Ford cougar?

Cyrus

in my search for a good car for €10k i keep coming back to fords if i want something relatively new (00 +) reliable and relatively quick but that can be bought with lowish mileage.

Ive been seriously looking at 3dr 2litre focuses with leather interior etc but ive realised i could get a 2.5 cougar for the same money, i know they didnt really take off but i always kinda liked em

Any owners here, any opinions on them, any reason not to consider one?

The perf specs and fuel consumption of the v6

2.5 V6 24V 3d Year 98 2540CC / 6Cyl 167BHP 140MPH 8.2 0-60 29MPG 14IG

unkel

Cyrus wrote:

any opinions on them, any reason not to consider one?

It really is a Mondeo Coupe. I've always liked the looks of them and they seem very good value for money, but I've read numerous reports about them stating they are cr@p as a drivers car

mike65

Buy a Cougar and people will point and laugh. You'll have a hell of job shifting it in a few years. They never did get the Capri sucessor sorted out did they? First the Probe then the Cougar.

Mike.

PlayaFlow

2.5 v6 engine and yet it only has 180bhp???? 0-69mph in 8.2secs??

not worth the insurance and the tax premium for those sort of specs, never mind the fuel consumption.

I also think its ugly as hell , (so do most people)

most imprtantly , it has been directly copied from the Mercury Cougar which is an american engineered car - enuff said.

people avoided them for a reason.



edit: oops sorry 167bhp from a 2.5v6 ....HAHAHHAHA

mike65

Thats a good point, its not a European Mondeo with a fancy clothes, so parts could be an issue. You're local scrappy proberly won't have one to plunder and Ford will charge a fortune for those items which have to be ordered from some warehouse in Ohio.

Mike.

Cyrus

PlayaFlow wrote:

2.5 v6 engine and yet it only has 180bhp???? 0-69mph in 8.2secs??

not worth the insurance and the tax premium for those sort of specs, never mind the fuel consumption.

I also think its ugly as hell , (so do most people)

most imprtantly , it has been directly copied from the Mercury Cougar which is an american engineered car - enuff said.

people avoided them for a reason.



edit: oops sorry 167bhp from a 2.5v6 ....HAHAHHAHA

Erm thanks for the comments, hoping for comments from owners more so but i suppose peoples opinons are helpful, one point id make is that assessing an engine on bhp and 0-60 times alone is misinformed, i mean if that was the case everyone would buy say a bmw 330i over the faster 330d

PlayaFlow

that because the 330d has bags of more torque and moves faster in gear rather than at take off, and the 330d doesnt need to be revved high for otimum power so power is virtually instant ( god , im so smart )

anywho , the cougar -being petrol - wont benefit from masses of torque , and really doesnt have the horse power to justify the extra premium youll be paying in tax and insurance and petrol too ( so its really a no-win situation ) - do you agree?

also its fookin' UGLY , and people did avoid it for a reason and not beacuse they are stupid. and its a crappy american car for christs sake just with a ford badge on it - and as mike65 said, parts will be expensive and not easy to find.

unkel

Cyrus wrote:

assessing an engine on bhp and 0-60 times alone is misinformed, i mean if that was the case everyone would buy say a bmw 330i over the faster 330d

Oh, and same engines, a bog standard compact family car bmw 130i is faster in a race than a Honda NSX, deemed to be a supercar

jayok

a bog standard compact family car bmw 130i is faster in a race than a Honda NSX, deemed to be a supercar

Maybe, but which would you really rather be seen in?

Then again I suppose it's about time BMW caught up with a car released in 1991

(Okay, okay, I don't dislike BMWs, I just think that the 1 series is awful. Would rather spend my money on a nice 3, 5 or 7 instead)

Johnny Storm

I think they look pretty good - certainly way better than a focuus or any saloon/hatchback. Take one for a test spin and if you like the way they drive then go for it.
IMHO the car buying decision depends as much on the heart and gut-feeling as it does on the head. There is NO such thing as the "perfect" car so you should get one that fits your practical needs and gives you that feelgood factor as much as possible.
Just my two cents..........

dahamsta

PlayaFlow wrote:

I also think its ugly as hell , (so do most people)

I don't. I wouldn't call it iconic or anything, and I wouldn't buy one in a fit, but it's better than most of the crap Ford come out with.

adam

bazz26

Cyrus wrote:

in my search for a good car for €10k i keep coming back to fords if i want something relatively new (00 +) reliable and relatively quick but that can be bought with lowish mileage.

Ive been seriously looking at 3dr 2litre focuses with leather interior etc but ive realised i could get a 2.5 cougar for the same money, i know they didnt really take off but i always kinda liked em

Any owners here, any opinions on them, any reason not to consider one?

The perf specs and fuel consumption of the v6

2.5 V6 24V 3d Year 98 2540CC / 6Cyl 167BHP 140MPH 8.2 0-60 29MPG 14IG

The Cougar was had the running gear from the American version of the Mk1 Mondeo I think. The 2.5 V6 lump was also found in the original Mondeo Ghia over here. It was a very thirsty engine which made no difference to the Americans anyway, but unfortunately the suspension was also very soft and the handling was designed for 6 lane highways, not European (especially Irish) roads. Also the car was built in the US and exported to Europe in small numbers like the Probe before it and build quality was not particularly great.

If you want something nobody else has then it might be worth looking at but only if you get it very cheap and would recommend the 2.0 16v version as it is cheaper to tax, insure and fill up plus may be easier to shift afterwards than the thirsty V6.

Spotted these two for sale:
http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carid=264092
http://www.carzone.ie/usedcars/index.cfm?fuseaction=car&carid=291065

RicardoSmith

unkel wrote:

Oh, and same engines, a bog standard compact family car bmw 130i is faster in a race than a Honda NSX, deemed to be a supercar

Explain?

unkel

RicardoSmith wrote:

Explain?

Laptime on the most demanding racetrack in the world, the Nordschleife of the Nürburgring track. BMW 130i 8:35, Honda NSX 8:38

The bog standard 1-series (which I don't like) also beats the likes of the BMW E36 M3 EVO, Nissan Skyline GTR V-Spec, Subaru Impreza GT Turbo, Porsche 996 Carrera, Brabus-Mercedes Benz CLK 5.8, Honda S2000, Aston Martin DB7, Audi S3, Audi S4, Lotus Exige

Just to name a few. Seems incredible, but it's true. If I were the owner of any of the above cars supposed to be fast, I would cry...

RicardoSmith

unkel wrote:

....
Just to name a few. Seems incredible, but it's true. If I were the owner of any of the above cars supposed to be fast, I would cry...

Interesting statistic. But consider that speed isn't everything. Any review I've read of the 130i didn't seem all that impressed with it. If the 130i was twice as fast as a NSX I still have the NSX. Mid engined, glorious engine sound, looks like a spaceship and Ayrton Senna's involvement. Same with older sport cars. Theres modern more clinical stuff that is faster, and cheaper. But often they lack character of the older cars.

PlayaFlow

RicardoSmith wrote:

Interesting statistic. But consider that speed isn't everything. Any review I've read of the 130i didn't seem all that impressed with it. If the 130i was twice as fast as a NSX I still have the NSX. Mid engined, glorious engine sound, looks like a spaceship and Ayrton Senna's involvement. Same with older sport cars. Theres modern more clinical stuff that is faster, and cheaper. But often they lack character of the older cars.

completley agree with you!
I saw a red NSX in Killiney the other day , looks amazing in real life.

unkel

RicardoSmith wrote:

Interesting statistic. But consider that speed isn't everything. Any review I've read of the 130i didn't seem all that impressed with it. If the 130i was twice as fast as a NSX I still have the NSX. Mid engined, glorious engine sound, looks like a spaceship and Ayrton Senna's involvement. Same with older sport cars. Theres modern more clinical stuff that is faster, and cheaper. But often they lack character of the older cars.

I just could not disagree with you there even if I tried

RicardoSmith

unkel wrote:

I just could not disagree with you there even if I tried

About what, an NSX or old cars, or the reviews I've read, or just that speed is everything?

reitoei

unkel wrote: »

Laptime on the most demanding racetrack in the world, the Nordschleife of the Nürburgring track. BMW 130i 8:35, Honda NSX 8:38

The bog standard 1-series (which I don't like) also beats the likes of the BMW E36 M3 EVO, Nissan Skyline GTR V-Spec, Subaru Impreza GT Turbo, Porsche 996 Carrera, Brabus-Mercedes Benz CLK 5.8, Honda S2000, Aston Martin DB7, Audi S3, Audi S4, Lotus Exige

Just to name a few. Seems incredible, but it's true. If I were the owner of any of the above cars supposed to be fast, I would cry...

