I was reading in one of my auto books from the late 70s and there was a remark(opinion)from the author about how Mercury was struggling to keep up with the bigger auto companies so there quality and accessory packages were better than ford as they focused on this to try too boost there sales.(In return they had a lot fewer problems)I was wondering if this was part of why there were less comets made then mavericks or just simply supply and demand.Did Mercurys cost more? I like em both
Overall there were about 5 Mavs made for every 1 Comet. I think one big factor is that there were a lot more Ford dealers out there than Lincoln Mercury dealers. In my area it was 4 to 1. Fords tended to be base-level cars in general, Mercurys were a mid-level car, and Lincolns were positioned as the top of the product line. And prices tended to go up accordingly, along with available options and trim packages. Each brand had a little bit of a different target audience. In Mav vs Comet and Pinto vs Bobcat, the differences weren't as wide as some of the bigger models, but with the Comet, they were pushing V8s harder in the advertising early on. GM and Chrysler did roughly the same type of brand positioning back then, too. The Big Three sold 3/4s of all the cars here through the 60s, and that is where a lot of this thinking originated. Things started to get blurry as more imports started taking more market share after the 70s.
wow thats neat info I have learned alot already from U guys.Were they seperate manufacture companies and employees or ford/mercury employees. I think my car was made in st louis would have to check vin again to be sure.
