2009 Alpina B3 vs. 2000 Mercury Sable
To start off, 2009 Alpina B3 is newer by 9 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2000 Mercury Sable. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2000 Mercury Sable would be higher. At 3,346 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Alpina B3 is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Mercury Sable weights approximately 124 kg more than 2009 Alpina B3.
Because 2009 Alpina B3 is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2009 Alpina B3. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Mercury Sable, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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 Alpina B3 (362 Nm) has 114 more torque (in Nm) than 2000 Mercury Sable. (248 Nm). This means 2009 Alpina B3 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2000 Mercury Sable.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Alpina B3 | 2000 Mercury Sable | |
Make | Alpina | Mercury |
Model | B3 | Sable |
Year Released | 2009 | 2000 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3346 cc | 3001 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 301 HP | 0 HP |
Torque | 362 Nm | 248 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 6 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1450 kg | 1574 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4480 mm | 5100 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1750 mm | 1860 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1400 mm | 1420 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2730 mm | 2760 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 63 L | 68 L |