Good morning! Today’s choices both come from the same dealership in New Jersey. Both have two doors, eight cylinders and are driven by their rear wheels – but the difference, as always, is in the details.
Yesterday’s limos were pretty similar on paper too, but one emerged as a far better deal. I’m calling this one a little earlier in the day than usual, but it isn’t even close. The more formal six-door passenger limo from South Dakota is the clear winner. Sorry, party pit; you’ve got the wrong engine and too many questions.
For me, the ’92 wins just because it’s a ’92 instead of an ’87. Sometimes it pays to hold out for a car that’s later in the run, and that’s especially true for General Motors vehicles. First-year vehicles from GM have historically been more or less a test fleet; it takes a year or two for the production lines to figure out how to build them, and then another year or two for the engineers to undo the damage caused by budget-cutting. This last-year Brougham should be just about as good as they got.
Moving on: Those of you of a certain age may recall that once upon a time, Ford was brazen enough to directly compare one of its cars to a Mercedes-Benz in advertising, even going so far as to ask if we could tell the difference. (We could.) Nobody in their right mind was going to mistake a Ford Granada for a Mercedes-Benz S-Class, but I admire their bravado. Likewise, no one is going to mistake a Mustang GT for an R129-chassis SL roadster, but today’s cars do have some odd parallels: both overhead-cam V8s, both rear-wheel-drive, both automatics, both, um… four-spoke steering wheels. (I knew there was something else.) But more importantly, they’re a hell of a lot closer in price than they once were. In fact, the prices have flip-flopped. Is the car with more depreciation a better deal, though? Let’s look and see.
1994 Mercedes-Benz SL 500 – $3,500
Engine/drivetrain: 5.0-liter dual overhead cam V8, four-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Burlington, NJ
Odometer reading: 111,000 miles
Operational status: Obviously runs and drives, but how well is unknown
How do you follow a legend? If you’re Mercedes, you cram the new car full of every bit of technology you can get your hands on, wrap it in fresh styling to match your current lineup, and give buyers the option of four more cylinders. The R107-chassis Mercedes SL, favorite of both record producers and their divorce lawyers, ran for eighteen years and gained a reputation for tank-like durability combined with instantly-recognizable styling. This car, the R129, is fancier, faster, and flashier, but whether or not those things are progress is still very much in question.
Yes, you could get an SL in 1994 with a V12 engine, but this one makes do with a four-cam 5.0 liter V8, making a mere 322 horsepower. (How will you manage?) That power is sent to the rear wheels through a 4G-Tronic four-speed automatic; you could get a stickshift in the six-cylinder R129, but this is not really the sort of car in which one shifts one’s own gears. This V8 has a reputation for being exceptionally reliable and durable, as does the transmission – as long as you keep up the maintenance, of course. We don’t know whether this one was maintained well or not. It obviously runs and drives well enough to make it from the dealership to this grassy area for photos, but as with any car bought from a dealer, a good going-over is warranted.
It certainly looks good, with nice shiny paint and a clean interior. The convertible top looks nice, but I get the feeling that this car doesn’t include its original removable hardtop. Can you find one? Probably. Can you find one in red to match? That’s a trickier question.
I’m also concerned about a few wonky trim pieces, and I don’t understand why the wheels are red inside. Did someone add those brake dust shields, and paint them red? And if so, why?
2003 Ford Mustang GT – $4,850
Engine/drivetrain: 4.6 liter overhead cam V8, four-speed automatic, RWD
Location: Burlington, NJ
Odometer reading: 119,000 miles
Operational status: Again, runs and drives, but specifics unknown
I go back and forth on the SN-95/New Edge Mustangs. On the one hand, they’re cheap, good-performing (even the six-cylinder ones aren’t dog-slow), and surprisingly reliable. And they’re clearly Mustangs, with enough model-specific styling cues to let you know what it is without being heavy-handed Boomer-bait retro, like the generation after. On the other hand, they have always felt cheap and tacky to me, like they’ve been biding their time until they were old and cheap enough to be the beaters they were always meant to be.
This 2003 model is sort of “default Mustang configuration”: V8, automatic, hardtop. The V8 in question is Ford’s overhead-cam Modular engine, as also seen in a bazillion Crown Victorias and F-150s. Here it makes 260 horsepower, plenty to light up the rear tires and do antisocial things. The 4R70W overdrive automatic may not be as much fun as a five-speed manual would be, but it’s reliable. Again, we don’t get any specifics on how well this car runs, but reputation is on its side.
