If this goofy-assed little car showed up at your premium brand’s doorstep and told you it was an unwanted orphan, would you let it in? And keep it as a foster child, or adopt it as your own? That’s the scenario Mercury found itself in with the Comet. And true to form, Mercury waffled.
The Comet was planned as a compact Edsel, but when that expensive little venture went belly up, it needed a home. Mercury let it into its dealers, but not branded as a Mercury, just Comet. After all, Mercury had a finely-honed brand identity to protect: uninspired, overwrought, wallowing Buick wanna-be barges that sold poorly. It wasn’t about to let the Comet sully that.
Was Mercury dutifully obeying the oft-repeated maxim against eroding a brand by extension? Perhaps. Mercury was in the depths of its perpetual self-identity crisis, which was exacerbated by the whole Edsel debacle. Ford wanted Mercury to aim up even higher, at Buick; thus the Comet solution. But two significant events changed Mercury’s mind.
First, Buick came out with its own compact Special in 1961. In GM’s heyday in the 1920’s, when the various divisions each decided to expand and fill the gaps between them, their off-shoots were sold under new names: Cadillac spawned LaSalle, Buick birthed Marquette, Olds created Viking, and Pontiac itself was an offshoot of Oakland. GM has quite the cemetery of failed brands. But GM’s decision to let Pontiac, Olds and Buick have compacts in 1961 changed the rules forever. And soon there was the addition of premium Chevys like the Monte Carlo and Caprice. The GM brand muddle was in full swing.
The second thing that changed Mercury’s mind was that the Comet sold quite well for the first couple of years, during those compact boom years. The real Mercuries didn’t. In fact the Comet outsold the big Mercs almost two-to-one in ’61. Probably explains best why the Comet became a genuine Mercury in ’62.
The Comet was a stretched and re-skinned Falcon. Actually, only the sedans rode on a lengthened 114″ wheelbase and had that loopy rear end. For cost-efficiency’s sake, Comet wagons were thinly disguised Falcons with a Comet front clip. Since Comets were planned to be Edsels, some parts still carried the “E” prefix. And that rear taillight lens looks mighty similar to those on the 1960 Edsel.
Except for the taillights and finlets, the Comet’s styling was actually way ahead of the whole Ford clan in 1960. It almost perfectly predicts the ’62 Fairlane and Meteor twins, as well as Ford’s general styling trend in the first half of the sixties. Of course, it wears that ’58 T-Bird roof proudly, like so many other Fords of the era. And by 1962, the Comet’s tail entered a more mainstream galaxy.
Except for that longer wheelbase, the Comet shared its mechanicals with the Falcon. That meant only one engine for the Comet’s abbreviated first year: the 144 cubic inch (2.35973722 liter) six that packed all of 90 hp (gross) at 4200 rpm. That would be about 75 of today’s (net) ponies. That made it the feeblest of the semi-upscale new compacts.
The two-speed automatic strangled that herdlet of ponies dead in their tracks. Good thing the slightly stronger 170 cubic inch came along in ’61, as well as the little 260 V8 in ’62. But with a stick and a glass-pack muffler like this one, the little six at least sounds like it’s making half-way decent forward progress.
There’s a distinctive tone to these small Ford sixes. If they’re wheezing through the stock muffler, especially when burdened with the automatic, it’s very nasal, as in dire need of an antihistamine. With a less restrictive muffler, it reminds me of European and other vintage small displacement in-line sixes, like the old Opels, the Triumph six, and others of the period. It’s a pleasant, roarty throb, but smooth and obviously harmless.
Speaking of European influence, the Comet and Falcons actually had a four-speed column-shifted stick option for a couple of years starting in 1961. It was sourced from the British Consul or Zephyr, and was a pretty rare bird. Four-on-the-trees were almost unheard of in the US.
