1966 Mercury Comet vs. 2010 Toyota Tundra
To start off, 2010 Toyota Tundra is newer by 44 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 4,664 cc (8 cylinders), 2010 Toyota Tundra is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2010 Toyota Tundra (276 HP @ 5400 RPM) has 158 more horse power than 1966 Mercury Comet. (118 HP @ 4400 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 2010 Toyota Tundra should accelerate faster than 1966 Mercury Comet.
Because 2010 Toyota Tundra is four wheel drive (4WD), it will have significant more traction and grip than 1966 Mercury Comet. In wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 2010 Toyota Tundra will offer significantly more control. 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, 2010 Toyota Tundra (424 Nm @ 3400 RPM) has 166 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 Mercury Comet. (258 Nm @ 2400 RPM). This means 2010 Toyota Tundra will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 Mercury Comet.
Compare all specifications:
1966 Mercury Comet | 2010 Toyota Tundra | |
Make | Mercury | Toyota |
Model | Comet | Tundra |
Year Released | 1966 | 2010 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 3279 cc | 4664 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 6 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 118 HP | 276 HP |
Engine RPM | 4400 RPM | 5400 RPM |
Torque | 258 Nm | 424 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2400 RPM | 3400 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 10.5:1 | 9.8:1 |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Diesel |
Drive Type | Rear | 4WD |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 3 seats |
Vehicle Length | 5180 mm | 5340 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 2040 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1390 mm | 1940 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2950 mm | 3230 mm |