Bumpers! All I see when surveying this exceedingly clean 1974 Mercury Comet is bumpers. OK, now that I’ve got that out of the way, let’s take a more serious look at Mercury’s “me-too” compact. Posting quite a visual statement in Los Angeles, California, this 63K-mile coupe is available here on eBay for a BIN price of $14,995. There is a make an offer option available.
Introduced in ’60, the Comet moniker was used continually through 1977 with just a one-year absence in ’70. It was mostly consigned to the compact segment, though it did some time as an intermediate model too. The ’71-’77 edition is nothing more than a rebadged Ford Maverick. Of course, having the Maverick’s DNA didn’t guarantee the Maverick’s sales – 301K Mavericks vs. 125K Comets is how things rang up in ’74. Comet, like the Maverick, was available in two or four-door sedan body styles and, in the Comet’s case, offered in standard or GT trim.
Our subject is the latter, which explains the stripes, hood scoop, blacked-out hood dome, dual color-keyed racing mirrors, and blackened grille and rear valance. This example even has the optional five-slot alloy wheels – a popular style in this era. Mercury referred to this car’s code 5W hue simply as “Orange”, and orange it is. Once I can stop focusing on the massive federally mandated 5-MPH protuberances, I can see how sound this car’s exterior features are. The finish is deep, the stripes are still adhering, and the chrome bits, since they’re really hard to miss, possess a nice luster. The seller adds, “Gorgeous orange paint with straight body and no accidents.” Clearly, this Comet GT has been well cared for.
The GT designation does not denote inherent performance, as all Comets, GTs included, came standard with a 200 CI, in-line six-cylinder engine. This GT, however, has been bestowed with an optional 140 net HP (not 220 as the listing erroneously states), 302 CI V8 linked to a three-speed automatic transmission. The seller claims, “Reliable and runs like brand new.” While hardly muscle car territory, I imagine this Comet scoots with some authority.
Well, if orange is good enough for the exterior, it’s good enough for the interior, and that’s what we have here. The seller claims, “Interior is like new,” but I spy a split in the passenger seat bottom, and I’m not sure what’s up with the black dash pad; it looks out of place, and it’s split as well. The instrument panel is about as bare bones as you’ll find, but this is, after all, an economy compact and one considered by many to be a disposable car. Vintage A/C has been added, and the listing claims that it “blows cold.”
The listing states, “Own a solid investment that you can enjoy every day.” I get the everyday enjoyment part, but I’m not down with the investment aspect – I just don’t see it in a Mercury Comet (or a Ford Maverick). That said, if you want to experience the domestic car scene from a half-century ago, and it was a challenging automotive period, here you go. Tell me, has anyone ever owned a Mercury Comet, and if so, how was it?
Owned a ’73 with a halo roof and deluxe interior. Bought it as a winter beater, but fell in love with it. The 302 gave it good performance for what it was. Took it on a couple of road trips too. Best $500 I ever spent on a car. Eventually, we needed the garage space, and I wasn’t going to leave it out in the elements. So, I sold it for $2000. As for the values today? This ask is fair, for a V-8 model. I’ve seen Mavericks going for $20k+. Just my 3 cents.
Seems to be in nice shape but 14.995.00 for a Mercury Comet is over priced i think. When you pull up the E-Bay there is a 1997 Comet in nice shape no rust 302 motor with working factory A/C and the nice stock 5 star rims for 8000.00. If i had to have a Comet i would go with the 1997 and save a bunch of money.
Do you mean a ’77? That was the Comet’s last year.
JO
Yes i did mean ’77 thank you for pointing that out. At my age i need to proof read everything before i post it.
You are spot-on Jim: Bumpers! That’s what I see too, especially with the camera angle from the lead photo. And orange, inside and out. But despite these items, the car appears to be a fine example. Not too many Comets (and Mavericks) in good shape given their disposable position in the automotive food chain. This one would certainly be an attention-getter. Be prepared for the “my mom had one, only it was x, y, z” conversations.
Yes that’s a very unflattering camera angle! I had forgotten just how much real estate there was between those early 5 MPH bumpers and the rest of the car. It seemed normal back then, but looks atrocious now.
The rear bumper set-up is to leave room for the optional continental kit – and maybe a rumble seat too!
Bumpers: I had a very nice straight ’76 Malibu years ago. What a good looking car! I was backing out of a store parking space looking over my right shoulder and turned a bit to sharp for the steel post off my left side. Swinging the front end to the left, it just clipped that post. Missed the left fender but caught that bumper. It pulled the entire bumper out of its collapsible shock absorber. As it came out, it swung and collapsed the right side fender. Totaled that nice car. :-( Terry J
I did that once with a 2008 Toyota Yaris, only it was a jagged chunk of concrete that I ripped the bumper cover off on, whole face of the car forlornly on the ground. I put it in the hatchback, drove to the nearest parts store and put it back on with $5 worth of plastic clips just like the ones that held it on from the factory. I guess not all progress is bad.
I think the car companies were trying to send a message to lawmakers, saying how stupid the regulations were.
