1959 Cadillac 62 vs. 1966 Mercury Comet
To start off, 1966 Mercury Comet is newer by 7 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1959 Cadillac 62. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1959 Cadillac 62 would be higher. At 6,381 cc (8 cylinders), 1959 Cadillac 62 is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1959 Cadillac 62 (325 HP @ 4800 RPM) has 127 more horse power than 1966 Mercury Comet. (198 HP @ 4400 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1959 Cadillac 62 should accelerate faster than 1966 Mercury Comet.
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, 1959 Cadillac 62 (583 Nm @ 3000 RPM) has 201 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 Mercury Comet. (382 Nm @ 2400 RPM). This means 1959 Cadillac 62 will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 Mercury Comet.
Compare all specifications:
1959 Cadillac 62 | 1966 Mercury Comet | |
Make | Cadillac | Mercury |
Model | 62 | Comet |
Year Released | 1959 | 1966 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6381 cc | 4738 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | V |
Horse Power | 325 HP | 198 HP |
Engine RPM | 4800 RPM | 4400 RPM |
Torque | 583 Nm | 382 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3000 RPM | 2400 RPM |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 5720 mm | 5000 mm |
Vehicle Width | 2040 mm | 1880 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1400 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 3310 mm | 2950 mm |