Quick, name a car that was made on two different platforms, in two different sizes with several totally different designs. If you said Mercury Comet you got at least one of them right but there have to be others. This 1976 Mercury Comet is located in Northridge, California and the seller has it listed here on eBay. They have a $6,200 buy-it-now price listed or you can make an offer.
Those bumpers! They look more like 50-mph bumpers than 5-mph bumpers. They were required starting in 1974 and they sure don’t do any favors to the design of the Comet which otherwise has a great look to it. The grille is a little different than what its cousin, the Ford Maverick, had as seen in this Barn Finds post from a couple of years ago. This looks like a nice car in a lower trim level, there isn’t a lot of pizzaz going on here but that probably gives it more charm.
Originally on the table as an Edsel model, the Comet ended up being designed alongside the compact Ford Falcon. For the first two years, 1960 and 1961, it didn’t have any Mercury badging but that was added for the 1963 model year. It would be similar to a Falcon for two more generations and in 1968 it moved to the bigger Fairlane body style. In 1971 it shared the Ford Maverick platform and the Comet would go away after the 1977 model year.
This particular Comet appears to be in very nice condition. With only 32,000 miles put on it over the last 44 years, the interior should look good. I was hoping for a nice, plaid interior but at least what is there looks good. The carpet looks a bit faded or dirty but I don’t know if this is a car that will be on anyone’s nut-and-bolt restoration list. It’s an interesting driver.
There is no 302 V8 here, it appears to be Ford’s 250 cubic-inch inline-six if I read the text on the air cleaner outlet and the VIN correctly. They say that it runs good. I rarely like to see engine-color overspray on hoses, but other than that it looks good under the hood. Are there any Mercury Comet fans out there?
Plain jane low buck stripper, weird low mounted interior door handles, dog dish hub caps, “railroad tie” front/rear bumpers; cool this is not. The (alleged) low mileage and nice interior are the only “sprinkles” on this serving of vanilla. The $6k asking price is a bit over inflated (IMO). :-)
I think they accidentally put an extra zero in there.
Swap the bumpers for a pre-’74 set and drop a 302 in this and I like it, plain as it is. Then I’d be willing to still not pay $6k for it. It’s the Beige Linoleum of cars and it just isn’t going to generate $6k in excitement.
It’s a “Linoleum Incontinental” !!
What is that weird rubber looking thing around the brake master cylinder…these cars were a lot of fun with the 302 in them…
The “weird” thing is a shock tower brace used on cars with power brakes, designed to clear the booster.
that is weird, I thought it might B the cowl to strut brace, but Y up’n over the b.MC, booster?
That’s a lot of scrilla for a whip with the aesthetics of a twinkie, not to mention the wheezing, twitchy and trouble-prone 250 between the fenders.
That ain’t a whip, that’s a “drip.” But I’ve been wondering all day since I first saw this this morning what the solid is on these engines -power potential? Impossible duds? I have been known to pursue an occasional Twinkie, God knows. But not a 6K Twinkie.
Look at the Battle-Ram that Ford used for a front bumper on this thing. This is how they responded to bumper laws? Their designers should have been publicly tarred and feathered.
People people PEOPLE. That is CLEARLY not a bumper, but rather the Jet Ski platform just aft of the transom.
That’s just too plain and one ugly front bumper. It does seem to be original under the hood. I still see the smog pump. I also think there is an extra zero in the listing.
I don’t know why, but the rear view makes me sleepy, sooo sleepy.
Is it just me, or does the paint in the front clip looks shinier and brighter than the rest of the car?
Def 2 different colors going on there.
Yup sure looks that way. Looks like the fenders and hood have been changed.
Those front bumpers were used for people to sit on at the drive-in back in the day lol
They look like they could take a 10 mph hit!
Those bumpers look like bolt-ons on a very skinny female. Decent car but way over priced for what you get. 6k is about the price for a pair of bolt-ons, that would be the smarter purchase.
They’ve gone up since the several pairs I got dragooned into sugar daddying.
This is a true Malaise Era car, without a doubt. They did what they had to do at the time for the government. I’m sure the manufacturers didn’t like it any better, and those bumpers? UGH!!!!
throw this on that 4.1L:
https://www.vintageinlines.com/product-page/deposit-only-aluminum-head-package
yeee haw !
or…turbo the ’96 4.9, fits right btwn the shock towers.
Yeah, I have had my share of Mercurys – 78 Mercury Bobcat featured here on Barnfinds with a lot of well not so great comments due to what I was asking for it, lol. Eventually, I sold it with only 500 miles on the rebuild 2.3l. I also had a 81 Mercury Zephyr Z7, 3.3l that was clean, clean, clean. Sold it on Ebay. Currently, I have an 84 Mercury Cougar LS, 3.8l, and it might be sold to a guy who plans on swapping the engine for his rebuild 2.3 turbo and T5. Oh yeah, and I had a 81 Mercury Capri about 21 years ago. And I don’t recall the engine, but it was a 6 cyl.
My dad was always a GM man until a friend talked him into buying a “fuel-efficient” Maverick in late 76 with this wheezer of an engine. After it stalled out the third time on the railroad tracks near our house, he traded it for a 77 Buick a month later. The only vehicle he owned for less than 5 years…
That interior looks pretty rough for a car with only 32,000 miles.
The bumper on these Comets stick out extra-far because Ford was using a bumper made for the flatter-fronted Maverick and adding extra spacers behind it to accommodate the Comet’s Bunkie beak.
The right way to do that would’ve been to give the Comet the Maverick’s hood and use the grille design and maybe some extra trim to reestablish brand identity.
Absolutely not buying the low mileage claim. Look at the wear on the top of the driver’s side door inner trim. The driver’s seat fabric is stretched, worn, and has disintegrated at the top of the seatback facing the B-pillar. The carpeting is in sad shape. And why would the engine need a respray?
Not exactly a stripper car, though. I see at least the following options:
power steering, power brakes, automatic transmission, tinted glass, and right-hand mirror. If the engine is indeed a 250, that was also optional. Seems odd that whoever ordered all of that didn’t at least spring for an AM radio.
Perhaps the only car that had a bigger front bumper than a 1973 Chevelle.
Ford Falcon from 1960 and then in 1970.