Inside, it looks pretty clean, actually a lot nicer than these usually end up looking. The low mileage helps, I imagine. The photos in this ad are a little hard to figure out; I still can’t tell if the seats in this car are leather or cloth. There seem to be two sets of photos; I suppose they might have two Mustangs for sale and mixed up the photos. But hey, whichever one it actually is, it’s in nice shape.
Outside, it’s a little ratty but presentable. There are a few blemishes in the paint, and a dent or two here and there; unfortunately flaws like that on black cars stick out like a sore thumb. And I don’t know why the hood scoop isn’t glossy.
No one would have cross-shopped these two when they were new, but now, they’re at the same dealership and within shouting distance price-wise. You could walk in there wanting a two-door V8, and either one would fit the bill. The Mercedes is cheaper, but its running costs will be significantly higher. The Mustang costs more outright, but it’ll be a cheap date if anything goes wrong later. So which one is the better deal?
(Image credits: Craigslist sellers)
I never liked the look of the New Edge Mustangs… and that Mercedes looks very nice. The only questionable thing I see is the red colour within the wheel openings.
But for just $3500, it gets my vote and for that price, I’m gonna assume it will be somewhat of a project car.
Some kid got this passed down by his folks. Not a car guy but probably pulled the brake shields and spray painted them red because Jersey taste. I was expecting gold chains hanging from the rear view mirror but still the better car.
Easy choice. That Benz is where it’s at for a 2-door summer cruiser.
This is fun, two days in a row I have personal experience with one of the vehicles. Today it’s the Mustang. Formerly owned a 2001 GT Convertible with the stick. Never before have I found a “performance” car to be a less willing dance partner. The stick was terrible, the clutch was super heavy (cable actuated, not hydraulic), it rode like a wheelbarrow, and it felt like you were riding on the car, not in the car. We sold it after ~10 months. I talked with other similar Mustang owners, seems like it wasn’t a problem with our particular car. Voted for the Benz.
These are all very true things about the Mustang! But for me, that anachronistic character is a big part of the fun inherent in these models. You always feel you’re in a Mustang, for better or worse, and I like that faithfulness to its ethos. In a lot of ways, the SN95 was the last of the classic era pony car Mustangs, as the S197 really started it, looks aside, on its journey as a sportscar.
That’s cool Jack, enjoy them if that’s your thing. We ended up with a Cooper S and never looked back.
Speaking of cars that hew to a well-defined ethos – like a street-legal go cart!
Absolutely! Convertibles with room for a kid are thin on the ground, which is what lead us to the Mustang in the first place.
Maybe if Mustangs didn’t have back seats we wouldn’t have Mustang Bros?
I haven’t had that experience with either of my New Edges, but maybe that’s just how I had them set up. My 2004 Mach 1 is certainly very far from stock and does not still have a single stock suspension component so hard to compare.
I don’t know much about Mustangs (never really been into them), but I believe the Mach 1 is a different animal than the GT altogether. You & Jack Trade could probably speak more intelligently on that.
It has some differences for sure, but isn’t that different overall. Only significant differences are cosmetics, 3.55 gears, bigger brakes, Bilstein shocks/slightly lower, and it is a 32 valve DOHC instead of a 16 valve SOHC. It is basically just a GT with 80hp more and a better redline, although that certainly helps.
That gen Mustang is a POS. That MB looks clean for the age and also is a convertible which will help make up for any lacking dynamics.
This dealership is located within hailing distance of me. I’ve seen their ads when I go trolling on CL, and I’ve seen these two appear there as well.
With that as a background, I’ll confidently say I want no part of a Mercedes with a certain built-in temperment sold through this dealership, even if it would mean paying more for the lower class albeith lower maintenance alternative.
Speaking of price, New Jersey seems to be one of those states where there’s a certain “flexibility” in the price that’s advertised and what the dealership is actually selling it for. Doc fees and/or financing charges seem to be higher and slide around a bit more in NJ than in surrounding states…except for NY, which is another story. All sorts of stuff about this online if you’re interested, but suffice to say that I’d be surprised if the actual price on both of these vehicles isn’t $1,000 or more higher than what’s listed here.
