2009 Jeep Commander vs. 2004 Mercury Sable
To start off, 2009 Jeep Commander is newer by 5 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2004 Mercury Sable. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2004 Mercury Sable would be higher. At 3,701 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Jeep Commander is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Jeep Commander (210 HP) has 55 more horse power than 2004 Mercury Sable. (155 HP). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Jeep Commander should accelerate faster than 2004 Mercury Sable. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2009 Jeep Commander weights approximately 530 kg more than 2004 Mercury Sable. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2009 Jeep Commander (319 Nm) has 68 more torque (in Nm) than 2004 Mercury Sable. (251 Nm). This means 2009 Jeep Commander will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2004 Mercury Sable.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Jeep Commander | 2004 Mercury Sable | |
Make | Jeep | Mercury |
Model | Commander | Sable |
Year Released | 2009 | 2004 |
Body Type | SUV | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3701 cc | 2983 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 210 HP | 155 HP |
Torque | 319 Nm | 251 Nm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.6:1 | 9.7:1 |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 6 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 2043 kg | 1513 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4790 mm | 5080 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1910 mm | 1860 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1840 mm | 1420 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2790 mm | 2760 mm |
Fuel Consumption Highway | 12.5 L/100km | 9.2 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 17 L/100km | 12.5 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 14.9 L/100km | 10.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 80 L | 68 L |