Mercedes ML what to look for.

[monkey_boy]

Something else, these are rubbish unless its the current shape model.

Fox is wrong. Even the current shape is rubbish compared to everything else in the class. If you're looking at facelift MLs then your budget will allow any of the others in the class (except maybe the Q7?). Pick one. Any one, and it will be better than the ML.

Here's why: The sport model has low profile tyres that wear unevenly and the OE tyres will need replacing every 15-20k miles if you're lucky. The engine (320 CDI is the one to go for) is rubbish. It's not as refined as the competition and nowhere near as economical. Don't kid yourself that it's cool because its a v6 - it's a derv. The seats are overly firm, but the ride is still wallowy. The drive is uninspiring, even for a 4x4, compared to the competition. Servicing is an absolute joke. You're talking M3 servicing costs- for a diesel school wagon. 32k mile service was quoted at >£700.

Also- don't be under the illusion that a sport M class mercedes will do any green laning. At all. Ever. It won't.

 

[Jonny ///M]

Get a facelift RRS V6 diesel.

 

[DM]

Fox is wrong. Even the current shape is rubbish compared to everything else in the class. If you're looking at facelift MLs then your budget will allow any of the others in the class (except maybe the Q7?). Pick one. Any one, and it will be better than the ML.

Here's why: The sport model has low profile tyres that wear unevenly and the OE tyres will need replacing every 15-20k miles if you're lucky. The engine (320 CDI is the one to go for) is rubbish. It's not as refined as the competition and nowhere near as economical. Don't kid yourself that it's cool because its a v6 - it's a derv. The seats are overly firm, but the ride is still wallowy. The drive is uninspiring, even for a 4x4, compared to the competition. Servicing is an absolute joke. You're talking M3 servicing costs- for a diesel school wagon. 32k mile service was quoted at >£700.

Also- don't be under the illusion that a sport M class mercedes will do any green laning. At all. Ever. It won't.

Not sure 700 quid for a service and tyres wearing out fast are problems if you run any big 4x4. Just part of it.

 

[HummuH1]

Oh come off it, even with it's extra grip it's still 6.3 to 60!

No, you're wrong, from a rolling start it will. Doesn't particularly please me, but it does.

 

[[TW]Fox]

No, you're wrong, from a rolling start it will. Doesn't particularly please me, but it does.

Suggest you get your M3 booked into the local specialist then because it's quite clearly broken, or you don't use the gearbox properly.

Your M3 is 220bhp/tonne, the M420 CDI is just 130bhp/tonne. The only way it could 'beat' yours is if you did something stupid like refused to change out of 5th gear or something. If you start your rolling start to 'motorway speeds' in 2nd and change up at the right moment, the heavy diesel tank wouldnt know which way you went. Even something like a 335d probably wouldnt beat a stock M3 and that's a much faster car than an ML420.

 

[monkey_boy]

Not sure 700 quid for a service and tyres wearing out fast are problems if you run any big 4x4. Just part of it.

1. Why bother with LPG on a car like this then?

2. Why bother with these extra costs when the competition (whichever car you choose) is better in every single way for less money?

I know that you more than anyone hates spending money for the sake of it, you want to see something for your cash or at least be able to justify it. The extra costs associated aren't just regular costs you live with when owning a 4x4, nor are they costs which are brought about by an extra feature ie, uber-comfy suspension (Jez's S Class) or eye-watering performance (PeterNem's M5). They are just extra costs. On a rubbish car.

 

[DM]

1. Why bother with LPG on a car like this then?

2. Why bother with these extra costs when the competition (whichever car you choose) is better in every single way for less money?

I know that you more than anyone hates spending money for the sake of it, you want to see something for your cash or at least be able to justify it. The extra costs associated aren't just regular costs you live with when owning a 4x4, nor are they costs which are brought about by an extra feature ie, uber-comfy suspension (Jez's S Class) or eye-watering performance (PeterNem's M5). They are just extra costs. On a rubbish car.

Dont know if i got the wrong end of the stick from what you are saying there.

Im not saying i would have a ML im just saying that the odd 700 quid service and regular tyres is a cost associated with any big 4x4.

Cayennes can kill a set of tyres in 10k, 5k if you boot them.

I do like big fast 4x4's though and can see why people buy them.

 

[HummuH1]

Suggest you get your M3 booked into the local specialist then because it's quite clearly broken, or you don't use the gearbox properly.

