2009 Mazda 6 vs. 2000 Mercury Sable
To start off, 2009 Mazda 6 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. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Mercury Sable weights approximately 449 kg more than 2009 Mazda 6.
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, 2000 Mercury Sable (248 Nm) has 20 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda 6. (228 Nm). This means 2000 Mercury Sable will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda 6.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Mazda 6 | 2000 Mercury Sable | |
| Make | Mazda | Mercury |
| Model | 6 | Sable |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2000 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2488 cc | 3001 cc |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 169 HP | 0 HP |
| Torque | 228 Nm | 248 Nm |
| Drive Type | Front | Front |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 6 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1125 kg | 1574 kg |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1860 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2730 mm | 2760 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 68 L |
