1966 Mercury Cyclone vs. 1997 Renault Helem

To start off, 1997 Renault Helem is newer by 31 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1966 Mercury Cyclone. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1966 Mercury Cyclone would be higher. At 6,393 cc (8 cylinders), 1966 Mercury Cyclone is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1997 Renault Helem (510 HP) has 175 more horse power than 1966 Mercury Cyclone. (335 HP) In normal driving conditions, 1997 Renault Helem should accelerate faster than 1966 Mercury Cyclone. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 1997 Renault Helem weights approximately 18 kg more than 1966 Mercury Cyclone. So despite on having greater horse power, its additional weight may have an impact towards its acceleration in comparison.

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, 1966 Mercury Cyclone (579 Nm) has 494 more torque (in Nm) than 1997 Renault Helem. (85 Nm). This means 1966 Mercury Cyclone will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1997 Renault Helem. 1966 Mercury Cyclone has automatic transmission and 1997 Renault Helem has manual transmission. 1997 Renault Helem will offer better control over acceleration and deceleration in addition to better fuel efficiency overall. 1966 Mercury Cyclone will be easier to drive especially in heavy traffic.

Compare all specifications: