CC reader Teddy has been posting a cornucopia of his curbside finds in Portland at the Cohort for some time. Needless to say, Portland is chock-full of goodies, with a decided tendency towards the out-of-the-ordinary, consistent with the general local vibe. Here’s a good representative: a ’64 Comet sedan in pink.
This shot clearly shows how the Comet came about its 5.5″ wheelbase stretch over the Falcon donor-mobile: the rear axle was moved back, resulting in an awkward gap behind the back of the rear door, which was of course shared with the Falcon. Unlike previous Comets, in 1964 and 1965, they even had to share the Falcon’s exterior sheet metal to a considerable degree. The vee’d side sculpturing is identical on the doors, but the Comet’s different front and rear fenders allowed it to begin and end with some difference. But in reality, these Comets were a very barely disguised Falcon main body, with some differences in front and back, unlike the original ’60 Comet, which had almost totally different styling from the Falcon.
Under the hood, there were bigger differences. Unlike the Falcon, the ’64 Comet had two brand new engines available: the 200 cubic inch six, with seven main bearings and a whopping 116 hp rating, and the rather rare 210 hp version of the 289 V8, which had a four barrel carb but regular-gas compression. That was a 1964-only engine, and also available as an option on the early 1965 MY (“1964.5”) Mustang.
The 260 and 289 V8s were also available with the new three-speed “Multi-Drive” automatic (C4), whereas the 200 six came only with the two-speed Merc-O-Matic. The 260 could also be had with the Merc-O-Matic. The 170 six wisely was only available with the three speed manual. The Falcon had to do with the 164 hp 260 V8, and the two-speed Ford-O-Matic. A bit arcane. And: the 289 and 200, as well as C4, may not have been available at the beginning of the model year, but possibly were a mid-year intro.
Minor detail I never knew before: the 1964 version of the 260 V8 shared the exact same heads as the 289, which had larger valves than the 1961-1963 versions. Yet its horsepower rating stayed the same.
More 260 V8 tidbits: there was a high performance version version (“HP-260”) rated at 260 hp @5800 rpm, built by Ford for the Shelby Cobra and the specially-prepared rally versions of the Falcon Sprint. No wonder the very first Cobras, with this engine, were already brutally fast, given their light weight. But: not all early 260 Cobras got this engine; some came with the basic 2V 260; jazz legend Herbie Hancock’s Cobra came that way and still has it. And there are some variations of the HP-260 engine; not all came with the exact same parts and specs, mainly in terms of their intakes. And it appears some had special heads, other not. They did have a mechanical cam, the same grind that was also used in the HP-289. And it had special forged rods and a few other goodies, but used the 260’s stock crankshaft, although with a higher nodular iron content.
So that 260 hp number needs to be seen as a ballpark, at best. Somewhere between 110- 200 of the HP-260 engines were ever built; 75 went into Cobras. And one of these days, we need to do a full story on the Windsor V8.
Looks like this one is sporting the automatic, but there’s no visible sign of which engine it’s mated to. If it’s going to be a true hipstermobile, it needs to be a six.
As best as I can tell, this was not a factory color choice. Maybe it was an early Mary Kate car? Nope; she only did Cadillacs. Someone decided to paint this Comet pink. Hey, it is Portland, after all; got to keep it weird.
As best as I can tell, this was not a factory color choice. Maybe it was an early Mary Kate car? Nope; she only did Cadillacs. Someone decided to paint this Comet pink. Hey, it is Portland, after all; got to keep it weird.
Perhaps someone fearlessly stating their Communist Party affiliation? 😉
Wow a 5 in wheelbase stretch over a Falcon, must be a factory Falcon limo. I think that wheelbase differences between Ford and Mercury could have continued to be an effective strategy for Mercury but that’s just my 2 cents.
Paul has touched on this before, but in the wacky world of Ford / Mercury / compact / mid-size, the wheelbase stretch didn’t always net more usable passenger space.
I found comprehensive dimensions for the ’64 Falcon in the brochure. Rear legroom is 34.7″. I could not find similar dimension for the Comet.
But, Comet is 195.1″ overall, while Falcon was 181.6″. As best as I can tell, this was mostly a longer rear deck to keep the proportions behind the rear wheel from looking weird due to the wheelbase stretch.
The Falcon and Comet sedans appear to use identical rear doors, roofs – passenger compartments…….
Well the roof’s the same, so the rear seat couldn’t have been moved back very much if at all. Rear passengers’ heads were already fairly close to the glass in the Falcon.
