2005 Dodge Neon vs. 1989 Mercury Cougar
To start off, 2005 Dodge Neon 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 Dodge Neon (230 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 90 more horse power than 1989 Mercury Cougar. (140 HP @ 3800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Dodge Neon should accelerate faster than 1989 Mercury Cougar.
Because 1989 Mercury Cougar is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 1989 Mercury Cougar. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2005 Dodge Neon, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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 Dodge Neon (339 Nm) has 47 more torque (in Nm) than 1989 Mercury Cougar. (292 Nm). This means 2005 Dodge Neon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1989 Mercury Cougar.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Dodge Neon | 1989 Mercury Cougar | |
| Make | Dodge | Mercury |
| Model | Neon | Cougar |
| Year Released | 2005 | 1989 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2425 cc | 3799 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 230 HP | 140 HP |
| Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 3800 RPM |
| Torque | 339 Nm | 292 Nm |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4440 mm | 5050 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1720 mm | 1850 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1340 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2670 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 7.8 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 10.7 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 9.4 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 47 L | 72 L |
