Aside from some minor trim variations, the 1967 and 1968 Mercury Cougars are fundamentally the same car. Are those small differences enough for fans to prefer one over the other?
Fortunately, I was able to take a variety of photographs of this 1967 Cougar at the 2025 Pure Stock Muscle Car Drag Race in at Mid-Michigan Motorplex, while William Oliver posted a yellow 1968 model in the CC Cohort. I’ve long felt that the 1967-68 Cougar was stylistically among Mercury’s two or three best, and it may even be the prettiest car they ever built. But I prefer the inaugural 1967 model for one reason.
And that is the 1968 model’s side-marker lights—I just think they’re too bulky. While Chrysler’s little round lights and Pontiac’s arrowhead-shaped side markers on their respective 1968 models added to their desirability, the Cougar’s seem tacked on indiscriminately. Nitpicky? Yes. But choosing one’s forever classic can come down to minor details.
Other differences are incidental: The 1967 model’s quarter-panel nameplate was rectangular, spelling COUGAR in block letters on a black background, with a cat skulking ahead, wandering endlessly toward the front of the car.
The 1968 model spells “Cougar” in flowing cursive, something one might expect from a General Motors product. I think that there’s nothing to prefer between the two, although the 1967 model’s insignia looks perhaps a bit more posh. Also notice the difference between the pale yellows: 1967’s was called “Jamaican Yellow,” the equivalent of Ford’s “Springtime Yellow”; and the 1968’s color is the evocative “Saxony,” which was the same as Ford’s “Meadowlark Yellow.” The latter yellow seems a little more harsh than the former, kind of like the difference between Lemon Creme Pie and Lemon Meringue. It’s just a preference, but I’ll take Lemon Creme. Score one more small win for the 1967 Cougar.
The interiors are similar, too, with the primary and obvious difference being the steering wheel. The 1967 Cougar has Ford’s weird cyclopic horn button, but at least it has some personality.
The 1968’s steering wheel seems like the result of the auto industry’s reluctant push toward safety. Notice that both of these Cougars have the optional “Sports Console,” a nice touch. The Cougar’s appointments were just a little nicer than the Mustang’s, enough to reassure its buyer that they were indeed getting a more upscale car for their money.
Both the 1967 and 1968 models had this chic “Mercury” emblem nestled in the driver’s side upper fender cap.
Both had a roaring cougar on the passenger side headlamp cover. Both had a distinctive “electric shaver” grille. Both have a propensity for the headlight covers to not quite line up with the rest of the grille when closed. Both are neat to see in action.
There were, however, some important mechanical differences between the two model years. The 1967 Cougar had three available engines: the 200-horsepower 289 two-barrel, the 225-horsepower 289 four-barrel, and the 320-horsepower “Marauder 390” four-barrel, so in essence, aside from having a standard V8 and no K-Code option, the drivelines were identical to the Mustang’s. This example was, I believe, an A-Code 289 (225 horsepower); being that it ran around a 14-flat in the quarter-mile with trap speeds in the high-90s, I’ll take this moment to mention that the Pure Stock Drags is home to some of the best tuners and interpreters of rules in the collector car world. It’s a really fun event.
In 1968, the Cougar buyer had a choice of five engines, from a base 210-horsepower 302 two-barrel (in the 302’s first year of production) all the way up to a 390-horsepower, hydraulic-cammed 427 in its final year of production. The only holdover was the 390 four-barrel (now producing 325 horsepower), and there was a new 230-horsepower 302 four-barrel and a 280-horsepower 390 two-barrel on the books as well. The car pictured above, a 427-equipped Cougar GT-E, sold on Bring a Trailer in February 2022 for $157,000. If the choice between a 1967 or 1968 model included this GT-E, this is clearly the car I’d choose, side-marker lights or no.
Since we’re in the comparison frame of mind, it’s worth looking at a comparison test between a basic 302 Cougar and a GT-E with the 427; Car Life tested both in their July 1968 issue, and they came away unimpressed by their performance, handling, and stopping. The 302 Cougar had no pretense of performance, so they were less critical of it than the GT-E.
The GT-E was, in addition to being a clumsy handler, not as fast as Car Life expected, turning in a quarter-mile time of 15.12 seconds at 93.6 miles per hour, barely faster than a 390 Mustang. An inexcusable lack of a limited-slip differential was blamed, but the trap speed tells us that not all of the engine’s 390 horsepower were showing up for duty. More ominously, Car Life reported that the 427 used three quarts of oil over the course of their 800-mile test. Still, Car Life was “impressed by the trim, styling, and overall quality level” of both cars.
