also available with a turbocharged four cylinder, but it's still not as performance-oriented as the WRX. The WRX is also available in an STI variant which comes with even more performance from a turbocharged 2.5 liter four.) The Mazda's automatic transmission is calibrated for smooth shifts and (again) good fuel mileage. It's my daily driver.


My WRX is a manual (as are almost all of them). It's considerably faster than the Mazda; but, due to the turbo, it needs to be kept at higer RPMs to deliver maximum performance. Fuel mileage is quite a bit lower than the Mazda. The seats in the WRX are not nearly as comfortable as the Mazda, but do offer better support if you're going to compete in amateur motorsports.

In short - two very different cars for different driving needs.

[tommace]

Thanks Mate.So which car has the quick response at lower RPM.My confusion is Mazda 6 reaches full 420Nm torque at 2000 rpm. WRX still at low torque at 2000 rpm.So response time/speeding up for WRX is low at lower rpm correct?