1966 Mercury Cougar vs. 2004 Cadillac CTS
To start off, 2004 Cadillac CTS is newer by 38 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Mercury Cougar. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Mercury Cougar would be higher. At 6,392 cc (8 cylinders), 1966 Mercury Cougar is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Cadillac CTS (215 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 7 more horse power than 1966 Mercury Cougar. (208 HP @ 4600 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1966 Mercury Cougar. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 130 kg more than 1966 Mercury Cougar. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front 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.
Compare all specifications:
| 1966 Mercury Cougar | 2004 Cadillac CTS | |
| Make | Mercury | Cadillac |
| Model | Cougar | CTS |
| Year Released | 1966 | 2004 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 6392 cc | 3173 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 208 HP | 215 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 6000 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1660 kg | 1790 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4990 mm | 4830 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1800 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1320 mm | 1450 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2830 mm | 2750 mm |
