2006 Mercury Mariner vs. 2010 Holden Epica
To start off, 2010 Holden Epica is newer by 4 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 2,492 cc (6 cylinders), 2010 Holden Epica is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 2006 Mercury Mariner is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2010 Holden Epica. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Mercury Mariner will offer significantly more control. 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, 2010 Holden Epica (237 Nm) has 69 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Mercury Mariner. (168 Nm). This means 2010 Holden Epica will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Mercury Mariner.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Mercury Mariner | 2010 Holden Epica | |
| Make | Mercury | Holden |
| Model | Mariner | Epica |
| Year Released | 2006 | 2010 |
| Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2299 cc | 2492 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 153 HP |
| Torque | 168 Nm | 237 Nm |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline / Electric Hybrid | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4430 mm | 4805 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 1810 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1790 mm | 1450 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2630 mm | 2700 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 7.6 L/100km | 9.3 L/100km |