Like its namesake, the Comet’s sparkle was short lived. Once it earned itself the Mercury name, it became a slacker, and sales began a long decline. Maybe the Mercury name is a jinx. The ill-fated mid-sized Meteor, which appeared in 1962, didn’t help. It was a lightly reskinned Fairlane, but because the Comet was already a lengthened Falcon, it was almost mid-size itself. The Comet and Meteor were almost indistinguishable, and it all devolved into a typical Mercury muddle. It was not the winged god that gave Mercury its name; it was the mineral: it’s impossible to give it definition, and it’s deadly.
For a few years starting in 1964, Mercury tried to inject some performance vitality into the Comet, including some wild factory-supported drag racing Cyclones. Amusing wheelie machines and cult favorites, but they didn’t really help sell the metal on Mondays. By 1966, Comet morphed into a mid-sized car, which then became the Montego. And by 1971, the Comet’s highly irregular orbit was completed, and it suddenly reappeared as a badge-engineered Maverick. Wish me luck on finding one of those.
A buddy of mine in college had a ’63 Comet with the six. Great looking sedan, it was — but dangerously slow. I mean, a slug has better acceleration.
A co-worker – a rather attractive blonde – had a white ’61 4-door. I think it was a stick. (but not the 4-on-the-tree)
Something happened that it needed a new head gasket. Her husband – also a co-worker, asked be if I’d be willing to do it for, like, $25 plus parts.
Hey it was the 70′s and I was young…
Of course as a 6 it was a dirt-easy repair. I just remember finishing up, hitting the key and watching the temp gauge pin itself on “H”.
Whadididooo?
About 2 minutes of diagnosis…2 minutes that seemed like an eternity…and I found the culprit…the feed wire to the temp sensor had ended up between the gasket and the head, grounding it.
Oops!
I was never so thankful to get it going again and have everything work properly. I think they were still driving it when I left for college a year later.
Amazing it didn’t leak or pop again soon after!
I once had a 2 day love affair with one of these as a teenager. I saw a black 4 door for sale. The 144 6 and three on the tree. I talked the owner into letting me drive the car across town to let Howard, my car mentor, take a look.
It was fun to drive, but slooooooow. I cannot imagine it with the 2 speed auto. I do remember the bad combination of an underpowered car and vacuum wipers. The interior was actually fitted out fairly nicely, in black and white vinyl. It presented much better than a Falcon.
The car, in truth, was a worn-out piece of crap. Something in the latch was busted so that the trunk would not even open. Howard gave me that look that said “please explain why you are wasting both of our time?” I took the car back to the owner and told him that I was not interested. He was not happy with me.
A decent one of these (with the stick) would be a great car for me right now. I live a mile from my office and much of my driving is local. I always thought that the 60-61 Comet was an attractive car. I kinda like the cat’s eye taillights. This would make a nice short distance cruiser today.
Edit – I just noticed: what a fascinating fuel filler cap. Neither decorative nor hidden. Just kind of – there. Also, I wonder if the 5 letters in the Comet name was just coincidence, or if the body panels had already been engineered and tooled for holes to accommodate the 5 letters spelling Edsel?
“the 144 cubic inch (2.5 liter) six”
Something is wrong. Google says:
144 (cubic inch) = 2.35973722 liters
2.5 liters = 152.55936 cubic inch
take your pick.
A Maverick Comet shouldn’t be hard to find – they were quite popular in their time in the Midwest. I thought, and I wasn’t alone, that the trim and touches were a better combo on that unit than on the Maverick.
I don’t have production numbers; but they shouldn’t be uncommonly scarce.
I saw one in the local pick-your-part about a month ago, a baby blue sedan with blue vinyl interior. I think it was a ’75. The really rare 1970s Mercury variant was the Bobcat. A friend of my dad’s borrowed his brother’s once, it was a seafoam green hatchback. That was in about 1990 and that’s the only time I recall seeing one. Picture a Pinto with a Marquis grille, and that’s it.
Believe it or not, I’d seen quite a few Bobcats around, also.
I think it was that we, on the West Side of suburban Cleveland, had several very aggressive and successful Lincoln-Mercury dealers. And when the 1973-74 fuel crisis hit, ANY small car was selling.
My old man got his Maverick at that point, and was lucky to do so. It was one of only a few not pre-sold on delivery. During that search for a thrifty car, my mother had looked at Pintos…and also Bobcats. Vegas were off the search because they’d already established a reeking reputation. But, no, everyone wanted in a small car…a friend’s mother bought a two-year-old Pinto, same time.
FWIW, the Mercury Bobcat Pinto-derivative hit the States as a 1974 model. It was sold in Canada at least a year earlier; maybe several model years earlier.
EDIT: I just checked Wikipedia; and they claim the Bobcat was a 1975 introduction. But I remember a write-up in Car and Driver in August 1973. I remember that well because I was NOT a subscriber; couldn’t afford it as a 15-year-old kid. It was a purloined issue; a rare treat.
And I do remember Bobcats, with their odd taillight treatment, being around at that time. It was a brief time when all the world wanted to drive small; the only new cars on the street were little cars.
No mention of Bobcat in Mercury’s 1974 full-line brochure:
http://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Mercury/1974%20Mercury/1974_Lincoln-Mercury_Brochure/dirindex.html
Back in the day I had a number of Pintos and one Bobcat a ’75. They certainly didn’t sell in anywhere near the numbers the Pinto did.
The 75 Bobcat was an early intro in Apr-May 1974.
I was just thinking that: An early-early 1975 introduction. Rushed into production because of the gas situation in 1973-74.
I know I’d seen them in spring 1974.
I like it, just for the sheer weirdness of it and even though it sold well during it’s first few years, having one would likely elicit many “WTF is that?” responses from observers.
Yessiree, these are yet another reason I’m proud to have bad taste in cars. Love the fins and goofy taillights, and that crease on the side that dips down. And that generic 60′s grille and headlight treatment.
You can have more fun with one of these than that engineless 428 CJ Mustang over on Hemmings Blog, and since I’m all about fun with cars and who cares who is impressed, this pushes all the right buttons for me.
If this poor little thing showed up at my door, of course I would have to adopt it – after all, someone adopted me!
I’d take this because it looks better than a Falcon, which is good, and I like quirky-looking cars too.
Yes, send it my way, to West Chester, OH, and I’ll drive it to our spring meet-up in Van Wert!
1)On the topic on if this looks better than the falcon, I would say definitely knowing I am slightly quirky in ways.
2)On if I would foster or adopt it if it showed up at my front door, I would say yes because my youngest sister is adopted.
In other words: Great choices Zackman!
Ford didn’t have a whole lot of time to de-Edselize the Comet. It certainly seems to be a reasonable hypothesis to imagine that the lettering spelling out “C O M E T” below the decklid was placed where “E D S E L” was originally intended.
Unfortunately, there don’t seem to be any extant photos of Edsel Comet styling studies showing a clear view of the rear. Below is what the front of the Edsel Comet would have looked like. With a bit of metal fabrication skill it ought to be possible to duplicate that. Add in some badging from 1959 and ’60 Edsels and tada, you have a “what-if” ’60 Edsel Comet. I’d like to see someone do it.
Looks a lot like a Tempest.
I wonder if they still would have called it a Comet if it was going to be sold under the Edsel nameplate, they rear probably would have looked the same since the tailights on the Comet look a lot like the eyebrow tailights on the 58 Edsel.
It was going to be called the Edsel Comet. I read the article on the ’60-’63 Comets in Collectible Automobile a while ago, and the decision to cancel the Edsel came so late in the Comet program that they had to replace all the brochures, advertising, and service manuals to remove the name ‘Edsel’. The neon C-O-M-E-T signs for the outside of the dealerships had to be modified as well.
According to some sources, not only would it have been an Edsel Comet, it would have been the only Edsel by 1961. Which raises the question of what would have become of the Fairlane-based Meteor had Edsel survived.
That probably would have become part of the larger question of where to position Mercury, which was bad enough without Edsel but would have been even worse with it. I can envision an alternate universe in which someone would think it a good idea to make Edsel the small car division of Ford. I suspect that would have died out due to the LaSalle problem — someone would realize that the cars would sell better branded as Fords or Mercurys.
The concept that Edsel would be only the Comet in 1961 might explain why there seem to be no 1961 full size Edsel styling studies. The normal product development cycle would suggest that 61′s should have been in process by mid to late ’59 before Edsel was killed off. I have always thought, however, that the 1961 Canadian Meteor hints at what a ’61 Edsel based on the Ford body might have looked like — especially from the rear:
I guess they could push Mercury back further in higher mid-price medium (in Buick territory) closer to Lincoln. Ironically, the full-size Merc became popular again around 1965 once they marketed the Monterey/Parklane as “Now in the Lincoln Continental tradition”. Note the ’65 frond end was inspired by the Lincoln http://store.valueweb.com/servlet/vintagepaperads/-strse-64190/1965-Mercury-Car-Ad/Detail
Ironically, Motor Trend at that era once speculated then the 1961 only DeSoto would had been a Valiant variant. I spotted this image on the Forwardlook.net forums.
Now, let’s imagine Ford decided to keep the Edsel for 1961-on. Will Chrysler have second taughts about DeSoto? Lots of food for taught for “Alternate history”.;-)
One guy imagined his own “what if?” of a 1961 and… 1962 Edsel Corsair
http://www.whatifcars.com/gallery/What-If-Cars/61_Edsel_Corsair
http://www.whatifcars.com/gallery/What-If-Cars/62_Edsel_Corsair
When I think of Mercury Comets I can’t help but think of a 65 or 66 Cyclone. I was living in Argentia, Newfoundland and it was one of those new cars that came in with an arriving Nurse. She made the mistake of loaning it to one of the sailors who made the mistake of wrapping it around a pole. A copius quantity of alcohol was involved during the middle of the day.
I was working at the Station Hospital emergency room and got to see the whole situation play itself out. I had thought it was a little overpowered for the roads on base even if you were sober. Hi Po 289 IIRC.
Possibly the reason I had noticed the comet so much was that I was driving one of it’s underpowered ancestors, a 1953 merc with a flathead eight. I couldn’t keep it out of the repair shop and it drove me right into the arms of a waiting new 1966 1300. BTW, I could have bought the 1200 which you couldn’t do in the states. Just couldn’t take it home.
I’d take it! I liked the less frumpy looks of the Comet over the early Falcons. Slap in a Turbo 2.3, T-5, an 8.8 rear and you have a heck of a little car.
Hey, these weren’t so bad. My cousins had one, I think even the same color, with three-on-the-tree. We used to race each other around the little streets of our home town on
Sunday afternoons when everyone else (including the town constable) was sleeping or watching NFL. Dad’s ’68 Catalina walked away from it on the “straights,” but that little Comet tail would kick up around the corners and somehow hang on and easily make up for lost time. Tough little car; we couldn’t kill it. Made me think about overall weight and balance as it related to handling, probably began my lifelong preference for smaller, lighter vehicles.
This is one of the cars I always search for on Craigslist. I like the canted fins and tail lights. I’d go with a vulcan 3.0 and 5sp for the power train.
Make mine a 289, please. Although a later 200 I6 would probably be a simpler swap and would be plenty of power vs. the little 144.
Maybe. I had a ’70 Maverick with the 200 cube six and it was still a wheezy, unenthusiastic powerplant with a carb that was difficult to keep set up properly.
Turbo!
I’d second a Vulcan V6 swap, 150hp Net is probably more than the 260 V8 made in Net HP, and I’d assume the Vulcan is a lighter engine (and a good one, I always liked the surly exhaust note of them). A swap out from a wrecked post 1994 Ranger perhaps?
