Why am I doing so many vintage reviews? Curbside Classics are all about the view of the past, but from the present, which has both pros and cons. With hindsight, we can see just how the various decisions by the carmakers unfolded over time; hence my early interest in GM’s Deadly Sins. But hindsight has its limitations too, as we invariably tend to put our own spin on history. So having done that for some 14 years, it’s interesting to me how cars were perceived in their time, and not just in terms of their 0-60 stats, but when their impact on the market and the future became significant.
No single brand had a greater (deadly) impact on American luxury brands than Mercedes. But when did Mercedes really start to become a “thing”, as something that was beginning to be felt as a threat to Cadillac? Lacking detailed US sales stats of the various import brands, my conjecture was about 1962 or 1963. This review from 1961 clarifies that very well, as it points out that US MB sales were three times higher (in 1960 or 1961) than they had been before Studebaker-Packard became the US distributor for the brand in 1957. Undoubtedly S-P’s larger dealer network played a significant role in that; just how much we’ll never know. But the years 1958-1961 was a time when there was a strong momentum away from large US cars, and their image suffered as a consequence.
This review of a 220 SE is significant, not only because it’s thorough but examines just why the 220 series was constantly sold out, despite costing as much or more than a Cadillac sedan, but was of course much smaller and had a relatively tiny 134 cubic inch (2.2 L) six cylinder engine. The review ends with this prescient statement: “It’s easy to understand why so many Cadillac owners are switching to this car”. No one can say Cadillac didn’t see it coming; they just chose to ignore it for way too long.
Yes, the 220 series was the best selling Mercedes at the time, not the cheaper 180/190 four cylinders. I might point out that on our block in Iowa City in 1962-1964, there were no less than two 220 SEs in residence; one was owned by a private practice doctor (and not an older one at that; maybe 40-42), and the other was the head of the university’s famed Hydraulics Laboratory. Admittedly he was a German, but he did buy a beautiful ’64 Studebaker Daytona coupe for his wife. There were no Cadillacs on our block, FWIW. And there were several other 220s in town.
Car Life answers the question as to why these 220s were in such demand: “general recognition of the fact tht the obviously high quality of materials and workmanship is not superficial, and that the car definitely follows through and meets the owner’s highest expectations…in short, the Mercedes has earned the reputation for being worth the price”.
The 220 SE was the top version, with a 134 hp rating, exactly one hp/cubic inch, thanks in part to its fuel injection system that always gave instant throttle response. That hp rating might not have seemed like much, but its torque was particularly impressive (152 lb.ft) for its displacement, resulting in very good all-round performance (0-60 in 12.2 seconds, comparable to many American V8 sedans at the time) and also averaging 18-19 mpg. The Tapley meter (accelerometer) readings placed it midway between a Corvette and a Valiant, and equal to a V8 Lark. Top speed was 105 mph, and the Mercedes was utterly composed and quiet cruising at 85 mph.
The column shifter for the four speed manual came in for some criticism, and Car Life wondered why a floor shift wasn’t available, given the (very comfortable) bucket seats. That option did come along shortly, within a year or two, IIRC.
The quick (3.5 turns) steering was highly rated, and “handling qualities are absolutely impeccable” with neither understeer or oversteer: “the . Mercedes’ low pivot swing axles in the rear essentially removed any remaining vices that are typically associated with the term “swing axles”. It eliminated all the significant vices of heavy live rear axles, and played a key part in the Mercedes’ ability to feel composed in any type of driving situation, regardless of the speed, pavement condition, weather, etc.. “it sticks to the road far beyond what most drivers would believe possible”.
The relatively small (9″) but wide drum brakes with cooling fins resulted in “braking action is absolutely free from any pulling, chatter or fade”.
Car Life urged anyone who was interested in cars, even if they weren’t likely to buy one, to examine the Mercedes. “The way the car is put together, the fit of the doors, the quality of every detail, is such that you just can’t but be impressed; even a look under the hood is impressive”. And then they end with the line in the title.