Your M3 is 220bhp/tonne, the M420 CDI is just 130bhp/tonne. The only way it could 'beat' yours is if you did something stupid like refused to change out of 5th gear or something. If you start your rolling start to 'motorway speeds' in 2nd and change up at the right moment, the heavy diesel tank wouldnt know which way you went. Even something like a 335d probably wouldnt beat a stock M3 and that's a much faster car than an ML420.

LOL, Googling some facts to form an opinion to which you then try and justify as an argument makes you look foolish.

I have an E46 M3, which is now my 3rd of that model. My colleague has a 2008 ML420 CDI. We regularly travel to and from meetings in our cars so I know that my previous statement is true.

Again, you seem to be forming an opinion which you try to state as fact after doing a bit of internet reasearch and without the benefit of real world experience. Not for the first time IMO.

Perhaps someone who has driven an ML420 or any ML for that matter, like I have, would be better placed to comment?

I note you've jumped in declaring the ML range as "rubbish", when I would bet you've never been near one in your life and are basing this only on what you've read. Hardly a constructive addition to a thread, no?

As for a 335d being "much" faster than a 420CDI, it's not. Oh, and as for my car being down on power or not being driven properly, again I have real life experience so I know it's not the case, but a LOL all the same.

Fox, I like your attitude but sometimes I think you actually convince yourself your opinion is fact when I think we all know it just based on a bit of intense, yet considered, Google action.

Lots of love, HummuH xx

 

[Django x2]

Something else, these are rubbish unless its the current shape model.

This. So glad I didn't buy one. They are complete turd unless it's the current model.

A similar age 5 series touring will offer more boot space too IIRC

 

[Django x2]

Power accelerates the car, torque and revs produce the power. Flywheel torque figures are for diesel owners to make themselves feel special.

Actually, that's not quite true. Torques is what accelerates the car in a given amount of time, power defines the cars top speed if we're talking basics.

You need power over torque to achieve stupidly high MPH figures, but you need torque over power to get there quickly.

And I'm not referring to a diesel / petrol debate, just general rules of power / torque

Having said that, there is pretty much no way an ML can stick with an M3

 

[EddScott]

In that case get a Cayenne, better in every single way.

Wouldn't the Cayenne be horrific for servicing costs?

I assume you'd have to keep up Pork dealership servicing?

 

[DM]

Wouldn't the Cayenne be horrific for servicing costs?

I assume you'd have to keep up Pork dealership servicing?

No point just take it to a good specialist.

Im not sure what this chaps budget is but lets say it buys a 2004 Cayenne, running costs would be a bit higher but what a car you get in return.

http://www.sportsandclassic.com/index.php?page=services_servicing That there is as good as it gets for Porsche servicing, check the prices.

I use Jazz in Wembley they are excellent, Hartech in Bolton are fantastic, good Porsche specialists are about, just depends where you live they are all over.

Iv had those 2.5-3k Porsche OPC services and its a **** off, a receptionist with big **** and a dowe egbert buscuit, value do not make.

 

[Matt82]

http://www.nagele.co.uk/ml320/

take a read through things like this. there are large websites dedicated to mercedes from that era.

 

[[TW]Fox]

I have an E46 M3, which is now my 3rd of that model. My colleague has a 2008 ML420 CDI. We regularly travel to and from meetings in our cars so I know that my previous statement is true.

I'm not really bothered, it doesnt make what you say any less nonsensical. I'm willing to bet there are any number of external factors you are either not considering or simply didnt bother to mention.

I rather suspect your highly scientific trips to meetings on Motorways didn't involve you ringing the M3's neck in 2nd gear down Motorway sliproads, which would explain how an automatic diesel M Class might get the drop on you. If the M3 was being driven as it was intended, you'd not have been outrun by an ML420 CDI. It really is that simple.

The fact, for example, that a Fabia vRS can do 50-60 in 6th quicker than a Porsche Boxster S can in 6th doesnt make it a faster car and the same applies here.

Again, you seem to be forming an opinion which you try to state as fact after doing a bit of internet reasearch and without the benefit of real world experience. Not for the first time IMO.

I don't really think claiming that a car with 220bhp/tonne wouldn't be slower than one with 130bhp/tonne is a 'bit of internet research'. It's more common sense.

Perhaps someone who has driven an ML420 or any ML for that matter, like I have, would be better placed to comment?

You'd think so, but when they come out with things like 'My mates 2.3 tonne ML420 is quicker than my M3' you do have to wonder quite how much credibility we should place in said experience.

I note you've jumped in declaring the ML range as "rubbish", when I would bet you've never been near one in your life and are basing this only on what you've read. Hardly a constructive addition to a thread, no?

