2003 Ford Mustang vs. 1966 Mercury Comet
To start off, 2003 Ford Mustang is newer by 37 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 4,601 cc (8 cylinders), 2003 Ford Mustang is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2003 Ford Mustang (390 HP @ 6150 RPM) has 272 more horse power than 1966 Mercury Comet. (118 HP @ 4400 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2003 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, 2003 Ford Mustang (530 Nm @ 3500 RPM) has 272 more torque (in Nm) than 1966 Mercury Comet. (258 Nm @ 2400 RPM). This means 2003 Ford Mustang will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 1966 Mercury Comet.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Ford Mustang | 1966 Mercury Comet | |
| Make | Ford | Mercury |
| Model | Mustang | Comet |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1966 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 4601 cc | 3279 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 8 cylinders | 6 cylinders |
| Engine Type | V | in-line |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 390 HP | 118 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6150 RPM | 4400 RPM |
| Torque | 530 Nm | 258 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 3500 RPM | 2400 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 90.2 mm | 103.1 mm |
| Drive Type | Rear | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 4 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 4670 mm | 5180 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1860 mm | 1880 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1340 mm | 1390 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2580 mm | 2950 mm |