Such different driving experiences. The Mercedes gives you a performance car experience in luxury car trappings (back in the ’90s, the two hadn’t completely overlapped yet). It’s flashy, fast, and refined.
The Mustang on the other hand is unintentionally retro. Sure, it has the intentional design cues, but it also has a raw, rough-edged nature that for the life of you feels like you’re driving a car from another era. Albeit with modern safety tech.
The visceral-ness of the Mustang wins for me, as that’s what I seek in my driving experience.
Jack Trade don’t know Jack about cars. Though he writes good prose.
I think it was an easy choice for us, given our circumstances
The mb is theoretically a better car but a 30-year-old convertible hardtop and questionable maintenance are things to think about.
The Mustang is more common and boring BUT if anything goes wrong you can fix it easily from the local auto parts store or junkyard.
Sorry what is wrong with that period Mustang can’t be fixed with new parts. No matter what you replace its still a shitty ers Mustang.
The Mercedes is a car I’d actually like to own. The weird red wheel trim + low price has me wondering about its ownership history and whether some catastrophic failure is right around the corner due to neglect/abuse.
I would never actually buy either of these vehicles regardless of condition or provenance, but compelled to choose, I would take the SL and add the experience of owning a MB if only during the time it would take to flip it.
I’ve always liked the styling of those Mercs, but one big part failure and that car is totalled.
On the other hand that Mustang is way overpriced.
I played it safe and went for the Mustang, but I ain’t happy about it.
One big part failure and you have about a $2,000 profit in selling parts.
I’d buy the Mustang then find a way to leverage my socials so it earns it’s keep by crashing spectacularly in Mustang fashion.
This is your last chance. After this there is no turning back. You take the
blueblack car, the story ends, you wake up on a sidewalk in a crowd of people and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red car, you stay in Wonderland and tie a sweater around your shoulders and take money from rich widows for “tennis lessons”.Well, when you put it THAT way…
Not a fan of the SN95, although they were pretty nice.
Everyone should own a M-B at least once in their lives, and even though the likelihood of financial disaster hangs heavy over this one — at $3500, you KNOW something is about to fail, crumble or come off in your hand, and remediation won’t be cheap — it’s worth it just to say “I own(ed) one.” Plus, they really are/were great cruisers that could show a pretty fair turn of speed.
If the ‘Stang was a Fox-body, it’d be a much more difficult choice.
Fox body would make the Mustang a hard no for me. Right now the MB is a hard no.
Buy the Mercedes park it out front of your business, keep it clean and shiny but never drive it. You got success written all over you. Do that with the Mustang you got customers asking when is the going out of business sale?
You do know that you can say that without it having to be true, right?
Technically it is a Fox. The New Edge still utilized a Fox chassis, specifically a Fox 4. So nearly all the suspension and such is a direct swap. I know what you mean though, aesthetically very different.
A choice between a Mercedes known for being extremely reliable, easy to work on, built like a tank, and designed by Bruno Sacco versus a Mustang that’s none of those things?
Easy choice.
This generation of Mustang is specifically known to be extremely reliable and built like tanks due to utilizing the same drivetrain as Crown Vics. Easy to work on too for the most part
I suppose this is a fair point. I still find this era Mercedes incredibly easy to work on compared to almost anything else, and very well built. These mustang interiors were held together with hopes and dreams and taking anything apart would result in adding more squeaks and rattles to the cacophony already present from the factory.
I have always been torn on that. Yes, the materials are very plasticy…but mine has held up very well especially after having been abandoned in a field for 2 years and I find it very ergonomic especially compared to the next gen. The door cards and headliner glue needed some repair but it had flooded while abandoned and I think the humidity did that. I recently tore my entire interior out, painted the floors, and laid down sound/heat deadening mats and it made a huge difference. I also replaced all the foam behind the center console trim and around the hvac and my interior is very quiet now. But that’s also a labor of love and not what I would expect just anyone to do so that’s a reasonable complaint.
I’ll be contrary to the majority here. I really want to go with the MB but the price is just so low I can’t help but get the feeling that something horrible is lurking just below the surface. Also, there is no way I can afford the upkeep on one of those. My father had MB cars for years and just the parts costs were significant. Also, I’m not 80 yet and I don’t golf so I feel I’m kind of missing the prime demographic for this one and I already have a ragtop.
