That is a remarkable collection! How long has it been open? I hope I didn't miss it during my stay in Anchorage ('83-'95).
I am pretty sure it opened after your stint. I don't recall exactly, but I think the museum itself opened around 2005. The owner and his primary restorer have worked on collections for far longer, it just wasn't something that was accessible to the public in this form before then.
Edit: Okay, then.... 2007!
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
IIRC the original Comet had some issues due to being severely underpowered. Don't remember for sure if it was early engine failures or early transmission failures though. Kind of an odd looking compact. It was supposed to be an Edsel model originally I think. OTOH if you had one at a car show today it would probably spark some curiosity. I give it some credit for contrasting with the awfully conservative looks of the Falcon. I'm thinking the Comet looked a bit more substantial in comparison because it had slightly larger dimensions.
I wonder if the Comets had the same rear end gearing as the Falcon. If a little heavier and a little high numerically gearing, the car would have been peppier. The Falcon was strictly to try to have a high gas mileage number for bragging rights. So the Comet may have been set up better for driving.
I remember the 27 second or so 0-60 time of a Comet being quoted in an issue of "Collectible Automobile" magazine when they did a spread on the early Comets a few years back.
Anyway, as for gearing, I dug around, and here's what I found. The 2-speed automatic had a first gear of 1.75:1 and second of 1.00:1, and a standard rear axle of 3.1:1. I found this at a site called www.automobile-catalog.com , and I don't know where they get their data from, so I don't know how accurate it is. They also estimate a Comet with the 144 and 2-speed automatic would do 0-60 in 20.5 seconds, using a mathematical calculation.
In my opinion, that axle ratio seems a bit tall, for the era. Just as a reference point, my '57 DeSoto Firedome uses a 3.91:1 with the 3-on-the-tree, which was "officially" standard, a 3.54:1 with the 2-speed Powerflite, and a 3.31:1 with the 3-speed Torqueflite, which is probably how just about every single one was actually equipped, out the door.
I'd think something with a small engine, like the Comet, would use a quicker ratio than a 3.10:1, especially with a 2-speed. But then again, maybe not? By 1960, buyers were a lot more economy-minded than they had been in 1957, and they were buying the new cheap compacts for fuel economy and cheap ownership costs, and not to take out on the drag strip.
FWIW, that www.automobile-catalog.com site estimates the 0-60 time of a '57 Firedome convertible with the 341-2bbl and Torqueflite at 10.1 seconds. I've seen old road tests that put it around 9.7, so sometimes their mathematical calculation is close.
As for a 1951 Chevy, I picked at random, a Styline Deluxe 2-door "Sport Coupe" (maybe that was the hardtop?). The 2-speed Powerglide had a 1.82:1 first gear, 1.00:1 Direct Drive, and a 3.55:1 axle. They estimate 0-60 in 20.2 seconds.
No gearing on earth would make the 144 cid 6 with the two speed AT anything than a slug.
The 144 had an advertised HP of 85--about the same as an MGA.
What would that be in net hp? Maybe 60-65, if you're lucky? I know a/c was still a plaything for the rich in the early 60's, so did they even offer it in a Falcon or Comet? And, if so, I wonder if they made you get the larger engine?
No gearing on earth would make the 144 cid 6 with the two speed AT anything than a slug.
The 144 had an advertised HP of 85--about the same as an MGA.
What would that be in net hp? Maybe 60-65, if you're lucky? I know a/c was still a plaything for the rich in the early 60's, so did they even offer it in a Falcon or Comet? And, if so, I wonder if they made you get the larger engine?
In '60 the 144 was the only engine available. I doubt that a/c was available. Having put quite a few miles on one that had the Fordomatic two speed AT, having the a/c compressor kick in would be inconsistent with maintaining any speed that required high gear.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
andre, although just a few years later "Sport Coupe" in a Chevrolet designated a two-door hardtop, pre-'55 it referred to a close-coupled two-door coupe like this:
The ad calls it a "Club Coupe" but short of checking the sales brochure, I am nearly certain this bodystyle is what Chevy themselves called the "Sport Coupe".
UPDATE: Here's a page from the '51 brochure calling that body style the "Sport Coupe":
Oh yeah, that's right...in the early days, they called the hardtop "Bel Air"...almost forgot about that! And yeah, as far as I know, the '60 Comet did use Edsel taillights, just angled.
