1999 Lincoln Continental vs. 2002 MCC Crossblade

To start off, 2002 MCC Crossblade is newer by 3 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1999 Lincoln Continental. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1999 Lincoln Continental would be higher. At 4,601 cc (8 cylinders), 1999 Lincoln Continental is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1999 Lincoln Continental (217 HP) has 147 more horse power than 2002 MCC Crossblade. (70 HP). In normal driving conditions, 1999 Lincoln Continental should accelerate faster than 2002 MCC Crossblade. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1999 Lincoln Continental weights approximately 1010 kg more than 2002 MCC Crossblade. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.

Because 2002 MCC Crossblade 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 2002 MCC Crossblade. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1999 Lincoln Continental, 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. Let's talk about torque, 1999 Lincoln Continental (372 Nm @ 4750 RPM) has 270 more torque (in Nm) than 2002 MCC Crossblade. (102 Nm @ 3210 RPM). This means 1999 Lincoln Continental will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2002 MCC Crossblade. 1999 Lincoln Continental has automatic transmission and 2002 MCC Crossblade has manual transmission. 2002 MCC Crossblade will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1999 Lincoln Continental will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.

Compare all specifications: