Ford Motor Company built and sold a lot of 1970–1977 Mavericks and quite a few 1971–1977 Mercury Comets, but most of the ones that haven’t gone to the boneyard seem to have been transformed into DIY muscle cars. This first-year six-cylinder Mercury Comet is a rare exception: It doesn’t look much different now than it did when it arrived at a Sacramento Lincoln-Mercury dealer in May 1971, with an unusually extensive array of options for a basic economy car.
I know there’s a school of thought that says the 1970 Ford Maverick really should have been the next Mustang: Add an optional Boss 302 or 351C engine, performance suspension, disc brakes, and a little less downmarket ambiance, and it might have done a better job than the increasingly bloated early ’70s Mustang at carrying the pony car torch. Ford decided not to do that, but that idea seems to have been the driving force behind a lot of the collector interest in the Maverick and Comet over the last 20 years. The usual result is somewhere between a restomod and a funny car, and few cars that left the factory with a six still retain it.
That makes this mostly original six-cylinder 1971 Comet quite unusual — very few early Maverick or Comet survivors are this close to stock condition. 1971 was the first year for this incarnation of the Mercury Comet, which arrived roughly 18 months after its Ford sibling. Unlike the Maverick, which was initially available with only two doors and six cylinders, the Comet was available from the start as a two- or four-door sedan and with the optional 302 as well as three sixes. By 1971, the Maverick offered those things too, so the Comet’s main points of distinction were slightly different interior trim, “Montego-style” taillights, and a new grille with a bulged “power-dome” hood.
I happen to think the latter looked a little foolish on the Comet. Making a junior Montego or junior Cougar out of the Maverick shell wasn’t a terrible idea per se — people obviously liked that the Maverick looked like a scaled-down Mustang, and giving the Comet a little of the old Cougar treatment might have worked. However, Ford was obviously not willing to spend the kind of money required to pull that off convincingly, which left the Comet looking like a Maverick wearing one of those toy “disguise kits” you used to be able to get in the toy section of any dime store: false nose, fake mustache, glasses. It was inoffensive, but a bit silly.
For all the later obsession with cramming V-8 engines into these cars, that generally wasn’t how they were originally sold. According to Automotive Industries, only 38.1 percent of 1971 Comet buyers and 11.2 percent of 1971 Maverick buyers ordered the 302. Most people who bought a Maverick or a Comet new seemed to have been looking for a cheap six-cylinder commuter car.
The 1971 Comet pictured here was undoubtedly a commuter car — it has a six and automatic — but it wasn’t especially cheap. Unfortunately, the Bring a Trailer listing didn’t include a copy of the original window sticker or sales invoice, but the sticker price of this car was probably around $3,400. Since a 1971 Comet two-door sedan started at just $2,217 ($37 more than a two-door Maverick), that means this car has over $1,000 worth of extra-cost options.
In addition to the vinyl roof, it has air conditioning, power steering, tinted glass, radio, and the upgraded interior. It wasn’t quite fully loaded (it doesn’t have the optional consolette, for instance), but it was pretty close.
That was unusual in 1971: Just 17 percent of 1971 Comet buyers ordered the vinyl roof (a $77.50 option), only 48.3 percent ordered power steering, and only 24.6 percent ordered air conditioning. Power brakes weren’t offered, nor were disc brakes or an AM/FM radio.
The Comet and Maverick were econoboxes, and even ordering the deluxe trim option (which I think this car has) couldn’t really hide the Comet’s bare bones. For instance, you couldn’t get a glove box on these cars for love or money, and ordering nicer upholstery didn’t keep you from feeling the hardware through the thinly padded seats.
A six-cylinder Comet did have its virtues as an economy car. Like the Maverick, its overall repair record was quite good — as well it should have been, given the unambitious engineering — and if you were at all mechanically inclined, you could probably do most maintenance yourself. This one has the 250-cid six, second of the two optional sixes, a $78.70 option that gave 145 gross horsepower (98 hp net). It was probably good for 18 to 20 mpg on regular in 1971–1972. A Comet with the big six and automatic wasn’t fast, but the 250 could at least get out of its own way, and it was probably less burdened than a 170 or 200 engine by the air conditioner. (It does get hot in the Sacramento area in the summertime.)
There are people who will argue that it was offering cars like this that condemned Mercury to its more or less perpetual second-banana status. Hype aside, the Comet was a downmarket cheap-wheels model, barely distinguishable from its equally cheap-o Ford sibling, and a rather odd companion to the plush Mercury Marquis Brougham. However, Lincoln-Mercury dealers managed to move about 83,000 Comets in 1971 and a similar number for 1972, which was solid business for Mercury in those days.
