1966 Mercury Comet vs. 2003 MG ZT
To start off, 2003 MG ZT is newer by 37 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Mercury Comet. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Mercury Comet would be higher. At 6,393 cc (8 cylinders), 1966 Mercury Comet is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1966 Mercury Comet (405 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 276 more horse power than 2003 MG ZT. (129 HP @ 4000 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1966 Mercury Comet should accelerate faster than 2003 MG ZT.
Because 1966 Mercury Comet is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 1966 Mercury Comet. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2003 MG ZT, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. 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, 1966 Mercury Comet (645 Nm @ 3400 RPM) has 345 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 MG ZT. (300 Nm @ 1900 RPM). This means 1966 Mercury Comet will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 MG ZT.
Compare all specifications:
1966 Mercury Comet | 2003 MG ZT | |
Make | Mercury | MG |
Model | Comet | ZT |
Year Released | 1966 | 2003 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6393 cc | 1951 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 405 HP | 129 HP |
Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 4000 RPM |
Torque | 645 Nm | 300 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3400 RPM | 1900 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 5180 mm | 4760 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1790 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1390 mm | 1440 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2950 mm | 2760 mm |