1996 Mercury Cougar vs. 2010 Toyota Tundra
To start off, 2010 Toyota Tundra is newer by 14 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1996 Mercury Cougar. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1996 Mercury Cougar would be higher. At 4,664 cc (8 cylinders), 2010 Toyota Tundra is equipped with a bigger engine. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1996 Mercury Cougar weights approximately 540 kg more than 2010 Toyota Tundra.
Because 2010 Toyota Tundra is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1996 Mercury Cougar. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Toyota Tundra 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:
| 1996 Mercury Cougar | 2010 Toyota Tundra | |
| Make | Mercury | Toyota |
| Model | Cougar | Tundra |
| Year Released | 1996 | 2010 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Pickup |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3798 cc | 4664 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 276 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
| Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
| Number of Doors | 2 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1620 kg | 1080 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5090 mm | 5340 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 2040 mm |