I do wonder a little about the people who chose a Comet over a Maverick. The Comet was somewhat more expensive upfront than an equivalent Maverick, and as Consumer Guide pointed out at the time, service and repair at Lincoln-Mercury dealers was usually dearer than at a Ford dealer (without necessarily being any more satisfactory, judging by the results of a 1973 Popular Mechanics owners report).
Did the original owner of this car have a personal connection with Town & Country Lincoln-Mercury that got them a nice discount off the rather hefty sticker price? Was the dealership — located at 1800 Fulton Road in Sacramento — very close to their workplace? (The redacted registration card shows that the original owner lived in Carmichael, an unincorporated suburb northeast of the City of Sacramento.)
I have no idea, but the listing claims that the original owner and their family kept the car for 50 years, racking up fewer than 50,000 miles — most of those likely accumulated in Sacramento County urban traffic. So, they got good service out of it, and it remains in very good if imperfect condition. Unlike most Maverick/Comet survivors, it doesn’t appear to have many aftermarket tweaks other than a PerTronix ignition conversion.
It reminds me a bit of the scene between Belloq and Indiana Jones in Raiders of the Lost Ark, where Belloq holds up a watch and remarks:
Look at this. It’s worthless. Ten dollars from a vendor in the street. But I take it and bury it in the sand for a thousand years, it becomes priceless — like the Ark. Men will kill for it. Men like you and me.
This Comet isn’t yet priceless, but it sold for $13,500 in September 2023, a very decent price for a modest car that few people at the time would have expected to be preserved.
Related Reading
Why The 1970 Ford Maverick Was A Hit: The Right Dismal Car At The Right Dismal Time (by me)
Vintage Road & Track Road Test: 1970 Ford Maverick – “…They’ve Got To Be Out Of Their Minds” (by Paul N)
Curbside Classic: 1971 Mercury Comet – Not a Baby Lincoln (by J P Cavanaugh)
CC Outtake: 1971 Mercury Comet – My Mother (And) The Car (by Laurence Jones)
CC Tech: How the Mustang, Cougar, And Maverick Differed From The Original Ford Falcon Platform (by me)
They are reasonably attractive cars especially the early years before the huge bumpers.
The Fast N Loud guys worked on a bulky bumper Comet. A few of the mods were changing the bumpers to smaller ones, adding power bulges in the hood from a Maverick, a color change paint job, and warming up the retained six to make more power. I think the interior was upgraded, too. The result was tasteful.
Too bad he didn’t see this car; it would’ve saved his crew some work.
I had never noticed the little sliding door covers for the storage bin under the dash before – was this an upgrade only found on Comets I wonder? I am also a little surprised to read that Ford did not offer an AM/FM radio option on Comets. I did find a 1972 brochure online that shows a mono AM/FM radio with a single speaker as the sole radio option above the base AM unit, and wonder if that was there for 1971 also, but I cannot find a source.
I will confess that I always liked the styling upgrades on the Comet. I thought the hood/grille design did a good job of giving the car at least a little bit of a Mercury flavor to the Maverick, but thought these revisions came off better on the sedans. It is amazing that one of these survived in this condition for so long!
A good source for this kind of info is Old Car Brochures.com:
https://www.oldcarbrochures.com/.
In spite of a few broken links and annoying pop-up ads, it is something that every auto fanatic should bookmark and use a resource.
Here’s a link to the options page of 1971 Mercury full-line sales brochure that confirms that only an AM radio was offered as an option on the 1971 Mercury Comet:
https://www.oldcarbrochures.com/static/NA/Mercury/1971%20Mercury/1971%20Mercury%20Full%20Line%20Prestige%20Brochure%20(Rev)/image26.html
My parents had a 71 Comet. The sliding door over the dashboard shelf (no glove box!) was an aftermarket accessory.
My father-in-law had an old 4-door Comet in the mid-80s. One of the rear doors wouldn’t stay closed so he ran a length of rope around the car over the roof and through the door handles as a temporary fix until he had time to repair the locking mechanism. You would do the same, wouldn’t you?
Around that time I was called up to Vermont to help the sales office with product demonstrations for an important account. I drove up the day before with my wife and our daughters since her parents lived nearby.
We had a pair of car seats strapped in our Toyota so I borrowed my father-in-law’s Comet early the next morning to go to work. I hadn’t been there long before an announcement came over the P.A. system: “Will the owner of a blue Comet kindly move it to the back parking lot? You’re frightening the customers.”
