I have nothing of interest to say. I am not original.
yeowch. Some good points, but I don't really consider the cougar lethargic. Probably compared to an RSX-S and Celica GT-S which both cost 5 grand more... Is the Zn really that different from the 99-00 models?
And why is the Prelude in there? I thought the Prelude was dead, replaced by the RSX (which also "replaces" the Integra)
If they're going to do 25k+ sports coupes, the Mercedes C Class should be in there as well
I wanna know what retard they had behind the wheel!! I got better times than that my first time to the track with my stock coug after only 1 month of having her... God, articles like that piss me off...
Rich Web Design
The RSX-S isn't that great either, Its 0-60 times are in the 7 range around the same as a 5 speed V-6 Cougar.
And the RSX-S/RSX's brakes just suck, and it dosn't handle that great either.
Consumer Reports current issue has the RSX VS the WRX and they wern't impressed by the RSX at all. The WRX they liked except for its gas milage.
Man, that test is really f-ed up....o well....OUR cougars aren't in last place
Yeah, it's funny because the last comparison I read between the RSX and the WRX, their main concern with the RSX was the rear suspension is so compromised by the desire for more cargo space that the rear wheels have a tendency to lift under hard cornering, making it extremely unstable. I'd mark that as a fairly serious shortcoming, especially since they seem to be rating the cars at least partly on how "sporty" they are.
I'd like to clarify my original post by mentioning I'm not saying I'm terribly surprised the cougar came in last place among those cars - they are all very good - just that the test doesn't seem very consistent.
I'd also like to add that even though the cougar did come up in last place, I am REALLY glad they emphasized their disappointment of not having a Cougar S come out. I'm just about as angry as they are with Mercury's move to just add color/trim options over some more powerful engines.
FOR SALE $12000 OBO: Black/Black 2000 Mustang GT, 5 Speed
13.500 @ 102.04 mph (street tires)
13.285 @ 103.90 mph (Nitto DR's)
Well Consumer Reports last tested the Cougar in 99. And they've loved the looks, and performance.
They rate it a very sporty, fun car to drive, and put it in the same grouping as the RSX.
The other thing they disliked about the RSX was that you had to work the engine to hard to gain any performance out of it.
Would the lead engineer of the Celica's underpinnings please take a bow?
ok im partly bowing here ( i was part of the team) see i did something right before leaving toyota and going back.
oh well, fuk the article, thats what i say, do i really care what they say? after this weekend, i would LOVE a RSX-S to try my ass after some punk-ass kid's mom buys him an RSX and thinks he's hot $hit.
Yea I don't put much faith that it's an unbiased article when the editors go on and on about the Cougars lack of power with words like dismal, but then when describing the Golf which is much slower they make all sorts of excuses. They say things like "hey next year it will have more power". Hmmm I thought they were testing this years cars? Lastly they say that the Cougar doesn't except transitions well in cornering, but if you look at there stats the Cougar had exactly the same speed through the slalom as the RSX? Gee isn't a slalom all about TRANSITION.
"Straights are for fast cars. Turns are for fast drivers."