From its "New Edge" styling to its edgy advertising campaign (sort of a "James Bond meets the Road Runner" theme), the 1999 Mercury Cougar is all about personality. This is a vast departure from Mercury's history as the "also-ran" division of Ford. Instead of slapping a different taillight design and grille on a ZX2 and calling it a Cougar, Mercury gets a model unlike anything available from Ford.
Even more amazing than the car's unique styling cues is its fully competent suspension and overall value. Based on the excellent Mondeo global platform, which has worked so well for Ford's Contour and Mercury's Mystique models, the Cougar feels sporty from the first turn of the wheel. Steering feedback is amazing, especially for a vehicle in this class, while suspension damping and braking performance conspire to give this coupe a completely solid stance when attacking twisty back roads. This holds true for both the four-cylinder and V6 models, so don't think that you have to pop for the larger engine to enjoy the Cougar's inherent handling prowess.
On the topic of engines, two are available. The base 2.0-liter inline four offers 125 horsepower and 130 foot-pounds of torque. This engine won't pin you to the seat, but it does offer plenty of go-power, especially after takeoff when the 130 foot-pounds of torque can be felt. The 2.5-liter V6 bumps peak horsepower to 170 and peak torque to 165 foot-pounds. How much of a difference do those extra cylinders make in terms of pure performance? The bigger engine is good for about a half-second in zero to 60 times. Our four-cylinder model turned in an 8.2-second figure with the V6 scoring a 7.7-second time.
That extra half-second will cost you $500 when checking your Cougar option sheet, which, in our opinion, may not be worth it. Now, we know what you must be thinking, "As automotive journalists, you're practically required by law to suggest that the larger engine is a necessary option." Well, just like the Cougar's styling, we've decided to break with tradition on this point. And, for the record, the V6 itself isn't the problem. It's the transmission that goes with it.
When hustling these two models through the same set of tight corners, we found ourselves constantly shifting between second and third gear in the V6 car. It was like a hole existed in the low-speed powerband that neither gear could fill. We wondered if Mercury was trying to cheat with its transmission ratios. You see, by offering an ultra low first- and second-gear ratio, the car will feel extremely quick off the line. At the same time, a relatively high third, fourth, and fifth gear will contribute to improved fuel economy, pleasing the EPA and fuel-conscious buyers. We don't know for sure that this is the case, but we do know that it took a lot of gear swapping to keep the V6 Cougar in its happy zone, a problem the four-cylinder model did not have. Additionally, we noticed a lack of rpm "spin down" between gears when shifting the V6, suggesting a heavy flywheel mounted behind the 2.5-liter engine.
Aside from the power delivery and shifting characteristics, the two Cougars were, as you might have guessed, similar. Both offered head-turning style, useable rear seats, and generous cargo space. Both had less-than-ideal driver's side rear-vision and a low roofline and rearview mirror that intruded upon forward vision. A lower seating position would improve the forward-vision problems, as well as the overall sporty feel of the Cougar. In relation to the rest of the interior (which was otherwise quite well laid-out), the driver's seat in both models felt propped up, almost SUV-like. A tip for Mercury: Sports car seating is supposed to feel low and lean, not high and mighty.
Build quality was the only other complaint we had with out test units, especially the four-cylinder model. Problems included a loose and cheap-feeling plastic piece around the dome light, a fuel nozzle that was noticeably out of alignment, and a fuel door that was not flush with the body when closed. Paint quality was excellent on both cars and the four-cylinder's Melina Blue looked fabulous with those sharp bodylines.
A final word of caution must be made about the interior door handles. Like the rest of the car, they are progressive and stylish. However, they can also pinch the lower palm of your hand if you press down on the handle while pulling up with your fingers. This happened more than once and it was rather painful, so be careful to use only your fingers when opening the doors from the inside.
We have to give Mercury credit. It took the plunge and released the Cougar with nearly all of its MC2 concept-car design elements intact. As a result, the company has created a powerful corporate image and a practical, fun-to-drive sport coupe, in one fell swoop. The fact that it's available at a reasonable price (if not a downright bargain for the four cylinder) is further proof that the old days of living in Ford's shadow are over.
