2005 Chevrolet Colorado vs. 2009 Mercury Mariner
To start off, 2009 Mercury Mariner is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Chevrolet Colorado. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Chevrolet Colorado would be higher. At 2,967 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Mercury Mariner is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mercury Mariner (240 HP @ 6550 RPM) has 65 more horse power than 2005 Chevrolet Colorado. (175 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mercury Mariner should accelerate faster than 2005 Chevrolet Colorado. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Mercury Mariner weights approximately 352 kg more than 2005 Chevrolet Colorado. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2009 Mercury Mariner (302 Nm) has 51 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Chevrolet Colorado. (251 Nm). This means 2009 Mercury Mariner will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Chevrolet Colorado.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Chevrolet Colorado | 2009 Mercury Mariner | |
| Make | Chevrolet | Mercury |
| Model | Colorado | Mariner |
| Year Released | 2005 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Pickup | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2768 cc | 2967 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 175 HP | 240 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6550 RPM |
| Torque | 251 Nm | 302 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.0:1 | 9.7:1 |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1573 kg | 1925 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5270 mm | 4460 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1810 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1650 mm | 1780 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3210 mm | 2630 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 8.7 L/100km | 10 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 11.8 L/100km | 14 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.2 L/100km | 11.9 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 72 L | 62 L |
