2004 Mercury Sable vs. 2005 Volvo S60
To start off, 2005 Volvo S60 is newer by 1 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Mercury Sable. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Mercury Sable would be higher. At 2,983 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Mercury Sable is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Volvo S60 (161 HP) has 6 more horse power than 2004 Mercury Sable. (155 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2005 Volvo S60 should accelerate faster than 2004 Mercury Sable. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Mercury Sable weights approximately 12 kg more than 2005 Volvo S60.
Let's talk about torque, 2004 Mercury Sable (251 Nm) has 21 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Volvo S60. (230 Nm). This means 2004 Mercury Sable will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Volvo S60.
Compare all specifications:
2004 Mercury Sable | 2005 Volvo S60 | |
Make | Mercury | Volvo |
Model | Sable | S60 |
Year Released | 2004 | 2005 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2983 cc | 2435 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 5 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 155 HP | 161 HP |
Torque | 251 Nm | 230 Nm |
Engine Bore Size | 89 mm | 83 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 79 mm | 90 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.7:1 | 10.3:1 |
Number of Seats | 6 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1513 kg | 1501 kg |
Vehicle Length | 5080 mm | 4580 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1810 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1420 mm | 1430 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2760 mm | 2660 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.2 L/100km | 8.1 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 12.5 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.8 L/100km | 8.9 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 70 L |