The 1960 Comet was the first “senior compact”, one year before the B-O-P trio arrived with that brief. The Comet had a rather long 114″ wheelbase (two more than the GM compacts), and was clearly aiming at a similar market, one step up from the plebeian Falcon, Valiant, Corvair, Lark and Rambler. Just one problem: it had the same weak-chested 85 hp 144 cubic inch six as the Falcon. Yet it weighed more, thus was even slower. And outclassed performance-wise by all of the competition, except for the flathead Lark six.
For 1961, that issue was addressed to some degree by the new 170 cubic inch version of the “Falcon six”, boasting 101 hp. This is the engine the Comet should have had standard from the get-go, but it was still an option, and would be until 1964, when it finally became standard.
The Comet, originally intended as the compact Edsel, got off to a decent start in 1960, despite the modest power. 1961 would see sales almost double, to 197k; were they propelled upwards by the availability of the 170 six?
CL tested one with the 2-speed “Mercomatic”, and found “useful gains in hill climbing and highway passing ability”. The fuel mileage penalty for all of this rip-snorting power was about 1 mpg, as you don’t “really drive for performance, i.e. use every pony in the stable to pull you away from every signal, then no doubt you’d get poorer mileage“. Having spent too much time behind the wheel of a GF’s ’64 Falcon with this august drive train, I can assure you that there’s no driving “for real performance” in these. Yes, it was decidedly better than the 144 teamed with the automatic, but it was still not something a performance oriented driver was going to be attracted to.
“With the larger engine, the Comet lives up to its avowed intention of being the compact for people who don’t like small cars“. CL did say they were hard pressed to feel any difference in its ride versus the shorter (109.5” wb) Falcon. As to handling, it was acceptable, up to the point where the little “kiddy-kar sized” 13″ tires “become a factor“. Beyond that point “it gets downright spooky.” CL made the usual recommendation of getting better shocks.
The brakes were about as modest as the handling.
Although CL was certain that a manual transmission version would be a bit quicker, they recommended the automatic, if for no other reason than to avoid the non-syncro first gear.
As to the actual performance numbers, 0-60 in 15.2 seconds was about reasonably ok for a six cylinder automatic at the time. Curiously, that’s about two seconds quicker than their results when they tested a ’61 Falcon with both the 144 and 170, in manual and automatic versions. Just goes to show; don’t take these numbers to the bank.
Related CC reading:
Curbside Classic: 1960 Comet – Orphan Looking For A Home
Car Show Classic: 1962 Mercury Comet
“If you drive for performance . . .” No one drives a Comet for performance. The ’62 Comet I drove in the late ’80s was pretty slow, even with the 170. Although by that time the engine had 100,000 miles on it, and was probably worn out. The brakes were actually quite good (for the time) once they were adjusted.
It’s true the 170 should have been standard from the start. But even with the 144, 1960 sales were very successful. Remember that a lot of buyers were trading in early- to mid-50s low-priced sixes, so this was the level of performance they were used to. It was actually better than many imports. And a lot of these buyers cared more about gas mileage than speed.
The Comet’s strengths are convenient size, nice styling with lots of interesting “period” details, good craftsmanship and durability, and mechanical simplicity. It’s at its best cruising at moderate speeds, with a “feel” much like the ’50s bulgemobiles without being quite so big. The cars did their job competently, but then got used up, worn out, the bodies rusted, and the cars were thrown away. Which is why, if you want one now, finding a nice one will not be easy.
I really like the looks of these early Comets – The Thunderbird roof really worked on these. I had never noticed the significantly longer wheelbase on these until they were all gone from the roads and I was reading about them here.
I drove a 144 cid 1960 Comet once, so I could imagine how the 170 would be a boon.
The roof looks so much more natural on these than it does on the 63 Falcons that used a similar(identical?) thunderbird style roof, the proportions are are so much better on the Comet
I don’t know about “much more natural” than the Falcon. I had a 1963 Falcon Futura with this roof and it never looked less than completely natural. I found the older style of Falcon roofline very dated and far more noticable than mine.
