2009 Lincoln MKS vs. 2006 Mercury Mariner
To start off, 2009 Lincoln MKS is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 2006 Mercury Mariner. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 2006 Mercury Mariner would be higher. At 3,724 cc (6 cylinders), 2009 Lincoln MKS is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Lincoln MKS (273 HP @ 6250 RPM) has 72 more horse power than 2006 Mercury Mariner. (201 HP @ 6000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Lincoln MKS should accelerate faster than 2006 Mercury Mariner.
Both vehicles are four wheel drive (4WD) - it offers better handling, traction, and control in all driving conditions compared with front wheel drive or 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 Lincoln MKS (366 Nm @ 4250 RPM) has 104 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Mercury Mariner. (262 Nm @ 4850 RPM). This means 2009 Lincoln MKS will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Mercury Mariner.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Lincoln MKS | 2006 Mercury Mariner | |
| Make | Lincoln | Mercury |
| Model | MKS | Mariner |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2006 |
| Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3724 cc | 2999 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 273 HP | 201 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6250 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Torque | 366 Nm | 262 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4250 RPM | 4850 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.8:1 | 9.7:1 |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | 4WD | 4WD |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 5190 mm | 4450 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1930 mm | 1790 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1570 mm | 1780 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2870 mm | 2630 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 10.2 L/100km | 10.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.7 L/100km | 12.4 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 12.4 L/100km | 11.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 72 L | 62 L |
