I got suckered in again, even though I know better. At first glance this ’65 Comet 2-door sedan posted by robadr said to me: Falcon, with a different front end.
No it’s not.
Here’s the Falcon, on its 109.5″ wheelbase.
And here’s the Comet, on its 114″ wheelbase, all of it added at the rear, and that includes a different roof line.
Of course the doors are the same, right down to the crease lines that the Comet had to make do with too. I guess it was a lot more expensive to tool up a new door skin back then than it is now.
The lowly 202 Comet. So cool! I’ve always LOVED the 64-65 Comets and Falcons, I almost bought a ’64 404 back in college but probably best that didn’t pan out!
I had a 1963 falcon sprint 260 v8 it was a strong runner I beat my friends 1967 galaxy that had a 390 in it
A neighbor had a 65 Caliente hardtop, light blue metallic, when I was a kid, up to 81, when he got a Mazda 626 coupe. For some reason (probably by comparing it to my father’s stripped ’68 Nova) I thought the car looked interesting but old, even taking into account that cars were kept far longer then, just because they were more expensive and less available if you wanted a “luxury”…i.e. American, car. I don’t remember its engine at all but it had an automatic. What I remember is that the engine was very silent, even when starting.
The shared crease lines worked a lot better on the 64 Comet than the 65. I prefer almost everything else about the 65s Pontiacesque styling but those bodysides almost make it look more like a home brewed custom to make a Falcon look like a cool new GTO rather than a factory effort, and it draws your attention away from the real substantial differences between the Ford and Mercury body.
I’m actually surprised the regular sedan roof is different from the Falcons, never noticed that. Ironically it’s the upscale hardtop that appears to be identical between them
The average age of cars in the US in 2022 is 12.2 years. In 1970 it was 5.6 years.
That is only because Americans get bored with their current ‘wheels’ and have to get something NEW. I’m still driving my 2 older cars, the 1985 Plymouth Voyager and the 1989 TC by Maserati. They are just as roadworthy today as they were when new. No need to spend those big bucks just to look ‘COOL’.
“That is only because Americans get bored with their current ‘wheels’ and have to get something NEW.”
Um…what? If anything, it says that American buyers now are less interested in getting something new.
The first one is always the best one.
Actually I hadn’t realized that the Comet introduced the “Thunderbird” roof with the first model in 1960. It spread to the Falcon in 1962 when the new bucket seat Futura model got it halfway through the year.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/curbside-classic-1960-comet-orphan-looking-for-a-home/
I was guessing Fairlane.
Well the Comet was sort of the proto Intermediate and was closer in length to the Fairlane than the Falcon. I think that is what killed the Meteor, just not a big enough step up from the Comet.
Falcon 109.5″
Fairlane 115.5″
Comet 114″
Meteor 116.5″
Paul’s eye is amazing. I never would have noticed the identical door crease in these cars.
Even after enjoying JPC’s four-door hardtop post, the attraction of the lowly two-door sedan is still strong. And the faded red paint is perfect. I saw the car at a tire shop on Commercial Drive in Vancouver, in Daniel Stern’s stomping grounds. 🙂
WHAT? I knew as a kid in 1964 that Falcon and Comet shared doors. What I had not realized was that GM’s entire line in 1959 used the same door skins, from Chevrolet to Cadillac, designed by Buick.
“When better doors are built, Buick will build them?”
14″ wheels make the Comet sit taller. Uncle Bill had a ’64 Caliente at the same time my dad had a ’63 Futura. Big difference. Driving the Comet was more like driving an even larger car.
Many years ago I had an opportunity to buy a 65 Comet (202?) two door like the one above at a very low price.
With the exception of a missing grille and a damaged headlight housing the car was in decent shape and when I showed my wife, she thought it would be a good car for the older kids to drive and one I could use for the short commute to work. With a V8 and automatic trans, indeed it would have been nice. Alas, that did not happen and the auto wrecker who owned it sold the car to a young guy who cut the rear wheel openings to fit in some meaty slicks and did a few other mods. I only saw it once on the road and almost shed a tear. I like plain jane sedans.
Loved the 64 Comet, had one 289 high performance, light. Blue with white interior
I did have a 65 comet, also I still have my 64 falcon ( same as 65 falcon body) 64 falcon is shorter than the 65 comet in the rear. 64 has a 16 gallon gas tank 65 comet has a 20 gallon gas tank.
Notice the “B/FX” marking on the ’65 window. Stood for NHRA B Factory Experimental classification. Doug Nash, who later produced manual transmissions, drove both a ’64 and ’65 B/FX Comet. These cars had solid lifter “K” code 289’s with Weber carburation. With fiberglass hood, bumpers, front fenders, doors and a 5.67(!!) rear end ratio, he would turn 11.37 @ 123mph in the 1/4 mile, shifting at 8500 rpm and going thru the traps at 8000 rpm.
The solid lifter 289 was never a production option due to Lee Iacocca putting the kibosh on that, but they were produced using the DSO path which is similar to GM’s COPO system. The 100,000 mile endurance cars and the rally cars all had solid lifter 289’s.
It’s a post don’t even look close to a cool hard top of the same make and model and it better b a v8 260 or 302 or it’s not cool wasnt back than and isn’t now we’ll in my opinion any post on any car has no value it’s like buying a 6 cylinder vs v8 sorry if offend any one