As mentioned before, my family bought a 1961 220S around 1967, when I was 6, and kept it for a few years. The road test meshes with my recollections. It was a solid car that felt unbreakable, even though the engine had to be revved pretty hard for performance. The steering with bias ply tires was a little heavy, but not too heavy, for my mom when parking. The big drawback, as the article states, was the often-balky column shift. It gave my mom fits trying to get into first to ascend the steep hill to my aunt’s apartment. But it wasn’t too bad starting from rest, I think.
The carbureted 220S version was also prone to vapor lock in the mountains on hot days — wonder if that was not an issue with the fuel injection? Otherwise, the only negative was at the red leather seats would bleed onto your clothes if you were wet. 🙂
One memorable incident was on a stretch of newly-opened Interstate 40 west of Newport, Tennessee. We were returning from a Sunday drive in the Smoky Mountains. With little traffic on the road, a young guy with a new Barracuda decided to show off to his girlfriend by flooring it. My dad, being my dad, decided to keep up with him. Our top speed couldn’t match his, but from the Car Life test, I assume we hit about 100. The Cuda pulled away.
Soon enough the Interstate came to an end, and we were back on a two-lane lane road doing 40 mph behind a truck. Clouds of smoke started pouring from the Barracuda. I still remember the almost comical chagrined look on the driver’s face as we passed him. Not only had he blown up his new engine, he’d done it in front of his girl!
The Mercedes purred on contentedly.
A commenter on the 1965 Pontiac vs. Ferrari C&D road test
A real Schadenfreude moment!
As someone who went from a ’62 Comet to a ’72 Mercedes, yes the difference in build quality, solidity, and fineness of detail was quite eye-opening. (And the Comet was a pretty solidly built car). Not to mention the driving experience itself; which was sharper, more precise, and with much more power.
However, Cadillac drivers will notice that the Mercedes engine will not be buttery smooth and quiet like a hydraulic lifter V-8. And how many Cadillac owners would want to shift their own gears? M-B seats are on the hard side unless you have a well-padded buttocks (which I don’t). As the article stated, the ride isn’t as cushy around town where we do most of our driving.
It seems that the Mercedes 300 (automatic transmission) would be more in the Cadillac class, but according to my book it listed for DM 28,500; over double the price of the 220S. So if the 220S was about $5000, the 300 was like Eldorado Brougham territory. Which may explain why I never saw any 300s on the road. Were all the 300s diesels?
Mercedes’ appeal is quite undeniable however, especially the classical good looks. Which makes me wonder if this is the genesis of the Brougham Epoch–putting upright classical grilles on U.S. luxury cars. But the Brougham stuff was “fake”, while the classic Mercedes look was a natural evolution of the pre-war styling that Mercedes retained for a much longer time than the American cars.
Were all the 300s diesels?
No; none were. Back then diesels in Germany were just for taxis and a few farmers and such. Private buyers shunned them. And MB only built low-end four cylinder diesels.
In fact, MB would not sell the first S-Class diesel (1978 300 SD) in Europe, because Europeans still were very snobby about the low image of diesels. Americans were much more open minded, and snapped them up during the Great American Diesel Boom.
Diesels only became much more popular in Europe for private car use in the 80’s, but it really took off in the ’90s due to the new direct injection turbo versions that had lots of torque and were much quieter. And of course also because the EU countries lowered the tax on diesel to encourage its use as a way to bring down fleet CO output. That approach of course went “pop” after the VW Dieselgate, and now the emphasis is on EVs. Diesel market share of new cars in Europe has plummeted.
The big 300 back in the 50s was an ultra-expensive luxury car, and used a detuned version of the same engine in the 300SL sports car.
Stephen and Paul,
One of Mercedes-Benz marketing mistakes in the north American market was as simple as the letters D and d.
For Mercedes, the upper case D stands for a Diesel engine.
However, Mercedes-Benz introduced the model W189 version of the 300 in 1957, as a replacement for the previous W186, known as the 300c. When the W189 was introduced the car’s nomenclature was 300d [lower case d]. The previous versions [a, b, c] of the W186 only had the number “300” on the deck lid, while the W189 added the small case d on the emblem. As far as I know, only the north American cars had the 300d emblem. In my back field behind the shop I stored a friend’s very rough, unrestored 1954 W186 4-door cabriolet that was marked on the trunk lid as a “300” only.
