When was the last time you saw one of these on the streets? The effect of not seeing one for so long is that I can look at it in a rather fresh way, and that’s not turning out to be so hot for me. The front end is very weak; just plain odd. It almost looks like it escaped from Virgil Exner’s studio in 1959. The Fairlane’s front end was just so much better; it’s all-too obvious that the designers were told to make the Mercury version look different somehow, but without changing too much of the sheet metal. Did it improve for 1967?
Umm; maybe just a wee bit. But it’s one of those front ends that the longer you look at it, the less better it gets. Sorry, Caliente lovers.
Too bad, Mercs were always for the other typ of Ford lover….
-Nate
The 67 is essentially a rehash of the 65s, which look better than both these Comets and the Fairlane frankly. I don’t particularly mind the 66 though, I find the fairlane’s nose tinny looking in comparison, almost truck like. It’s the rear end where the Comet falls apart in my eyes, totally anonymous.
In answer to the rhetorical question, “Did it improve for 1967?” EH! However, these were a fun drive for young folks who wanted a convertible. The sedans and wagons were strictly transportation in my opinion. The convertible was a good way to show up where the girls are or if you are a female owner, where the boys are. Thanks for the memories. Well, you just got two cliches in one comment!
As a Ford and Mercury fan, maybe my opinion is a bit biased? Between the 66 Fairlane and the 66 Comet, I prefer the Fairlane. For 67 I prefer the Comet over the Fairlane.
The 67 Fairlane is a facelift of the 66 with a bit more gingerbread added to it. The 67 Comet is an alternate version of the 66 Fairlane.
With the exception of the stacked headlights the front end looks very similar to the contemporary Rambler Classics of the day. This is about the time GM went with stacked lights on most of their cars, such as GTO.
The 1965 Comet hardtop was my favorite Ford product of that year. I’d have been hard pressed to decide between it and the similar 1965 Lemans/GTO which, coincidentally, was my favorite Goat.
But the Fairlane has it all over the Comet for 1966 and 1967 (although I could live with a 1966 Cyclone).
The 66 Comet uses a few elements that were also used on the 66, and I agree that as a styling exercise the 65 is better. BUT, the 65 was a “between” car, IMHO. The body comes off as looking like a slightly stretched compact, rear seat legroom was tiny on those cars, while the 66 it a more honest intermediate sized car.
If I was never going to put adults in the back seat I’d probably take a 65…at least over a 66. Another negative about the 65 though, is that as a 2 door hardtip it has a LOOONG (looking) rear decklid.
Overall, the 67 is the best looking design, albeit a bit watered down looking.
I see some 1965-66 Rambler/AMC in there too, mainly because of the stacked headlights but just in general.
I have not seen one of these in decades; it looks like an amalgamation of AMC and Pontiac styling. Certainly not inspiring and way behind the styling of the GM intermediates of the day.
To my knowledge I’ve never seen one of these. It looks off… like a generic 60s car 3d model from a video game.
I had a 66 Caliente 2 door hardtop. Avocado green metallic Earl Scheib respray and a 302 conversion by the previous owner. $200 in 1974. First car I bought with my own money.
The tail lights on the 66 Fairlane are superior. Jewel like. Unlike the ham handed 67s.
The 67 Comet I give credit to the designers for attempting a full size Mercury flavor with the vertical theme and shape of the 67 Montereys etc.
Have to give a minor thumbs up for the 67 for the nod to the 66 full size Mercury in the grille of the Comet.
Ford not trying hard enough with Mercury, though. As usual.
Only so much styling can be done with stacked headlights and the others must’ve been taken. Even as a kid I found them unsettling; yet the forbidden fruit syndrome kept me looking back. And even started to kinda like some of them …. a little. The big blocks at least…. Don’t you just hate that about yourself sometimes…
I agree, I think only a few select cars pulled off stacked rounds perfectly, and they all were Pontiacs and Cadillacs. Every other instance looks either derivative or “off”.
I remember seeing in an 1980s issue of Collectible Automobile a styling study for the 1966 Ford LTD. The front end was virtually identical to what would become the 1967 Comet/Caliente. Unfortunately I can’t seem to find a photo online. By the way, Mercury showed an interesting if Pontiac-like variation of the 1966 Comet grille on the late 1965 Escapade show car.
I have always considered the front end of the 66 Comet a fail. There were not many cars that could make the AMC front ends of that era look like masterworks, but this one did. The 67 was an improvement.
The rest of those Comets looked quite nice. Add enough big decals and make it go fast enough and the front isn’t so noticeable. 🙂
Comes in a distinct and distant fourth when compared to the same year Plymouth Satellite or Buick Skylark/Olds Cutlass.
It was all about the stacked headlights.
Some cars were great at it —
They added to glitz & glamour of the ’57, then ’58-’60 Lincolns.
Pontiac caught on for ’63 & ’65, but their other yeaRs of stacked lights– not so much.
Others took a while to learn the ropes —
AMC’s poor job on the Ambassador 990 in ’66 was terrific for ’67-’68..
’66 Plymouth played with stacked lights also, but was mediocre.
Somewhere along the line, I heard them called “over-under” headlights ….
Dan, I agree, the 67 Ambassador was one of the best in that regard. Should have left them alone for 68.
The 67 Plymouth Fury got them right and then Chrysler messed with the design all over for 68 and ruined it. From taking out the subtle peak in the trunk, to the blade like lower skeg line to the full grilles for a split sort of like the 66 Comet.
Slight changes but enough to make the 68 a ham handed version of the 67.
Back when my folks got a ’68 Fury wagon, I wished it had the ’67 hood ornament and other style parts. Now, I look at 68’s and have fond memories. 😉
A Comet Caliente did a cameo in the movie “Blackbeard’s Ghost”. http://www.imcdb.org/vehicle_127258-Mercury-Comet-Caliente-1966.html
Much prefer the ’67 even though I don’t recall ever seeing one in the flesh.
I’m a fan of the 1960-64 Comets, going back to when was little kid and liked the big fins, and the 65’s clean look.
Was always confused about the stacked headlight versions, since they weren’t as common. “That’s a Comet?” I’d think. Name worked better for a true compact car, and Montego was a good example of model rename.
There were actually 1968-69 Comets offered as price leaders under the Montegos. Collectible Automobile had a short write up of these in past year or so.
Oops, meant the 64’s clean look; aka ‘shaver’ grille.
An interesting little factoid: The ’66-’67 Comet 202 was about six inches shorter than the upper series non-wagon Comets and had a smaller trunk, too.
the 202 was based on the Falcon, while the upper trims were Fairlane based.
growing up I had an elderly neighbor that had a 67 Caliente sedan the her husband bought brand new in CA, She moved to Dallas in the 70s and the car sat in the garage till her death in the mid 90s, it had 48,000 miles on it, and looked it. I tried and tried to buy it with all my yard mowing money I earned from her as a kid, she kept turning me down. The car disappeared for 20 years, and I ran across a guy at the parts store telling me about a 67 Comet sedan, I asked him if it was gold and he said yeah, I asked him a few more questions about it, and it dawned on him that I knew his car. He offred to sell it to me for cheap as the brakes were out on it, and we went to go take a look at it.
He was in the process of parting it out… damn it, with 52,000 miles on it, and had sat with a window down in a field for years so the formerly pristine white interior was ruined, the formerly glossy gold paint was dull and flat, and it was missing a lot of trim.
He was thinking it had 152,000 on the clock until I told him that it was the original miles. I passed on the car, but got the hubcaps and radio out of it and the manuals with her name still in them.
Both the ’66 & ’67 Comet styling was pleasant but bland, on the order of most mid-size makes at the time. The designers had a tough job: “make it look new and exciting, but not too exciting or too radical. Keep it inoffensive and pleasant, something middle America can be proud to show off to their neighbors without embarrassment.”
I had a ’64 Comet Caliente convertible as a cheap, rusty used car; a fun summer rig but a junky car in general. Looked at replacing it with a ’66 Caliente convertible but couldn’t justify the asking price with my then-current Comet experience. It amazing now to see these with collector car pricing which suggest they were a lot better car than they were or are.
….. Pricing suggest they were a lot better car than they were or are… I submit that be true of most collecter priced cars. Collector cars are only as good as our minds let them be.