1980 Austin Mini Metro vs. 1966 Mercury Comet
To start off, 1980 Austin Mini Metro is newer by 14 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, 1966 Mercury Comet (118 HP @ 4400 RPM) has 56 more horse power than 1980 Austin Mini Metro. (62 HP @ 5650 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1966 Mercury Comet should accelerate faster than 1980 Austin Mini Metro.
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, 1980 Austin Mini Metro, 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 161 more torque (in Nm) than 1980 Austin Mini Metro. (97 Nm @ 3100 RPM). This means 1966 Mercury Comet will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1980 Austin Mini Metro.
Compare all specifications:
1980 Austin Mini Metro | 1966 Mercury Comet | |
Make | Austin | Mercury |
Model | Mini Metro | Comet |
Year Released | 1980 | 1966 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1257 cc | 3279 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | in-line |
Horse Power | 62 HP | 118 HP |
Engine RPM | 5650 RPM | 4400 RPM |
Torque | 97 Nm | 258 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3100 RPM | 2400 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.4:1 | 10.5:1 |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Vehicle Length | 3410 mm | 5000 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1550 mm | 1880 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1370 mm | 1400 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2260 mm | 2950 mm |