Even more amazing than the car's unique styling cues is its fully competent suspension and overall value. Based on the excellent Mondeo global platform, which has worked so well for Ford's Contour and Mercury's Mystique models, the Cougar feels sporty from the first turn of the wheel. Steering feedback is amazing, especially for a vehicle in this class, while suspension damping and braking performance conspire to give this coupe a completely solid stance when attacking twisty back roads. This holds true for both the four-cylinder and V6 models, so don't think that you have to pop for the larger engine to enjoy the Cougar's inherent handling prowess.
On the topic of engines, two are available. The base 2.0-liter inline four offers 125 horsepower and 130 foot-pounds of torque. This engine won't pin you to the seat, but it does offer plenty of go-power, especially after takeoff when the 130 foot-pounds of torque can be felt. The 2.5-liter V6 bumps peak horsepower to 170 and peak torque to 165 foot-pounds. How much of a difference do those extra cylinders make in terms of pure performance? The bigger engine is good for about a half-second in zero to 60 times. Our four-cylinder model turned in an 8.2-second figure with the V6 scoring a 7.7-second time.
That extra half-second will cost you $500 when checking your Cougar option sheet, which, in our opinion, may not be worth it. Now, we know what you must be thinking, "As automotive journalists, you're practically required by law to suggest that the larger engine is a necessary option." Well, just like the Cougar's styling, we've decided to break with tradition on this point. And, for the record, the V6 itself isn't the problem. It's the transmission that goes with it.
When hustling these two models through the same set of tight corners, we found ourselves constantly shifting between second and third gear in the V6 car. It was like a hole existed in the low-speed powerband that neither gear could fill. We wondered if Mercury was trying to cheat with its transmission ratios. You see, by offering an ultra low first- and second-gear ratio, the car will feel extremely quick off the line. At the same time, a relatively high third, fourth, and fifth gear will contribute to improved fuel economy, pleasing the EPA and fuel-conscious buyers. We don't know for sure that this is the case, but we do know that it took a lot of gear swapping to keep the V6 Cougar in its happy zone, a problem the four-cylinder model did not have. Additionally, we noticed a lack of rpm "spin down" between gears when shifting the V6, suggesting a heavy flywheel mounted behind the 2.5-liter engine.
Aside from the power delivery and shifting characteristics, the two Cougars were, as you might have guessed, similar. Both offered head-turning style, useable rear seats, and generous cargo space. Both had less-than-ideal driver's side rear-vision and a low roofline and rearview mirror that intruded upon forward vision. A lower seating position would improve the forward-vision problems, as well as the overall sporty feel of the Cougar. In relation to the rest of the interior (which was otherwise quite well laid-out), the driver's seat in both models felt propped up, almost SUV-like. A tip for Mercury: Sports car seating is supposed to feel low and lean, not high and mighty.
Build quality was the only other complaint we had with out test units, especially the four-cylinder model. Problems included a loose and cheap-feeling plastic piece around the dome light, a fuel nozzle that was noticeably out of alignment, and a fuel door that was not flush with the body when closed. Paint quality was excellent on both cars and the four-cylinder's Melina Blue looked fabulous with those sharp bodylines.
A final word of caution must be made about the interior door handles. Like the rest of the car, they are progressive and stylish. However, they can also pinch the lower palm of your hand if you press down on the handle while pulling up with your fingers. This happened more than once and it was rather painful, so be careful to use only your fingers when opening the doors from the inside.
We have to give Mercury credit. It took the plunge and released the Cougar with nearly all of its MC2 concept-car design elements intact. As a result, the company has created a powerful corporate image and a practical, fun-to-drive sport coupe, in one fell swoop. The fact that it's available at a reasonable price (if not a downright bargain for the four cylinder) is further proof that the old days of living in Ford's shadow are over.
Add A Comment »