2004 MCC Crossblade vs. 1966 Mercury Cougar
To start off, 2004 MCC Crossblade is newer by 38 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, 1966 Mercury Cougar (129 HP) has 59 more horse power than 2004 MCC Crossblade. (70 HP) In normal driving conditions, 1966 Mercury Cougar should accelerate faster than 2004 MCC Crossblade. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1966 Mercury Cougar weights approximately 622 kg more than 2004 MCC Crossblade. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Both vehicles are rear wheel drive (RWD) - it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, both vehicles do the job better than front wheel drive vehicles. 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:
| 2004 MCC Crossblade | 1966 Mercury Cougar | |
| Make | MCC | Mercury |
| Model | Crossblade | Cougar |
| Year Released | 2004 | 1966 |
| Engine Size | 599 cc | 4728 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 3 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 70 HP | 129 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Weight | 740 kg | 1362 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 2630 mm | 4990 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1630 mm | 1890 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1520 mm | 1320 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 1810 mm | 2830 mm |
