Ford Cougar: Which Version to Buy and Why
The Ford Cougar was produced from 1998 to 2002 as a Coupe in a single generation, with five listed versions. Choosing between them comes down to three main decisions: 2.0 or 2.5, Manual or Automatic, and economy or performance.
The Ford Cougar was produced from 1998 to 2002 as a Coupe in a single generation, with five listed versions. Choosing between them comes down to three main decisions: 2.0 or 2.5, Manual or Automatic, and economy or performance. The 2.0 MT is the most economical measured option, returning 8 l/100 km combined, while the 205 hp 2.5 MT is the quickest and fastest, reaching 100 km/h in 7.8 seconds and 230 km/h. Buyers who want an Automatic can choose the 2.0 AT or 2.5 AT, although complete performance and consumption figures were not measured for the 2.0 AT.
Ford Cougar generation and versions
The Ford Cougar has one listed generation, produced from 1998 to 2002 with a Coupe body. This generation contains five versions: 2.0 MT, 2.0 AT, 2.5 MT with 205 hp, 2.5 MT with 170 hp, and 2.5 AT with 170 hp. Because all five belong to the same generation, the comparison is about engines, transmissions, performance, economy and weight rather than changes between generations.
Ford Cougar engine specs compared
All versions use Gasoline, distributed injection (multi-point), no boost and FWD. The 2.0 versions have a 1,988 cc Inline engine with 4 cylinders and 4 valves per cylinder. The 2.5 versions have a V-shaped engine with 6 cylinders and 4 valves per cylinder, but the two specifications are not identical: the 205 hp 2.5 MT displaces 2,495 cc, while both 170 hp versions displace 2,544 cc.
| Version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders | Layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 MT | 131 hp (96 kW) at 5,600 rpm | 178 Nm at 4,000 rpm | 1,988 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2.0 AT | 131 hp (96 kW) at 5,600 rpm | 178 Nm at 4,000 rpm | 1,988 cc | Gasoline | 4 | Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| 2.5 MT (205 hp) | 205 hp (151 kW) at 6,500 rpm | 234 Nm at 5,500 rpm | 2,495 cc | Gasoline | 6 | V-shaped | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2.5 MT (170 hp) | 170 hp (125 kW) at 6,250 rpm | 220 Nm at 4,250 rpm | 2,544 cc | Gasoline | 6 | V-shaped | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| 2.5 AT | 170 hp (125 kW) at 6,250 rpm | 220 Nm at 4,250 rpm | 2,544 cc | Gasoline | 6 | V-shaped | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
The 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT share the same engine output, so the transmission is their principal documented distinction. Each develops about 65.9 hp per litre. The 170 hp 2.5 MT and 2.5 AT also share an engine specification and produce about 66.8 hp per litre.
The 205 hp 2.5 MT is the clear outlier. It produces about 82.2 hp per litre, 35 hp and 14 Nm more than the 170 hp 2.5 versions, despite having 49 cc less displacement. Compared with either 2.0, it adds 74 hp and 56 Nm.
Ford Cougar performance and fuel economy
| Version | 0–100 km/h | Top speed | City | Highway | Combined |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 MT | 9.6 s | 209 km/h | 11.6 l/100 km | 6.1 l/100 km | 8 l/100 km |
| 2.0 AT | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.5 MT (205 hp) | 7.8 s | 230 km/h | not measured | not measured | not measured |
| 2.5 MT (170 hp) | 8.1 s | 225 km/h | 13.4 l/100 km | 7.3 l/100 km | 8.1 l/100 km |
| 2.5 AT | 9.8 s | 206 km/h | 14 l/100 km | 7.2 l/100 km | 8.5 l/100 km |
For maximum performance, the 205 hp 2.5 MT is the strongest choice. It is 1.8 seconds quicker to 100 km/h and 21 km/h faster than the 2.0 MT. Against the 170 hp 2.5 MT, it cuts 0.3 seconds from the acceleration time and adds 5 km/h to the maximum speed.
