1966 Mercury Comet vs. 2012 Mazda 3
To start off, 2012 Mazda 3 is newer by 46 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 257 more horse power than 2012 Mazda 3. (148 HP @ 6500 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 1966 Mercury Comet should accelerate faster than 2012 Mazda 3.
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, 2012 Mazda 3, 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 462 more torque (in Nm) than 2012 Mazda 3. (183 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 1966 Mercury Comet will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2012 Mazda 3.
Compare all specifications:
1966 Mercury Comet | 2012 Mazda 3 | |
Make | Mercury | Mazda |
Model | Comet | 3 |
Year Released | 1966 | 2012 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 6393 cc | 2000 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 4 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Valves per Cylinder | 2 valves | 4 valves |
Horse Power | 405 HP | 148 HP |
Engine RPM | 5600 RPM | 6500 RPM |
Torque | 645 Nm | 183 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3400 RPM | 4500 RPM |
Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Rear | Front |
Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
Vehicle Length | 5180 mm | 4590 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1755 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1390 mm | 1471 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2950 mm | 2639 mm |