2009 Mazda 6 vs. 2012 Ford Shelby GT500
To start off, 2012 Ford Shelby GT500 is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2009 Mazda 6. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2009 Mazda 6 would be higher. At 5,400 cc (8 cylinders), 2012 Ford Shelby GT500 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Ford Shelby GT500 (550 HP @ 6200 RPM) has 382 more horse power than 2009 Mazda 6. (168 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Ford Shelby GT500 should accelerate faster than 2009 Mazda 6.
Because 2012 Ford Shelby GT500 is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2012 Ford Shelby GT500. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2009 Mazda 6, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control. Let's talk about torque, 2012 Ford Shelby GT500 (691 Nm @ 4250 RPM) has 524 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda 6. (167 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2012 Ford Shelby GT500 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda 6.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Mazda 6 | 2012 Ford Shelby GT500 | |
Make | Mazda | Ford |
Model | 6 | Shelby GT500 |
Year Released | 2009 | 2012 |
Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2487 cc | 5400 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 168 HP | 550 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6200 RPM |
Torque | 167 Nm | 691 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 4250 RPM |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Manual | 6-speed manual |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
Fuel Consumption | 8.1 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 11.8 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |