2000 Dodge Ram vs. 1966 Mercury Cougar
To start off, 2000 Dodge Ram 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 6,392 cc (8 cylinders), 1966 Mercury Cougar is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1966 Mercury Cougar (208 HP @ 4600 RPM) has 35 more horse power than 2000 Dodge Ram. (173 HP @ 4800 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1966 Mercury Cougar should accelerate faster than 2000 Dodge Ram. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2000 Dodge Ram weights approximately 416 kg more than 1966 Mercury Cougar.
Because 2000 Dodge Ram is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1966 Mercury Cougar. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2000 Dodge Ram 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:
| 2000 Dodge Ram | 1966 Mercury Cougar | |
| Make | Dodge | Mercury |
| Model | Ram | Cougar |
| Year Released | 2000 | 1966 |
| Body Type | Pickup | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3906 cc | 6392 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 173 HP | 208 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 4600 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | 4WD | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 2076 kg | 1660 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4760 mm | 4990 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 2030 mm | 1890 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 2030 mm | 1320 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2790 mm | 2830 mm |