Maybe I’m hypersensitive to small details on cars, and that’s why I prefer the 1967 Cougar (very slightly) over the 1968. It’s the same thing with Oldsmobile Toronados (1966 over 1967, please), Cadillac Eldorados (1967 over 1968, inexplicably), and Chevrolet Camaros (1967 over 1968—I think it’s the grille). CC’s tbm3fan may choose the 1968 model because of his long-term ownership, but what’s your take, and are there any similar cars where you have a strong preference between the two?
Related Reading
Cougar Of A Lifetime: 1968 Mercury Cougar – A Half Century-Long Love Affair (by tbm3fan)
Curbside Classic: 1968 Mercury Cougar – Mercury’s Greatest (Only?) Hit (by Paul N)
1967 Mercury Cougar XR-7 – How Different Is Different Enough? (by Aaron Severson)
QOTD: What Is Your Favorite Side Marker/Reflector? (by me)
My first car was a base 68 Cougar, and as much as I fell in love with it, I never got it running or on the road. And as much as I loved it, the trim details of the 67, the XR7 or the GT (or combo of all three) were additionally appealing. to me. Remembering all that, I watched this 67 at the PSMCDR closely, and was very impressed with the performance of that 289. If I had to pick, I’d take a 67 GT390 with the XR7 interior. I suppose it’s not too late?
I’m glad to see a little more publicity for the Pure Stock Drags, which has to be the greatest car event of the year. Show quality vehicles, with owners who arent afraid to wring them out to the point of potential failure. Thats what it’s all about.
How about a ’68 GT-E with a 428 Cobra Jet? Much better street engine than the hydraulic cammed 427.
Agree that the ’68 side marker lights were a bit off putting so the ’67 wins hands down.
Did anyone have a Hot Wheels Cougar like I had back in the day?
Absolutely, the Cobra Jet would be a better engine, but there’s something magic about the numbers 4-2-7, isn’t there?
Probably that association with Le Mans
Le Mans, Daytona, Sebring, Pomona…all the hottest Fords had a 427 (except for Indy cars and F1 cars).
Of course I had a Hot Wheels Cougar. It must have come with the set with the loop and jump bridge… the one with the starter that you clamped onto the top of a kitchen chair that you dragged into the den to set up the track. Had orange track and purple connectors. Of course you slapped your sibling with the track on occasion.
1969 Charger over 1968, tail lights I liked better on the 1969, plus I owned a 1969 in high school up until 1983. Wish I had it now.
I’m the opposite. I prefer the round taillights of the ’68 vs ’69. Add in the small “dot” marker lights and the solid grill as bonus’.
Second on my my 2nd gen Charger list would be the ’70.
It’s not that I don’t like the ’69 Charger, I really do, but since the Dukes of Hazzard show, everyone will say “Like the Duke boys Charger?” even if it’s a B5 blue with white top bumble bee stripe.
BTW….I do envy you for having a ’69. I owned a ’68 for a little over an hour and it being stolen crushed my soul. Even more than my brother wrecking a ’70 Super Bee.
I’ll back you on this, Clint. I think the ’68 is the best-looking muscle car ever; I even wrote about it.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/uncategorized/museum-classic-1968-dodge-charger-rt-the-most-beautiful-car-of-the-muscle-car-era/
I’m with you, 69s details looks more cohesive with the angular design of the car. The 68s round taillight assemblies are too ornamental
+3 on the ’69 Charger. I’m with you and Matt on this one. Sorry Clint, but it’s just an opinion. All of these Chargers were cool. To my eyes, the bar taillights are better then the little round ones like on the Bullitt Charger. The design seems more cohesive that way.
1970 Charger over 68/69. A ’70 was my first car. The ’69/70 dash pad without the peaked center looked better than the ’68; the ’70 had reflectors and side marker lights and I currently have a ’70 Charger 500! 🙂
1967 is Peak Car for all models as it’s the last year before safety regulations affected car design. No more toggle switches in British cars; they switched to rockers. It’s not just marker lights that changed.
I had the Matchbox Cougar, which is a 1967 so I prefer that year. My initial thought was NO there’s not difference but then I saw the side marker light even before reading the article, so that clinches it.
Beautiful and unusual cars, I’d take either year really.
I like them both, but I agree, the side marker lights on the ’68 are a bit much. At first I thought they were cornering lights!
The color of the ’67 makes me think of the light tan on a ’69 Dart GT I once owned. It also makes me think of the beige component of the two tone “Designer Cream/Designer Beige” of my ’79 5th Avenue. Maybe it shows up more yellow-ish in different lighting, though? I like it though, because it’s calm and understated, and lets the style of the car speak for itself.
And, it could be the lighting, camera, picture quality, etc, but the ’68 makes me think of a slightly radioactive version of GM’s “Butternut.” It looks a bit loud to me. I think the Cougar’s style lends itself better to more understated colors, hues more associated with a luxury car. Those louder colors work great on a Mustang, though.