The Comet's taillight treatment is kinda weird, but then, back in those days, what wasn't? And it does sort of fit in with Mercury's styling trends at the time. The big cars had been doing a form of the angled fins and taillights from '57-59, and even the '60, while the taillights were housed vertically in swollen bumper protrusions, still had the angled fins.
I wonder if the Comets had the same rear end gearing as the Falcon. If a little heavier and a little high numerically gearing, the car would have been peppier. The Falcon was strictly to try to have a high gas mileage number for bragging rights. So the Comet may have been set up better for driving.
How do we get data from that long ago?
I used @andre1969 's source and found that for 1961 the rear axle rations were the same for a manual trans in both Falcon and Comet; same for auto in the two. No advantage for the Comet.
The listing for the '62 wagon I posted above claims a 3.50:1 ratio paired with the 170 cid six, so it should be slightly less slow considering it has 3 on the tree.
I always thought it was interesting that Ford was able to stretch the tiny 144 CID engine all the way out to a 250 in later years. I guess that's an indication it was a fairly beefy block? Although, I think a lot of that may have come from stroking it rather than boring it, so I guess the 250 was a raised deck version?
There were other changes (like 4 main bearings on the 144/170/early 200, 7 on the late 200/all 250). The 144 bxs was 3.5"x2.94", the 250 was 3.65"x3.91". But that engine line did have a long life, 1960-1984. Not much love for them on the performance side. I think they all had the intake manifold cast with the head, limiting hop-up options.
"Thriftpower 6" - don't you love the old 50's and 60's advertising tags. I always get a kick out of the ads and copy from that era. We used to lie with class; now we just lie
Even into the late 70's, wasn't there a strippo version of the Nova that jettisoned the armrests in the back seat, and just replaced it with a pull strap for the door? Or was that just the copcars I'm thinking of?
Even into the late 70's, wasn't there a strippo version of the Nova that jettisoned the armrests in the back seat, and just replaced it with a pull strap for the door? Or was that just the copcars I'm thinking of?
I know I drove one once exactly like that - not sure if it had front armrests either.
Funny thing is, the door panel itself, on that Nova, doesn't look that bad. Looks like it's at least full-vinyl, or at least that soft-touch padded stuff, rather than the cheap, hard "Body-by-Fisher-Price" plastics. Throw a decent armrest on there, and maybe make the trim around the door handle a bit classier, and it wouldn't take much to dress it up.
Now, that back seat is a different story. The shape of the seat cushions just looks seriously uncomfortable to me, especially with the short base cushion, and the way the backrest curves. Actually, that curve of the back cushion is something I tend to associate with more modern, downsized, space-efficient cars. That's one major way the auto makers were able to maintain or increase legroom measurements with shorter wheelbases...they simply pushed the back seat further between the wheel wells, which would cut into the corners like that.
I'm surprised the Nova would try a space efficiency trick like that, yet at the same time, remain so cramped. But, then again these cars shared a lot of their architecture with the Camaro, and as a result, were all hood. It's hard to base a 4-door car with a useable interior off of a platform like that, so maybe that forced GM to learn a few space-efficiency tricks a bit early on, to make up for it. And, I think to its advantage, the Nova had beautiful proportions, compared to other compacts of the time. I always thought it was a bit odd that it didn't sell better, but for a few years in there, the Granada was everybody's darling, and then the Aspen/Volare had a few good years, and by '78 it pressure was added not only from the Fairmont/Zephyr, but also GM's downsized intermediates which were similar in external dimensions, but roomier inside. And tended to be trimmed better inside, although to be fair, the LN/Concours, as well as the nicer versions of the Ventura/Phoenix, Omega, and Skylark were pretty nice, as well.
Comments
Edit: Okay, then.... 2007!
How do we get data from that long ago?
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Anyway, as for gearing, I dug around, and here's what I found. The 2-speed automatic had a first gear of 1.75:1 and second of 1.00:1, and a standard rear axle of 3.1:1. I found this at a site called www.automobile-catalog.com , and I don't know where they get their data from, so I don't know how accurate it is. They also estimate a Comet with the 144 and 2-speed automatic would do 0-60 in 20.5 seconds, using a mathematical calculation.
