ampage Tube Amps / Music Electronics	For current discussions, please visit Music Electronics Forum.

ampage archive

Vintage threads from the first ten years

previous: Sonic Bloom Bad riddle -- 2/7/2001 4:41 PM

Useless Comet info (long)

2/7/2001 10:29 PM
MBSetzer	Useless Comet info (long) I had mentioned my experience with Mercury Comets in a highly off-topic thread recently, 1966 was the last full year of the real Comets and they were the best, though some 1967's were built in 1966 with slightly changed cosmetics before retooling for the first Cougar. These Comets started basically as hand assembled versions of the much more popular Falcons from extremely similar blueprints in the early '60's. Some of the early ones were more futuristic than the Ford due to their better fins though By '64 both the Ford & Mercury had lost most remaining style for an economical boxy appearance instead, and were more identical than ever to each other. The durability records first established by the Comet in '64 were due more to differences in pride of assembly, there was no significant difference in design. Lee Iacocca's legacy began here at the Mercury plant. Four out of five 289 V8 Comets entered for testing at Daytona performed over 100,000 miles over 100mph. It took until 1986 before another vehicle would exceed this, it was a Mercedes, expensive one too. The Falcon was only a couple hundred $ more than a Volkswagen, the Comet a couple hundred more than that. With a 289, either one had similar curb weight to the later Datsun 280ZX, with numerically twice the horsepower of the Datsun. The fifth Comet broke a valve spring in the first 5,000 miles during Daytona durability testing and was disqualified, it was repaired and used to set a speed record that stood for almost a year. In '65 the similarity of Comet & Falcon was still extreme, body still boxy on the outside but the suspension had been upgraded. The Comet was then further tested for durability, this time without the ideal conditions of a racing track. It was road tested on an actual road, the Pan American highway, all vehicles performed flawlessly from Fairbanks Alaska to near Tierra Del Fuego at the tip of South America. For '66, the Comet had a further upsized suspension and bigger engine compartment and trunk than the Falcon. Style if you could call it that had crept in but the front of the car was still flat with a wide grille. I sometimes referred to my 289 as an air-cooled V8 due to how well it would do when low on coolant, nothing else has ever come close. Since there was now room for the 428 V8 that was popular with police fleets, with only a 289 in mine you could almost climb in with the engine and close the hood! It was still the smallest compact Mercury you could buy that year, somewhat longer than some recent Lincolns. Later wind tunnel testing would reveal that in spite of the front profile, it had been the most aerodynamic US production car ever until the late '60's Corvette. Unfortunately, during the later Pinto fiasco, the '66 Comet was one of the few along with the Mustang that were found more likely to explode from rear impact. I remember cruising at 70mph on premium leaded gasoline, getting almost 30mpg from mine when it had over 100,000 miles. In the '70's many took one look at it and thought it was a gas guzzler, however newly imported Japanese economy cars at the time were barely rated for 20mpg but that was not at 70mph since many could not go that fast. Durability testing for '66 was no longer on the track or road, this time it was Safari style competition in Africa. The Comet was the only passenger car, but outperformed all the other models which included Jeeps & Land Rovers. On the track the Cyclone 390 version turned out to be faster than the 428 police interceptor, and held the record for the fastest production car in history until hemisperical heads first appeared the next year on the Daytona Charger. I'm now kicking myself for not buying the only remaining '66 Cyclone GT convertible Indy Pace Car, fully restored in the late '80's for $18,000 Off road, I remember driving to the summit of Setzer's mountain in about '78 on the jeep trail that is seldom used every decade. It is very steep, and without much wind speed I overheated and lost power halfway up and ended up with the front wheels hanging in one of the cross-trail ditches. After the engine cooled and was refilled from spring water, I backed it down then built speed with a cool engine to fly over the ditch, it was only a couple feet deep anyway. Got kind of hot again by the time I reached the top, but it was all downhill from there In '82 with my brother's new Isuzu 4WD we almost made it halfway up before we no longer had the power to ascend, and there was not enough power/weight ratio to allow building speed to make it over the steep parts. Should have listened to Joe Isuzu . . . The style of the '66 Falcon was not as boxy as before either, this was the first car ever to look anything like a Maverick. This was the last Falcon to have round taillights. When I saw a new Impala stop in front of me recently I still can't understand why they put Falcon taillights on it, you would think any GM engineer or stylist would have the experience in the 21st century to keep from reminding drivers how good a Ford can actually be Maybe they want to remind people of the lost quality of T-Birds and Falcons the like of which we will never see again. In contrast to the Comets, similar durability claims were never made for the Falcon though. '67 Falcons were real popular and had somewhat squared off taillights, they never held more than a 289 engine. When the Maverick came out, its virtually identical Mercury version carried the Comet name until they both finally faded. I wouldn't be surprised if both versions were built in the same Ford plant, the earlier Comets were a competitive effort to see how much better the Mercury hands could build from the same blueprint as the Ford assemblers. I also remember meeting a comfortably retired couple driving a '66 Comet, at a gas station near Dallas in about '80. It was a real clean car but had over 75,000miles. They were touring the US and told me they were more confident of the proven performance of their old Mercury than their newer Buick which was only 3 years old and had under 20,000. I guess its not only certain guitar amps that reached the pinnacle of mass-produced quality in 1966 . . . Anyway, while I'm so far off topic, might as well post an MP3: falcon.mp3 Mike If I had money, tell you what I'd do, go on down and buy a Mercury or two . . .

