2000 Mercury Sable vs. 2011 Holden Epica
To start off, 2011 Holden Epica is newer by 11 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.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than rear 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, 2011 Holden Epica (320 Nm) has 72 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Mercury Sable. (248 Nm). This means 2011 Holden Epica will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Mercury Sable. 2000 Mercury Sable has automatic transmission and 2011 Holden Epica has manual transmission. 2011 Holden Epica will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 2000 Mercury Sable will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Mercury Sable | 2011 Holden Epica | |
| Make | Mercury | Holden |
| Model | Sable | Epica |
| Year Released | 2000 | 2011 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3001 cc | 1991 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 148 HP |
| Torque | 248 Nm | 320 Nm |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Manual |
| Number of Seats | 6 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 5100 mm | 4805 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1810 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1450 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2760 mm | 2700 mm |
