Hyundai Marcia

Hyundai Marcia specs: six versions, one generation

All six sit in generation 1 generation (2354), body Sedan, years 1995-01-01 to 1998-12-31. There is no second generation to compare, so the choice is only among these modifications. Drive is FWD on every row. Fuel type is Gasoline. Boost is No. Gearboxes are Manual with 5 gears or Automatic with 4. Front suspension, where listed, is Independent, spring. Front and rear brakes are Disc.

All six sit in generation 1 generation (`2354`), body Sedan, years 1995-01-01 to 1998-12-31. There is no second generation to compare, so the choice is only among these modifications. Drive is FWD on every row. Fuel type is Gasoline. Boost is No. Gearboxes are Manual with 5 gears or Automatic with 4. Front suspension, where listed, is Independent, spring. Front and rear brakes are Disc. Tank volume is 65 litres on every version.

The names that must match the database exactly are 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.5 AT, and 2.5 MT. Two 2.0 MT and two 2.0 AT exist; they are told apart by 103 hp versus 146 hp.

Engine comparison: 103 hp vs 146 hp vs 173 hp

Displacement is 1997 cc on all four 2.0 versions. The 2.5 AT is 2494 cc; the 2.5 MT is 2497 cc — 3 cc apart, not the same engine block on the tape.

Power:

• 2.0 MT (103 hp): 103 hp / 77 kW at 6000 rpm
• 2.0 AT (103 hp): 103 hp / 77 kW at 6000 rpm
• 2.0 MT (146 hp): 146 hp / 107 kW at 6000 rpm
• 2.0 AT (146 hp): 146 hp / 107 kW at 6000 rpm
• 2.5 AT: 173 hp / 127 kW at 6000 rpm
• 2.5 MT: 173 hp / 127 kW at 6000 rpm

146 − 103 = 43 hp. That is about 42% more peak power on the same 1997 cc, same 6000 rpm, same 188 Nm. The step from 146 to 173 is 27 hp — smaller than the step inside the 2.0 range.

Specific output (hp per litre, displacement in litres = cc / 1000):

• 103 hp / 1.997 L ≈ 51.6 hp/L on both 2.0 MT (103 hp) and 2.0 AT (103 hp)
• 146 hp / 1.997 L ≈ 73.1 hp/L on both 2.0 MT (146 hp) and 2.0 AT (146 hp)
• 173 hp / 2.494 L ≈ 69.4 hp/L on 2.5 AT
• 173 hp / 2.497 L ≈ 69.3 hp/L on 2.5 MT

The 146 hp 2.0 is the densest engine in the catalogue. The 173 hp sixes make more absolute power but less power per litre than the strong 2.0.

Torque:

• All four 2.0 versions: 188 Nm at 4000 rpm
• 2.5 AT: 220 Nm at 3750 rpm (+32 Nm vs the 2.0s, peak 250 rpm earlier)
• 2.5 MT: 224 Nm at 4500 rpm (+36 Nm vs the 2.0s, +4 Nm vs 2.5 AT, peak 750 rpm later than the AT six)

Cylinders and layout from the data, not from outside labels: the 2.0s are 4 cylinders, Inline, 4 valves per cylinder, Front, transverse, Distributed injection (multi-point). Both 2.5s are 6 cylinders, V-shaped, 4 valves per cylinder, Distributed injection (multi-point). Engine location is Front, transverse on 2.5 MT and not measured on 2.5 AT.

Compression: 9 on 2.0 MT (103 hp) and 2.0 AT (103 hp); not measured on both 146 hp 2.0s; 10 on 2.5 AT and 2.5 MT. Bore × stroke: 85 × 88 on the 103 hp pair; not measured on the 146 hp pair; 84 × 75 on 2.5 AT; 83.5 × 76 on 2.5 MT. Fuel grade is 95 only on 2.5 AT; not measured on the other five.

Gearbox: Manual 5 vs Automatic 4

Same engine, different box, is a real fork four times:

On the 146 hp 2.0, Manual and Automatic share 9.3 s to 100 km/h and 196 km/h — the extra 43 hp versus the 103 hp 2.0 MT does not change those two figures in this dataset. The 103 hp 2.0 AT is the only 2.0 whose sprint and top speed are not measured, so you cannot claim it is slower than the 103 hp 2.0 MT; you can only say it was not measured.

2.5 MT is 197 km/h; 2.5 AT is 195 km/h (2 km/h gap). 2.5 AT is 1 km/h below the 196 km/h 2.0s that have a figure. 2.5 MT is 1 km/h above those 2.0s.

