Road and Track tested and compared the Big Three import luxury sports sedans in their Feb. 1973 issue, and the results make for interesting reading. One thing is clear: the state of the art at the time was a long way off from what we would get used to in just another ten or so years, most of all in engine management systems. All three of these still struggled with carburetors along with emission control systems that negatively affected their driveability, performance and economy. Meanwhile, the European versions of the BMW and Mercedes were available with fuel injected high-compression engines that were a delight, but of course dirty too.
It was a bit painful to note the stark differences, but the US was pioneering emission regulations and eventually the technology solutions were applied world-wide. In the meantime, Americans had to make do, and these cars offered a number of qualities that the domestics didn’t, hence their growing popularity.
Back to the reality at hand: these three were very different cars, in R&T’s analysis, although I wouldn’t consider the BMW and Mercedes to be all that different. Obviously the BMW E3 was designed to compete against the Mercedes W114/115 mid-range cars, although BMW’s emphasis was clearly more on performance and sportiness. The Jaguar was of course in a league of its own, as all Jags had essentially been almost forever.
The Bavaria was a US-only version of the E3, created at the instigation of BMW importer Max Hoffman as the original 2500/2800 sedans did not sell well and were considered to be too pricey. The Bavaria had less standard equipment, but it did get the larger 3.0 L version of the M30 six, rated at 170 hp. Unfortunately, it was saddled with an automatic, the less-than stellar Borg Warner 65. And the tested version didn’t have the optional rear anti-roll bar, blunting its full handling potential. That actually put it at a disadvantage against the other two in what should have been its forte. And it had driveability issues, especially when cold, requiring two to three attempts to keep it running.
But in character, it was still the sportiest–and quickest– of the three, with very good power steering. Its ride quality was deemed the worst in the group; not surprising given the well-known capabilities of both Mercedes and Jaguar in that department. Its interior was well designed, with good space utilization, visibility, the best dash, and decent seats. It was also the cheapest by a healthy margin, by some $1,500, so in terms of affordability, the Bimmer was clearly the winner. Equipped with the rear anti-roll bar and the manual, the Bavaria would have taken greater advantages of its inherent abilities, and scored higher.
The XJ6 provided the starkest contrast to the other two. It was of course handsome and elegant, is not really overtly sporty. Its interior offered the usual British charm in terms of wood and leather, but its accommodations were the tightest, with its rear seat being by far the least commodious of the trio.
The venerable 4.2 L XK six acquitted itself fairly well, considering that it was now a quarter of a century old, although it would soldier on for quite some time yet. Its very long stroke was a plus in around-town driving, but made it sound more strained at higher speeds. It was of course the largest engine by a considerable margin, but due to the Jag’s weight, its performance just barely equaled the Mercedes, both well behind the BMW. They both took 11.7 seconds in the 0-60; pretty modest for such expensive cars. Such were the times, unless one could find the rare exceptions.
The Jag’s handling was deemed to be roughly the equal of the BMW’s, but its balance of characteristics was different. At lower speeds, the Jag excelled, in part due to its lower center of gravity. Its assisted steering was quick, but lacking in feel. Thanks to the low center of gravity and beefy wheels and tires, the Jag beat the others in terms of outright cornering power.
But its ride had to took a second seat the the Merc’s. Its suspension didn’t like bigger dips and bumps, presumably for lack of travel, but on smooth highways it was very good. Braking was “worst in group”, as were instrumentation, controls, and heating/ventilation. Not surprising.
The Mercedes sported the new DOHC version of the six. This engine used the block and innards of the familiar SOHC unit, but had a new hemispherical head with dual cams. Combined with fuel injection, this engine made 185 hp in Europe, meaning a worthy competitor to the BMW six, which was of course precisely why it was created, as the old six couldn’t keep up. But in the US version, it had a four barrel Solex carb, lower compression and other factors that lowered that to a mere 130 hp.
Like the BMW, it too had driveability issues, in this case when warm. There was surge noted at light throttle openings, and a big flat spot at medium throttle. This US-version carburated 2.8 was a dog, frankly, especially so when it showed up in the bigger and heavier W126 S-Class, where it rather embarrassed itself, the car and the brand. This was from the pioneer in fuel injection. Did MB really think that the additional $250 was going to deter sales? Not.
The 280’s automatic was the very last iteration of their 4-speed fluid-coupling box. It had been modified on recent years to make it less herky-jerky; in this case a bit too much so, in that the shifts now came too slow. It was to be replaced shortly by the new torque converter 4-speed box.
Typically, the Benz was a very well thought out car, and scored high. It lacked the visceral driving experience of the BMW and the elegant styling of the Jag, but except for certain deficiencies of its motor, it was hard to beat.
Handling and high-speed stability were the best in the group, as was its power steering and brakes. It exhibited the characteristic Mercedes quality of being able to take on any road at any speed in any condition better than any other car, period. That’s what really distinguished a Mercedes back in the day, and that was the quality that was so superior to cars that tried to emulate certain aspects of it, like the Cadillac Seville, but failed to understand what it took to actually achieve them.
