I’ve really been neglecting my huge stash of donated Road & Tracks, so let’s fire up the scanner and get back on track. Let’s put the time machine back to that great car year of 1969, and ponder this shoot-out of four of the most classic sports/GT cars of the era: Corvette Sting Ray, Mercedes 280SL, Porsche 911T and Jaguar XKE.
Four very different cars, to put it lightly; they could hardly be more different. The Corvette is of course the big burly and traditional American; the Mercedes is posh, elegant, refined but capable; the Porsche 911T is the most genuine sports car of the bunch; and the Jaguar XKE is Great Britain’s great last hope in this arena.
Right off the bat, it should be noted that the Corvette was equipped with the mildest power train available, the base 300 hp 350 (5.7L) V8 teamed up with the three-speed THM automatic. Obviously much hotter engines were on tap in 1969, all the way up to the 435 hp tri-power 427. But for most drivers in real world situations, the classic 350/350 combo was actually highly ideal. Smooth, refined and powerful, the Corvette had the second fastest 0-60 time (8.4 seconds). But it let down in the areas where its deficiencies were all-too obvious: ride, noise, vision, steering, ergonomics, and appearance (subjective, obviously).
The Mercedes was essentially the polar opposite of the Corvette: its little 2.8 L six was busy and overworked, being the slowest of the bunch ((0-60 in 9.9 sec.) but it had a stellar ride, and its quality was of course unparalleled.
The Porsche 911T had the weakest (125hp) of the 2.0 L sixes, and was second slowest to 60 at 8.8 seconds. But unsurprisingly, its handling was the best, and for serious sporting aspirations, unbeatable.
The XKE was the quickest to 60 (8.0 sec.) and had a fine ride and its noise level was low, but had shortcomings in terms of ergonomics, heating and ventilation, and somewhat surprisingly, on exterior styling. The XKE was getting a bit old by 1969, and looking somewhat dated.
I would have thought the Mercedes would have smelled best inside. Great read!
I’d still pick the Corvette.
I’m surprised the Corvette is so close in price, but this was before we left the gold standard.
The gold standard has less to do with it than the Deutschemark being pegged to the US Dollar at 4:1 until the early ’70s.
The euro cars still are priced to sell in this period. The Jag in particular is built to a price.
I wonder which is worth the most today?
the Mercedes probably?
Jags were laggers in resale value but maybe the XKE is the exception
Interesting comments at the end. I’m an engineer, would I have picked the Mercedes? At this point I think I’d rather have the Porsche.
Definitely the Porsche. My uncle had a duplicate Corvette. It was different but not impressive to my 12 year old self. Older Corvettes are more appealing to me.
I’ve driven a few 911 examples – 70s cars. They impressed me much more that 70s Corvettes. Each time I mentally listing the similarities and differences between the Porsche and the aircooled Volkswagens which I’ve owned over the past 30+ years. I’d love to own an early 70s 911T but they are beyond what I’m interested in spending on any car.
It’s uncomfortable to see such a slow E-type
The initial E-type could reach 60mph in 7.1 seconds and attain a maximum speed above 150mph
Even Series II can achieve 142mph and a 0-60mph time of 7.2 seconds
smog control was a real blow to E-type
Of course, it also has something to do with the special training edition that British magazines got
This must have been a real E-type instead of a ringer. The ‘150 MPH’ E-type was turning over one thousand RPM past redline to reach that speed and trim was flying off. The fastest ones sold to the public(1967 265 HP 4.2 liter in the US) were capable of closer to 126 MPH. This one had a larger air intake to address endemic overheating issues and rudimentary emissions controls, which made it a bit slower than the fastest standard models of two years earlier. I have a stack of period magazine tests. Nobody with any objectivity ever got near the speeds Jaguar’s friendly press distributed, and Car and Driver explained what it would have taken based on their familiarity with the cars and their gearing.
This also holds true on horsepower numbers on modified cars. My 1979 Lincoln MkV has a Tmeyer 434 stroker in it. It was dynoed at 277 rwhp and 380 fl/lb @2400 rpm. At that level of power it’s still a hoot to drive and it isn’t going to explode any time soon.
Whenever I am at car show, it’s just amazing the power the guys claim, all without properly dynoing the car.
Back in the day, the same was going on about top speeds. The fact is driving any car from 1969 at 140 mph is suicidal due to the tires and aerodynamics of the time. Added to that is the speedometers of the era weren’t very accurate.
I know that the E-types on sale can’t reach 150mph
but my understanding is that they can reach 135mph.
Besides, as far as I know, the speed of 4.2 is slower than that of 3.8
Fun read! Think I still have a copy of this R&T in a box of old car mags down in my basement.
I happen to currently own both a ’70 Corvette LT-1 (the top dog small block ‘Vette of the era) and a ’70 911T (a former vintage racer built to “ST” specs). The comparisons described in the article are still valid.
