2009 Mazda 2 vs. 2004 Mercury Sable
To start off, 2009 Mazda 2 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 2,983 cc (6 cylinders), 2004 Mercury Sable is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Mercury Sable (155 HP) has 53 more horse power than 2009 Mazda 2. (102 HP) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Mercury Sable should accelerate faster than 2009 Mazda 2. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Mercury Sable weights approximately 553 kg more than 2009 Mazda 2. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Let's talk about torque, 2004 Mercury Sable (251 Nm) has 115 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda 2. (136 Nm). This means 2004 Mercury Sable will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda 2.
Compare all specifications:
2009 Mazda 2 | 2004 Mercury Sable | |
Make | Mazda | Mercury |
Model | 2 | Sable |
Year Released | 2009 | 2004 |
Body Type | Hatchback | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1498 cc | 2983 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 102 HP | 155 HP |
Torque | 136 Nm | 251 Nm |
Engine Bore Size | 78 mm | 89 mm |
Engine Stroke Size | 78.4 mm | 79 mm |
Engine Compression Ratio | 10.0:1 | 9.7:1 |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 6 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 960 kg | 1513 kg |
Vehicle Length | 3890 mm | 5080 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1700 mm | 1860 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1480 mm | 1420 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2500 mm | 2760 mm |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 5.9 L/100km | 10.8 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 43 L | 68 L |