My wife’s Taurus has the Vulcan in it. Ick, gaaak, who on earth can like that noisy, rough, agricultural device? It makes a GM 2.8 seem like a dream!
HA! The last of the Vulcan powered midsize Taurus’ that I’ve driven (and I’ve driven quite a few in my district) are heaven compared to the 3.4V6 in the Equinox I often get to drive. Try merging on the Interstate and seeing a 3.4 tach up to 6,000 RPM where it is certainly not happy! I’m always waiting for the damn thing to explode on me.
There must be something wrong with yours the one in my wife’s Taurus and her mother’s Ranger is not rough or that noisy.
2 big reasons I’d go with it.
#1 they are one of the most durable modern bent 6s, change the oil every year or so and they’ll go to 250K or more.
#2 because are durable and common as dirt they are as cheap as dirt, $250~$350 for a low mile example from the wrecking yard all day long.
The other lesser reason is that they, and I know this will make me “unpopular” with some, is that there is a FFV version. My wife’s is a FFV and I like that option, gives a nice boost in low to midrange torque and at the right E% 40~50% it actually gets better MPG, about 12%, while making that extra power. For that reason normally when one of use heads to Portland and beyond we always take that car. A little less than 1/2 way there is a station that sells E85, not common around here, for a good price. The funny thing about that station is that I keep running into people from OR filling up their Marauders, and of course if I’m at that station my Marauder is at home.
I had a ’66 Mustang with a 200 Six. Freshly rebuilt, with a three-speed bolted on back, it was actually pretty fun to drive.
200 six with alloy head, triple carbs, and a five speed stick.
That would give it a nice period set up with a little modern twist. Add a true dual exhaust set up, but not too loud, so you can still hear the trio of carbs for a killer “sound” system.
Finding a 71-77 Comet shouldn’t be too difficult, but it probably will be a 4 door!
A friend of mine got one of these when he turned 16 in the late 60′s. His Dad, who was somewhat overprotective, installed a 50MPH speed regulator on it. To me, that seemd the height of redundancy
A college roomate had one of these in 1973. We called it Kohoutek, after the other comet that was in the news that year.
Kohoutek was a great little car, carrying us through all manner of hijinks and shenanigans.
Bonus picture for Paul of a 74
There is a Maverick/Comet in this clip of some of my street finds from Olympia WA. It is a DD near where I work. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViFwfb_pq2k
I remember these driving around when I was young. The rear end was nowhere near as ugly as the same-vintage Valiants however, some of which I seem to recall had a hideous fake spare tire outline on the trunk lid. The late 50′s – early 60′s time period certainly did produce some outlandish designs! Soon to be replaced by the smooth-sided blandmobiles of the mid 60s.
Wow, that’s a nice find!
I just love the early Comets, from the rear 3/4 it’s mini-’59 Ford, from the front a ’62 Fairlane. These cars look even better to me now than they ever did.
A 4-on-the-tree with — would a 300 I6 fit under that hood?
Id definitely take it late model Falcon powertrain will bolt right in even the Turbo 6 and its lots different looking to the early Falcons
Remember this is an early car, the one with the suspension that the land down under destroyed pretty quickly. Of the top of my head I don’t remember when the Aussie spec strengthening of the basic front suspension and uni-body made it back to the US built models.
From what Paul has shown Im not sure it did OZ went with 5 stud axles and pretty much the compact Fairlane front end but they also upped the balljoint sizes several times thru the 60s to cope with racing requirements and again in 71 with the XY model in prep for the OZ designed XA,B,C,D,E,Fs into the late 80s. Luckily all these later parts will retro fit the early 60s models. I must geyt some photos for you guys one of my neighbours has a turbo XR6
Yes most of the early lessons learned like larger ball joints sturdier torque boxes did transfer back to the US built models. That is why I’m conflicted on these earliest US models they don’t take the same easy disc swap, either using later model or aftermarket parts. Yes the US kept different brakes and wheel patterns different between the 6 cyl and V8 cars but the US volume was quite large so they had to run multiple lines so they were able to lower costs for the 6cyl models. In OZ I don’t think they had the volume necessary for multiple lines so a one size fits all was more economical and better suited local conditions.