In my opinion, that axle ratio seems a bit tall, for the era. Just as a reference point, my '57 DeSoto Firedome uses a 3.91:1 with the 3-on-the-tree, which was "officially" standard, a 3.54:1 with the 2-speed Powerflite, and a 3.31:1 with the 3-speed Torqueflite, which is probably how just about every single one was actually equipped, out the door.
I'd think something with a small engine, like the Comet, would use a quicker ratio than a 3.10:1, especially with a 2-speed. But then again, maybe not? By 1960, buyers were a lot more economy-minded than they had been in 1957, and they were buying the new cheap compacts for fuel economy and cheap ownership costs, and not to take out on the drag strip.
FWIW, that www.automobile-catalog.com site estimates the 0-60 time of a '57 Firedome convertible with the 341-2bbl and Torqueflite at 10.1 seconds. I've seen old road tests that put it around 9.7, so sometimes their mathematical calculation is close.
As for a 1951 Chevy, I picked at random, a Styline Deluxe 2-door "Sport Coupe" (maybe that was the hardtop?). The 2-speed Powerglide had a 1.82:1 first gear, 1.00:1 Direct Drive, and a 3.55:1 axle. They estimate 0-60 in 20.2 seconds.
2009 BMW 335i, 2003 Corvette cnv. (RIP 2001 Jaguar XK8 cnv and 1985 MB 380SE [the best of the lot])
http://championautomotive.net/50chevysforsale/Sold/51_Chevrolet_Deluxe_Coupe_Black_For_Sale.html
The ad calls it a "Club Coupe" but short of checking the sales brochure, I am nearly certain this bodystyle is what Chevy themselves called the "Sport Coupe".
UPDATE: Here's a page from the '51 brochure calling that body style the "Sport Coupe":
http://paintref.com/cgi-bin/brochuredisplay.cgi?year=1951&manuf=GM&model=Chevrolet&smod=&page=5&scan=5
Somewhere I'd read that those are the '60 Edsel taillights turned sideways. Don't know how true that is, but it seems plausible.
The Comet's taillight treatment is kinda weird, but then, back in those days, what wasn't?
https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/cars-for-sale/mercury/comet/2132063.html?refer=blog
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
2021 VW Arteon SEL 4-motion, 2018 VW Passat SE w/tech, 2016 Audi Q5 Premium Plus w/tech
Now, that back seat is a different story. The shape of the seat cushions just looks seriously uncomfortable to me, especially with the short base cushion, and the way the backrest curves. Actually, that curve of the back cushion is something I tend to associate with more modern, downsized, space-efficient cars. That's one major way the auto makers were able to maintain or increase legroom measurements with shorter wheelbases...they simply pushed the back seat further between the wheel wells, which would cut into the corners like that.
I'm surprised the Nova would try a space efficiency trick like that, yet at the same time, remain so cramped. But, then again these cars shared a lot of their architecture with the Camaro, and as a result, were all hood. It's hard to base a 4-door car with a useable interior off of a platform like that, so maybe that forced GM to learn a few space-efficiency tricks a bit early on, to make up for it. And, I think to its advantage, the Nova had beautiful proportions, compared to other compacts of the time. I always thought it was a bit odd that it didn't sell better, but for a few years in there, the Granada was everybody's darling, and then the Aspen/Volare had a few good years, and by '78 it pressure was added not only from the Fairmont/Zephyr, but also GM's downsized intermediates which were similar in external dimensions, but roomier inside. And tended to be trimmed better inside, although to be fair, the LN/Concours, as well as the nicer versions of the Ventura/Phoenix, Omega, and Skylark were pretty nice, as well.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
Sorry the owner has passed away.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
That Autocrat is really something. Great name for a car too.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
https://www.facebook.com/RoadandTrack/videos/10156325238116091/
I always found those odd but seeing it moving around like some sort of alien transportation device is kind of cool.
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
2020 Acura RDX tech SH-AWD, 2023 Maverick hybrid Lariat luxury package.
Edmunds Price Checker
Edmunds Lease Calculator
Did you get a good deal? Be sure to come back and share!
Edmunds Moderator
2017 Cadillac ATS Performance Premium 3.6
1910 prototype