The one size fits all chrome exhaust extension would be the first thing to go, if it were sitting in my driveway. I will admit, as a kid growing up in the Midwest, it was mesmerizing watching the exhaust steam plumes slowly drift with the wind as dad warmed up the car on a bitterly cold morning in the winter. I suppose this could have made it more interesting?
How many Fomoco products had the trapezoidal lights with the crosshairs? For a while, it seemed, all of them.
“I know there’s a school of thought that says the 1970 Ford Maverick really should have been the next Mustang:”
Another of those great “what might have beens”, one will always wonder how things might have played out if Henry Ford II hadn’t passed over Iacocca to be Ford president in lieu of Bunkie Knudson.
If not for Knudson’s ‘big’ 1971-73 Mustang (which really just looked big), would an earlier Ford president Iacocca have went the route of making the next generation Mustang out of the Maverick instead of the ill-fated (but correct for the time) scheme of using the Pinto as the basis for the 1974 Mustang II?
Clearly, the market was more interested in a smaller Mustang for 1974, but all the way down to the Pinto?
The timing doesn’t quite work with the Pinto hitting production more than a year later than the Maverick but the perfect world scenario is have the Pinto be what it is as a subcompact hatchback, the Mustang is the Maverick as we know it but with better standard equipment and Maverick name is a sedan/coupe on a stretched Pinto chassis.
Still, Ford Mexico have gone another path by selling the Maverick as “Falcon Maverick” when it was offered in Mexico in its first year, https://www.flickr.com/photos/ifhp97/5337890163/in/photostream/
My dad bought a 71 comet, the minimal price difference was meaningless since the true selling point was the customer service at the LM dealer versus the Ford dealer who had stiffed him on his 66 fairlane wagon which was a warranty nightmare.
The multiple channels for product allowed for dealer competition in our small town, even though the product was essentially the same.
There’s an issue that I can’t fully understand. Given that the Comet was available with several comfort options, why power brakes were left out? In my book they are as relevant as power steering.
The Comet only came with drum brakes and they really don’t need power assist on lighter cars as they are inherently self-energizing. Power assisted drums tended to come on way too quick and be grabby. Lots of folks made a point to avoid power assist on drum brakes for that reason.
I can remember looking for my first car. And we test drove a then 5 year old 74 Comet. It was slow and very boring! The dealer did mention that it was “loaded” with a remote control mirror, vinyl roof, A/C and a stereo. Nope! It had a very small 6.
Another friend’s dad bought a brand new 1972 Comet and it even had the consolette! A 302 under the hood made it fun to drive.
He chose LM because he was working his way up to what he’d eventually drive the rear of his life-a Lincoln.
Suburban Sacramento-ite here. 1800 Fulton (still a car dealership, but not a new car dealership) is less than three miles from Carmichael. It would have been the local dealer, since Carmichael is unincorporated.
50,000 miles in 50-ish years? I’m gonna guess there wasn’t a commute.
This was probably either a stay-at-home mom or retired person’s car.
Could be commute since there wasn’t much of a commute in the 70’s around Sacramento. My father commuted from Orinda to the Ferry Building (SF) in the 70’s which is 32 miles round trip. That is 7,680 miles a year. He didn’t do much other driving in his car, Mom didn’t care for them, so her car was used for any evening events.
tbm3fan: 7,680 miles a year gets you to 50,000 in six and a half years.
I don’t necessarily assume it was commuting the entire 50 years. My guess is that it was used for short-hop urban driving for some years — perhaps by a stay-at-home mom or retiree, but also quite possibly by a short-haul commuter who worked somewhere in the city and stuck mostly to the Sacramento area, accumulating miles at a rate of maybe 10–15 per day. Given the fuel shortages and gas price increases that followed in the ’70s, the owner might have had very good reason to hang onto it and keep driving it for 10 years or more, since it was probably cheap to feed, fix, and insure. (It was probably garaged, or the original paint would have been a goner long since.)
I could also see this being something someone would hang onto after getting a newer car, figuring it was still in nice shape and worth more to keep than as a trade-in.
Aaron, turns out we have some answers. A piece on the same car before it was sold to the guy who listed it on BAT:
https://barnfinds.com/one-elderly-owner-1971-mercury-comet/
Ha! Your comment was posted about two minutes after mine, about this being an old lady car. I don’t understand why anyone would assume otherwise as it’s so obvious.
Well, Paul, we’re old enough to remember these cars and what a daily commute—even a gentle one—would do to a Maverick. It may be great at 50,000 miles over 55 years, but if you put 50,000 miles on it driving it daily for eight years, it’d be on its last legs.
At times I’ve commuted, it’s been for maybe at most 10 to 12 miles a day, and I prefer well-equipped cars, so I guess that makes me “obviously” an old lady.
