This fine color-coordinated shot of a ’63 Mercury Comet by Don Kincl reminds me that it was even slower than the Falcon, if that’s possible. The Comet shared its basic underpinnings, including the 90 hp 144 CID six that was standard through 1963. But the Comet’s body was lengthened, with a wheelbase stretch to 114″, and and further elongated trunk. As a result, a comperably equipped Comet weighed some 140 lbs more. Not a huge amount, but it sure didn’t help, most especially when teamed with the 2-speed Fordomatic.
Why the bigger and more upscale Comet didn’t have the 170 inch six standard starting in 1961, when it became available, is good question. It’s not that it cost Ford anymore to make. Presumably charging many Comet buyers for the optional engine was the motive.
114″ and 90 HP was a 1949 Ford. Lots of people liked them, and lots of people had been wanting to buy a new car with the same specs. Detroit had failed to offer what these people wanted for several years, until the Comet finally gave them what they wanted again.
What they wanted was a compact and efficient car, not necessarily a slow one. Expectations as to performance (and average highway speeds) were much higher in 1960 than 1949. The Valiant had it; the Comet (and Falcon) didn’t.
Nobody really wanted a new 1949 car; they expected improvements, for the better.
Once Again Paul and I are in agreement on a car.
#AttaBoi !
Internet says the ’49 Ford comes in at ca. 3100-3770 pounds, the Comet at 2400-2500. So I’ll guess that Comet was at least a little quicker on the on-ramp, and can only imagine it with 600-1300 additional pounds for the 144 six to propel—though I suppose that’s what my 1975 Granada was really like with its strangled 250.
Yeah, by 1960 the Interstate System was rolling toward completion (and there were all the limited access turnpikes like PA, OH, etc. that had opened) and buyers’ expectations rising.
Me, I don’t know if the hipster-Falcon/Comet thing has peaked, but I’d enjoy keeping one of these running as a modest project car I could actually wrench myself.
I’ve never felt like Detroit wanted to sell “compact” cars, it’s more like they were compelled to by market forces. After all, they’re not as profitable.
Cars like this Comet really feel like they were building them most begrudgingly.
I think it had a lot more to do with companies not wanting to cede the market to competitors, “if GM is making cars bigger and restyling them every year, we have to too!” I don’t think it was necessarily not “wanting” to sell compacts it was the fear of ending that cycle of one upsmanship and the repercussions, which is why the big three chose to build both, rather than take the Rambler path of committing to smaller. If compacts handedly outsold the standard sized cars from the outset I have little doubt they’d have followed the money, and indeed by the late 60s Detroit was pouring money into the small(er) Ponycar lines and intermediates/soon to be PLCs when their sales exploded.
The big mistake was treating smaller cars as starter cars and pricing them as such. They should be able to be equally or more profitable as big cars if not for that hierarchy.
The success of the 1950 Nash Rambler is the answer as to why the Big 3 (and even Studebaker) made the investment to get into the compact market. By the late fifties, mainstream cars had gotten much bigger than they were ten years before. So, there was most definitely a market for smaller, more practical cars. It’s no surprise that a few short years after the introduction of the compact, along comes the intermediate class. Not as profitable as full-size cars? True, but they were profitable enough. Hell, it’s been said that the A-body kept Chrysler going when the rest of their cars were a distant third to Ford and GM.
The 1950 Rambler was not really a “success”. It sold in very modest numbers, and was a fringe player. It was the drastic jump in import and Rambler sales starting in 1957 that forced the Big 3 to commit to building compacts.
While it didn’t last long, amortizing the basic Corvair structure with upmarket Buick, Olds and Pontiac compacts made sense at the time. Uncle loved his ’61 Skylark as a luxurious commuter in Los Angeles traffic and grandma had the ’63. He could have gone with another big Buick after the ’55, but no way could she have maneuvered one in her alley and narrow streets of Hermosa Beach. Domestic compacts were not just for the cheap.
After all, they’re not as profitable.
That’s not correct.
Profitability for an automaker is all about maximum utilization of production facilities. I can assure you that a factory spinning out Falcons, Corvairs or Valiants three shifts a day will generate much more profit than a factory making a big car in one (or two shifts) a day, and is requiring discounts to sell.
