(first posted 8/28/2014) They built this Mercury Comet the year I turned six, so my recollection of these models is buried quite deep in my memory banks. Still, there were plenty of these around through my teenage years, so I’ve got a pretty solid feel for what a Mercury Intermediate ought to look like, and this one looked a bit strange. The tail lights and side sculpting read as Mercury, but that roofline screamed “Falcon.” Gathering shots for the article, I wondered what was going on. Had someone grafted Mercury body parts onto a Falcon? Or was this just another variation of Ford’s prolific Falcon platform, one that escaped my notice back in the day?
If it helps, here’s a close-up of the roofline. I recall this on the squared-off Falcon in 1966, not on a Comet in ’67. This chunky C-pillar looked good on the Falcon, improving the overall body lines. The roofline looked much more ’65 Mustang, and much less 1960 econo-penalty box. But with the Mercury body panels, this car looked a little… cheap.
Here’s the (hardtop) roofline I recall on the Comet. More Fairlane than Falcon, and kind of cool.
Once I arrived home, a quick Google image search established that the roofline was indeed common to the Falcon, confirming my memory banks, and calling into question the Comet’s pedigree. Turns it shares that whole center section of its body with the Falcon, but sits on a 116″ wheelbase, compared to the Falcon’s 110.9″ wheelbase. That wheelbase stretch is very visible in the distance of the rear wheel from the back of the front door.
Sure enough, an online check of Mercury’s line up for 1967 established that the roof line resided on one trim level of the Comet line: The Comet 202 Two-Door Sedan, Mercury’s only two door sedan in 1967.
This car represented the entry-level Mercury, and was actually the best-selling variation of the Mercury intermediates (at 14,251 units). That’s probably because it was the cheapest Comet made that year, and this car maintains a whiff of K-Mart feel throughout. The wheels are aftermarket, and use cheap stamped wheel centers, instead of alloy castings. Even the white paint fits the budget look.
But there are opportunities for praise. The Comet front clip breaks free from the budget Falcon look. In the early sixties manufacturers used quad headlights to identify their upscale models, and the complicated cast grille also differentiates the car from the cheaper Fords. I’m sure the blue stripes on the hood were not factory options, but they provide a nice “American Race Team” look. Clearly, I like the front of this car better than the middle section.
Inside, we see this car maintains an original look, although the upholstery material is a common but not authentic replacement. It’s obviously got an automatic transmission. I like what I see here as well. While some might feel that a bench seat falls under the heading of “cheap car,” I approve for two reasons: More seating capacity with the family along, and closer seating options for you and your beloved. These simple Falcon-based interiors provided a column-mounted shifter, high-mounted dashboard, and relatively small transmission tunnel- Everything you need for a Friday night date.
Other than the stripes and wheels, and the missing front fender “202” badge, these 302 V8 badges on each front fender were the only non-original touch I found on the car. In addition to the 200 CID six, these Comets were available with the 289 Windsor V8 (200hp), a 390 CID FE V8 (270 hp), and the rather rare and expensive 427 FE V8, in either 410 or 425 hp trim. So the owner is either bragging up his small block by thirteen cubic inches, or possibly a 302 was swapped in and he wanted the world to know it. Unless the heads and camshaft saw a significant upgrade as well, a 302 would not significantly change the performance over a 289.
Either way, it’s a nice find. A V-8 powered Comet 202 Coupe would provide a nice platform for a warmed over small block, since it was the lightest Comet offered in 1968. But I still want that fastback roofline!
Related reading:
Nice, very nice!
I’ve been a fan of 2-door sedans in my youth – go figure – my first 2 cars were 2-door sedans.
Of course, they weren’t as flashy as hardtops, but at least back seat passengers – as rare as they were – had access to adequate ventilation (hint, hint)!
My old 1961 Bel Air was a 2-door sedan, and that year it had its own unique roofline.
