2003 Mazda 3 vs. 1966 Mercury Comet
To start off, 2003 Mazda 3 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 4,738 cc (8 cylinders), 1966 Mercury Comet is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1966 Mercury Comet (198 HP @ 4400 RPM) has 90 more horse power than 2003 Mazda 3. (108 HP @ 6000 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1966 Mercury Comet should accelerate faster than 2003 Mazda 3.
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, 2003 Mazda 3, 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 (382 Nm @ 2400 RPM) has 242 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Mazda 3. (140 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 1966 Mercury Comet will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Mazda 3.
Compare all specifications:
| 2003 Mazda 3 | 1966 Mercury Comet | |
| Make | Mazda | Mercury |
| Model | 3 | Comet |
| Year Released | 2003 | 1966 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1498 cc | 4738 cc |
| Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
| Engine Type | in-line | V |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 108 HP | 198 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6000 RPM | 4400 RPM |
| Torque | 140 Nm | 382 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 2400 RPM |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 4500 mm | 5000 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1880 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1400 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2650 mm | 2950 mm |
