2009 Cadillac BLS vs. 2005 Mercury Mariner
To start off, 2009 Cadillac BLS is newer by 4 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2005 Mercury Mariner. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2005 Mercury Mariner would be higher. At 2,999 cc (6 cylinders), 2005 Mercury Mariner is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Mercury Mariner (201 HP) has 53 more horse power than 2009 Cadillac BLS. (148 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2005 Mercury Mariner should accelerate faster than 2009 Cadillac BLS. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Cadillac BLS weights approximately 136 kg more than 2005 Mercury Mariner.
Both vehicles are front wheel drive (FWD). Which offers better traction when its slippery than 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 Cadillac BLS (320 Nm) has 58 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Mercury Mariner. (262 Nm). This means 2009 Cadillac BLS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Mercury Mariner.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Cadillac BLS | 2005 Mercury Mariner | |
| Make | Cadillac | Mercury |
| Model | BLS | Mariner |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2005 |
| Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1910 cc | 2999 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 148 HP | 201 HP |
| Torque | 320 Nm | 262 Nm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.5:1 | 10.0:1 |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1635 kg | 1499 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4690 mm | 4430 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1790 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1730 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2630 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 6.1 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 58 L | 62 L |
