1966 Mercury Cougar vs. 2012 Cadillac CTS-V
To start off, 2012 Cadillac CTS-V is newer by 46 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 6,200 cc (8 cylinders), 2012 Cadillac CTS-V is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2012 Cadillac CTS-V (556 HP @ 6100 RPM) has 427 more horse power than 1966 Mercury Cougar. (129 HP @ 4400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2012 Cadillac CTS-V should accelerate faster than 1966 Mercury Cougar. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2012 Cadillac CTS-V weights approximately 553 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 | 2012 Cadillac CTS-V | |
| Make | Mercury | Cadillac |
| Model | Cougar | CTS-V |
| Year Released | 1966 | 2012 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Station Wagon |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4728 cc | 6200 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 129 HP | 556 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4400 RPM | 6100 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1362 kg | 1915 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4990 mm | 4877 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1842 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1320 mm | 1473 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2830 mm | 2880 mm |
