2005 Cadillac CTS vs. 1966 Mercury Cougar
To start off, 2005 Cadillac CTS is newer by 39 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, 2005 Cadillac CTS (255 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 126 more horse power than 1966 Mercury Cougar. (129 HP @ 4400 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1966 Mercury Cougar. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 Cadillac CTS weights approximately 230 kg more than 1966 Mercury Cougar. 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:
| 2005 Cadillac CTS | 1966 Mercury Cougar | |
| Make | Cadillac | Mercury |
| Model | CTS | Cougar |
| Year Released | 2005 | 1966 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3564 cc | 4728 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 255 HP | 129 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4400 RPM |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 1592 kg | 1362 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 4990 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1890 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1320 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2830 mm |