The Mercedes lost only two categories: driveability and seat belts.
The Final Scoring:
The Mercedes won with 324 points. But the BMW was quite close with 320, and at a significant lower cost. Tha Jag came in third with 307 points.
As to reliability, R&T made some assumptions based on the fact that these cars had been around for a few years in previous versions. The Mercedes was given top honors by a healthy margin, followed by BMW and then the Jaguar. No surprises there.
For what it’s worth, I doubt many buyers of these cars were strongly influenced by tests like this, as they had rather different images and appeal. The BMW was strongly favored by serious drivers, as well as a growing coterie of younger buyers very attracted to the brand, the youngest one by far–in the US.
The Mercedes was of course favored by those that were attracted to the powerful social prestige the brand had developed, as well as those who were the most rational, but then they most likely were gravitating to the diesel models.
And the XJ6 was of course visually seductive, and its powers inherently fell upon those that were most susceptible to them. Given certain objective limitations and its poor reliability record, that suggest a highly emotion-driven lot.
As to myself, a Bavaria with a manual and rear sway bar would have been my pick, but I would have preferred to wait a couple of years until the fuel injected 3.0 Si came along.
So why the reluctance to fit US-spec cars with fuel injection when that would have helped so much with drivability, fuel economy, and low emissions?
Cost. These systems were still made in relatively small quantities and the cost was high, some $250, or about 5% of the car’s total cost.
Yet VW was installing standard FI in every Squareback and Fastback it sold in the US since 1968, although that was a different system. Still…
I wouldn’t think cost would be much of a deterrent for most buyers of these cars. As has been noted elsewhere on CC, sales of the two German brands rose considerably throughout the ’70s even as currency fluctuations caused their prices to skyrocket in the US.
Agreed. I said that in my commentary. It was a mistake, in retrospect, and one that was soon fixed, mostly.
Part of it may also have been production capacity; Bosch would have had to ramp up considerably to meet the demand. That doesn’t happen overnight.
Didn’t VW start using EFI on the air-cooled engines because it was the only way they could pass US emission standards?
The Beetle and the bus didn’t get FI until 1975.
I have no reason to think that they couldn’t have also used the same emission control schemes on the Type 3 as on the Type 1 and 2.
I wonder if it was it also emissions? I have some notion that mechanical injection was even dirtier than carbies, if more power-productive.
The higher end S-Class (280SE) and the V8s all still had their fuel injection. As did the BMW 2002Tii.
Having owned (briefly) all three; the Bavaria (without the automatic transmission) would be my choice if I wanted to do it all over again.
Sooth & potent six cylinder engine, delightful “snick-snick-snick” manual transmission, the dayum near perfect (for me) compromise on ride quality and twisty road handling, chair height seats, huge trunk, the most reliable of the three, a most pleasing (if somewhat sterile in black) interior.
None of them had an air conditioner that can tame the Heat & Humidity that soaks New Orleans all too much of the year, though.
The second picture shows a stunning contrast in roofline/height of the three cars with the Jaguar looking as if from a different dimension instead of just across one country and a (barely by a very competent person) swimmable channel.
All three cars appeal greatly on the surface, but in completely different ways. I’d imagine if I were a shopper and actually compared all three in person and drove them I’d almost immediately have ascertained a clear favorite as their characters seem so distinct. I imagine a lot of people experienced that with their particular favorite based on whatever they happen to value the highest.
Some will set the grammar police on me, but the Series I-II XJ6 was a four door coupe if ever there was one.
Well, the original 4-door did have the same wheelbase as the 2-door coupe.
“If there ever was one”. No, there never was something called a 4dr coupe. So there.
Está enganado, existiu sim o Rover P5 coupé tinha 4 portas e uma linha formidável muito, mas muito mais bonito que a berlina normal. Foi lançado em 1962.
Absolutely see your point; the lines work as well or better than most 2 door coupes.
But then you look at their actual 2 door coupe on this platform…
Paul, I have long thought this also!
Once again, we agree on a car.
I was about to make a snarky comment about the Mercedes trying to pass itself off as a “sports sedan”, but then I read further and discovered that it was the best handler of the group. I’m sold – it WAS a sports sedan.
Maybe it was a bit like a similar experience I had – I never though of the late 80s Honda Accord as a sports sedan, and certainly not in the sporting league of my mid 80s GTI. Then I started reading some handling measurements in magazines and discovered that the Honda had better numbers in almost every metric. The VW felt sporty. The Honda was objectively more sports-car-like, even though it never subjectively felt like it. I would guess that BMW v. Mercedes in this test may have been analogous.
I think the Mercedes was the best long term proposition of the trio since Jaguar was already developing its “every part falling off this car is the finest British workmanship” reputation, plus rust issues and according to my uncle who owned two Bavarias before switching to a Mercedes S class the BMW tended to self destruct at 50,000 miles.