Has anyone else ever noticed there’s either a 1960 or 1961 Comet appearing in almost every episode of “The Andy Griffith Show”? In the color episodes, you can see it’s silver-grey and has those unmistakable tailfins.
I have noticed that. A set piece
Found this 63 wagon today from Donna Reed show
I would love to own a wagon like that. Actually, I like these early Comets more and more all the time. Just make mine a 170, at the very least.
Small six in a Falcon? Fine, I get it, close to a VW in price and close in performance to a 40hp VW.
But a Mercury? Wasn’t a Merc supposed to be better than a Ford?
Ford’s small inline six always had poor performance compared to competitors, whether it was the 144, 170, 200, or 250. I believe a mid 70’s Granada with the 250 took over 20 seconds to go 0 to 60.
A friend of mine, Robert, was a few years older than me and he commuted to college…in a 1961 Comet! I think he bought it mostly because it was cheap. It was black, in pretty ratty condition, but it ran.
In an attempt to “improve the appearance”, he painted it (by hand, either with spray cans or brush paint) what he called “Lawn Chair Blue”–the loudest, most inappropriate shade of sky blue. It was sloppy, had no gloss, and looked like this pasty blue clown car going down the road. I was very disappointed, because I really liked Rob’s Comet with its bigger fins and oval taillights. I would have liked to own it and have it restored properly.
Shortly thereafter, he either got tired of the Comet or something bad happened to it mechanically, and he replaced it with…a ’72 Dodge Dart Swinger (in equally ratty condition) which to me wasn’t nearly as interesting.
Robert’s parents had a dark blue ’64 Comet wagon. It gave its life trying to save others–it was donated to the First Aid Squad so they could practice using the “Jaws of Life” on it, and they tore it to pieces.
The (formerly) black ’61 looked about like this:
Got a 170 Merc o matic last Sept just like my first car… I also have three straight six 90s bimmers. One of those being a 99 m3 automatic. Talk about worlds apart… 101hp to 240 hp… The comet puts such a smile on people’s faces and it’s such a cool unique car though… Planning on it being a keeper, something I rarely do… But there ain’t many out there.
In the mid 1970’s my boss sold me a 1961 two door Comet with the 144 i6 and slush box, it was white with red upholstery and looked nice and rode well but was unable to get up the hill I lived on at the time (Annan Terrace in Los Angles) unless I put it on low at the bottom and pinned the accelerator ~ even then it barely made it to the top of my driveway .
In retrospect my ex wife would have loved it, she liked slow .
Not a bad car, I never had any troubles with the brakes hauling it down from freeway speeds but I hated it and sold it on shortly .
The ‘Cat’s Eye’ taillights got a lot of comments .
-Nate
“Failure to proceed” is one of the ultimate vehicular deal breakers for me. My instances involved a Datsun 510 automatic (the later Stanza based one), as well as Chevy Luv and Datsun 620 pickups with 4 speeds.
The 510 would sometimes freeze to the ground overnight, with the tires in about two inches of ice. It took almost all of the beans to get it to break free, and I may have had to thaw the ice on a couple of wheels to get it to move once or twice. Fortunately, the front tires always broke free right as the rear ones did, so there no spinning drive tires with the frozen fronts holding it in place. The front brakes on the Luv would sometimes freeze, leading to similar issues. Most often, a bucket of hot water slooshed on each one would get me rolling, then I’d have to quickly dry the brakes out as I was driving.
The worst was starting out on extremely steep hills with both pickups. The Datsun was often loaded heavily and/or towing a trailer, and I had one job in particular where we had to start out at the bottom of the hill when leaving, and there was no place to build up any momentum. I would rev it to about 5k, keep slipping the clutch until I could get rolling, then fully engage it and pray as it bogged its way up the hill, climbing to ~1800rpm before slowing to 1000-1200 near the top. The LUV was weak chested enough that it sometimes wasn’t able to make the steeper hills in first gear, unladen. Those times, we were fortunate to have friends to help push or offer assistance with a tow rope.
