2009 BMW 320 vs. 2000 Mercury Sable
To start off, 2009 BMW 320 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 3,001 cc (6 cylinders), 2000 Mercury Sable is equipped with a bigger engine.
Because 2009 BMW 320 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 BMW 320. 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, 2000 Mercury Sable (248 Nm) has 58 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 BMW 320. (190 Nm). This means 2000 Mercury Sable will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 BMW 320.
Compare all specifications:
2009 BMW 320 | 2000 Mercury Sable | |
Make | BMW | Mercury |
Model | 320 | Sable |
Year Released | 2009 | 2000 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1995 cc | 3001 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 141 HP | 0 HP |
Torque | 190 Nm | 248 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 6 seats |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Length | 4540 mm | 5100 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1820 mm | 1860 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1420 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2770 mm | 2760 mm |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 63 L | 68 L |