2005 Cadillac CTS vs. 1968 Mercury Cougar
To start off, 2005 Cadillac CTS is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1968 Mercury Cougar. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1968 Mercury Cougar would be higher. At 5,769 cc (8 cylinders), 1968 Mercury Cougar is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Cadillac CTS (210 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 16 more horse power than 1968 Mercury Cougar. (194 HP @ 5400 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Cadillac CTS should accelerate faster than 1968 Mercury Cougar. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1968 Mercury Cougar weights approximately 8 kg more than 2005 Cadillac CTS.
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. Let's talk about torque, 1968 Mercury Cougar (297 Nm) has 33 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Cadillac CTS. (264 Nm). This means 1968 Mercury Cougar will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
2005 Cadillac CTS | 1968 Mercury Cougar | |
Make | Cadillac | Mercury |
Model | CTS | Cougar |
Year Released | 2005 | 1968 |
Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2786 cc | 5769 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 210 HP | 194 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 5400 RPM |
Torque | 264 Nm | 297 Nm |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Weight | 1592 kg | 1600 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 |