2000 Audi TT vs. 1966 Mercury Cougar
To start off, 2000 Audi TT is newer by 34 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Mercury Cougar. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Mercury Cougar would be higher. At 4,728 cc (8 cylinders), 1966 Mercury Cougar is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Audi TT (170 HP @ 5700 RPM) has 41 more horse power than 1966 Mercury Cougar. (129 HP @ 4400 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Audi TT should accelerate faster than 1966 Mercury Cougar. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1966 Mercury Cougar weights approximately 82 kg more than 2000 Audi TT.
Because 1966 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 1966 Mercury Cougar. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Audi TT, 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:
2000 Audi TT | 1966 Mercury Cougar | |
Make | Audi | Mercury |
Model | TT | Cougar |
Year Released | 2000 | 1966 |
Body Type | Coupe | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1781 cc | 4728 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 170 HP | 129 HP |
Engine RPM | 5700 RPM | 4400 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Number of Doors | 2 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1280 kg | 1362 kg |
Vehicle Length | 4050 mm | 4990 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1770 mm | 1890 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1350 mm | 1320 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2430 mm | 2830 mm |