When I had my 100% original 1962 300d, numerous people asked me what happened to the Diesel engine, because the trunk lid said 300d, but under the hood was a fuel injected gasoline 6 cylinder. A few people at local car shows saw both the “d” on the rear and the fuel injection system and would tell other people it was a Diesel, even though it had a full ignition system. I had one idiot know-it-all tell me it was a rare WW2 multi-fuel Mercedes-Benz engine that started on gasoline, then switched over to Diesel when warmed up!
These old articles always seem to have more interesting metrics than other ones. I’m particularly interested in the “Wear Index”, and how a car like this compares to the Subaru 360 posted recently. I’m curious as to why that stuff gradually disappears, either
(A) the Wear Index is baloney, cars have wildly varying qualities of lubrication systems,
(B) we need those precious column inches for advertisements, or
(C) people wrote in to complain that the numbers hurt their thinky parts
The other reason (probably the main one) is that Japanese car engines just wore out more slowly than comparable-sized British or French ones. The index did not take quality into consideration.
Having owned a 1960 220SEb I understand the appeal of the car, but it was still apples and oranges in ’61/62. I’d place M-B as becoming a significant influencer slightly later, perhaps ’65 to ’70.
Though M-B quality in ’61 was indisputable, it was under-powered, the automatic was dubious, the HVAC was ineffectual, and Cadillac and Lincoln were still very high quality cars. The doctors, business owners, and lawyers we knew who desired upscale automobiles were still in the US camp. California was a unique case, and no doubt it started there, but CA is not the whole country. In the East/South/MidWest at least, it took until later in the ’60s, imo, when M-B to begin to catch up in the weak areas listed above, just when Cad/Lincoln/Imperial were losing their perception in the market as well made quality vehicles; the workmanship they had once had in some measure. Most educated, well-off, and discriminating luxury buyers still greatly preferred US luxury in 1961, but the handwriting had certainly been written on the wall.
Well, of course, MB sales started from a very low level and steadily increased throughout the 60s. But as the article points out, those sales had already tripled between ’58 and ’61.
I’ve long known about the S-P distribution deal that started in ’58, but I’ve never read anything about who was doing importation/distribution before that, and pre-WWII. Was there a M-B version of Max Hoffman or Ben Pon?
Max Hoffman was the US distributor of MB prior to S-P. They were sold (like most imports) through import dealers that typically carried numerous brands. S-P offered MB a more focused dealer network as well as a bigger and denser one.
Invariably, those import brands that survived the 1960 “Importmageddon” eventually had to create their own US distribution system, and Hoffman eventually flamed out. BMW was one of his last bigger brands to do so.
Interesting to know, thanks. I imagine pre-war import figures were relatively tiny.
That Max Hoffman was a pretty effective “influencer”, it seems.
Before WWII, the Smoot-Hawley tariffs made foreign cars prohibitively expensive. I think it was about thirty percent. It was passed at the beginning of the depression and instead of easing the crisis, made it worse.
My dad’s cousin in Amarillo bought a Mercedes in this era–before they were common in flyover country. Her husband took it hunting on roads his American sedans handled easily and broke the axle. I can’t remember if they had to ship the car to Atlanta for repairs or had to get the tools from there and parts from Germany, but it was a long and expensive process. I don’t believe they bought another.
I didn’t see anything in the review about HVAC. I imagine Cadillac’s take rate for air conditioning was at least 50% back in ’61? Just a guess. Was AC available from the factory or as a dealer installed option on the 220 SE? No AC would rule out this car for a lot of US high end car buyers.
A/C was available, but it was an underdash unit.
I don’t know, but I’m guessing the a/c take rate wasn’t yet “at least 50%” on Cadillacs in 1961.
The A/C units were designed specifically for Mercedes cars, and was a semi-built-in unit for each series cars except the 300sl. Based on my limited research many years ago, they were made in Germany by KuhlMeister, and installed by the selling dealer at first, then later M-B opened facilities at the port of entry to install the A/C units due to the increasing number of cars sold with A/C.
