As mysteries go it’s a small one, but I have long been curious as to why the 1965-67 Mercury Comet switched from horizontal to stacked headlights. The new look wasn’t in alignment with any of the brand’s other models and it made the Comet look too much like its corporate sibling, the Ford Fairlane.
My guess is that the main reason was cost cutting. The 1966-67 Comet would appear to share the same front bumper and inner fascia shape as its mid-sized sibling, the Ford Fairlane. Indeed, the cars looked similar enough that they could be confused.
To make matters worse, the Comet was given entirely unique sheetmetal, yet its side character lines were surprisingly similar to the Fairlane’s. Why bother with the added expense when front-door sheetmetal could have been shared without many people noticing? That’s what the Chrysler Corporation did with its mid-sized siblings, the Plymouth Belvedere and Dodge Coronet.
General Motors, in contrast, not only gave each of its four mid-sized entries unique sheetmetal, but they also flaunted admirably different fascias.
Ford half-heartedly tried to distinguish the Comet
Perhaps the Ford Motor Company gave the Comet unique sheetmetal in 1966 because it wanted to emphasize that the car had been upsized from a compact to an intermediate. Greater side-body curvature made the Comet look a little beefier than the Fairlane.
Also see ‘Ford gets back into the mid-sized game with redesigned 1966 Fairlane’
That may have been viewed as doubly important because in 1966 the compact Falcon was moved to the Ford’s mid-sized platform — and even shared front-door sheetmetal with the Fairlane. Without unique sheetmetal, might the Comet have still been viewed as a longer and more costly Falcon?
If that was the rationale, then it strikes me as pennywise and pound foolish that the Comet wasn’t also given horizontal headlights and side styling more akin to a big Mercury. That might have helped the Ford Motor Company better compete in a hotly competitive intermediate segment.
Comet sales collapse in 1967
For 1966 the Comet sold okay, surpassing 170,000 units. However, in 1967 output fell by 52 percent to just above 81,000 units. That was twice the drop the Fairlane experienced and three times as large as the overall mid-sized field, whose total production contracted by only 17 percent.
Richard M. Langworth (1987) theorized that sales dropped partly because those who wanted a performance-oriented Comet Cyclone tended to instead go with Mercury’s new-for-1967 pony car, the Cougar. But even Pontiac, which added the Firebird in 1967, only saw the output of its mid-sized lineup decline by 16 percent to around 301,000 units. In addition, prior to 1967 the Comet’s sales had never dipped below 100,000 units. Something was clearly wrong.
1968-69 Montego was somewhat better differentiated
Mercury responded by introducing the Montego nameplate in 1968 and giving its mid-sized lineup a somewhat more luxurious persona. Even though the 1968-69 Montego shared door sheetmetal with the Fairlane, it arguably had more distinctive styling than its predecessor.
Mercury’s mid-sized sales recovered somewhat — but not to the levels enjoyed by the Comet in 1961-66. This was despite intermediate sales hitting record levels in 1968-69. Even Chrysler’s mid-sized cars outsold Ford’s from 1967-69.
One could argue that Ford did not always bring its best game to the 1966-69 Fairlane lineup, but the Comet/Montego was consistently the automaker’s weak point in the mid-sized class. Only the AMC Rebel sold more poorly.
Perhaps more distinctive styling in 1966-67 would have made the Comet’s upsizing more successful. However, Mercury might have done better if it had kept the Comet as a premium-priced compact. Its arch-rival in that field, the Dodge Dart, continued to sell quite well in the second half of the 1960s.
NOTES:
Production figures, specifications and prices were drawn from the auto editors of Consumer Guide (2006), Gunnell (2002) and Wikipedia (2020).
Share your reactions to this post with a comment below or a note to the editor.
RE:SOURCES
- Auto editors of Consumer Guide; 2006. Encyclopedia of American Cars. Publications International, Lincolnwood, Ill.
- Gunnell, John; 2002. Standard Catalog of American Cars, 1946-1975. Revised 4th Ed. Krause Publications, Iola, WI.
- Langworth, Richard M. and the auto editors of Consumer Guide; 1987. The Complete History of Ford Motor Company. Publications International, Lincolnwood, Ill.
- Wikipedia; 2020. “U.S. Automobile Production Figures.” Page past modified Oct. 4.
ADVERTISING & PHOTOGRAPHY:
- Fordheritagevault.com: Ford Galaxie 500 (1966); Ford Fairlane (1966, 1968); Ford Falcon (1966); Mercury Comet/Montego (1966, 1967, 1968); Mercury Park Lane (1966)
- oldcaradvertising.com: General Motors (1967)
Might it have had something to do with the inner sheet metal
Kim, it had everything to do with the inner sheet metal of the 1966-1967 Fairlane / Falcon / Comet unit body structure. The position of the headlights and taillights are identical enough that that the same inner panel stampings can be used. I don’t know what was going on inside Ford’s Executive Staff meetings, but it must not a “pass-the-apple-butter” time, even though in the Lincoln-Mercury sales area were not particularly stellar.
AFAIK the stacked lights on the 65 Ford were intended for the 1965 Mercury. The Ford and Mercury designs were switched because the stacked light design was cheaper to manufacture and a better business decision for Ford. Stamp the fender, wrap it around to match the shape of the headlight bezel, stick in the headlight bezel, job done. No die cast endcap.
Mercury was the natural competitor for Pontiac but Ford (again) undercut Mercury by taking away a feature that matched Pontiac and then giving Mercury a me too design. So the Comet was out of step with full size Mercs and the Mercury store was still Odds and Ends Motor Company.
Stacked lights had been hot since the 1963 Pontiac hit like a howitzer. Ponti
Stacked headlights may have been trendy in 1965, but they were still used sparingly. At the Chrysler Corporation they were only given to the Plymouth, and at American Motors the Ambassador. General Motors placed them on both the Pontiac and Cadillac, but on mid-sized cars only one out of four brands had them.
If the Ford Motor Company followed that general pattern, it made the most sense for the Ford brand to switch to stacked headlights. That was because the full-sized Mercury was marketed as “now in the Lincoln Continental tradition” — and Ford’s luxury brand had used horizontal headlights.
That might explain why the Comet for 1965 despite still using the basic 1960 body with some reskinning have stacked headlights while the 1965 Fairlane don’t have them.
Ah, the 1965 Fairline, easily one of the ugliest cars of the 1960. How that front-end clip made it past Iacocca, is beyond me. It must have been a really cheap redesign if one can call it that !
Even more ugly than the “plucked chickens” 1962 Dodge and Plymouth? Still it would be interesting to see a photo of a 1965 Fairlane photoshopped with stacked headlights and the rear tailights similar to its big sibling the Galaxie.
I’m surprised that the the Comet was given stacked headlights in 1965 but not the Fairlane. The Fairlane’s front end strikes me as the weakest part of the car’s design; horizontal lights didn’t work very well with the extreme boxiness of the new sheetmetal and the low-mounted bumper.
I like 65 fairlane everything except the headlight bezel the quarters and taillights are great
I absolutely loved the design of my 1965 dark green Comet Cyclone with black and white interior. It shared more design cues with the 1965 GTO than any Ford. It deserved a second year. There was no need for it to look like the bigger Mercs that year. Those stacked headlights were perfect for it.
I think it had something to do with the GTO having stacked headlights and and the success of that car for Pontiac. With the big engines in the Fairlane it wanted to compete.