In most cases, it's been 2nd at about 30mph to around 90 mph, which is top end 3rd in the M3. That's been done with SMG in S6.
Mercedes ML what to look for.
- Thread starter Banny
- Start date
In most cases, it's been 2nd at about 30mph to around 90 mph, which is top end 3rd in the M3. That's been done with SMG in S6.
I really don't care if it sounds stupid, it's true.
Next on the list, disproving Einstein and giving us real world examples of the time travel ability of an ML Diesel.
Interestingly I have some similar real world experiences to you. I took off on an empty dual carriageway off a roundabout at full bore in my Z4M (same engine as yours) and couldn't believe it when an ML started to edge past me. I was using the gears properly too. I kept on the throttle as much as I dare and was safe and then had to back off with him having pulled perhaps a car length in front of me at three figure speeds.
Please explain that when evaluating cars performance potential on paper, which is what most seem to be doing here, looking at torque figures is "horribly inaccurate"?
Also, torque windows and peak torque are pretty irrelevant unless you also consider gearing ratio as well IMO.
Seeing as everyone seems to take internet reviews as fact, have a look at this one here. They seem to think it's rather "quick" too. First one I came across.
Mate, I can't believe you posted that. You're clearly talking nonsense etc.
Whilst I thank you for adding some support to my factual point, I'm sure the witch hunt from the keyboard know it alls will continue.
Permabanned
That might have been an ML63.
Oh ****, I forgot to mention something in my point. The ML in question in my post was an ML63 with Kleeman badges all over it so goodness knows what was running under the bonnet.
Sorry, don't have enough time for that today. Next week maybe.
Which then suggests an ML63 is quicker than an E46 M3/Z4M. I'm saying that a 420 will stick with an M3 until higher speeds.
Even they just edge away from new shape M3 as per the hundres of youtube clips
What's that got to do with it?
Soldato
Hey guys, I was looking to upgrade from my 330Ci to an E46 M3 because I wanted better performance and a top of the range, high performance coupe from the same series, with a high bhp/ton, fast 0-60 and a more performance driven chassis and underlying technology seemed to fit the bill perfectly.
I'm now having second thoughts and based on this thread am now going to purchase an ML 420CDI as it is faster.
I mean, it has a higher bhp/ton rati......oh
Well, it is much lighte.....oh
Erm, the engine and transmission is geared for perform.....oh
Hmm. At least I'll have torque. Yes, torque will have to do.
I'm now having second thoughts and based on this thread am now going to purchase an ML 420CDI as it is faster.
I mean, it has a higher bhp/ton rati......oh
Well, it is much lighte.....oh
Erm, the engine and transmission is geared for perform.....oh
Hmm. At least I'll have torque. Yes, torque will have to do.
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Then we are stuck in deadlock. You'll insist you are right because you have experience, therefore I'm never going to convince you.
I think its you who needs to go and get some 'basic knowledge'. What you need to focus on is the relationship between torque, revs and power and how this affects performance.
As a clue, you could try explaining how a Honda S2000 with less torque than a lawnmower once absolutely destroyed me when I was driving a 530d with TWICE the torque.
A Golf Diesel has more torque than Vettels championship winning Formula 1 car.
There are different ways to acheive power - you can go for low torque but a high revving engine. You can go for loads of torque through a low revving engine. etc etc. But at the end of the day it is the power figure that matters - torque allows us to understand more how it delivers that power. The ML420CDI will be easier to extract the performance out of, for example, the M3 needs to be driven hard to acheive it's maximum level of performance.
The problem of course lies in what your definition of keep up is. Were you glued to his bumper the whole way without so much of an inch opening up? Or was he several car lengths ahead because in terms of acceleration a gap of several car lengths is an age.
This is why 'keeping up' is a meaningless barometer of performance and is hugely misleading when people try to claim that being able to 'keep up' says something about the cars performance.
How about you make me look daft by showing how my opinion is wrong, if thats what you beleive, rather than simply insulting me? The original M class was a poor car. It was made in America, for America and was poor as a result. I stopped short of saying the same about the newer shape and made a point of doing so!
You seem to be a lone voice in this thread. Even BigT has described an ML encounter and that was an ML63! A massively faster car.
Last edited:
Nobody is saying it isnt quick - heck it does 0-60 in 6.5 seconds and thats not slow. People are saying it isnt on the same page as your M3.
Even your review provides context to the comments they are making:
Autocar said:
In the context of enormous 2300kg 4x4's, 6.5 is a very respectable performance figure. It is this which makes them think it has awesome performance. They are not implying it's as quick as an M3.