Among versions with measured consumption, the 2.0 MT uses the least fuel in every stated cycle except that the 2.5 AT’s highway figure is lower than the 170 hp 2.5 MT’s by 0.1 l/100 km. Compared with the 2.0 MT, the 170 hp 2.5 MT uses 1.8 l/100 km more in the city, 1.2 l/100 km more on the highway and 0.1 l/100 km more combined. In return, it supplies 39 hp and 42 Nm more, accelerates to 100 km/h 1.5 seconds sooner and reaches a top speed 16 km/h higher.
The 2.5 AT prioritizes an Automatic gearbox rather than the best measured performance or economy. Compared with the 170 hp 2.5 MT, it has the same power and torque but takes 1.7 seconds longer to reach 100 km/h and has a top speed 19 km/h lower. Its measured city consumption is 0.6 l/100 km higher and combined consumption is 0.4 l/100 km higher, although its highway consumption is 0.1 l/100 km lower.
No acceleration, maximum-speed or consumption figures were measured for the 2.0 AT. Fuel consumption was also not measured for the 205 hp 2.5 MT, so its economy cannot be compared numerically with the other versions.
Ford Cougar dimensions, weight and practical specs
Every version has 130 mm of ground clearance and a 60-litre fuel tank. Wheel sizes were not measured for any version. All five use Independent, spring front and rear suspension, Ventilated disc front brakes and Disc rear brakes.
| Version | Kerb weight | Gross weight | Ground clearance | Fuel tank | Wheel sizes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.0 MT | 1,315 kg | 1,750 kg | 130 mm | 60 l | not measured |
| 2.0 AT | not measured | 1,750 kg | 130 mm | 60 l | not measured |
| 2.5 MT (205 hp) | 1,390 kg | 1,795 kg | 130 mm | 60 l | not measured |
| 2.5 MT (170 hp) | 1,390 kg | 1,825 kg | 130 mm | 60 l | not measured |
| 2.5 AT | not measured | 1,825 kg | 130 mm | 60 l | not measured |
Using the measured kerb weights, the 2.0 MT carries about 10.0 kg per horsepower. Both 2.5 MT versions weigh 1,390 kg, but the 205 hp car carries about 6.8 kg per horsepower while the 170 hp car carries about 8.2 kg per horsepower. That gives the 205 hp 2.5 MT the strongest measured power-to-weight relationship.
The 2.0 MT is 75 kg lighter than either 2.5 MT. Gross weight rises from 1,750 kg for the 2.0 versions to 1,795 kg for the 205 hp 2.5 MT and 1,825 kg for both 170 hp 2.5 versions. Kerb weight was not measured for the 2.0 AT or 2.5 AT, so weight-per-horsepower cannot be calculated for those cars.
Which Ford Cougar version should you buy?
Choose the 2.0 MT if measured fuel economy matters most. It combines the lowest stated city, highway and combined consumption with the lowest measured kerb weight. Its 131 hp and 178 Nm are below every 2.5 version, but it is the most fully documented economy-oriented choice.
Choose the 2.0 AT only when an Automatic gearbox is the priority and the smaller engine is preferred. It retains the 131 hp, 178 Nm and 1,988 cc specification of the 2.0 MT, but its performance, consumption and kerb weight were not measured. The available data therefore cannot support claims that it is as quick, as economical or as light as the Manual.
Choose the 170 hp 2.5 MT for the most balanced set of measured figures. It gives 39 hp and 42 Nm more than the 2.0 MT while differing by only 0.1 l/100 km in measured combined consumption. It also reaches 100 km/h in 8.1 seconds and 225 km/h, making it substantially quicker than the 2.0 MT without the missing economy data of the 205 hp version.
Choose the 205 hp 2.5 MT when performance is the deciding factor. It has the highest power and torque, the quickest acceleration, the highest top speed and the best calculated power per litre and measured weight per horsepower. The trade-off is incomplete economy information: city, highway and combined consumption were not measured.
Choose the 2.5 AT if an Automatic gearbox and the 170 hp V-shaped 6-cylinder specification are both required. Compared with the equivalent 2.5 MT, its measurable penalties are slower acceleration, a lower top speed, and higher city and combined consumption. On the supplied figures, the 170 hp 2.5 MT is the stronger all-round choice, while the 2.5 AT is the transmission-led choice.