Assumption gets you nowhere. My comments related to the previous generation model not the model your friend has - I even said as much in my post.

As for a 335d being "much" faster than a 420CDI, it's not. Oh, and as for my car being down on power or not being driven properly, again I have real life experience so I know it's not the case, but a LOL all the same.

The 335d has more or less the same power as the 420CDI yet weighs almost 700kg less. Of course its faster!

The ML420 might have 300bhp but it weighs 2300kg!! It's ridiculously heavy! High torque alone cannot overcome weight or we'd see Honda S2000's being owned off the lights by Volvo FH12 trucks.

 

[HummuH1]

Having said that, there is pretty much no way an ML can stick with an M3

Sigh, a 420CDI will, up to about 90 mph.

 

[HummuH1]

Ok, here we go:

I'm not really bothered, it doesn't make what you say any less nonsensical. I'm willing to bet there are any number of external factors you are either not considering or simply didn't bother to mention.

Like what?

I rather suspect your highly scientific trips to meetings on Motorways didn't involve you ringing the M3's neck in 2nd gear down Motorway sliproads, which would explain how an automatic diesel M Class might get the drop on you. If the M3 was being driven as it was intended, you'd not have been outrun by an ML420 CDI. It really is that simple.

Actually, it does. Most recently, M9 slip road at Stirling services.

The fact, for example, that a Fabia vRS can do 50-60 in 6th quicker than a Porsche Boxster S can in 6th doesnt make it a faster car and the same applies here.

I agree, in gear times etc on paper mean very little. Trying it out for real means more and that's what I'm referring to here.

I don't really think claiming that a car with 220bhp/tonne wouldn't be slower than one with 130bhp/tonne is a 'bit of internet research'. It's more common sense.

Really, common sense? Why are you overlooking the torque figures then? Anyone with the smallest knowledge will recognise that torque figures are a more appropriate way of evaluating a cars acceleration capabilities on paper.

The ML 420CDI has bonkers torque, 516lb/ft iirc where as the M3 has c. 269lb/ft, so almost double. That's why it will keep up with the M3 until about 90 mph and then the M3's superior bhp will start to show effect beyond that. Seriously, get some basic knowledge.

You'd think so, but when they come out with things like 'My mates 2.3 tonne ML420 is quicker than my M3' you do have to wonder quite how much credibility we should place in said experience.

Again, you've got it wrong. I said it would keep up. It does. I've tried it several times.

Assumption gets you nowhere. My comments related to the previous generation model not the model your friend has - I even said as much in my post.

Indeed, and again it appear here you are the master of assumption on the basis of ropey "facts".

The 335d has more or less the same power as the 420CDI yet weighs almost 700kg less. Of course its faster!

Faster how? Faster off the line in a dash? Yes. Faster when going from say 30mph to 90mph? No. That is what we are discussing here.

Seriously, back off. You have no idea what you are talking about. But you know best, a student (?) who has time to post 103,000 posts but also seems have enough time to have driven or have experience of every car every referred to on this forum? Yeah right. The similarities between yourself and some of those who you try and dissect on this forum are perhaps more obvious than you would care to admit.

 

[Django x2]

Sigh, a 420CDI will, up to about 90 mph.

I'm not quite sure you realise how stupid you sound.

Perhaps you should post a video of this amazing ML

 

[DM]

Are we talking about the ML booting off throttle flat and the M3 dropping as many cogs as possible, or just picking up in 3rd?

 

[Django x2]

Really, common sense? Why are you overlooking the torque figures then? Anyone with the smallest knowledge will recognise that torque figures are a more appropriate way of evaluating a cars acceleration capabilities on paper.

The ML 420CDI has bonkers torque, 516lb/ft iirc where as the M3 has c. 269lb/ft, so almost double. That's why it will keep up with the M3 until about 90 mph and then the M3's superior bhp will start to show effect beyond that. Seriously, get some basic knowledge.

Actually, this is horribly inaccurate. The diesel is an automatic yes? The torque here is at the flywheel, long before you shove it through the torque converter and then through a ropey 4wd system. The gearing will also kill it. His torque sits where, 1500rpm and blows off around 3.5k if he's lucky. The M3 has a much larger torque window so will use that far more to its advantage than the ML will. His box for instance will have made at least two changes while yours is still in 2nd (as an example).

Trust me, my E60 530d (400 lb ft) can just about keep up with a E46 330i at silly mph. It will out accelerate it from say 30 to 70 but It would have no chance against an M3, driven properly. I have no issues disposing MLs though.

 

[Wicksta]

I love this place sometimes.