1968 was one hell of a year. Martin and Bobby were shot, riots in Chicago, Paris and many other cities, and Soviet tanks stopping the Prague Spring. Those lucky enough to enjoy a new convertible could find some respite. Here we have 1968’s most classic 2-door convertibles, the Mercedes 280SE Cabrioletand the Ford Mustang Convertible, side-by-side. The 280SE, new for 1968, is the successor to the 250SL CC we enjoyed yesterday. Its SOHC straight six was bored out to the max, 2778 cc, delivering 160 hp at 5500 rpm.
I can’t tell the difference between the ’68 and the ’69, can you? From what I can see, both years’ US 280SEs have those bullet amber lights, while the ’70s and ’71s all have fog lights there instead. (Commenter Paul points out ’69s have headrests, as this car does, but I see ’68s with and without.) I love these color-keyed wheel covers. What a clean, elegant design. Only 1390 280SE cabriolets were built between 1967 and 1971. This one needs a good washing, and it has no plates so I hope it runs. Otherwise it looks wonderful for a 44 year old car.
Delicious leather and wood, in nice shape too. Instrument cluster is up above the dash for maximum visibility. AM/FM Blaupunkt and factory air. What’s that under the dash on the left?
It’s a first-generation Becker cassette player. (This photo is from an ad.) That’s got to be rare. Can’t tell if it’s mono or stereo, they did make a mono version (model 356) and I don’t see any speaker on the door.
You could get an eight-track option in the 1968 Mustang, but I didn’t see one. To my eye, both cars have surprisingly similar post-fin ridges. 10 more inches of length in the Mercedes. A ride in its back seat is sure to be far more comfortable than Mustang’s. I always had my knees in my teeth in the back of our family’s ’66 coupe.
What’s under the Mustang’s hood? An inline six like its neighbor? That would be the Falcon’s 200 cubic inch (3.3L) one-barrel inline six, rated at 120 hp. Hardly comparable to Stuttgart’s SOHC, and an uncommon choice in any case. Most ’68 Mustangs like this one had the 195 hp 289 V8 or the 302 with two barrels (210 hp) or four (230 hp). Top option was the 325 hp 390 V8. Ticking off the GT package option got you the 4V 302 or 390, with GT badging and other cool stuff, which we don’t see here, but you could cook up a sleeper with any V8. Brochures offered the 390 hp 427 Cobra V8, but a strike kept it out of any ’68 Mustangs. (Thanks roger628 for clearing all this up.) So many choices!
Two of the most archetypal faces in automotive history. How similar are their specifications?
- The 1968 Mercedes 280SE cabriolet is 193″ long and weighs 3495 lbs. Four-speed automatic, unit body. Four wheel disc brakes and independent coil spring suspension. 0-60 in 10.5 sec, top speed 115 mph, 15 mpg.
- The 1968 Ford Mustang convertible is 183″ long and weighs 3112 lb. Three-speed automatic, unit body, four wheel drum brakes (front discs optional), independent coil springs up front, but a leaf-sprung solid axle out back (it’s a Mustang). I would guess the 289 or 302 is good for 0-60 around 9 or 10 sec, maybe 110 mph tops, mileage in the high teens.
Oh yes, one more thing, 1968 Mustang convertible base price, $2814. With a 289 V8, automatic, power steering and brakes, radio, around $3400. 1968 Mercedes? NADA guide says $9967. Your choice?
Mustang all day long for me.
If I would have had $10 large in those days, i would have taken 3 Mustangs for the price of one MB.
Mmmm just the way I like my 60s Benzes with side markers, stacked sealed beams, vertical license plate lights and floor shift. In 1970 things got even better with the shorter grille.
I’m a Mustang guy, but in this case I’d take the Benz. Very classy looking….
Well, top of the line, most beautiful Mercedes (apart from Gullwing offcourse) ever built, and i’s still boring and slow(ish) compared to the cheap American secretary car. Sometimes I feel my classic Ford-fanboy-ness is more objective than subjective 😛 And throw in the price difference for good measure, sometimes quantity just beats quality. (and I drive a Honda…)
Not a drop top guy, but I’d take the Mustang. Yeah, the MB is an engineering tour-de-force, but gawd is it ugly. MB styling didn’t become pleasing (to me) until the mid ’70’s.
Were I back home this is an easy one to answer: Mustang plus a bit of aftermarket fun, but not too much and nothing gaudy. Here in Japan, though? Parts for either would be somewhere between difficult and impossible to come by and the road tax on the 4700cc (or 5000cc) ‘Stang is ludicrous compared to the 2800cc MB, but on the other hand it would be a LOT easier to park with the 10″ length disadvantage and the gas mileage may even make up for the road tax hike (although I would have to put a TON of bliss-filled miles on it). The MB has MUCH better street cred here than a crude, old American muscle car. Seeing as how I could not possibly care less than I do now about street cred, I’d still take the Mustang here, in Acapulco Blue Metallic, please.
I love the Benz, but wow – was that expensive. For that kind of money a guy could have bought the final Imperial convertible and still had money leftover.
Two completely different markets, and each one of these cars was king in its respective niche. To choose? If it was my own money, Mustang. But if I could pick it out today (perhaps as my CC-supplied lease car? 🙂 ) then the Benz, since I have already had one 68 Mustang.
A secondhand Gullwing for me ;o)
The 302-4V and the 390 were stand alone options not tied to the GT package. No 427s were ever built, even though the early edition brochure says so. The big strike in the fall of ’67 monkey wrenched a lot of Ford’s plans.
The only 1968 Ford products to have a 427 were a handful of Cougar GTEs. Like they had just enough engines to do one model.
