2006 Mercury Mariner vs. 2009 Volvo XC70
To start off, 2009 Volvo XC70 is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Mercury Mariner. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Mercury Mariner would be higher. At 2,999 cc (6 cylinders), 2006 Mercury Mariner is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Volvo XC70 (281 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 80 more horse power than 2006 Mercury Mariner. (201 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Volvo XC70 should accelerate faster than 2006 Mercury Mariner.
Both vehicles are four wheel drive (4WD) - it offers better handling, traction, and control in all driving conditions compared with front wheel drive or 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, 2009 Volvo XC70 (400 Nm @ 1500 RPM) has 138 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Mercury Mariner. (262 Nm @ 4850 RPM). This means 2009 Volvo XC70 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Mercury Mariner.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Mercury Mariner | 2009 Volvo XC70 | |
| Make | Mercury | Volvo |
| Model | Mariner | XC70 |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2009 |
| Body Type | SUV | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2999 cc | 2953 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 201 HP | 281 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5600 RPM |
| Torque | 262 Nm | 400 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4850 RPM | 1500 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.7:1 | 18.3:1 |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | 4WD | 4WD |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4450 mm | 4850 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 1870 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1780 mm | 1610 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2630 mm | 2820 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 10.2 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 12.4 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.2 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 62 L | 70 L |