The Stang is relatively cheap to maintain and would still be fun to kick around in even with the auto. I’ve never really had an issues with the SN95 and yes, the interior is standard early 2000s Ford cheapish but it’s functional and when a switch burns out it cost $15 on Rock Auto not $135.
I know someone with an R129, and the repairs can be brutal on one not properly maintained, such as the 12 top cylinders, which are $700 for a rebuild, or 2k for replacements without a core, just in parts costs, labor is extensive. These things were the modern equivalent of over 150k, so you’re paying for aged S-class levels of maintenance, and I strongly doubt a sketchy used car dealer in New Jersey that calls it a “500-Series” repeatedly will have done anything to maintain it. As much as I adore the R129, you’d be so much better off spending 2-3x on a cleaner one off BaT or C&B since you’d have an equal ownership cost with infinitely less headache.
For that I’ll regretfully take the mustang.
I love the cute lil headlight wipers some Euro cars used to have back then, but a $3500 Mercedes is kinda sus, especially from a used car lot
So I chose the Mustang
I’m a sucker for the R129. I’m not yet at the point in life where I can justify an SL, but when I get to the empty nest phase an R129 will definitely be on my radar. As for the Mustang, I’ve been there, done that, and have no desire to own another.
The fact that I love the SL and hate the SN95 should be an indication of how lopsided these choices are.
I’ll take the Mustang, even though I hate the styling, hate the automatic, and hate the 4.6. But at least I wouldn’t hate myself for buying it.
Easily the Benz. This generation of SL has aged like fine wine. They’re elegant cars and this was back when Mercedes were built like tanks. It may have some mechanical foibles, but that interior is probably rock solid…and imagine the door thunk! I’ll bet it’s extremely satisfying. Make friends with your local indie Euro mechanic and you’ll be in for years of grand touring joy.
I just can’t get over the SN-95 and especially the new edge styling. I don’t think they’ve aged well at all. Call Mustangs boomer bait all you’d like, but they absolutely look best when they stick to their classic styling cues. The SN95 looks like a melting bar of soap and the new edge is so angular and pointy that it very much looks like a product of its time. Not my thing.
SL, please.
Of the two options it costs less and looks better, and if I bought the Mustang then I would have a Mustang – no, thanks. Replace/fix the steering wheel and clean or replace the grubby driver-side seat belt and cruise around in comfort.
According to the ad, it does:
✅ Convertible Roof – Hard Top
✅ Convertible Roof – Power
However, it is a CL ad so caveat emptor.
SL without hesitation. Even if the prices were flipped, I have no desire for an auto mustang from that era. And I love me a convertible! I have looked at getting an R129 on several occasions, never pulled the trigger but man I love them!
Buy the SL, but expect to spend about $15K to make it right.
That’s if you can get past the terrible red/grey color combo.
At that point, you might as well just buy a better condition SL for $20K
Does that MB have the biodegradable wire harnesses? Or did those only come later?
Ah whatever, I’m voting for it either way. Never been a big fan of the Mustang styling in that generation and the auto makes it kind of pointless.
Good question, and I think it probably does, but I am too lazy to verify. I thought that was an early/mid 90s thing.
Early R129s absolutely had the biodegradable harness.
However, it’s still an R129. Yet giving the $3500 asking it’s going to be rough.
Granted, it’s 30 years old. Lots of rubber needs replacing. The top is hydraulic, and likely has issues. However the engine and transmission are close to bulletproof.
Anything that’s worn out is absolutely the reason why Mercedes is BOAT — Bring Out Another Thousand. It’s all quality, but worn out quality is never cheap for parts.
Would I restore this R129? Hell no. But I’ll take it over a normal modular SN95 any day, and DIY everything reasonable and enjoy it while it lasts. There are SN95s I’d consider over an R129, but they’re all SVT Rs.
I’d have a (probably ’97) restored SL600 if I had to drive regularly. My only hesitation is if it got hit — anything modern would use it as a second crumple zone. However, this was the last old-school Mercedes Benz, and the pinnacle of Sacco’s design.
I’m not mad at that SN95; the “New Edge” makeover sanded down a lot of the blobbiness I didn’t like about the earlier ones.
But that Merc is almost F-it money, and it’s handsome as h*ck. We’ll take the SL, and get to de-Jerseying the thing tout suite.