2005 Jaguar XJ vs. 1982 Mercury Lynx
To start off, 2005 Jaguar XJ is newer by 23 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1982 Mercury Lynx. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1982 Mercury Lynx would be higher. At 4,195 cc (8 cylinders), 2005 Jaguar XJ is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2005 Jaguar XJ (294 HP @ 6100 RPM) has 224 more horse power than 1982 Mercury Lynx. (70 HP @ 4600 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2005 Jaguar XJ should accelerate faster than 1982 Mercury Lynx. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2005 Jaguar XJ weights approximately 790 kg more than 1982 Mercury Lynx. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.
Because 2005 Jaguar XJ 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 2005 Jaguar XJ. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1982 Mercury Lynx, 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 Jaguar XJ (411 Nm) has 290 more torque (in Nm) than 1982 Mercury Lynx. (121 Nm). This means 2005 Jaguar XJ will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1982 Mercury Lynx.
Compare all specifications:
| 2005 Jaguar XJ | 1982 Mercury Lynx | |
| Make | Jaguar | Mercury |
| Model | XJ | Lynx |
| Year Released | 2005 | 1982 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4195 cc | 1598 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 294 HP | 70 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6100 RPM | 4600 RPM |
| Torque | 411 Nm | 121 Nm |
| Engine Bore Size | 86 mm | 80 mm |
| Engine Stroke Size | 90 mm | 79.5 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 11.0:1 | 8.8:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Vehicle Weight | 1740 kg | 950 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 5100 mm | 4170 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1950 mm | 1680 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1360 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3040 mm | 2400 mm |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 85 L | 43 L |