Still, beautiful cars, both of them!
I had a ‘67. A previous owner painted it grabber blue and added a Starsky & Hutch stripe. 289 2-barrel, 3-speed stick, headers and glass packs. I still miss it.
I briefly owned a ‘68 XR-7, non-running, that I sold for what I paid for it ($100).
I like the ‘67 better as well, and for the same reason – looks much better without the clunky side markers.
I had a ‘67. A previous owner painted it grabber blue and added a Starsky & Hutch stripe. 289 2-barrel, 3-speed stick, headers and glass packs. I still miss it.
I briefly owned a ‘68 XR-7, non-running, that I sold for what I paid for it ($100).
I like the ‘67 better as well, and for the same reason – looks much better without the clunky side markers.
I think I agree, solely because of the marker lights. As for the steering wheels, I have had an odd fascination with both the 67 and the 68 corporate steering wheels, finding both an odd mixture of appealing and repulsive. So a draw on that score.
A good friend had a 68 Cougar when we were in high school and I got a lot of wrench time on it. That car taught me that some 68 Cougars still got the 289. This fact caused no end of difficulty with parts books, most of which claimed that such a combination didn’t exist. But my friend’s data plate proved otherwise.
That’s interesting, JP. I know that ’68 Mustangs still had the C-Code 289 as an option that was listed on the books, although I’ve read that the 302-2V replaced it at some point in the model year. It’s not something I’ve looked too deeply into, but it might be a good topic for someday.
It was actually the other way around, and also applied to Torinos. The standard Torino GT and Cougar engine at the start of 1968 MY was the 302-2V. However, FoMoCo was struck by the UAW in September ’67, and it lasted for almost 2 months. This monkey wrenched almost all of their product plans for the year, and led to shortages of 302 engines when the lines started rolling again. Priority was given to the big Ford line (Galaxie et al) , which never had 289 engines substituted. However, the smaller car lines did. Mustangs weren’t really affected because as per the early ’68 brochure, they were intended to have 289s from the start. Torino GT’s and Cougars were given 289s as the standard V8 late in the model year. The attached piece of dealer literature outlines other changes made because of this. The fallout from this strike was also the reason that 427 W-Code engines, while listed early on in several car lines, never showed up in production. The lone exception was the Cougar GTE.
Great summary, Roger…thanks!
1967 for me. I actually like the flowerpot steering wheel, also the standard interior was decontented for ’68, losing the door-mounted courtesy lamps and other little doodads. It could be restored by ordering the Interior Decor Group. I guess they had to find a way to pay for all the required FMVSS items in their inaugural year.
On the plus side, a ’68 could be had with first-in-the-industry power sunroof, via ASC.
68. To me the cursive Cougar logo is so part of the original Cougars personality I’m a little taken aback realizing it came about in 1968. I don’t like the 67 badge at all, it just looks like a piece of tin. The side markers don’t bother me, the rear ones (again)serve a more useful purpose than the 67s badge and the front ones fill the dead space of the overhang, funny enough with their clear lens I used to think they were cornering lights.
As a muscle car guy the 68s expansion of engines and trim levels really clinches it, hands down my dream Cougar would be a GT-E with the 428cj
I prefer the ’68 just to avoid that silly steering wheel from ’67. For some reason, when I was a young guy you could pick up a decent ’67 or ’68 Cougar for quite a bit less than a comparable Mustang or Camaro so there were quite a few in the hands of local teens ca. 1980. With a 289 or a 302 they were a nice driver. But even with a 390 they were not very fast.
14 flat with a “pure stock” 289? Uh huh. I’d be interested to see how the owner “interpreted” pure stock. A stock one of these would be hard pressed to get out of the 16s no matter how well tuned it was. Sounds like a cool event though!
I’m no expert but Pure Stock drags allows an overbore (maybe a stroker crank too??), rejecting carb and timing change, suspension changes to allow nose up weight transfer, and weight reduction. Everything has to appear stock but for example I’ve heard of removing the springs in the passenger seat.
The FAST league allows stroker cranks, but as far as I know (I don’t participate myself), Pure Stock has to follow the NHRA rulebook. I know they used to have a certification system for those who wanted to make it clear that their cars followed the rules, but I’m not sure that they’re doing that anymore.
I’ll stay out of this discussion not that I don’t have a connection to it.
I’m going to be the contrarian here and pick the 1969 Cougar. The only reason for that is that I prefer its concave taillights over the convex taillights of these two years.
And, just for you guys that don’t like the cornering-lamp-sized side-marker lights, the ’69 toned these down quite a bit.
I must admit though that I prefer the ’67 & ’68 front end to the ’69, and by 1970, well, that schnoz is just a little too big for me.
