2003 Mazda 6 vs. 1966 Mercury Comet
To start off, 2003 Mazda 6 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 6,393 cc (8 cylinders), 1966 Mercury Comet is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 1966 Mercury Comet (405 HP @ 5600 RPM) has 267 more horse power than 2003 Mazda 6. (138 HP @ 3500 RPM) In normal driving conditions, 1966 Mercury Comet should accelerate faster than 2003 Mazda 6.
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 6, 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 (645 Nm @ 3400 RPM) has 335 more torque (in Nm) than 2003 Mazda 6. (310 Nm @ 2000 RPM). This means 1966 Mercury Comet will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2003 Mazda 6.
Compare all specifications:
2003 Mazda 6 | 1966 Mercury Comet | |
Make | Mazda | Mercury |
Model | 6 | Comet |
Year Released | 2003 | 1966 |
Engine Position | Front | Front |
Engine Size | 1999 cc | 6393 cc |
Engine Cylinders | 4 cylinders | 8 cylinders |
Engine Type | in-line | V |
Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
Horse Power | 138 HP | 405 HP |
Engine RPM | 3500 RPM | 5600 RPM |
Torque | 310 Nm | 645 Nm |
Torque RPM | 2000 RPM | 3400 RPM |
Fuel Type | Diesel | Gasoline |
Drive Type | Front | Rear |
Number of Seats | 5 seats | 4 seats |
Vehicle Length | 4710 mm | 5180 mm |
Vehicle Width | 1790 mm | 1880 mm |
Vehicle Height | 1490 mm | 1390 mm |
Wheelbase Size | 2680 mm | 2950 mm |