One cannot judge profitability based on size or price. Ford’s corporate profits didn’t take a hit in 1960-1961 when the Falcon sold really well and the big cars didn’t. The Falcon was cheaper to build, and kept the factories spinning.
Low utilization of production capacity is the killer of profits. Which essentially what killed GM: as they constantly lost market share, they had ever increasing under-utilized plants and overhead. The kiss of death.
Don’t assume that a 1986 Riviera or Eldorado or Toronado were profitable because they were priced high. They grossly undersold their planned production capacity, hence they were major money losers. Same thing with the W-10 program. And others. The kiss of death.
The simple reality is this: back then Ford and GM did not invest in new car programs unless they could meet a specific profit margin, regardless of large or small. Whether they achieved that depended on how close their actual sales were in relation to their projected sales.
The days of selling perpetual money-losing small cars came in the late ’80s and on, when they had to do so in order to meet CAFE standards. Not so in the ’60s.
One more thing: folks tend to assume the Corvair was a money-loser. Hardly. In fact, it probably made more than they planned for, because the unexpected success of the Monza, which had a higher price than the plain versions they had planned to build. It was a good earner, until sales fell off a cliff in 1966, due to the Mustang.
I think we sometimes don’t give credit to both the manufacturers as well as buyers for some of the adjustments they made toward less then full-size cars.
GM in particular began to lay on available options and high trim to mid-size cars by 1966, and by 1976 was doing just fine with the mid-size Oldsmobile Cutlass becoming its top seller with plenty of profit built in.
1976 starting prices tell a story (all V-8)….
Chevrolet Monte Carlo $4,673
Chevrolet Impala $4763
Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme $4,486
Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme Brougham $4,775
In 1966, the premium to get into an Olds Ninety-Eight over a Cutlass was 58%, by 1976, the premium was down to 39% with the Cutlass Supreme having much more standard equipment. Move to the Cutlass Supreme Brougham, and the premium was down to 31%. Load the Cutlass to Ninety-Eight standard features, and the premium was further diminished.
.
I still remember my near-miss with Comet ownership when I fell under the spell of a black 1960 2 door. I remember that the 144 wasn’t horrible with the 3 speed, so long as I was in a 0-35 mph environment. I do remember how unpleasant the 40-60 mph range was while accelerating because the high end of 2nd gear was good for lots of engine noise but little else. Including windshield wiper action due to the vacuum system. Wow am I glad my car-mentor Howard showed some tough love on that one – “Why would you even bring this over here?” 🙂
Upgrade it to 14″ wheels, a 302 V-8 and C4 Auto and, you’re good to go.
When I went looking for my first car as a 16 yr old, I knew what I did not want.
No 6cyl – No 4 doors – No white cars.
Of course all I could afford was a 10yr old, white, 4 door, 1961 Comet with an auto.
The car was dependable (for the time) and did last just over a year, but time stood still while trying to accelerate.
Life can be cruel.
A college buddy of mine had one of these. It was the slowest automobile I ever rode in.
I take it Mercury nixed the cost of making the rear doors fit the extended wheelbase. Reusing those narrow Falcon doors here just looks all wrong.
Ford should have just started with the 200 six from day one.
Problem with that is the 200 six didn’t exist until 1965 and the birth of the Mustang.
My next-door neighbor and best friend’s parents had a ’63 Comet, along with a ’68 Colony Park Wagon, but I think they always bought Mercury rather than Ford…might have been a prestige thing…wonder what they buy now that Mercury is gone? I’m sure theirs was an automatic.
My Dad owned 3 Mercuries in a row (20 years later)…but I don’t think brand had much if anything to do with it, he just liked the dealer and their location. Actually 1 of them was leased, but I think if the dealer handled Ford rather than Mercury he’d have bought that.
My Grandfather had a ’63 Fairlane (guess the Meteor would be the Mercury equivalent?) which I remember him saying was too light, and wouldn’t track well
(guess he was used to full-sized cars before that). He bought a ’72 Biscayne to replace it (turned out to be his last car..my Dad’s last car is the ’06 Impala that my Mother still owns).