Another German company made an aftermarket A/C unit, these have the name Behr on the A/C face plate. The company was the primary supplier of A/C units for BMW too. In 1975 my boss and I drove up to the port in New Jersey and toured the facility where the BMW 2002 cars had A/C units installed before shipping across the USA. One of the people showing us around said they used to install the M-B units as well.
I was told the M-B cars coming into the port of Houston, destined for most of the south west states, were equipped with the Behr versions. This jives with the 1964 220s I had in the 1980s, it was from El Paso, and equipped with the Behr unit.
It would be interesting to know what Cadillac’s take AC take rate was. Wikipedia has some generic info:
The innovation was adopted quickly and by 1960 about 20% of all cars in the U.S. had air-conditioning, with the percentage increasing to 80% in the warm areas of the Southwest.[23]
By 1969, 54% of domestic automobiles were equipped with air conditioning, a feature needed not only for passenger comfort, but also to increase the car’s resale value.
Three of the four fastest growing states 1950 – 1960 were AZ, NV, and FL. Air conditioned buildings and vehicles were likely the main driver of that growth.
Yes, I’ve seen that, but unfortunately it doesn’t really help answer the question much, as a/c adoption was undoubtedly much higher in luxury cars than cheap ones.
I wouldn’t be surprised if the info is out there somewhere in a Cadillac forum or such; they tend to have a lot of build info.
By early 1964, Cadillac was saying about 75 percent of their cars were built with A/C. That was a back-of-the-envelope figure thrown around in connection with the Comfort Control automated system, not a production statistics figure.
The “finbacks” were distinctive cars though they looked a bit like a Rambler. The following model without the fins was a very handsome car, especially the coupes which are highly prized. I would say that MB caught up to Cadillac in 1974, the styling became simpler and cleaner, and they adopted integrated and more effective a/c. It was the 450 SEL of the late 70’s that put MB on the top, it was a model that had it all, most importantly performance, presence, and prestige.
I like reading contemporary road tests of vintage models. They are often more honest about shortcomings, though they are often downplayed. Articles in modern mags like Hemming’s gloss over the faults, or replace them with fanboi fawning.
Having owned a 1964 220S many years ago, I have to take issue with the reviewer’s praise of its swing axle suspension: he writes, “handling qualities are absolutely impeccable” with neither understeer or oversteer. “the…Mercedes’ low pivot swing axles on the rear essentially removed any remaining vices that we typically associated with the term “swing axles”. From my experience, this is simply not true.
My story goes back to 1972, when my wife, three-year-old daughter and I were coming home from Russian River along CA coastal Hwy 1. I entered a decreasing-radius left turn that was dusted with some gravel and had to hit the brakes quickly to scrub off speed; the car instantly snapped into sudden oversteer, the back end spun to the right, and we crashed sideways into the only manzanilla tree for three miles on the ocean side of the road, saving us and the car from plunging 40 feet into the surf. The rear window was blown out and the right rear fender was pushed in over the tire. Fortunately, a good samaritan in a ’62 MGA coupe came along, lent us his crowbar, and we were able to pry the fender off the wheel and drive the car back to Marin County.
So no, Mercedes’ swing axle did not “…essentially remove any remaining vices that we typically associated with the term “swing axles;” they left one vice – the most dangerous one – unexamined: the tendency of swing axles under load to tuck in their inside wheel and jack up their outside wheel, resulting in “snap oversteer,” which is exactly what happened to us.
There’s a reason the term “swing axle” is usually preceded by the adjective “the dreaded…” For this, you can thank its inventor, Edmund Rumpler, who patented the design in 1903. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swing_axle) This design was used by every Volkswagen, Porsche and Mercedes until 1972, and as a result, I can guarantee you there are hundreds of drivers out there who’ve had the same experience I had, and some, sadly, who were not so lucky.
I’m reluctant to respond to your accident experience, because I don’t want to try to negate your experience. But I do have to say that if you hit a decreasing-radius turn dusted with gravel and hit the brakes quickly, you might very well/likely have spun out in just about any car.
