1989 Mercury Cougar vs. 2008 Toyota Sequoia
To start off, 2008 Toyota Sequoia is newer by 19 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1989 Mercury Cougar. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1989 Mercury Cougar would be higher. At 5,663 cc (8 cylinders), 2008 Toyota Sequoia is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2008 Toyota Sequoia (381 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 241 more horse power than 1989 Mercury Cougar. (140 HP @ 3800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2008 Toyota Sequoia should accelerate faster than 1989 Mercury Cougar.
Because 2008 Toyota Sequoia is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1989 Mercury Cougar. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2008 Toyota Sequoia 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. Let's talk about torque, 2008 Toyota Sequoia (544 Nm @ 3600 RPM) has 252 more torque (in Nm) than 1989 Mercury Cougar. (292 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2008 Toyota Sequoia will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1989 Mercury Cougar.
Compare all specifications:
1989 Mercury Cougar | 2008 Toyota Sequoia | |
Make | Mercury | Toyota |
Model | Cougar | Sequoia |
Year Released | 1989 | 2008 |
Body Type | Coupe | SUV |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3799 cc | 5663 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 140 HP | 381 HP |
Engine RPM | 3800 RPM | 5600 RPM |
Torque | 292 Nm | 544 Nm |
Torque RPM | 4000 RPM | 3600 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 8 seats |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
Vehicle Length | 5050 mm | 5220 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 2040 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1340 mm | 1920 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2880 mm | 3110 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 8.7 L/100km | 13.1 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 18.1 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.7 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 72 L | 100 L |