Both cars deliver total sensory thrills in spades, albeit very differently. Just the view out the front looking over the endless hood and sharply raked flanks of the ‘Vette is a prurient delight. Both machines are wild, raw, untamed. The perfect antidote to today’s overly sanitized, coddled world.
What a great pair of cars you have! Any pics?
Here ya go. Hopefully these upload…
And the LT-1 ‘vette…
Roomates…
When I drive my Lincoln MkV I feel the same. It’s really not all that fast but the vibrations and sounds it makes almost compensate for how hard it is to maneuver in parking lots!
None of these cars marched the 0-60 times of many muscle cars that were half the money but at least these could brake and go around corners.
Impressive that the XKE was only 500 bucks more than the Corvette. The 280SL was a whopping grand more than the Porsche !. People rave how well built old Mercedes were but then they had to be at 50% more than the competition.
I was privileged to have had 911s and Corvettes as new vehicles at the same time. My 2001 Z06, was a great contrast to my company 996, but they achieved broadly similar results, even fuel economy, though the ‘Vette was quicker. The Porsche was a cabrio, which got replaced by a 997s coupe, which was closer in performance to the Chevy. Finish was, of course, leagues better on the German cars.
I loved them both and was able to fully explore their capabilities on German roads and tracks – as the commenter above says, equal but different thrills. Still have my C2 Corvette, but want another 911, either an F model, or a pre facelift 997s would fit the bill nicely!
Reading old reviews like these makes me wonder. In many ways, the impressions of the testers then fit with our notions of what these cars were and how they compared, but how much of our notions were driven by reviews like these? How much internal bias did the testers bring to their impressions of the machines? The English car was of course classy, the American one brash, and the German pair precise and technical.
What would a modern audience make of these very cars? If the badging could be covered over (I mean, obviously the Porsche 911 is a 911, but what can you do), what would a young enthusiast today, whose frame is only modern cars, make of these cars? Would her impressions be the same as the period reviewers?
“Wow, this is slow, noisy, and cramped.”
That goes without saying…
Mostly curious about what the thoughts would be in comparison to each other
I would have to second that opinion. These cars all lack the comfort and convenience features that everyone takes for granted now. Power windows and seats, cruise control, and especially key less entry. Then just wait until they went to the gas station and filled up!
In 1969 I was in the eighth grade at Saint Jarlath’s Catholic school, and anxiously awaiting stating high school the next fall. I was already a car and bike guy. My choice (dream!) would probably have been the Vette. It still had an immense cache with my generation. The Porsche didn’t have the brute muscle that a big block Corvette could deliver. The Mercedes was for old men, and the Porsche was for the effete snob. Oh, the Jag was for the Swinger, though I didn’t really know exactly what that meant, at the time.
When two of my cousin’s came back from the War they both bought used Corvettes, one a big block and one a small block. Those were my dream cars, and they deserved them after what they’d been through.
Perhaps I am an effete snob.
It is not generational – in the summer of 1969 I was between my sophomore and junior years of high school and just a few months away from my license.
To me this was not close. I lusted for the 911. I could have lived with Benz. The Jaguar would have been fun but a headache. I would not take the Vette if you paid me – and I did get to drive some friends late 60’s vettes over the next few years – what a complete nightmare to handle (limited feel and responsiveness, heavy front end) and the quality was a joke -but a beauty no doubt.
Today I have been driving 911s for a long time. My opinion of the new Vettes (last 3 generations) is much higher though I mourn the loss of the clutch in the latest. The Benz is still OK. Do not like the current Jag.
Seeing as these were made 20 years before I was born, and a lot of the tropes of “American cars” “german cars” “British cars” mentioned through the article had largely been eroded away to some degree by the 90s, I definitely have a different point of view. Granted I’ve only have actual seat time in the C3 Corvette so I can only judge them from the inside/out looks visibility and other non driving perspectives, though I can safely assume Scampman’s probably correct with the driving metrics. The Mercedes looks like a converted sedan where the other three look like sleek sports cars, the Corvette looks the most contemporary with today’s styling(for better or worse), flashiness is injected into every grand tourer, even the Germans, the 911 looks like, well, a 911, shed of flares spoilers huge wheels and graphics found on so many examples, and it’s most certainly the one most analogous to modern performance and engineering dynamics (at least until the rear end comes around), and the E type I think would be perceived relatively similar now as it was then, a classic design appealing for the sake of its classic design slightly marred by a few unattractive regulation driven updates. What’s probably most strange through modern eyes that three of the four expensive grand tourers use hub caps or wheel covers!
I yearn for the diversity of approaches though, modern day automakers even in this niche category make a concerted effort to march lockstep with the most contemporary trends in engineering and major styling traits and result in cars that are relatively indiscernible in driving experiences besides the badges, have very similar suspensions, powertrains and powertrain placements, and it’ll just get more that way as EVs creep in, but here you have four very different approaches to engineering and image, yet they all have their own pluses and minuses appealing to varying types of buyers.
I think the ownership chart is interesting, only the Porsche gets a fair score from dealer experience and I would have expected Mercedes to do better in resale value. Dependability and parts availability falls perfectly inline with what assumed of them.