So all the wheelbase stretch really did was improve the ride in some circumstances.
Possibly ride, probably mostly bragging rights for the senior brand. It may be telling that the ’64 Comet brochure I’ve been able to find online avoids the comprehensive measurements found in the Falcon brochure.
The Mercury has a longer wheelbase, its gotta be more spacious, right?
This was also an attempt to have the Comet do double duty as Mercury’s intermediate, as the Meteor was given the axe.
I don’t know about the 60s, but later Mary Kay cars were done using other makes in addition to Cadillac
My Aunt’s MK car was a Colonnade Cutlass. She was quite proud of it.
My next door neighbor when I was growing up sold Mary Kay. She had a ’67 or ’68 Cougar XR7 in MK Pink. But I think she had it painted. I was only 7 at the time, but remember there being a beautiful black XR7 in her driveway for like 2 or 3 days, and then it went away for a week. It came back pink. Was it a different car perhaps? I suppose I’ll never know.
I’ve always liked Comets, but never noticed that awkward panel between the back of the door and the wheel well.
Pink is not a good color for this car. Turquoise with white insert perhaps?
So Paul, where did you hear the ’64 260 had 289 heads from? I am curious; I have a bookcase full of Shelby and Ford books and literature I’ve been collecting since ’79 or so and I have never heard that either until now. Doesn’t mean it didn’t happen, but if it did, the power staying the same makes sense, the 289 heads have bigger combustion chambers to match said bigger valves. And I have to wonder how many of those XHP-260s Shelby had were in fact pre-production HP289s under going field testing. And I think a story on the Windsor V8 family of fine engines is due, and with my vast library, I can hep you if you have questions.
I found it in several sources. Here’s just one: http://www.mre-books.com/interchange/interchange5.html
And another: http://www.systemv.us/FordV8History/A_Breif_History_of_Ford_V8s/Small_Block.html
There’s many more. maybe you need to re-read those books of yours? 🙂
I just did. You stated the 260 had the exact same heads as the 289, not correct; just got 289 valves; chamber shrouding more than likely contributed to the same power output. And you are so correct on the 2bbl, tall gear combo. There is a reason no SBF ever came with a 4bbl on a full size Ford, and most 390s were also 2bbl with 2.75 axle gears like the ’68 Country Squire wagon we had.
Same valve size, exact same combustion chamber volume; what more do you want? Sounds identical to me. How are they different?
The logic was that by doing this, Ford didn’t have to cast different heads. It’s tho only logical conclusion, as there was no real benefit to create a new separate larger valve head for the 260 for its final year. Logic trumps.
Whatever history the paint has it’s been there a long time and it was thorough, the paint on the core support behind the grille means parts were removed and not just masked off as most cheap paintjobs do
I just assumed this was a factory color since the metal behind the grill cover is also Pink. While I do enjoy the sunny days around here the bright sun makes it hard to get good photographs so the overcast days can also be enjoyed.
Well, after looking at the ’64 Mercury color chips, I came to that conclusion. But maybe my eyes are deceiving me. That Pink Frost Poly looks a lot less like Pepto Bismal than this car does.
Paul…Could it possibly be “Bittersweet” But aged and faded to a more pronounced pink?
My first thought too.
Could be an older restoration, perhaps done in the 1980s.
I would be betting on some kind of custom color done by special order, unless the car underwent a high quality repaint some years later. If not MaryKay, it would not surprise me that some business bought a few pink Comets. Custom colors were far from common, but not extinct like today.
That is actually what tells me it isn’t a factory paintjob, Ford always shot the core support and engine compartment with black paint in the 60s, for the very purpose to hide internal structure from being visible through the grille. It’s the mark of a thorough respray, which is good, but factory it is not.
The color itself does remind me of bittersweet, could be a not so exact match respray of the original color
The body color core support was what made me think that it was a respray as well.
The idea of a four barrel, small displacement, single exhaust, regular gas V8 sound so much better than the oversized 2 barrel engines that were so common. In power, smoothness and economy for mainstream American cars it looks great on paper. When it was tried on a large scale in the eighties with the Olds 307, the results proved less than ideal.
Maybe to you but not to the engineers who understood how engines actually work. It became quite obvious to them that a larger engine with a two-barrel and long-legged gearing was the optimum. And it became increasingly de-facto. The torque curve of a large V8 tuned for low rpm torque fits into the actual use patterns of typical American driving and offers better economy optimization than a small V8 with a four barrel. Have you read this: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/blog/almost-forgotten-the-20-mpg-400-cubic-inch-1967-olds-cutlass-turnpike-cruiser/
Comparing the heavily-smogged Olds 307 to the totally un-smogged 289 4V is a classic case of apples and oranges.