I didn’t see the Barn Finds listing, and I didn’t think the subject merited doing an extensive web search for more background on this car.
The whole commuter car thing is 100% speculation. FWIW, my guess it was for a stay at home older or retired wife. It reeks of a grandma-mobile. I could totally see my dad buying this for my mom if they had been roughly 15 or so years older. He probably drove a Marquis.
Of course it was 100% speculation. I said very so clearly in the text! I didn’t see the Barn Finds listing, and I said plainly that I knew nothing about the original purchaser other than what was in the BaT listing. As Johnster notes, the demographics of Comet buyers were quite broad, and as my own personal experience demonstrates, some people do not drive high mileages. And some grandmas and little old ladies have jobs, even if they’re part-time or volunteer.
100%. Except My Grandma had an ORANGE 4dr Maverick. 6 cyl auto. A/c. (Grandpa had a Ford pickup then).
Just thinking, even if she had the 302, it would still be slow.. with her at the wheel.
(A friend had a green 4dr comet in 87, also 6 cyl).
Speaking of this comment:
“The usual result is somewhere between a restomod and a funny car, and few cars that left the factory with a six still retain it.”
Don’t Mavericks have 4 Lug wheels UNLESS it’s got the V8? So, if everyone is swapping the 6 for a V8, do they change to 5 lugs as well?
Most of the “hotrod Mavericks” I see, I wouldn’t have an issue with, I’d own one. Good looking cars. (I prefer the Maverick grille though, and Comet Taillights (although Mav lights are decent enough).
I remember reading one of those customer review articles in an issue of Popular Mechanics where they surveyed the owners of the Mercury Comet. Most of the owners seemed happy with their cars. The most interesting thing that I recall about the surveyed owners was that the Comet seemed to cut across all age demographics. Popular Mechanics survey broke the ownership down into 3 age groups and, as I recall, the Comet had very widespread appeal with fairly equal rates of ownership in each of the 3 age groups. I can imagine more than a few people buying one believing, that as a Mercury, it was a step above your common Ford Maverick. Sort of like many of the people who bought Oldsmobile Omegas or Buick Apollos and Skylarks instead of Chevy Novas.
I actually owned a big-bumper 1975 Comet 2-door. Mine had the 302 V-8 and automatic transmission. It also had power steering and (non-power) front disc brakes. The disc brakes seemed fine to me and did not seem to require any extra effort to use. Acceleration was decent, gas mileage wasn’t (usually around 18 mpg), and the steering was numb. The car had problems with the front suspension and I was told it was because of the weight of the V-8 engine. The odometer only worked intermittently, but we think it probably had about 165,000 miles on it when it threw a rod. It coasted to a stop in front of an auto recycling center, and while I did not sell the car to the recycing center, it was certainly a sign.
The tram cars servicing the parking lots at Disney World circa 1973 used these tail lights if memory serves me
That’s a very nice, well-preserved car. If it’s anything like my old Fairlane, it’s not THAT bad to drive. I did upgrade the seats and add AC, but not much else was improved. I criss-crossed the country, including several all-day (and into the night) drives, in all kinds of weather, and was never uncomfortable. Sporty it was not, obviously.
Ford’s mistake with the Maverick/Comet was squeezing the costs too tightly and thinking decade-old chassis engineering was just fine. They could have avoided combining the worst attributes of a small, cheap car, and a big, soft car. Just a quicker steering ratio (with optional power steering right off the bat) would have gone a long way (at no cost). My 924 is about the same weight, similar tire footprint, and it’s manageable despite having significantly quicker manual steering.
Going specifically to the Mercury version here, I like the styling changes – the nose is kind of pretty, and I’d say better than the Maverick. Still, it’s one of those cars that was an albatross to the brand. I suppose I’d prefer one over the Ford, but there’s not enough differentiation to for it to be any good to an upmarket brand. The penny pinchers are still going to buy the Ford, but the Mercury loyalist still got a penny pinchers’ car. They should have either invested in a bespoke dash with a real glove box, better seats, more sound insulation, and a higher minimum spec, or not bothered. Obviously, the entry price would be higher, but with all the most popular options, and the 250 standard. It actually cost them maybe $5 more than the 170, so why double-charge for the Mercury upsell? You should expect to pay more for a Mercury, but not be nickel and dimed for several things you’re going to add anyway. An upmarket brand should never leave people asking “why no temp gauge, radio, glove box [etc.]?”
