1968 Mercury Cougar vs. 2000 Rover 75
To start off, 2000 Rover 75 is newer by 32 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1968 Mercury Cougar. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1968 Mercury Cougar would be higher. At 4,942 cc (8 cylinders), 1968 Mercury Cougar is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1968 Mercury Cougar (137 HP @ 4600 RPM) has 19 more horse power than 2000 Rover 75. (118 HP @ 5500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1968 Mercury Cougar should accelerate faster than 2000 Rover 75. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1968 Mercury Cougar weights approximately 10 kg more than 2000 Rover 75. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 1968 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 1968 Mercury Cougar. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Rover 75, 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:
| 1968 Mercury Cougar | 2000 Rover 75 | |
| Make | Mercury | Rover |
| Model | Cougar | 75 |
| Year Released | 1968 | 2000 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4942 cc | 1796 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 137 HP | 118 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4600 RPM | 5500 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Vehicle Weight | 1400 kg | 1390 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4990 mm | 4760 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1890 mm | 1780 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1320 mm | 1430 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2830 mm | 2750 mm |
