2000 Ford Falcon vs. 1966 Mercury Comet
To start off, 2000 Ford Falcon is newer by 34 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 4,942 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Ford Falcon is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Ford Falcon (268 HP @ 5000 RPM) has 150 more horse power than 1966 Mercury Comet. (118 HP @ 4400 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford Falcon should accelerate faster than 1966 Mercury Comet.
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, 2000 Ford Falcon (420 Nm @ 3750 RPM) has 162 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 Mercury Comet. (258 Nm @ 2400 RPM). This means 2000 Ford Falcon will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 Mercury Comet.
Compare all specifications:
2000 Ford Falcon | 1966 Mercury Comet | |
Make | Ford | Mercury |
Model | Falcon | Comet |
Year Released | 2000 | 1966 |
Body Type | Sedan | Sedan |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 4942 cc | 3279 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
Engine Type | V | in-line |
Horse Power | 268 HP | 118 HP |
Engine RPM | 5000 RPM | 4400 RPM |
Torque | 420 Nm | 258 Nm |
Torque RPM | 3750 RPM | 2400 RPM |
Engine Compression Ratio | 9.1:1 | 10.5:1 |
Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
Vehicle Length | 4910 mm | 5000 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1880 mm | 1880 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1440 mm | 1400 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2800 mm | 2950 mm |