Weight per horsepower and which version is “lighter”

Kerb weight:

• 2.0 MT (103), 2.0 AT (103), 2.0 MT (146), 2.0 AT (146): 1350 kg
• 2.5 AT: 1150 kg
• 2.5 MT: 1430 kg

Gross weight: not measured on all six.

Arithmetic:

• 2.5 AT is 200 kg lighter than the 2.0 cluster (1350 − 1150).
• 2.5 MT is 80 kg heavier than the 2.0 cluster (1430 − 1350).
• 2.5 MT is 280 kg heavier than 2.5 AT (1430 − 1150) at the same 173 hp.

kg per hp (kerb / hp):

• 2.0 at 103 hp: 1350 / 103 ≈ 13.1 kg/hp
• 2.0 at 146 hp: 1350 / 146 ≈ 9.25 kg/hp
• 2.5 AT: 1150 / 173 ≈ 6.65 kg/hp
• 2.5 MT: 1430 / 173 ≈ 8.27 kg/hp

On this tape, 2.5 AT is the lightest car and the lowest kg/hp. 2.5 MT is the heaviest car. The 146 hp 2.0 sits between the two sixes on kg/hp without changing kerb weight versus the 103 hp 2.0.

Ground clearance is 165 mm on 2.5 AT and not measured on the other five. Wheel sizes: not measured on all six.

Performance and mpg: what is measured

0–100 km/h 9.3 s: 2.0 MT (103 hp), 2.0 MT (146 hp), 2.0 AT (146 hp). 0–100 not measured: 2.0 AT (103 hp), 2.5 AT, 2.5 MT.

Top speed 196 km/h: the three versions with 9.3 s. 195 km/h: 2.5 AT. 197 km/h: 2.5 MT. not measured: 2.0 AT (103 hp).

City / highway / combined consumption: not measured on all six. CO2: not measured. Eco class: not measured. There is no mpg ranking possible from this file; saying one version uses less fuel would invent a number.

Dimensions and weight in one place

Which version to choose

There is only 1 generation, so “which generation” is not a fork. The forks are power, gearbox, and the 2.0 versus 2.5 split.

Buy a 2.0 if you want the measured 9.3 s / 196 km/h set. That set is 2.0 MT (103 hp), 2.0 MT (146 hp), and 2.0 AT (146 hp). The 146 hp pair adds 43 hp and drops kg/hp from 13.1 to 9.25 without changing kerb weight, 0–100, or top speed in the data. If the extra 43 hp is the point, take 2.0 MT (146 hp) or 2.0 AT (146 hp), not the 103 hp twins. 2.0 AT (146 hp) matches the 146 hp manual on sprint and speed; 2.0 AT (103 hp) does not publish those two figures.

Do not pick the 103 hp 2.0 for “economy”. Consumption is not measured. The 103 hp cars are the same 1350 kg, same 65 L tank, same 188 Nm as the 146 hp 2.0s. The only documented deficit is 43 hp.

Buy 2.5 AT if the numbers you care about are kerb weight and torque at a lower rpm. It is 1150 kg, 220 Nm at 3750 rpm, 173 hp, 195 km/h, 165 mm clearance, fuel 95. It is 200 kg lighter than any 2.0 and 280 kg lighter than 2.5 MT. 0–100 is not measured, so it is not proven quicker than the 9.3 s 2.0s. Top speed is 1 km/h below those 2.0s.

Buy 2.5 MT if you want the highest listed top speed and the highest listed torque. 197 km/h, 224 Nm at 4500 rpm, 173 hp, 1430 kg, 5-speed Manual. It is the heaviest Marcia here. 0–100 is not measured. Clearance and fuel grade are not measured. Engine location is Front, transverse.

Manual versus Automatic on the six: 2.0 MT (both powers) and 2.5 MT are Manual / 5. 2.0 AT (both powers) and 2.5 AT are Automatic / 4. On 146 hp the two boxes match on 0–100 and top speed. On 103 hp only the Manual has those figures. On 2.5 only top speed is listed, and the Manual is 2 km/h faster.

Problems and reliability: this dataset has no failure rates, recalls, or service intervals. Those topics are not measured here. What the tape does support is that every version is Gasoline, No boost, FWD, Disc brakes front and rear, 65 L tank, and the same production window.

Short ranking by what the numbers actually change: lowest kg/hp and lowest kerb — 2.5 AT; highest top speed and highest torque — 2.5 MT; same 0–100 as the weak 2.0 but 43 hp more at the same weight — 2.0 MT (146 hp) and 2.0 AT (146 hp); documented 9.3 s with the least power — 2.0 MT (103 hp); same name as that car with sprint and speed not measured — 2.0 AT (103 hp).