1966 Mercury Cougar vs. 2004 Volvo S60
To start off, 2004 Volvo S60 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 4,728 cc (8 cylinders), 1966 Mercury Cougar is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2004 Volvo S60 (161 HP @ 4000 RPM) has 32 more horse power than 1966 Mercury Cougar. (129 HP @ 4400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2004 Volvo S60 should accelerate faster than 1966 Mercury Cougar. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2004 Volvo S60 weights approximately 180 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.
Because 1966 Mercury Cougar is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 1966 Mercury Cougar. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2004 Volvo S60, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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 Volvo S60 | |
Make | Mercury | Volvo |
Model | Cougar | S60 |
Year Released | 1966 | 2004 |
Body Type | Coupe | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4728 cc | 2435 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 5 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 129 HP | 161 HP |
Engine RPM | 4400 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 4 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1362 kg | 1542 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4990 mm | 4580 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1810 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1320 mm | 1440 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2830 mm | 2720 mm |