Yes. I agree. It was all part of the general attitude of passive aggression, combined with fighting tooth and nail (and losing to) the Government in court. The prevailing attitude was : “Fine. You want 5 mph bumpers, here they are! Are you happy now?”
On owning this car, but only if it was “given” to me, the first thing I would do is to get the bumpers off before even driving it in public!
I’m a fan of the early comet 64 never had one,though I did have a maverick. Drove back and forth from Texas to Georgia. Had to eventually park it. A quart every hundred miles, a case in the trunk.lol
Ck out the 1967 Mercury Comet Caliente in The Invaders, TV Series, 1967-1968 espec on IMCDB
My 1950 Hudson used 1 qt of oil about every 30 miles because the waxed rope seal they used needed to be replaced but to do that you had to pull the engine. My shade tree Hudson mechanic was not up for the task. I sold the car to a guy who drove it home to Maine from my house in Pennsylvania. He wondered why I included in the deal a case of oil in the trunk. He was a type A busy businessman, so I doubt that he took the time to stop the car to add oil each time the engine warning light came on. He was in such a hurry to get on the road with the Hudson that when we went to the bank with his check, the bank was not open yet so he tried to force open the doors rather than wait the few minutes before they unlocked the doors. I still love the style of the 1960’s Comets.
I saw a later Maverick at a local car show that
had been converted to the earlier bumpers.It looked
like a factory installation.
The Federal “Bash Beam” bumpers were a bolt-on operation, so fitting the bumper from an earlier example should be fairly straightforward. Notice I said “should be”, because there are probably numerous pitfalls involved. In one notable example, the 1973-74 Torinos would probably require grafting on the entire radiator support and front clip from a ’72 example, to transition back to the older style bumper!
On my 74 Caprice I merely drilled holes in the shock absorber mounts and drained out the fluid/gas. Then pushed them all the way in, adjusted them up a little (holes were already slotted. Probably same bumpers used in different markets not requiring the 5MPH) and they look pretty much original unless you look really hard. I did this 20 years ago because the fillers were already rotted out. Still have the car but can’t post pics here. Land yacht car at 6-8 inches shorter than original. Still a land yacht.
Great looking Comet. I always liked the tailights and grill design on the Comet a little better than the Maverick. I’m with all the above about the battering rams…. Oops…. I mean bumpers. Whats strange, and maybe it’s just me, but I never really gave much thought to any of the oversized bumpers on any of the cars from the 70’s when I was a kid. It wasn’t until years later that I really paid any attention.
Tell ya one thing..ugly or not..the plastic fillers on FoMoCo lasts forever,if you look at GM products of the era plastic fillers disintegrated .Either way still love these,only a couple hundred bucks from being muscle as that choked Windsor was waiting to wake up on the cheap.
True. Some machine work on the heads, then trade the two-barrel intake for a four-barrel fuel mixer or EFI, then uncork the exhaust with headers and dual pipes, and you’re good to go! The modern intake will probably improve the mileage and pollute less than the anti-smog gear it was born with could manage at the time! Just make sure that the rest of the drive train doesn’t do a fine imitation of a hand grenade when subjected to the extra power, LOL!
While the heads are off. Change the camshaft. The factory one is incredibly mild. A larger bump stick and a little distributor work will really wake it up..And, it won’t hurt the fuel economy, IF, you can keep your foot out of it..
You can thank regulations for the comical Comet bumper. There could be no damage to the bumper or sheetmetal from a 5-MPH impact, which meant that the Comet’s protruding grille had to be protected by a protruding bumper.
Also Ford’s stinginess with a model they were probably still planning to replace for ’75 when the ’74 bumpers were being worked on. It’s the same bumper as a Maverick but set even further out to accommodate the Comet’s pronounced Bunkie beak.
The bumper regulation didn’t care about damage to the bumper or sheetmetal. The requirement was that in a 5 mph impact the essential features necessary to operate the car would still function. That is, equipment such as the engine, cooling system, headlights, turn signals, brake lights, steering, etc. did not sustain enough damage to make them inoperable. While the criteria today is now 2.5 mph, the rationale for the standard is essentially still the same.
It’s interesting to see the different approaches that Chrysler and Ford used to comply with the new impact mandate.
Chrysler just threw on large rubber bumperettes where Ford added these huge bumper extensions.
I believe Chrysler decided to pay a fine for not as robust compliant bumpers – they were phasing out the Challenger, Cuda, etc. after 1974. Same with the AMC & its Javelin.
Thanks Joe. I didn’t know that, and thought that what Ford did was crazy compared to other manufacturers. Now it makes sense.
They went through a lot of time and expense to change the front of the Torino in ’73, with the end result being a lot uglier, IMO.
