2005 Cadillac SRX vs. 1989 Mercury Cougar
To start off, 2005 Cadillac SRX is newer by 16 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1989 Mercury Cougar. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1989 Mercury Cougar would be higher. At 3,799 cc (6 cylinders), 1989 Mercury Cougar is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Cadillac SRX (255 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 115 more horse power than 1989 Mercury Cougar. (140 HP @ 3800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Cadillac SRX should accelerate faster than 1989 Mercury Cougar.
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, 2005 Cadillac SRX (342 Nm) has 50 more torque (in Nm) than 1989 Mercury Cougar. (292 Nm). This means 2005 Cadillac SRX will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1989 Mercury Cougar.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Cadillac SRX | 1989 Mercury Cougar | |
| Make | Cadillac | Mercury |
| Model | SRX | Cougar |
| Year Released | 2005 | 1989 |
| Body Type | SUV | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3556 cc | 3799 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 255 HP | 140 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 3800 RPM |
| Torque | 342 Nm | 292 Nm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4960 mm | 5050 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1850 mm | 1850 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1730 mm | 1340 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3090 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption Highway | 10.4 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 14.9 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 12.5 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 76 L | 72 L |