Would look great with wide steelies and dog dishes. I think every one of these with a 427 has been featured in a magazine at some time. Check out this website sometime for 2 door post love
http://twodoorpost.activeboard.com/
Hehehe. Was just looking at one in Collectible Automobile. White with dog dishes over cheesecutter steelies and a dual-quad 427. I think any attempt to glamour these up sort of loses the point. Paint it black.
This is one model of car I don’t think I have ever laid eyes upon. I’m guessing many of these were used hard and thrown away plus they weren’t exactly new by the time I came along.
With a 302 could it now be called a 302 202? Or a 302 C4 202? Just don’t use any C4 on it!
Peugeot are calling their lawyers.
I could imagine a call over the police radio in one of the northeastern states: “There’s a disabled 202 302 on the 202.”
Nice I like this a lot,I think Comets were based on the Fairlane by 67,it looks a bit bigger than the 64 4 door sedan I had(1st American car).Nice find Dave and a good read,I always look for Mercuries at car shows as they seem to be a lot less common than the opposition in the UK
The Comet switched from being based on the Falcon to being based on the Fairlane when all three cars were restyled for the 1966 model year. As noted elsewhere in this thread, however, the ’66 Falcon and ’66 intermediates used designs that were very closely related (which is why the center body of the subject car looks so much like a contemporary Falcon). In a way, the relationship between the Falcon and the Comet wasn’t much different from what it had from 1960-65.
Thanks for that
And later when the “Maverick”, could be purchased as a “Comet”.
I have always been a fan of two door cars, both sedans and hardtops. Not only do I think they are better looking than four door cars, there is a practical reason as well. When I have the driver’s seat adjusted so that is comfortable for me to drive, in a four door I am back past the “B” pillar and it creates vision issues to the side. The worst offender was the PT Cruiser my wife drove back in the early 2000’s; I felt like I was driving that one from the back seat. Looking back, the only four door cars I have owned were a couple of cheap ($400) used cars years ago, everything else had two doors. Unfortunately it is getting harder and harder to find vehicles that come with only two doors. Apparently I will need to keep driving my Mustang until it dies, or until I lose the flexibility needed to get into and out of this car.
It was also nice to be able to open one door, put a briefcase or grocery sack or whatever on the back floor then get in, all through a single door. If not for 3 kids in car seats, the 2 door 1984 Olds 98 I had would have been perfect for me.
Also the four door puts the seat belt in a less effective and comfortable position, especially in smaller cars with taller people. The longer quarter panel really improves the looks(and trunk space) of the Falcon based body, but the stacked headlamps on the front end of the Mercury do it no favors, imo.
Good catch on the Falcon roofline. It never would have occurred to me that Ford would use the same compact, 2-door sedan roof on their intermediate offerings. It must not have panned-out since there was no 2-door sedan for 1968, but it was an interesting gambit on their part, particularly when you consider that Chevrolet continued on with a 2-door post through 1969.
As we’ve been pointing out repeatedly here, the 1966 and up Ford “compacts” and mid-size cars were the same thing, except for variations in the wheelbase. This isn’t just a “Falcon roof”; it is a Falcon, with the wheels and body extended at the rear, and a different front clip. Mix and match; A very flexible platform.
Yes! A perfect example of this can be seen in the Ranchero. The ’66 used the Falcon front clip, the ’67 used the Fairlane, Otherwise, the same vehicle.
It’s been noted here in the past that the center section of the 1966-67 intermediate 4-door sedan bodies bears an obvious resemblance to contemporary Falcon 4-door sedans. I guess the same is true of the 2-door sedans, it’s just that the intermediate 2-door sedans aren’t as commonly seen. The resemblance is perhaps even more striking in 2-door form, with the distinctive Mustang-like rear pillar, which we’re so much more used to seeing on Falcons.
The relationship to the Falcon is a bit less obvious in the intermediate hardtop bodies, if for no other reason than that were no Falcon hardtops — so the roofline doesn’t make you say, “Hey, that looks like a Falcon!” the way this 2-door sedan does.