Fixed it, thanks! For a quick Capsule I depend on you experts out there.
No question the MB is a better car, from the standpoint of quality, engineering, fit and finish, etc. But is it really 3 to 3.5 times better than Ford? Twice as good as a Caddy?
I’ve long held that the chief reason for MBs success in the US luxury market is it’s exclusivity. Good cars, w/o a doubt, but I do doubt most buyers really cared that much about it being more of a “driver’s” car. The guy who could maybe finagle his way into a new Caddy just couldn’t get himself into a new MB, and that, I suspect, was the appeal.
A new De Ville ragtop that year would have set you back $5,736. Double the mustang, but still more than $4K less than the Benz. You could have the De Ville and a well equipped ‘stang for a bit less than the cost of the Benz.
Given the choice we are presented, I’d take the Mustang. I’d take the $6,500 surplus and use it as a large down payment on a house.
I would much rather have a ’68 Volvo 144 than either one in the picture!
Funny to see the two cars together, the MB says to me: “stuck in the late ’50’s, early ’60’s”, the Mustang says: “meet me in the future…”
The Benz is a properly “grown-up” car, the Mustang is all about “youth”. Both telegraphed it pretty well. In some regards I can really appreciate the Benz now, but even as we know those Mustangs weren’t the best all around car, I think I’d go with “youth”.
Let’s see; in 1968, Mercedes along with most other cars in the world couldn’t hold a candle to domestic automatic transmissions and air conditioning. So, the LAST thing in the world I would want was a car I would have to pay a King’s ransom for would be one of these.
Of course, I seriously considered for about 15 seconds the 1953 M-B I mentioned in an earlier post, but your average American car was, for the money, so much better in many ways, cost notwithstanding. “Engineering” with all the extra maintenance and money required – well, relatively few could afford it, but those who could DID appreciate it, my junior art teacher among them.
Handling? What owner of something like this cared, at least in the USA? Perhaps a few, as the roads were much less crowded – I sure found plenty of empty space in the STL county and Illinois area, so I contradict myself…
The Mustang? Give me a Camaro or Barracuda instead…please!
’68 vs ’69 Merc? – Only way I can tell is that the ’69 would have headrests.
Thanks Paul, I see headrests on all ’69s I’ve looked at one the web, and on some ’68s. Added during the year?
They may have been an accessory. The headrest mandate took effect on 1969 models.
Mike: The Becker has the word “stereo” in big letters right under the control buttons.
I added a note that the close-up photo is from an ad. The mono version is so rare I could only find a tiny photo of one. I can’t see “stereo” on the unit in this car, can you?
Moving from author to commenter, I’ll put in my own two cents. If I had the money, I’d take the Benz in a heartbeat. The driving experience would be entirely superior in all respects except acceleration. Brakes, handling and ride must have much better performance (safer too). Those thick M-B seats, luscious leather and wood, steering and brake feel, switch feel, every touch.
It was once a common wisdom (sadly no more) that there were two ways to drive at the lowest cost per mile. Either pick up a cheap beater, drive it till it drops and get another, or buy a Mercedes and keep it for life. If you had the money.
If not, a well-optioned 1968 Mustang convertible must have been a thrill and thoroughly satisfying. No matter the convertible, its top opens to the same sky. Priceless.
If I could pick which car I’d want a ride in I’d pick the Mercedes. If I could pick which car I’d rather own, I’d pick the Mustang (by a mile).
As a matter of fact I could not own a Mercedes: it would own me. Just having been forced to work on some of these German heaps in the past has quenched any slight attraction I might have ever developed. This is one of the better looking style Mercedes I’ve seen though — quite elegant actually. The bullet parking lamps & classic wheelcovers are cool.. Okay….it’s not THAT bad…but the diahrrhea shaded interior would have to go (no pun intended).
I could just sit & stare at any original ’67 or ’68 Mustang for extended periods & be content. Such a beautiful car.
“Just having been forced to work on some of these German heaps…” I wonder if that’s why it’s sitting without plates.
@TheCollector: in the early 1970s our next-door neighbours owned a Gullwing. I remember seeing it in Road & Track’s classified ads for $6000 when they needed to sell it…
Mustang. Whatever dynamic or physical qualities the Merc may have had in the 60s to justify that ludicrous price tag, can be matched or surpassed today by virtually anything. The Mustang is no doubt inferior in those respects too, but if one wanted to, they can look through virtually any catalog and find entire kits to modernize the suspension, brakes and chassis. Of course if we’re talking about pure originality, the Mustang still wins because it has a cheap and abundant supply of maintenance parts available for it.
Plus I have never even remotely cared for the styling of Mercs of this era. They actually look pompous and snooty. That ornate upright grill, the way the fenders angle forward towards the upper headlights… it almost looks like it’s looking down on everything else lol.
Whatever else can be said about these two iconic ragtops…Mustang’s 1968 TV campaign trumps whatever MB was doing if anything that year.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIm19J34MSY
Cheesy…FUN.
Sing along with the bouncing ball…”Only Mustang makes it happen….”
The radio immediately reminds me of similar unit in my grandfather’s Mercedes 200, with black plastic knobs with concave surface, with those chrome ornaments.
If only MB made this car ten years later, it would be a true Brougham. I’m loving the twenty year old styling that was not too old in 1968 to become classic. Bonus points for the fifties-style wheel cutouts (’58 Caddy?) and front fender profile (Forward Look Fury). I think I may have been mistaken in believing that pre-eighties MB designs were not staid. What a feat the company must’ve pulled to get from the gullwing to this. The Mustang looks positively sexy.