All I can say is that the MB low-pivot rear axle was used into the early ’70s, and never once have I read in any review that suggested that it was still capable of snap oversteer, and certainly not “tuck under”, which I think it wasn’t even capable of doing. This rear suspension was used very successfully in various Mercedes racing cars, and its grand finale was in the 300 SEL 6.3, which was also raced by AMG with the essentially stock rear suspension.
Was it as good as the more sophisticated IRS designs that replaced it? No, but I have never heard this system maligned, then and now.
I’m sorry for your scary crash. Given the circumstances, I’d be a bit less eager to blame it on the rear suspension. But I understand why you have.
Thank you, Paul, for your well-reasoned reply. I take your point. But I do have a question for you: if we were to remove my road conditions from the equation for the moment, would you offer the same glowing endorsement to the early swing-axle Porsches, which were notorious for swapping ends on their unsuspecting drivers, or worse, causing serious accidents in the hands of the uninitiated?
Absolutely not. All (traditional) swing axles were prone to snap oversteer and tuck-under, to varying degrees. The degree depended on several factors: rear weight bias, how much positive camber was set at rest/empty, and whether there was some sort of compensating spring, like the ’64 Corvair and the ’67-up VW.
I decambered my VWs, and never once did I experience either phenomena (except on loose surfaces/snow/ice), despite very brisk driving. My ’63 Corvair had the optional suspension which also had limiting straps, that kept the wheels from tucking under, and it had a bit of negative camber at rest. Same results.
They could be wicked, but could also be tamed to various degrees.
I have vague memories of my Grandmother Cavanaugh driving a black Mercedes. Hers would have been one of the older style pontons, so perhaps a 190? This might have been around 1962 or so. Her son-in-law must have been the influencer because he was driving one too. I remember my grandmother shifting gears in it, and also remember the black paint and red leather inside. She must not have cared for it, because her next car was a 1963 Oldsmobile Dynamic 88 in her favorite metallic blue paint to park next to Granddad’s 62 Cadillac..
My grandmother was definitely one to pay attention to the social class of her vehicles, but shifting gears on a little 4 cylinder car in the hilly Philadelphia suburbs must have been too much for her to bear.
The parents of my best friend in junior high and high school had a Fintail, about a ‘61 or ‘62, though a 190 gasoline. I drove it a few times and found it pretty boring compared to my parents’ Volvo 122S. The column shift was OK, but between that and the less revvy engine compared to the Volvo B18, it just felt stodgy. They supplemented it with a new W115 200 gasoline, also with the column 4 speed, which felt much more modern to ride in, but not really a fun car. But, these are just the 50 year old memories of a teenager’s impressions. One thing that as a budding car nut surprised me, was the 13” wheels on these Fintails. Our Volvo and even VW Beetles had 15’s, and the newer Mercedes had 14’s at least. Now, I realize that the Volvo and VW were holdouts from an older era, but I think Mercedes over-reacted to the trend for smaller diameter wheels in the 1950’s, and these cars were under-tired.
One last note. My friend’s dad was an engineer, a post-WW2 immigrant from Eastern Europe. The Mercedes fit that family. A friend of my parents, was also an engineer immigrant from Eastern Europe but a generation older than the Mercedes family, and post WW1 immigrants. They had a Hudson when I was very young, replaced with a mid-60’s Cadillac that I drove once as a teenager. The Cadillac – its size, power, and gadgets – was a novelty for me, but felt far less competent than even the 15 year old 190, let alone the W115. But I couldn’t imagine this older guy in a Mercedes.
Yes, the four cylinder models always came across as competent but not “sporty”. A Volvo with its lusty four and floor shift undoubtedly felt much more so.
It could be said that this is the car that irrevocably killed Packard. As I understand it, there were various ideas floated on how to relaunch the Packard brand, but inevitably that would face opposition from Mercedes, and S-P dealers who were very happy to be selling Mercedes products.
Packard died by a thousand cuts. No one car killed it. By 1957 there was no baking powder to make that limp biscuit rise,
I wish I had more constructive comments to add, but I have no experience with these cars other than wanting to buy one. They’re great-looking cars for not being traditionally great-looking cars. 🙂
In 1961, in Australia the then manual transmission 6 cylinder Mercedes Benz 220 SE sold directly (in the same price bracket) against the GMH assembled V8 1961 Chevrolet Belair and Pontiac Laurentian 4 door sedans, 1961 Ford Fairlane 500 4 door sedan and Chrysler Australia’s Dodge Phoenix.
