2008 Mercury Sable vs. 2010 Mazda CX-9
To start off, 2010 Mazda CX-9 is newer by 2 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2008 Mercury Sable. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2008 Mercury Sable would be higher. At 3,700 cc (6 cylinders), 2010 Mazda CX-9 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Mazda CX-9 (273 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 13 more horse power than 2008 Mercury Sable. (260 HP @ 6250 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Mazda CX-9 should accelerate faster than 2008 Mercury Sable.
Because 2008 Mercury Sable is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2010 Mazda CX-9. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2008 Mercury Sable 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 Mazda CX-9 (366 Nm @ 4250 RPM) has 34 more torque (in Nm) than 2008 Mercury Sable. (332 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 2010 Mazda CX-9 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2008 Mercury Sable.
Compare all specifications:
| 2008 Mercury Sable | 2010 Mazda CX-9 | |
| Make | Mercury | Mazda |
| Model | Sable | CX-9 |
| Year Released | 2008 | 2010 |
| Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3496 cc | 3700 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 260 HP | 273 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 6250 RPM |
| Torque | 332 Nm | 366 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 4250 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Diesel | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 7 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 5100 mm | 5075 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1900 mm | 1935 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1570 mm | 1727 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2870 mm | 2875 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 9.8 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 14.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 78 L | 76 L |
