Mercedes ML what to look for.
- Thread starter Banny
- Start date
177 was a good result, i thought you'd get about that, nice one.
But you know, based on the statistics that it doesn't stack up right? I've had 2 E46 M3's from new (so perhaps they hadn't lost 100 horses...) and I covered around 100K miles in the 2 of them combined, I know how they go and how to get them to go and though I can't recall a side by side run I can see from the published figures that a standard ML420 should not be able to keep up, even to 90mph, well unless the test was flawed which yours was I suggest. I know that often people use the words 'miles faster' when they pull a micron of paint ahead but in all reality an M3 should be able to happily hand an ML its bum and if it can't the M3, M3 driver or ML is not right.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Why not, thats about right, it's MUCH harder to accelerate from 60 to 100 than it is from 0-60. Most cars with a 0-60 time around the 6-7 second mark take 16-19 seconds to hit 100mph.
that site typically collates its stats from independant tests on the various cars, hence the lap times too, and quotes the sauce
that site typically collates its stats from independant tests on the various cars, hence the lap times too, and quotes the sauce
The 6.5 to 60 is the same figure that Autocar reported, FWIW.
To be honest I'm suprised it's even that quick - it weighs 2.3 tonnes!
what should the 0-60 be? i think someone already said it was in the region of 6.3s earlier in this thread
that site typically collates its stats from independant tests on the various cars, hence the lap times too, and quotes the sauce
Heinz