If I were the owner of a BMW 1 series, I'd be a 30-something mother of one from Foxrock going to pick up the weekly shopping in Dundrum via the hairdressers.

Also, I call bull**** on your numbers. Links or it didn't happen.

unkel

reitoei wrote: »

I call bull**** on your numbers. Links or it didn't happen.

Here's an old link especially for you:

http://www.nissangtrproto.com/2006/gtr-thoughts/nurburgring-lap-times/

Now, read the charter. Do not revive ancient threads. Back in those (your) days, the old horrible stationwagon BMW 130i (hopefully soon to be retired) beat the old NSX. Nowadays BMW have this cool angry coupe, the 135i that would beat he sh1t out of most cars

I've tried as hard as I could to be as nice as I could to you. So if you have any questions, please ask. The alternative is that you won't be here again

JHMEG

Unkel, I do believe the NSX time you are speaking of is the 1989 3.0 model, which is not the only NSX ever made. A more modern 1997 3.2 NSX-R is quicker than a 500bhp V10 BMW M5 around the same track.

The NSX has been retired but BMW are still making the inferior M5.

So please, enough of this garbage about a 130 being quicker than an NSX. Anyone who appreciates cars will know the NSX is one of the few all time super cars.

JHMEG

OP, I like the Cougar, always have. It always struck me as a thinking man's alternative to a 406 Coupe. (And what does that say about a 3-series coupe?)

Cosmo K

Well, actually the 97 3.2 ltr NSX is in the list, its 1 second faster then the 3.0 ltr model.

E92

So its slower than the 130i too:D! And the NSX-R did it in 8:09 according to Wikipedia.

JHMEG

7:56.73- Honda NSX-R ????(2002) <-- this is a 3.2
8:03.86- Honda NSX-R 黑泽元治(1992) <-- this is a 3.0
8:13 — BMW M5 (E60) (12/2004)
8:35 — BMW 130i

Unkel, look at the fastest recorded times, not the slowest!

E92

The original NSX did it in 8:38, the NSX-R did it in 8:09 and again in 8:03 as well as 7:56! So it is certainly fair to say that the 130i is faster than a standard NSX. It was tested in '97 apparantly.

The NSX-R that did it in 8:09 had "Sport tires, suspension modification" so how the other ones got around it faster is quite amazing. I'm not really sure if Wikipedia is that accurate about the lap times, the NSX that did it in 8:09 also had the most power apparantly too at 320 PS/bhp.

reitoei

unkel wrote: »

Here's an old link especially for you:

http://www.nissangtrproto.com/2006/gtr-thoughts/nurburgring-lap-times/

According to that list, the Acura NSX did it in 8:34... which also beats that BMW.

bazz26

Comparing a modern day rear wheel drive 3.0 litre hatchback with a super car designed 16 years earlier makes little sense to me. I'm sure my Focus TDCi would out pace a Aston Martin DB5 too.

All it proves is that motor engineering has progressed alot in that time frame.

E92

That reminds me... anyone see the episode of Top Gear where they had to buy a 70s Italian supercar, the one where Clarkson had a Maserati Merak, Hamster had a Ferrari I think it was a 400 but I can't remember and Captain Slow had the Lamborghini Urraco, and they had to do a race, can't remember where, but the point was that these cars were completely outgunned by the Opel Astra diesel when the Stig went around to set a lap time.

It just goes to show how much the car industry has improved over time, where a 4 cylinder turbo diesel hatchback can outperform V8 supercars from 30 years ago.

JHMEG

Comparing the NSX to auld farts of Italian poseur cars using tractor technology is not relevant

Design on the NSX started in 1982. The car was released in 1989. It was way ahead of anything else at the time, probably by at least 6 years.

It was revised several times before it was retired in 2005, with only one major revision, in 1997.

7.56 is the time clocked by a variation of the 1997 revision. That is considered the definitive NSX time on the 'ring.

maidhc

JHMEG wrote: »

Comparing the NSX to auld farts of Italian poseur cars using tractor technology is not relevant

Must agree.

Definately though bread and butter cars have got very quick in the past 20 years.

I have little doubt that a lot of the pioneering work that first saw the light of day in the NSX is now probably applied to the Civic!