2006 Cadillac CTS vs. 1989 Mercury Cougar
To start off, 2006 Cadillac CTS is newer by 17 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, 2006 Cadillac CTS (211 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 71 more horse power than 1989 Mercury Cougar. (140 HP @ 3800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2006 Cadillac CTS 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, 1989 Mercury Cougar (292 Nm @ 4000 RPM) has 29 more torque (in Nm) than 2006 Cadillac CTS. (263 Nm @ 3300 RPM). This means 1989 Mercury Cougar will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2006 Cadillac CTS.
Compare all specifications:
| 2006 Cadillac CTS | 1989 Mercury Cougar | |
| Make | Cadillac | Mercury |
| Model | CTS | Cougar |
| Year Released | 2006 | 1989 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 2786 cc | 3799 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 211 HP | 140 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 3800 RPM |
| Torque | 263 Nm | 292 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3300 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 4840 mm | 5050 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1800 mm | 1850 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1450 mm | 1340 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2890 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 8.7 L/100km | 8.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 13.8 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 11.2 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 64 L | 72 L |