When it was tried on a large scale in the eighties with the Olds 307, the results proved less than ideal.
And the Olds 307 ONLY came with a 4 barrel Quadjet, no 2 barrel version.
Having driven both I’d take a 2 barrel 305 over a 4 barrel 307 any day of the week. (Although what I really want is a TBI 305.)
I dunno, soft cams on older SBC’s, and you don’t have that characteristic sweet burble of an Oldsmobile V8… Nor the leaky intake manifold gasket for that matter in the case of the 307.
But a 305 does seem quicker, in my unproven, unscientific tests.
Never had the opportunity to drive a TBI model.
Yep. drove an 84 Olds 88 with the 4bbl 307, and had a 76 Chevelle with 2bbl 305, the 76 had a 3.08 gear and the Olds was ~2.5 axle ratio, and the Chevy would flat outrun the Olds from a dead stop (gotta love having a Dad who would play cars every now and then.) Even my current 77 Chevelle (2bbl 305 and all, with a 2.56 rear axle) still feels faster than the long departed Delta 88. The Q-jet did sound sweet when the secondaries opened up (air cleaner lid flipped of course!) while the 305 just had an animal like snarl that started out weak, but built to a crescendo as the revs climbed.
“Comparing the heavily-smogged Olds 307 to the totally un-smogged 289 4V is a classic case of apples and oranges.”
Yes exactly Paul. Imagine how a 2-bbl 289 would do in an ’86 Cadillac Brougham with all of the emission equipment.
Everyone looks down on the 307 from the anecdotal stories of poor performance and their own experience with 307s that have had simple-to-fix things gone wrong. Those don’t get fixed, the car runs rich, plugs the cat and before you know it someone is online ranting about what a POS the 307 is. Youngsters look at the low 140HP from 5-liters and smugly dismiss it, ignoring the fact that the generous torque peaks at a diesel-like 1,600 RPM.
The mid-80s 307 was designed as a total system, including the transmission, to take advantage of the engine’s long-stroke. A long stroke is inherently good for emissions, fuel economy and low-end torque. In 1986 the 307 was mated with low-swirl heads and intake for even more grunt down low. Add the 4-speed auto with a lower 1st gear and you can understand how part-throttle response was almost as nice as a big-block around town.
In 4th on the highway gearing is very tall, tall enough to bog most engines, but the torquey 307 just loafs along sipping gas. Nail it to pass and you get a quick downshift to the right gear and the secondaries open. That would be a very noisy and slow affair in a 289 2-bbl C4 even without smog controls.
The 307 4-bbl didn’t have a lot more cost in it than a 289 2-bbl but it was a more advanced design. That’s why it could perform so well with the emission controls and why GM didn’t use a SBC 2-bbl or even 4-bbl as a replacement for the HT4100 in the Cadillac Brougham. In such a heavy car the only shortcoming is going up a steep hill with a full load.
The 307 is very smooth and quiet too with better overall refinement than a SBC or SBF.
Definitely a nice drivetrain to just cruise along with, elbow on the windowsill. Enjoy it every time in my Caprice wagon, which attempting to drive fast is pointless.
The 307 comes across more like the 400 in Paul’s example above. Very impressive low end torque but little beyond and everything cheaply conceivable done to maximize moderate speed highway economy.
With a single exhaust. regular gas 4 barrel Ford 260, I was imagining an ideal all around everyday engine in a mainsteam American car. When the small displacement V8s returned in he late 70s, the emission work, the 2 barrel carbs left little to enjoy, ie the Ford 255 V8. At the opposite end a 260hp 260 V8 or the 271hp 289 is just too much for everyday use, where economy, noise levels and engine wear rates are important.
I’m glad to read some positive reviews on the 307 driveline. I have one in an 87 Caprice Brougham project I’m starting in the spring. I have a Pontiac 400 I was considering swapping because everyone complains the 307 is too feeble. I’m too old to be driving yet another loud, rough cobbled hot rod, so I may just leave it alone.
Yes it was a very nice drivetrain. Conceptually similar to the mid-80s BMW “eta” engine which was designed for max low-end torque at the expense of peak HP. The eta was hated by enthusiasts because of the low HP rating, never mind how well it worked with an A/T and fit with American driving characteristics. The fuel economy was fantastic.
