2006 Kia Sedona vs. 2009 Mercury Sable
To start off, 2009 Mercury Sable is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Kia Sedona. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Kia Sedona would be higher. At 3,786 cc (6 cylinders), 2006 Kia Sedona is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mercury Sable (263 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 18 more horse power than 2006 Kia Sedona. (245 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mercury Sable should accelerate faster than 2006 Kia Sedona. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Kia Sedona weights approximately 74 kg more than 2009 Mercury Sable.
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, 2006 Kia Sedona (343 Nm @ 3500 RPM) has 5 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mercury Sable. (338 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2006 Kia Sedona will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mercury Sable.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Kia Sedona | 2009 Mercury Sable | |
| Make | Kia | Mercury |
| Model | Sedona | Sable |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Minivan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3786 cc | 3496 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Horse Power | 245 HP | 263 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 6250 RPM |
| Torque | 343 Nm | 338 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3500 RPM | 4500 RPM |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Number of Seats | 7 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 2000 kg | 1926 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5140 mm | 5140 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1990 mm | 1900 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1770 mm | 1570 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3030 mm | 2870 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 9.4 L/100km | 8.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.8 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 L | 78 L |
