1992 BMW 540 vs. 2009 Mercury Mountaineer
To start off, 2009 Mercury Mountaineer is newer by 17 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1992 BMW 540. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1992 BMW 540 would be higher. At 4,009 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Mercury Mountaineer is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1992 BMW 540 (282 HP @ 5800 RPM) has 72 more horse power than 2009 Mercury Mountaineer. (210 HP @ 5100 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1992 BMW 540 should accelerate faster than 2009 Mercury Mountaineer.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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, 1992 BMW 540 (400 Nm @ 4500 RPM) has 56 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mercury Mountaineer. (344 Nm @ 3700 RPM). This means 1992 BMW 540 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mercury Mountaineer.
Compare all specifications:
1992 BMW 540 | 2009 Mercury Mountaineer | |
Make | BMW | Mercury |
Model | 540 | Mountaineer |
Year Released | 1992 | 2009 |
Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3982 cc | 4009 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 282 HP | 210 HP |
Engine RPM | 5800 RPM | 5100 RPM |
Torque | 400 Nm | 344 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 3700 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 10.0:1 | 9.7:1 |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4730 mm | 4920 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1880 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1860 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2770 mm | 2890 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 9.6 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 17.2 L/100km | 16.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 8.6 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 L | 85 L |