2/7/2001 10:29 PM

MBSetzer

Useless Comet info (long)

I had mentioned my experience with Mercury Comets in a highly off-topic thread recently, 1966 was the last full year of the *real* Comets and they were the best, though some 1967's were built in 1966 with slightly changed cosmetics before retooling for the first Cougar.

These Comets started basically as *hand assembled* versions of the much more popular Falcons from extremely similar blueprints in the early '60's. Some of the early ones were more futuristic than the Ford due to their better fins though

By '64 both the Ford & Mercury had lost most remaining style for an economical boxy appearance instead, and were more identical than ever to each other. The durability records first established by the Comet in '64 were due more to differences in pride of assembly, there was no significant difference in design. Lee Iacocca's legacy began here at the Mercury plant. Four out of five 289 V8 Comets entered for testing at Daytona performed over 100,000 miles over 100mph. It took until 1986 before another vehicle would exceed this, it was a Mercedes, expensive one too. The Falcon was only a couple hundred $ more than a Volkswagen, the Comet a couple hundred more than that. With a 289, either one had similar curb weight to the later Datsun 280ZX, with numerically twice the horsepower of the Datsun. The fifth Comet broke a valve spring in the first 5,000 miles during Daytona durability testing and was disqualified, it was repaired and used to set a speed record that stood for almost a year.

In '65 the similarity of Comet & Falcon was still extreme, body still boxy on the outside but the suspension had been upgraded. The Comet was then further tested for durability, this time without the ideal conditions of a racing track. It was road tested on an actual *road*, the Pan American highway, all vehicles performed flawlessly from Fairbanks Alaska to near Tierra Del Fuego at the tip of South America.

For '66, the Comet had a further upsized suspension and bigger engine compartment and trunk than the Falcon. Style if you could call it that had crept in but the front of the car was still flat with a wide grille. I sometimes referred to my 289 as an air-cooled V8 due to how well it would do when low on coolant, nothing else has ever come close. Since there was now room for the 428 V8 that was popular with police fleets, with only a 289 in mine you could almost climb in with the engine and close the hood! It was still the smallest compact Mercury you could buy that year, somewhat longer than some recent Lincolns. Later wind tunnel testing would reveal that in spite of the front profile, it had been the most aerodynamic US production car ever until the late '60's Corvette. Unfortunately, during the later Pinto fiasco, the '66 Comet was one of the few along with the Mustang that were found more likely to explode from rear impact. I remember cruising at 70mph on premium leaded gasoline, getting almost 30mpg from mine when it had over 100,000 miles. In the '70's many took one look at it and thought it was a *gas guzzler*, however newly imported Japanese economy cars at the time were barely rated for 20mpg but that was not at 70mph since many could not go that fast.

Durability testing for '66 was no longer on the track or road, this time it was Safari style competition in Africa. The Comet was the only passenger car, but outperformed all the other models which included Jeeps & Land Rovers. On the track the Cyclone 390 version turned out to be faster than the 428 police interceptor, and held the record for the fastest production car in history until hemisperical heads first appeared the next year on the Daytona Charger. I'm now kicking myself for not buying the only remaining '66 Cyclone GT convertible Indy Pace Car, fully restored in the late '80's for $18,000

Off road, I remember driving to the summit of Setzer's mountain in about '78 on the jeep trail that is seldom used every decade. It is very steep, and without much wind speed I overheated and lost power halfway up and ended up with the front wheels hanging in one of the cross-trail ditches. After the engine cooled and was refilled from spring water, I backed it down then built speed with a cool engine to fly over the ditch, it was only a couple feet deep anyway. Got kind of hot again by the time I reached the top, but it was all downhill from there

In '82 with my brother's new Isuzu 4WD we almost made it halfway up before we no longer had the power to ascend, and there was not enough power/weight ratio to allow building speed to make it over the steep parts. Should have listened to Joe Isuzu . . .

The *style* of the '66 Falcon was not as boxy as before either, this was the first car ever to look anything like a Maverick. This was the last Falcon to have round taillights. When I saw a new Impala stop in front of me recently I still can't understand why they put Falcon taillights on it, you would think any GM engineer or stylist would have the experience in the 21st century to keep from reminding drivers how good a Ford can actually be

Maybe they want to remind people of the lost quality of T-Birds and Falcons the like of which we will never see again. In contrast to the Comets, similar durability claims were never made for the Falcon though. '67 Falcons were real popular and had somewhat squared off taillights, they never held more than a 289 engine. When the Maverick came out, its virtually identical Mercury version carried the Comet name until they both finally faded. I wouldn't be surprised if both versions were built in the same Ford plant, the earlier Comets were a competitive effort to see how much better the Mercury hands could build from the same blueprint as the Ford assemblers.

I also remember meeting a comfortably retired couple driving a '66 Comet, at a gas station near Dallas in about '80. It was a real clean car but had over 75,000miles. They were touring the US and told me they were more confident of the proven performance of their old Mercury than their newer Buick which was only 3 years old and had under 20,000.

I guess its not only certain guitar amps that reached the pinnacle of mass-produced quality in 1966 . . .

Anyway, while I'm so far off topic, might as well post an MP3:

falcon.mp3

Mike

*If I had money, tell you what I'd do, go on down and buy a Mercury or two . . .*

Replies:

SpeedRacer Brilliant!Enjoyed e... -- 2/8/2001 1:13 PM
Brett Glad to hear I'm not the only Comet... -- 2/10/2001 7:28 AM