1982 Mercury Cougar vs. 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee
To start off, 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee is newer by 21 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Mercury Cougar. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Mercury Cougar would be higher. At 4,942 cc (8 cylinders), 1982 Mercury Cougar is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee weights approximately 236 kg more than 1982 Mercury Cougar.
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:
| 1982 Mercury Cougar | 2003 Jeep Grand Cherokee | |
| Make | Mercury | Jeep |
| Model | Cougar | Grand Cherokee |
| Year Released | 1982 | 2003 |
| Body Type | Coupe | SUV |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4942 cc | 3960 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 195 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1480 kg | 1716 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5140 mm | 4620 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1810 mm | 1840 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2650 mm | 2700 mm |
