2009 Maybach 62 vs. 1989 Mercury Cougar
To start off, 2009 Maybach 62 is newer by 20 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 5,980 cc (12 cylinders), 2009 Maybach 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Maybach 62 (605 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 465 more horse power than 1989 Mercury Cougar. (140 HP @ 3800 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Maybach 62 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, 2009 Maybach 62 (1,001 Nm @ 2000 RPM) has 709 more torque (in Nm) than 1989 Mercury Cougar. (292 Nm @ 4000 RPM). This means 2009 Maybach 62 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1989 Mercury Cougar.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Maybach 62 | 1989 Mercury Cougar | |
| Make | Maybach | Mercury |
| Model | 62 | Cougar |
| Year Released | 2009 | 1989 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5980 cc | 3799 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 12 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 3 valves | 4 valves |
| Horse Power | 605 HP | 140 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 3800 RPM |
| Torque | 1001 Nm | 292 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 4000 RPM |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline - Premium | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Transmission Type | Automatic | Automatic |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 4 doors | 2 doors |
| Vehicle Length | 6170 mm | 5050 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1990 mm | 1850 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1580 mm | 1340 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 3830 mm | 2880 mm |
| Fuel Consumption City | 21.4 L/100km | 13.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 16.3 L/100km | 10.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 110 L | 72 L |
