2009 Mazda 3 vs. 1966 Mercury Comet
To start off, 2009 Mazda 3 is newer by 43 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 3,279 cc (6 cylinders), 1966 Mercury Comet is equipped with a bigger engine. In terms of performance, 2009 Mazda 3 (145 HP @ 6500 RPM) has 27 more horse power than 1966 Mercury Comet. (118 HP @ 4400 RPM). In normal driving conditions, 2009 Mazda 3 should accelerate faster than 1966 Mercury Comet.
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, 2009 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 (258 Nm @ 2400 RPM) has 77 more torque (in Nm) than 2009 Mazda 3. (181 Nm @ 4500 RPM). This means 1966 Mercury Comet will have an easier job in driving up hills or pulling heavy equipment than 2009 Mazda 3.
Compare all specifications:
| 2009 Mazda 3 | 1966 Mercury Comet | |
| Make | Mazda | Mercury |
| Model | 3 | Comet |
| Year Released | 2009 | 1966 |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Engine Size | 1998 cc | 3279 cc |
| Valves per Cylinder | 4 valves | 2 valves |
| Horse Power | 145 HP | 118 HP |
| Engine RPM | 6500 RPM | 4400 RPM |
| Torque | 181 Nm | 258 Nm |
| Torque RPM | 4500 RPM | 2400 RPM |
| Engine Bore Size | 87.5 mm | 103.1 mm |
| Engine Compression Ratio | 10.0:1 | 10.5:1 |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Vehicle Length | 4550 mm | 5180 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1760 mm | 1880 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1470 mm | 1390 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2650 mm | 2950 mm |