All of the above cars were (in Australia) sold as high end luxury cars. As an 11 year old I recall my father saying how much better cars the American cars were. The Mercedes 220 SE was in my fathers view and many at the time a dated car with a small 6 cylinder engine and old fashioned manual transmission.
The point I am making is that in Australia a Mecedes Benz 220 SE was in the same class as a Chevrolet, Pontiac, Ford Fairlane and Dodge Phoenix. The small number of Cadillacs that came to Australia in 1961 (mostly DeVille 6 window sedans) sold for three times the price of any Mercedes Benz.
From Pat Foster’s book, Studie dealers sold 12k MBs and 103k Larks in 1961. The MB was going up and the Lark was going down fast.
Sorry, one more Fintail anecdote, this one actually about a 220. Another guy I knew in town as a youth often drove his parents’ 220. Just a few months after I bought my first car, a 1965 Volvo 122S, a few of us went snow camping on Mt Shasta in Northern California. He and I were the designated drivers. When we got back to the trailhead after a few days, our cars were under a few feet of snow and my Volvo started but the 220 would not. As I recall it cranked but wouldn’t catch. However my Volvo was reluctant to idle steadily even on fill choke, so I wedged my gloves under the throttle linkage and started putting on tire chains to get out, while the other guy putzed with his carb. Another skier came along and I’ll never forget what he said: “ The Volvo owner is warming his gloves, while the Mercedes won’t even start. You can tell Volvo knows how to build cars for cold weather.”
As a young boy I was always fascinated by the tail lights. They just seemed very intricate by the different sections and the chrome bezel. There was a lot going on there I thought. The fins left me wondering though…and not in a good way. I felt they didn’t need to “americanize” their car. The later syle I really loved. But still there was a certain cuteness to the fins.
I had a 1959,it came from Italy.They wernt imported to the US till 1960.mine was black with red leather. It was in perfect condition.So solid and trouble free.A young woman conned it away from an older man. Then couldn’t afford to maintain it .l bought it for a reasonable price and loved it for a number of years .l put some budget tires on it and hit a tree.lt saved my life,but l can’t say the same for it
All in all, I’d still rather have a Cadillac of the same year.
Many, many years ago, I came into possession of a 220 SEBC, with an engine that had thrown a connecting rod.
Long story short, the bottom of the sump had a bolt on steel plate, not the solid aluminum of the later ones.
Went to the local M-B dealer parts department, after a bit of head scratching, he turned up that the “early” engines, with the steel plate sump, had known issues with the connecting rods, couldn’t buy two, had to purchase the whole, redesigned set.
It also had the strip speedo and tachometer.
Never did get beyond bodywork and paint, someone came along and made an offer I couldn’t refuse.
Memory says it was a 61, anybody any ideas?
For any driver who’s ever experienced the phenomenon of sudden lift-off oversteer in a Mercedes, Porsche or VW, you have the German engineer Edmund Rumpler, who, in 1903, invented and patented the swing axle suspension, to thank. Or not. Its first automotive use was on the Mercedes 130/150/170H, then the VW Beetle, Porsche 356, Chevy’s Corvair, and the rollover-prone M151 Jeep. Mercedes offered a ‘compensator spring’ for the Fintail series in the early ’60s, and in ’67, Porsche passed its ‘Z-bar’ solution onto VW, who used it on the last U.S. Beetles in ’67-’68 to mitigate the problem. With swing axles, [“because the radius of the spliced half-shafts is less than half the radius of the entire axle assembly, there is greater single-wheel camber change compared to beam axle designs. “Jacking” when unloading (or rebounding) the suspension creates a positive camber change on each side and can (in extreme cases), roll the car over. Changes in camber due to cornering forces can cause a loss of rear wheel adhesion, leading to (snap) oversteer, a dynamically unstable condition that can cause the vehicle to spin.”] Sound familiar? source: https://academicaccelerator.com/encyclopedia/swing-axle