I have driven a few C3 Corvettes and they were all 350 automatics, which made up the vast majority of the cars.
First, the SBC and THM350 make for a very slick powertrain. The a/c is cold and there are power windows. The rest of the car is not as well presented. When the car goes over a bump the whole structure quivers. You can see the front fenders jumping around at different rates. There are rattles, squeaks and groans. It would not make a good long distance car.
High end luxury cars always have rapid depreciation which explains why the Daimler has lower than average resale value. That said, these cars were built to the highest standard with the best materials available. Once they depreciate to a certain level they will stay there. The car won’t fall to bits in ten years like the Jaguar will.
The current model Jaguar F-Type, Porsche 911, and Corvette still have three different layouts compared to each other along with three different engine configurations and placements. The Mercedes was and the current equivalent still is more of a grand tourer, while the 911 has been moving that way with other models taking up the slack.
The main difference is that the casual enthusiast and many reviewers don’t have any place where they can safely and routinely explore any of their dynamic limits, certainly not an an ongoing or repeatable basis. As wild and woolly as the oldsters were at the time, many of their characteristics “on the edge” were/are evident at far saner speeds.
“As wild and woolly as the oldsters were at the time, many of their characteristics “on the edge” were/are evident at far saner speeds.”
Yes, that is absolutely the case. Both my ’70 911 “ST” (with it’s semi-race spec 2.5L flat six) and ’70 Corvette LT-1 (completely stock, but with 4.11 rear end) are not fast/quick by modern standards at all…a new Camry would easily smoke the LT-1 in a drag race. But the sounds, feel, dynamics (even with “modern” radials) are all old school and can be fully appreciated, even close to the limit, at relatively moderate (read: more or less legal) speeds.
Can you do this with a modern 700+ horsepower “supercar”? Not a chance.
I was surprised to read (on the 2nd page of the article itself) that “Porsche has had its full share of problems with the 6-cyl 911 series”
Even though their example started fine, etc. they mentioned it wasn’t prone to “excessive backfiring” and “a big thirst for oil”.
While I’m by no means a Porsche expert, this is the first time I’ve ever heard about any problems with the engine. But I never followed the marque that closely.
Maybe it was one of those open secrets at the time?
Almost every generation of 911 6-cylinder engines has had its own particular/peculiar issue, whether air or water cooled. None have been insurmountable, and the older the car, the more likely it has been corrected, sometimes at cost to the manufacturer and other times at cost to the consumer.
A buddy of mine had a 69 vette with the 427 and manual transmission. He said he was the most hated guy in multiple counties because he spanked everybody he raced. That would have been in the early 70’s and of course only hearsay. Google says 0-60 is low 5’s so about as fast as you could go stock unless you had an AC Cobra. He sold it online around 15 years ago to someone in Scandinavia. The buyer went crazy for it and had it loaded on a carrier two days after the bank transfer went through. He laughed when he told me and said if he would have waited longer he likely would have made a lot more money.
Whichever earnest plonker ever came up with the spurious chart n’ ranking system in roads tests should never have been allowed out. It’s a load of bollocks that has blighted road tests forever. Who gives a flying furball if meaningless and subjective numbering process gave higher marks for seat comfort than steering feel, or rated appearance over sado-masochistic tendencies? The only meaningful measure is to be extracted is of wind noise, hot and and plentiful all round.
No criticism of our esteemed Editor for putting this up – these tests are often fascinating, even if only as artifacts from history – but this one is good only for the performance charts, the rest being blather about what-rated-what in their furball system before telling the reader to choose for himself anyway!
I’m also a bit curious about the Corvette figures. According to this, this boggo model auto is able to rev well over peak power to get markedly the best top speed, with more frontal area than the Jag or Porsche and 400-odds lbs more weight. Maybe it was very finely, er, tuned for their pleasure by GM…
I agree that this was not a particularly fine comparison test. But keep in mind that it was titled “Luxury GTs”, not “sports cars”. Meaning that the objective criteria of comfort, ergonomics, noise, etc. are actually not at all insignificant. These cars were targeted to buyers who would most likely use them as daily drivers. If you’re commuting on LA’s freeways 45 minutes twice a day, and then drive to Tahoe or Las Vegas on the weekend, these are all very real considerations.
This was not one of those balls-out comparisons that emphasized pure speed and handling. If so, the Corvette would have showed up with a 427 and manual, and the Porsche as a 911s.
As to the Corvette’s top speed, it is a bit ambitious, but top speed does not always correlate to power peak. That’s a fact of gearing, and this one seems to be a bit undergeared since its top speed appears to be limited by the engine’s ability to rev and not by its power. That’s not uncommon.
And weight does not have much correlation to top speed; it’s aerodynamics and power. The Corvette may be slippier than you think.
But yes, a bit of “power tuning” may well have been an enhancer too.
What’s going on with the driver’s side rear wheel on the XKE in the last picture? Is is in a puddle, or missing?