We’ve also discussed the wagons here in the past. The Falcon and the intermediates both used the same body, which was on its own unique wheelbase that split the difference between the normal Falcon wheelbase and the normal intermediate wheelbase, measuring three inches shorter than the latter. Intermediate wagons continued to use the same basic wagon body up through 1971, and were stuck with the three-inches-shorter wheelbase all along.
Some of those US two door Falcons have been imported to NZ, one of these cant be far behind, the front sheetmetal emigrated to OZ and got used on local Fairlanes.
Its a parts bin car, I like it.
A “local” CL had an ad for a white 66 or 67 Comet 2 door about a week ago. It didn’t have the blue stripes this one has but was otherwise almost identical. The selling/asking price was a seriously steep (at least to me) $9000.00.
My first car that I bought with my own money was a 68 Mercury Cyclone GT so I have a soft spot for Mercurys and 2 doors in particular….followed by their woody wagons. My “ultimate” Mercury would be one of the 2 door HARDTOP wagons, a 59 or 57.
BTW, while Ford and Mercury each had a styling studio, occasionally a design from the Mercury studio ended up as a Ford badged product. I would imagine that it also worked the other way
Except for the tail lights, the 65 Fairlane and Comet look like they are wearing the wrong badges as the 65 full sized Ford has the same stacked headlights as a 65 Comet while a 65 Monterey has the same quad horizontal lights as the Fairlane.
Long time Mercury fan here,67/68 Cougar black cherry 289/302 4 barrel auto please my all time favourite American car.A 68 Mercury Cyclone fastback is my 2nd favourite Mercury.Woodys are cool too,there was an immaculate white 70 Colony Park woody cruising Blackpool’s promenade when I was there for the punk festival and airshow earlier this month
A punk airshow? I’m intrigued. 🙂
They were both on at the same time fortunately the festival was indoors as the traditional British “summer” mean’t a lot of the airshow was cancelled
These 2 door sedans were out and about in my youth, normally driven by elderly cheapskates. I was always a hardtop kind of guy and was never interested in these.
The only old-style 2 door sedan I spent time around was the 62 Bel Air that my college roommate bought around 1980 or 81. Blue Flame 6 and Glide. It did nothing to improve my opinion of 2 door sedans.
I used to see a lot of 2 door sedans at the drag strip as they’re stronger and lighter than hardtops.Quite a few miser’s specials had the 6 swapped for a big block and ended up on drag strips.
Dave, a very fine find here. In the jumble of body part swapping that was perpetually taking place on Ford’s extensive “Falcon platform”, this is one of the odder ones. A Falcon middle section with such a wheelbase stretch; well, that had been the Comet MO since 1960, but this one is a bit unique. It had rather fallen out of my active memory banks, so thanks for the refresh.
That wheelbase stretch could not have been very beneficial to interior room if stuffed under the Falcon greenhouse.
I love the old time model charts. Wow, the ’67 model year was loaded with names that lasted only a few years or I’ve never heard of. Way too much slicing
and dicing of these cars, and it causes all of the names to be low volume. Not the smartest packaging and marketing.
That applies to many wheelbase stretches. A couple of more inches in the trunk’s length. It was a remnant of a time when a longer wheelbase implied more prestige. Go figure…
One by product of all that was that Ford so muddied the waters between its compact and mid-size offerings that it certainly contributed to both sizes lagging GM – in segments which it started and had some early domination – at least over Chevy.
Ford OZ took up the cudgel and kept going with slicing and dicing well into the 90s always claiming it to be a local design and pre internet getting away with it.
No it was good marketing, a way to shame the buyer into the more expensive model with the more “prestigious” name. “Oh poor you, only could afford the super special deluxe? I’ve got the super duper special deluxe”. “oh, poor you stuck with the Thingamajig, that is so last year, I’ve got the Whatchamacallit”. No it didn’t work on everybody but it did on those who were fixated on keeping up with or one upping their neighbor, brother or coworker.