Ultimately, I think the Maverick was a job well done for Ford – the trouble being that it was a much stodgier car than it could have been, and even if they’d done better with the chassis and steering, it should have been superseded much sooner. Meanwhile, I can say I like the Comet just as much, but it’s a car that was dubious for the bottom line and much worse for the Mercury brand. Of course that’s all water under the bridge now. I do like cars that are simple and cheap to maintain, and for someone handy, it’s a car that you could keep going until rust do us part. In the end though, the thing that keeps them out of that “car I could never love” territory is that they’re decent-looking cars.
Inflation adjusted $10 in 1936 is about $236 in today’s money, which can buy you a decent Seiko, so Belloq’s watch at that price certainly wasn’t completely worthless in the time the movie took place at least.
Like it or loath it the Maverick/Comet is one of the final frontiers to have your dream “muscle car” for many since they are still pretty cheap for good looking 70-72 era coupes, I don’t blame anybody for taking the path of the grabber green example(though I don’t like the wheels or spoiler personally) regardless of what the cars were conceived/perceived as 50 years ago. They’re similar to the Duster/Demon/Dart sports, most of them weren’t fire breathing 340-360 cars either but they still look good and accept all the V8s you can throw at them today. If the only way people appreciate Mavericks/Comets today is for their basic shape, fine, it’s better modified than crushed
I worked at a Lincoln Mercury dealer in the 70s and we had one of these Comets as a parts getter, customer drop off vehicle and, man was it awful. Non power brakes that (just barely) worked, and handling that reminded you of gawd, a Conestoga wagon. We replaced it with a Monarch the next year and that was way better, but, dang, the cars from that era were Flintsonian!
Dad had a ’74 Comet with V8. Not the best handling car and the interlock only compounded the issues. The front discs were warped and the engine developed a hard knock. Only redeeming value was the strong A/C.
Being a WWII vet, I was never more surprised when he traded it for a Toyota Corolla.
I agree about the handling. The V8 engine meant it had poor weight distribution and was nose-heavy. I would imagine that the 6-cyinder versions handled somewhat better.
Not really, no. The sixes had so much body roll, that it felt like you were going you were going to scrape the door handles off of the doors in a turn, LOL! The manual drum brakes were devoid of feel, with high pedal effort and a pedal that was just too high above the floor, with long travel. The V8 cars got power disk brakes, a mandatory option when the V8 was selected from the option list.
Looks quite good for sure!
Dang comments glitching up on me! This accidentally got posted as a reply above (sorry Cang).
That’s a very nice, well-preserved car. If it’s anything like my old Fairlane, it’s not THAT bad to drive. I did upgrade the seats and add AC, but not much else was improved. I criss-crossed the country, including several all-day (and into the night) drives, in all kinds of weather, and was never uncomfortable. Sporty it was not, obviously.
Ford’s mistake with the Maverick/Comet was squeezing the costs too tightly and thinking decade-old chassis engineering was just fine. They could have avoided combining the worst attributes of a small, cheap car, and a big, soft car. Just a quicker steering ratio (with optional power steering right off the bat) would have gone a long way (at no cost). My 924 is about the same weight, similar tire footprint, and it’s manageable despite having significantly quicker manual steering.
Going specifically to the Mercury version here, I like the styling changes – the nose is kind of pretty, and I’d say better than the Maverick. Still, it’s one of those cars that was an albatross to the brand. I suppose I’d prefer one over the Ford, but there’s not enough differentiation to for it to be any good to an upmarket brand. The penny pinchers are still going to buy the Ford, but the Mercury loyalist still got a penny pinchers’ car. They should have either invested in a bespoke dash with a real glove box, better seats, more sound insulation, and a higher minimum spec, or not bothered. Obviously, the entry price would be higher, but with all the most popular options, and the 250 standard. It actually cost them maybe $5 more than the 170, so why double-charge for the Mercury upsell? You should expect to pay more for a Mercury, but not be nickel and dimed for several things you’re going to add anyway. An upmarket brand should never leave people asking “why no temp gauge, radio, glove box [etc.]?”
Ultimately, I think the Maverick was a job well done for Ford – the trouble being that it was a much stodgier car than it could have been, and even if they’d done better with the chassis and steering, it should have been superseded much sooner. Meanwhile, I can say I like the Comet just as much, but it’s a car that was dubious for the bottom line and much worse for the Mercury brand. Of course that’s all water under the bridge now. I do like cars that are simple and cheap to maintain, and for someone handy, it’s a car that you could keep going until rust do us part. In the end though, the thing that keeps them out of that “car I could never love” territory is that they’re decent-looking cars.
There is a article in the Feb ’70 Hot Rod magazine where they already swapped a Boss 302, 4 speed, 9 inch rear axle and disc brakes in a Maverick. Those were the days when you could buy a new Boss 302 engine at the parts counter.