Okay, since I was “there” for the transition, it did kick us with our knickers down, but to be fair, the pictures depict them much more ostentatious than they really were. Not unlike the Pontiac “Wide Trackin” pictures. ’73-’74 was a confusing time, and the “bumpers” were a mere hint of things to come, even though, many 50s cars already had 5 mph bumpers, we just never called them that. I always liked the Maverick/Comet, the V8 was a bit much, and the “GT” was pure glitz. ( think Pinto/Bobcat) One source says a base Comet was about $2485 new, and a V8 GT was almost $3200, so quite a difference. For comparison, I read, the V8 cost an extra $122 over the 6 in a ’74 Maverick at $2925, so it seems the “GT” and Mercury added a lot. I can’t find any production numbers on the “GT”, as they were included in all Comet numbers, but I don’t think there were many. Great find.
I have an NOS set of hubcaps for a 74 Comet. If anyone here buys this car they can have them no charge.
I had 74 Comet GT, color was Medium Goldenrod officially (It was Yellow) with Black stripes. 302V8 with a 3 speed manual transmission on the floor, it was a little pocket rocket, wish I would have kept it longer than I did….
We owned a 1974 Comet (4-door) from new. IT had the 240 ci inline 6 (I think) and it was no speed demon, but it could cruise at highway speed and was fast enough for around town. Bumpers? As noted above, the photos are from a very unflattering view and in 197 they were big but not outrageously so. The interior was nicely finished for an economy car and a big step above the Maverick. We had the upgraded interior option. Gas mileage was nothing special to say the least.
It would have had a 200 six
240 was pickup and van territory only.
Hi Bunky, The 240 was also used in full sized Ford cars from 1965-72, but the later 300 version was only in trucks/vans as you said (and generators,cranes,airport tugs,wood chippers, tractors, irrigation pumps, snow plows, etc etc.) :-) Terry J
Are you sure it wasn’t a 250 instead? The 170, 200 and 250 sixes were car engines. They all had the intake manifold cast into the cylinder head. The 240 and 300 sixes were primarily truck engines, with bolt-on intakes. My Mom’s Maverick had the 250 from the factory, but we swapped it out for a 200 from a wreck after rebuilding the 200. The 200 made more power, because it was older, and fitted with less restrictive anti-smog gear!
somebody will pay for it. watched a pinto wagon the other nite on B/J auction pull close to 40k. go figure
I bought a new 1971 Comet GT and souped it up with the usual , cam , high rise , headers and it was black and it drew a lot of attention as it looked like it was standing still ( Per my Dad! ) and it sounded fantastic ! I took it to Detroit Speedway 3 times and my Comet was the only one in its class so I brought home 3 tropies ! If I remenber it turned a whapping 14-15 seconds in a 1/4 . I paniked and sold it during the first oil embargo . Sure wish I had it now !!
Looks to be in nice shape, and you could take it to a tailgate party- just back it in…😏
Yup, the feds really handed it to us. Between bumpers and emissions we watched our cars lose their appeal almost overnight. But just look at this! It got a V8 with air and that oh so sweet orange interior…swoon! You just know you have the only one. Now one wonders why Ford never offered a 4-speed in these.
Hi Nelson, I wondered that too, and apparently, the focus was on economy, and since there was no 4 speed Maverick, the same applied to the Comet. It was a dealer add-on option however and wasn’t cheap.
Hideous and ridiculous bumpers!! nice car
Not bumpers, PARK BENCH BATTERING RAMS. They now have these on Swat vehicles for busting down garage doors!(lol)
Always wanted an early Maverick with Comet tail lights, a hot 5.0, 5 speed, fat tires and wheels and then lowered about 2″.
That car looks like it should have a covered spare tire on the bumper ….. front and rear!
Seriously, it’s easy to push those bumpers in where they belong and would have been had brother stayed out of the bumper business. ( insurance lobby is one of the biggest in America. Way bigger than gun lobby) I did this on my 74 Caprice and it looks a lot better.
Barf.
I think it’s a great looking car. I don’t understand why people today don’t like either the Mercury Comet or the similar Ford Maverick. I’d drive either if offered. One thing I’ve never understood, and therefore I’ve never liked is why neither were made available as a station wagon. Back in the 1960s, the Ford Falcon and Mercury Comet could be had as a station wagon. Why didn’t it continue into the 1970s with the Mav and the Comet? I don’t get it. I actually like the big bumpers of the 1970s cars. The way people drive cars, you need something to protect the body of your car.
The marketing folks at Ford probably figured that the Maverick/Comet twins were too close in size to the mid-size Torino wagon, and they already had the sub-compact market covered with the Pinto wagon, so they couldn’t make a business case for it. Believe me, given the cutthroat competition for scarce 1970’s consumer dollars, if they thought they could have made money doing it, they would have, LOL! I find it instructive that the Comet/Maverick’s main competitors, the GM X-Bodies (Nova, et al.), the Corvair, and the Chrysler A-Bodies (Dart, Duster, Demon & Valiant) were all offered with wagons in the lineup at one time, but the wagon versions were all eventually dropped due to poor sales. The closest thing to a compact wagon Ford ever offered was the Ranchero “ute”, when it was built on the Falcon platform, but even the Ranchero was moved upmarket, to the midsize Torino platform after 1964.
The only compact wagon to be offered at this time was the Hornet Sportabout.
It’s too bad that’s the case. I would’ve bought a Mav wagon had I been old enough at the time and had it been available.