2005 Ford Taurus vs. 1989 Mercury Cougar
To start off, 2005 Ford Taurus 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 Ford Taurus (153 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 13 more horse power than 1989 Mercury Cougar. (140 HP @ 3800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Ford Taurus 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 Ford Taurus, 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, 1989 Mercury Cougar (292 Nm) has 26 more torque (in Nm) than 2005 Ford Taurus. (266 Nm). This means 1989 Mercury Cougar will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2005 Ford Taurus.
Compare all specifications:
2005 Ford Taurus | 1989 Mercury Cougar | |
Make | Ford | Mercury |
Model | Taurus | Cougar |
Year Released | 2005 | 1989 |
Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 2966 cc | 3799 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 153 HP | 140 HP |
Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 3800 RPM |
Torque | 266 Nm | 292 Nm |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Number of Doors | 5 doors | 2 doors |
Vehicle Length | 5030 mm | 5050 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1850 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1340 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2870 mm | 2880 mm |
Fuel Consumption | 8.7 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption City | 11.8 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
Fuel Consumption Overall | 10.2 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
Fuel Tank Capacity | 68 L | 72 L |