I bet that 144 Comet’s torque converter got pretty hot by the time you reached to top of your driveway.
Oh yes ~ those cold Winters and 1960’s (or older) imports .
Only the basic and crude VW’s every started right away and always had sufficient power to at least get underway even if slowly .
I was in California when the Chevy LUV (Isuzu IIRC) mini trucks came out, they were either under powered or perhaps badly over geared, I didn’t waste the time finding out but LUV truck lovers are as rabid as us Air Cooled VW imbeciles .
I mean, _ENTHUSIASTS_ .
I remember door locks freezing, in the early to mid 1960’s I didn’t know about graphite lock lubes in the Summer keeping them free in the Winter so we’d either leave the darn cars unlocked (a bad idea in juvenile jail) or try pouring a tea kettle of was boiling a few minutes ago water on the key holes with mixed results and using 35 feet of too thin extension cords to run a hair drier on the locks and frozen wheels .
Thanx for the memories ! .
I can only imagine how badly I treated that poor ’61 Comet, now I know how to better tune them but that was a _really_ steep hill and more than a few parked at the bottom and walked up to my tiny little house at the top .
-Nate
Cat’s eye everything was all the rage:
Thanx ! I’m not a big Monroe fan but that’s a great picture .
-Nate
What many fans of the Mercury Comet most likely don’t know is that the Comet was briefly considered as being part of the Edsel lineup.
Clearly, this was considered sometime before the dismal sales figures that were realized when the Edsel was finally put out to pasture during the 1960 model year.
There are clay mockup photos that exist of the full-sized clay model of the proposed 1960 Comet clearly displaying the Edsel script on the forward side of the front quarter panel, just behind the headlight.
When sales began to slide for the full-size Edsel, the new compact was re-badged and became a Mercury.
If you let your imagination go, you can almost see an Edsel horse collar grille in the middle of the production Comet grille, making it look very similar to the one on a ’59 Ranger.
That’s mentioned in the text of the post, near the top up there where it says The Comet, originally intended as the compact Edsel.
Was just a comet initially, year or two later it finally became a mercury comet..
Someone needs to build a what-if ’60 or ’61 Edsel Comet. A lot of the badging could be supplied from Edsel parts cars. The only challenge would be to fabricate something looking like the grille in the clay mockups (there are a couple of proposals to choose from) and a slight modification to the hood (which maybe could be done by a piece that attached to the leading edge so that it could be removed to make the car stock again).
The rear lights remind me of the glasses wearing women in Larson’s “Far Side’ cartoons.
I really have always liked the Comets from the 1960s! At least in the looks department. By the mid-60s, Mercury was finally pouring some performance into the hotter Comets like the Caliente with manual transmission. These were good looking and fun cars to compete against the GM intermediates. And the name itself was so appropriate for the space-age 1960s! I know the hipsters are now into the old Falcons. I wonder if the Comets will be accorded the same interest?
I think the ’66 Comet with its frenched headlights was the best looking midsize that year.
Proper branding would require a V8 in the first Comet, since Mercury was born with a V8 and never descended to a 6. Might have been a good chance to reimport the old 60 HP in its hotted-up Simca version.
I have to mention that over the past month, I am far more open to the idea of having a Comet, or a Rambler American than I was, and no longer dreaming of a GM senior compact. While I do really admire the beauty of the GM styling artists on their compact cars – over the past month I have learned that beauty is only skin deep and that there was better competition.
My 1963 Falcon Futura was so damn slow, it would just kill me trying to use it in traffic. It has an unsynchronized column shifter and the world’s slowest six cylinder. Having spent years with Valiants, I was very frustrated at the Falcon.
It sounds like I would like the larger engine in the Comet, yet get the cool touches I enjoyed in the Futura.