1966 Mercury Comet vs. 2009 Volvo C70
To start off, 2009 Volvo C70 is newer by 43 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 3,279 cc (6 cylinders), 1966 Mercury Comet is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Volvo C70 (224 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 106 more horse power than 1966 Mercury Comet. (118 HP @ 4400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2009 Volvo C70 should accelerate faster than 1966 Mercury Comet.
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, 2009 Volvo C70, 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 (258 Nm @ 2400 RPM) has 22 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Volvo C70. (236 Nm @ 1500 RPM). This means 1966 Mercury Comet will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Volvo C70.
Compare all specifications:
| 1966 Mercury Comet | 2009 Volvo C70 | |
| Make | Mercury | Volvo |
| Model | Comet | C70 |
| Year Released | 1966 | 2009 |
| Body Type | Sedan | Coupe |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 3279 cc | 2521 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 5 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
| Horse Power | 118 HP | 224 HP |
| Engine RPM | 4400 RPM | 5000 RPM |
| Torque | 258 Nm | 236 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 2400 RPM | 1500 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.5:1 | 9.0:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Front |
| Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1840 mm |