Given a choice I would downsize to the BMW 530i since IIRC the 73 didn;t have the troublesome thermal reactors yet.
I found the Bavaria to be very appealing back in the day. I’d considered a slightly used one before deciding on my ’77 Coupe de Ville, but they were very hard to find, even in the Bay Area. I found one of the more upmarket models, just one! at a Datsun dealer. It had a few problems so it was out of consideration. I have kept a look out on CL over the years but they are now extremely rare. My older brother bought a new BMW 320I with five speed that year. I was quite impressed by that car.
The Mercedes 280 as a sports sedan is a bit of a stretch for me. The other two no problem.
I had a female friend who had one while an undergrad at CAL between 77-81 in blue. I recall her telling me the week she lost it one day in 1980. The car caught fire and burned one night in the apartment building garage. Probably electrical short?
I’m terribly biased as a long time BMW fan whose first was a 2800 Bavaria. I even recall buying that R&T magazine at a swap meet sometime in the 80’s. While not without it’s flaws it was a spectacular car. With a 4 speed, V8s could rarely keep up in the 80s. I typically got 20MPG. A midsized car outside, a large car inside. It loved cruising at 80+ MPH even with a short ratio’d 4 speed which meant 4K+ RPM, it would just sing at 4500 RPM. But those carbs, those evil carbs. I could tune it to either a good idle, with a flat spot the size of Nebraska at any speed when the loud pedal was pushed, or barely idle and minimize said flat spot. Not unique to the era, but vile devices. Points and condenser distributor, the points would barely last 5K miles, if that. Plugs would last longer as long as you didn’t want to rev over 5500 with peak power at 6K. Truly a car that didn’t ask, didn’t beg, but screamed for electronic ignition and FI. Which mine eventually received and just transformed it. But with a 4 speed, it was a distinctly upmarket hot rod for the era, albeit with lousy heat and A/C. But it was a car from the 60s.
Ironically, as tested, the BMW still had a terrible auto box, just not as bad as the one before it. The 4 speed was immeasurably better.
It’s almost laughable that the Jag’s rear seat is mentioned only as the “tightest of the three”: it’s got as much practical room as a Chevette, truly. As mentioned under a recent post, this very salient issue was played down in tests worldwide. It’s got to have been the case that this just knocked it out of consideration for heaps of buyers in this class.
The ride thing is interesting, though. There’s not a doubt the Benz is best for bad roads, but it’s pretty roly-poly for 90% of most user’s uses as a trade-off. It’s also very noisy, and feels as if bushed by metal over any bumps, not at all helped by horrible seats, those latter not getting any much mention in this test. In all those respects – for two people – the Jag is infinitely better. It feels like a proper luxury conveyance, the Mercedes like a well-optioned military transport. That’s not even considering the wearingly roary noises the German makes from under the bonnet (to do not quite enough). The well-outdated Jag motor is pretty silent by comparison, though it’s true it sounds unpleasant if extended.
Otherwise, this test seems pretty reflective of reality, belying frequent (and somewhat tedious) accusations of pocketry against all auto journos. (It was never all, or always. A smart reader knew where to look for the good ones). For me, the Benz is way too cold, too stiff and demanding to be the best, and the gorgeous, super-riding (and handling) Jag by far the prettiest, but I’d choose the BM, mit manual. As a thing to drive daily, to like, to see out of and fit into, let alone to flog hard on a Sunday, it’s got to win.
[A caveat. I’ve driven a 4.2 Jag, and a W114 280E Merc, but only ever driven later 6 cylinder BM’s].
Holy carp. Carbureted W126 Mercedeses in the US market? I didn’t know. When did that end?
Also, if anyone’s ever written a kind word about Borg-Warner’s automatic transmissions, I’ve never read it. They seem to have been uniformly hated for being clunky, clumsy, sluggish, and generally no damn good. I sort of wonder how it was possible for these transmissions to exist and be sold for so long, to so many automakers, in a world that also contained Turbo-Hydramatic 350s and 400s and TorqueFlite 904s and 727s for sale.
Holy deep gearing! 3.90 gears and short tires, 3900RPM at 70MPH? And <15MPG from a 2.8 litre engine? Yikes!
I had a 1974 280 sedan, and that 4-bbl Solex was utterly useless. And by the mid 80-s, getting it rebuilt was a nightmare.
We had a ’71 2800 in the mid ’70s, 4 spd 2.8 engine. A fabulous car to drive but an absolute money pit: 2 replacement heads needed in 3 years from overheating, despite being maintained by an excellent German mechanic, Herr Nettler. He said we should have bought a 280 Benz and he was right. But sick of high German prices and maintenance we bought a ’72 Skylark 4 dr 350/350, an absolutely bulletproof car until traded 5 years later for a big family wagon.