To a point. Then its chaos and no market recognition of anything.
Picking on the compact / mid-size cars (whatever they are) is almost hopeless because it is such a mess.
So, I’ll pick on the big Mercurys. For ’67 they slotted in the Marquis as the new top coupe (and top car by THREE DOLLARS). They slotted in the Brougham as the top four door door. Both names were basically trim packages for the Park Lane. I had never heard of the Brougham until today, and it was one year only.
If they really felt they needed a new top name, call all the top name cars Marquis. Offer a Brougham trim package to match Buick Electra 225 Custom and Oldsmobile 98 LS
The top line Marquis model in one trim sold 6,510 cars.
The top line Electra model in all trims sold about 107,000 cars.
The top line 98 model in all trims sold about 90,000 cars.
If Mercury had simplified its top offerings under the Marquis name, the combined sales of Park Lane, Brougham and Marquis would have been 28,000 cars, a lot less pathetic than 6,510. Even better, group in a Marquis Colony Park wagon and you have 47,000 cars.
Name equity has some value. By 1967, the Olds 98 was a storied model predating WWII. The Electra had nine years of equity. At this point I’m only certain that two people on the planet can tell you that the 1967 Mercury Brougham existed as a one year model, selling 7,514 copies.
For all the Brougham lovers out there (I include myself), the ’67 Mercury Brougham has to be the Holy Grail of Broughams. Go forth, find, and fotograph!
I don’t know about anybody else, but to me the roof is the easiest way to identify a car, and when one roof is shared across many makes and models, it makes it stupefyingly obvious that they are all basically the same car.
Is it really that expensive to tool up at least a different rear side window to throw off the look just a little?
A good point. I always look at doors too. It seems manufacturers just did not want to change door panels as often as front and rear quarter panels etc. doors must be more expensive to change or engineer? If I look at the various versions of progressive generations of Falcon and Fairlane models here in Australia, the door panels nearly always survive the full duration of a generation, whereas other panels will change several times with facelifts.
On the subject of facelifts, I would be interested in views on my contention that the original model of a new generation of a particular model is nine times out of ten the best looking version of a whole series. Not so much now, but the old requirement for a new model every year saw many attractive shapes get progressively ruined just by the need for change.
I can think of one sneaky example of roof sharing that wasn’t very noticeable.
Look at a ’63-64 Chevy 4 door hardtop.
Then look at ’63-64 Cadillac Coupe DeVille.
Yep. Same stamping.
A question: didn’t the mustang go to the 302 in mid-model year 1967? Couldn’t the Mercury have done the same making it possible those 302 call out badges are original?
No. It arrived with the 1968 MY.
This was a stripper two door; almost certainly it came with the six. Which someone replaced with a 302.
Am I crazy or does anyone else think this roofline actually looks better on this body than the hardtop? Funny enough I never was a fan of it on the Falcon, too stubby.
I actually had one, in Florida in 1973.
It was a rust bucket that I painted black with a brush.
However I drove it to Key West twice and Louisville once. It got 26 MPG on the highway at 60 during the 55 MPH scam.
Fortunately the 3 speed trans gave up before it broke in half from rust
I’m going to have to beg to differ on the 289/302 comparison.
“Unless the heads and camshaft saw a significant upgrade as well, a 302 would not significantly change the performance over a 289.”
All the 289s I drove, with the exception of a friends ’66 Mustang with a 4 barrel, were dogs. Especially the one I learned to drive in which had the worst possible drivetrain for a V8, a Galaxie with a 2 speed Fordomatic. Anyway, the 289s always seemed like dogs, the 302s always seemed, at worst, lets say, peppy. Maybe not outright fast, but OK. 289s, not ok. This is all based off the “seat of the pants” dyno, not any timed readings or anything. An eighth inch stroke shouldn’t have made much difference, but I’ve also seen other cars where a minor difference made a big difference.