2000 Mercury Sable vs. 2005 BMW 316
To start off, 2005 BMW 316 is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Mercury Sable. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Mercury Sable would be higher. At 3,001 cc (6 cylinders), 2000 Mercury Sable is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Mercury Sable weights approximately 199 kg more than 2005 BMW 316.
Because 2005 BMW 316 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 2005 BMW 316. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 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. Let's talk about torque, 2000 Mercury Sable (248 Nm) has 73 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 BMW 316. (175 Nm). This means 2000 Mercury Sable will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 BMW 316.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Mercury Sable | 2005 BMW 316 | |
Make | Mercury | BMW |
Model | Sable | 316 |
Year Released | 2000 | 2005 |
Body Type | Sedan | Hatchback |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3001 cc | 1794 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 0 HP | 113 HP |
Torque | 248 Nm | 175 Nm |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 6 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 3 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1574 kg | 1375 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5100 mm | 4270 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1760 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1410 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2760 mm | 2730 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 63 L |