'64 or '65 Mercury Cyclone?
Be sure to make your selection.
Of course, please “Reply” to share your comments.
If selection is greater than 2 rank them.
Click on the picture to enlarge the image.
John Bono
North Jersey
I like the more athletic looking 65 (along with the 65 Fairlane). 😎👍
Frank Reed
Chesapeake, VA
No wrong answers on this one. But that doesn't mean it's an easy choice. I had a '67 Cyclone GT and the 65 looks closer to it than the 64. BUT; I have always loved the 64 Falcon and, even more, the Merc. So today, it is the 64 for me!
@perrone1 I like the '66 Cyclone but the '67 you mention was a much better looking car. A friend of mine had a black vinyl over light metallic green one with the 390; it was a cool car.
I will go with the 65 just for the vertical headlights.
Never my attempt to be a spoiler here, but sorry guys, I don't care for either of them. The square boxy styling and that unattractive roof line steers me over to either Chrysler Corp. or General Motors for 1964/1965 designs. So today, I vote "No interest".
George Schire
Oakdale, Minnesota
The only Comet I really like the styling of is the '65. Not really into compacts with the exception of the '65 Comet, '68 - '71 Dodge Dart, '66 & '67 Nova. '66 the Comet went to mid-size and I much prefer the Fairlane.
I will go with the 65 just for the vertical headlights.
Me too. Plus the mag wheels.
They're both terrific though.
Retired in Dunedin, Florida.
Very similar other than the front lights and resultant bumper and grill design changes. I slightly prefer the front looks of the 1965 Cyclone.
I like the '64 just a bit more, although either would be a great ride.
John Merritt
South Lyon, Michigan - USA
I, too, prefer the '65 for the vertical headlamps. I also find the trim piece on the front fender leading edge of the '64 to be annoying, especially at the angle view that John has presented.
Both are nice, going with the '65 for the vertical headlights.
John Bono
North Jersey








