2000 Ford Mustang vs. 1966 Mercury Comet
To start off, 2000 Ford Mustang 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 5,409 cc (8 cylinders), 2000 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2000 Ford Mustang (385 HP @ 6000 RPM) has 267 more horse power than 1966 Mercury Comet. (118 HP @ 4400 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2000 Ford Mustang 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 Mustang (522 Nm @ 4250 RPM) has 264 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 Mercury Comet. (258 Nm @ 2400 RPM). This means 2000 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 Mercury Comet.
Compare all specifications:
| 2000 Ford Mustang | 1966 Mercury Comet | |
| Make | Ford | Mercury |
| Model | Mustang | Comet |
| Year Released | 2000 | 1966 |
| Body Type | Coupe | Sedan |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 5409 cc | 3279 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Horse Power | 385 HP | 118 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4400 RPM |
| Torque | 522 Nm | 258 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4250 RPM | 2400 RPM |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 9.6:1 | 10.5:1 |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Vehicle Length | 4620 mm | 5000 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1830 mm | 1880 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1830 mm | 1400 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 2950 mm |