The local Falcons basically ended up with convertible/Sprint structure underneath. The 250ci cross-flow alloy head is a good cheap swap, the later model ohc/dohc are bulkier and need some work to go in, likewise later hubs & brakes (which are local parts)
It is interesting that the early Comet front clip panels were re-used for the 65-66 XP Falcon in Australia, with a unique grille. The rear panels were unique though, big pie plate lights and a squared-off trunk to improve space.
I have seen one or two later Comets but I don’t think I’ve seen an early one.
I never knew that these were available with four-on-the-tree. I do know that the 1963 Falcon and early Mustang sixes got an English-Ford-derived 4-speed transmission but thought they were floor-shifted.
I note that the coupe shown has a rear Oregon plate that looks like it was installed just before photo time, and a front plate that’s too worn to be readable in the photo.
The Zephyr had a tree shift standard but floor shift could be ordered or just get a Hurst inline.
As for the Comet sales who begin its slide around 1962-63, I guess the intro of the Fairlane for ’62 as well as a redesigned Dart/Valiant at Chrysler as well as the Rambler Classic/Ambassador for ’63 didn’t helped things either.
I love the way these look – especially the fins and taillights on the 1960 and 1961s. The one you found is especially sharp! Mercury also had a version of the Falcon Futura, the Comet S-22. It had bucket seats, console, special wheel covers and color-coordinated carpet, seats and instrument panel.
It’s worth noting that by the time the Comet was conceived, Edsel had been rolled back into Lincoln-Mercury (which happened in January 1958). So, it was only sort of an orphan, although obviously it was caught up in the ongoing debate about what to do with Edsel (and Mercury, for that matter — the decision to try to move it upscale had been a controversial one). From a divisional standpoint, it would have been M-E-L’s car either way.
Mercury had really not done badly until the recession. The problem was that it just couldn’t compete with Pontiac, Oldsmobile, AND Buick, in part because Lincoln-Mercury didn’t have the dealer base (one of the things the Edsel was originally supposed to address). Aside from the recession, they also had to deal with Ford Division moving upmarket, with cars like the Galaxie and Skyliner. I suspect part of the reason the Comet lost steam was the arrival of the Falcon Futura. Part of the appeal of the Comet was that it was just more nicely trimmed, where the early Falcons were obviously bargain basement. The Futura addressed that issue, and Mercury didn’t have the badge prestige to make the case for buying a Comet instead.
We had a neighbor back in my childhood days, whose wife drove one of these old Comets. She even wore the cat’s eye style glasses, way after they were out of fashion. I remember the car, because it managed to survive late into the 1970′s. Of course by then, it was a patchwork of bondo, fiberglass patch and roofing tin pop riveted to keep the car fairly watertight.
I liked the little beast, thought it would have been fun to have one, but not THAT one…
Makes me want one, toss a ford 300 six in their and drive it.
Looks like a cross between a Falcon and a 60′s full size car with fins.
I love, love old Comets, were one of my favorites when I was little kid in 60′s. And I had a model of 64 Comet drag car.
The Maverick based 70′s Comet was first true Mercury/Ford badge job, no unique sheet metal at all. And recycled 70-71 Montego tails.
Great shots. I passed one of these, in the exact same colour/trim, nearly every day on the way to elementary school as a kid. That was the ’80s, so it was an antique even then. The owner always parked nose-in, doubtless to show off those hawt fins.
I drive mine all the time, the 170 six banger runs all day at 65 mph with no complaints!