2009 Mazda 6 vs. 2006 Mercury Mariner
To start off, 2009 Mazda 6 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 2,488 cc, 2009 Mazda 6 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda 6 (169 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 16 more horse power than 2006 Mercury Mariner. (153 HP @ 5800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda 6 should accelerate faster than 2006 Mercury Mariner. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2006 Mercury Mariner weights approximately 800 kg more than 2009 Mazda 6.
Because 2006 Mercury Mariner is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 2009 Mazda 6. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2006 Mercury Mariner will offer significantly more control. 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 Mazda 6 (228 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 22 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Mercury Mariner. (206 Nm @ 4250 RPM). This means 2009 Mazda 6 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Mercury Mariner.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Mazda 6 | 2006 Mercury Mariner | |
| Make | Mazda | Mercury |
| Model | 6 | Mariner |
| Year Released | 2009 | 2006 |
| Body Type | Sedan | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2488 cc | 2262 cc |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 169 HP | 153 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5800 RPM |
| Torque | 228 Nm | 206 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 4250 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.7:1 | 9.7:1 |
| Drive Type | Front | 4WD |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1125 kg | 1925 kg |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1790 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2730 mm | 2630 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 13.1 L/100km | 9.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 62 L |
