1966 Mercury Cougar vs. 2010 Land Rover Range Rover
To start off, 2010 Land Rover Range Rover is newer by 44 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 5,000 cc (8 cylinders), 2010 Land Rover Range Rover is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Land Rover Range Rover (510 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 381 more horse power than 1966 Mercury Cougar. (129 HP @ 4400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Land Rover Range Rover should accelerate faster than 1966 Mercury Cougar. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2010 Land Rover Range Rover weights approximately 1310 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 2010 Land Rover Range Rover is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1966 Mercury Cougar. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Land Rover Range Rover 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.
Compare all specifications:
1966 Mercury Cougar | 2010 Land Rover Range Rover | |
Make | Mercury | Land Rover |
Model | Cougar | Range Rover |
Year Released | 1966 | 2010 |
Body Type | Coupe | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4728 cc | 5000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Horse Power | 129 HP | 510 HP |
Engine RPM | 4400 RPM | 6500 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1362 kg | 2672 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4990 mm | 4973 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 2035 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1320 mm | 1877 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2830 mm | 2878 mm |