I agree the little details matter so my choice would be the 1967 Cougar vs 1968. However, I think Ford/Mercury should have offered a 1967-68 Cougar convertible as well. I have seen some pictures of convertible conversions and WOW. My favorite all time Cougar is the 1969 Cougar XR7 convertible. I do prefer the 1969 over the 1970 for the less embellished front end. I was a senior in high school in 1969 and remember seeing a new 1969 Cougar XR7 convertible on the dealer lot and fell in love. It was teal w/white interior and fully optioned. I wanted that car so bad I had dreams about it. However, I loved my 1963 T-Bird and Dad was going to pay my out-of-state tuition / expenses so I could start college in Miami. At some point a parent has to draw a line. If for some reason I must give up my current 1966 T-Bird convertible (doubtful) I will go shopping for a 1969 Cougar XR7 convertible.
The OP mentions a few other cars and I might disagree on his choices. I will agree on the 1967 Camaro vs 1968, only because I have experience with the 1967 when it was new. At the time the car was so sleek it made Mustangs look bloated and go all in with the SS/RS options. However, my favorite Camaro is 1969, refreshed body, and in part that is why I fell instantly in love with the 5th generation Camaro because of its retro style of the 1969. I bought new a 2011 Camaro, and still love it today. It just turned 20,000 miles and hope to keep it till I can no longer drive. The Oldsmobile Toronado’s I prefer the 1967 vs the 1966 because of the smoother headlight treatment. The Eldorado’s, now my toes curl. I prefer the 1968 vs 1967 because of the modified hood concealing the windshield wipers and prefer the front parking lights. When I win the lottery I am shopping for a 1968 Eldorado and a 1969 Cougar XR7 convertible.
Here is the 69. I’m not a big fan of that Buick accent line personally.
I think Mercury liked copying Buick…everyone knows about the ’65 Comet’s “Ventiports.” I’m kind of surprised Buick never sought litigation on those.
Once again, CC is reminding me that I briefly drove a car I had previously forgotten all about. It was 1974, I think, and I took a brief spin in a ‘67 or ‘68 Cougar; I think a ‘67. My strongest memory now that I think of it, was the height of the leading edge of the padded dashboard. I don’t think I’ve driven an equivalent year Mustang, so I don’t know if this was Cougar-unique, but I’m not short and that dash really blocked my forward visibility. It appears distinctly higher than the belt line in the interior photos above.
The 67 does seem nicer without the clunky side markers, I like the interior as well, the 68 steering wheel would look at home in a Falcon.
This gives me a chance to say I have never liked the little Mercury script badge on the front, it is jammed in a cramped place where it highlights any poor panel fit with the hood and the front end piece, and just looks cheap.
68 Charger over 69
69 Belvedere/Satellite over 68, even though the 68 tailights are nicer.
67 Camaro
68 Barracuda because round side markers.
Great looking cars in this yellow .
Some years back a buddy who owned a body shop in Pasadena, Ca. was rebuilding Mercury Cougars, I was visiting in Phoenix in February (not too hot) and found a 1968 XR7 in a self service junkyard missing only the steering column. my buddy went there the next day and bought it did a full restoration and sold it on .
-Nate
Always thought the side marker lights were odd for the car. Weren’t the rear ones just reflectors? So liked the “69”, version though. Shallow me moved on.
Waay, later when they decided to have “Cougar”, wagons, and sedans. That was just nuts.
Yep you’re correct, the rear marker is just a reflector. The bean counters got to it again as they did in also making Mercury use the Mustang’s front & rear signal & backup lights. Mercury had planned on doing a unique, integrated design for them but the accountants won out on that one.
I’m actually planning on doing a mod on my ’68 with those rear side reflectors. I want to use the front side marker light backside hardware to modify what’s needed from inside the trunk thru the quarter panels, then wire up the rears to illuminate with all the running lights. Other priority projects 1st, but sometime down the road it’s on the to-do list.
Well, I’ve got to say I love my ’68 Cougar. Have owned a couple dozen cars, but this is my 1st FoMoCo product!
Had owned several imports in the mix, Honda, Toyota, Porsche, BMW, Triumph… but grew up and stayed a GM guy 90% of the time all thru with many Pontiacs, Cadillacs, Olds, Chevy cars till finally getting one of the Ford products on my ‘lust list’.
Although I agree with you on the somewhat large, tacked on design of the new side markers for 1968, I still prefer that the car has them. Also, I didn’t want that strange 1 year only steering wheel and the ’67 interior has less details on the Decor package and also has a ton more exposed screws in very obvious places. that was resolved for ’68 as well.
here’s another shot…
I agree the 68 side marker lights and reflectors look like a cobbled up fix.
However the 68 is my choice with the 428.