It quietly went away when gas prices slipped, just like the 307 did. I think one of the main reasons for the SBC starting in ’90 was to get a bigger HP number in the brochure. Americans are like that. The EPA mileage figures went down, even with the addition of TBI.
From one of the Bimmer boards. Sound familiar?
“The M20B27 “eta” 2.7L motor runs sort of like a diesel or a big truck motor. Low revs and displacement to give a lot of torque over a broad range. It’s got a longer stroke than the M20B25 “i” engine, and has a low redline. There are tighter restrictions in the air path through the engine. The purpose is to provide torque down low, not horsepower up high. It’s easy to get really good gas mileage due to the motors low revving nature and very long gears. It’s not a performance engine. It’s strictly for economy.”
FYI, I think the 307 only went into Caprice wagons. You might have a 305 in your Caprice sedan.
A friend’s mom had one of these in gold, traded it for a 71 in school bus yellow!
My Grandfathers first “brand-new” car in black.
If those are 13-inch wheels …… could the wheel-covers be from early-’60’s Triumph Spitfire ?
Those are 14s, and that wheelcover was used on Comets, for several years, IIRC.
had me a 63 Fairlane 5oo 221 v8 2 speed automatic slow slow slow
in no time at all the 260 came to the rescue. No ball o fire
but it had to be better than that 221 Of course that cheapsh.t
2 speed was pitiful. Probably a 64 with a 289 AND a decent
3 speed automatic was probably pretty nifty!
I had this sedan of this year as my first car. The paint job for mine was what could only describe as “pink sand”, much more pale than this. Maybe I can hunt up a photo.
Also a 6 with 2AT.
Theres a recent import one of these on a local used car lot in silver it looks in very good order I really must go have a look it will be a one owner minter from somewhere rust free like all the other imports they sell but its a Comet and a bit unusual for this country.
This is less than a mile from me! I used to ride by this car every single day. There’s a lot of interesting vehicles around N Mississippi, and just North Portland in general.
Also, first time posting here. Been reading for months.
Early 1964 Comet literature shows the 3-speed automatics as “Cruise-O-Matic” transmissions while later model year (do I dare say 1964 1/2?) 3-speed automatics are definitely the C4 as is the original transmission in my made-in-early-March ’64 convertible.
An interesting note: as I took off, wet-sanded and repainted some of the easier items on my 260, I noticed the block and valve covers were the “new” Ford Blue but the air cleaner was the older blue. I suspect a batch of new engines were made but Ford still had some older air cleaners sitting in a warehouse somewhere.
I guess I should’ve said “Multi-Drive Merc-O-Matic” in the first line of my post rather than Cruise-O-Matic. The latter was a Ford designation.
Our next door neighbors (my best friend’s Dad) had one of these when we first moved to Burlington…theirs was a tan color, though I’m not sure which engine it had. They were a Mercury family, later acquiring a ’68 Colony Park Wagon, which I think they used to pull a small powerboat (with Evinrude motor). I don’t recall if the Comet had a trailer hitch or not. Later their oldest son, Randy took over the Comet, I remember riding in it with him and his younger brother.
What does the note in the window say?
A good friend of mine had a 64 Comet Convertible back in 1967. I remember ditching school to ride in it to go get hot dogs down at “Der Wienerschnitzel”. I have always loved Mercurys. I had both a 1965 Falcon and a 1965 Comet. The Comet was my favorite. It helps that it was a Midnight Blue Metallic Convertible Caliente 260 V8 with white top and white bucket seats interior when the Falcon was a lite metallic blue (whose paint started peeling off within 2nd birthday) 6 cyl ( 170 CI) 2 door post sedan with bench seats. But the Falcon was no slouch. I got 170K miles out of it before it was traded on 1973 Maverick (Big Mistake) . I still pine for the Comet. It was the only one like it I ever saw in that color combination. Considering the numbers produced( 6,035) it may have been the only one.I have been searching for it for over 40 years . I thought I spotted it in a photo last year. Sitting atop a pile of cars in a Junkyard out in Minnesota. I almost flew out there just to check it out.
this is my car!! Im in Vancouver Washington. I bought her on mother’s day for myself this year. She is still pink although faded atm. But she is not a V8 she is an I6. Runs great and is my daily driver.
She started off in Seattle, then when it was parked here in Portland it was the second owner. Im the fourth owner. The guy before me did a lot of work on the engine and new brakes.