1996 Mazda Sentia vs. 2002 Mercury Sable
To start off, 2002 Mercury Sable is newer by 6 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Mazda Sentia. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Mazda Sentia would be higher. At 2,982 cc (6 cylinders), 2002 Mercury Sable is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1996 Mazda Sentia weights approximately 35 kg more than 2002 Mercury Sable.
Because 1996 Mazda Sentia 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 1996 Mazda Sentia. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2002 Mercury Sable, 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 1996 Mazda Sentia | 2002 Mercury Sable | |
| Make | Mazda | Mercury |
| Model | Sentia | Sable |
| Year Released | 1996 | 2002 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Station Wagon |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2952 cc | 2982 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 153 HP |
| Engine Bore Size | 90 mm | 89 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 77.4 mm | 79 mm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1600 kg | 1565 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4900 mm | 5030 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1860 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1480 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2860 mm | 2760 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 70 L | 68 L |
