It has been a while since I have been on the forum, and contributed back. Hoping I can tap the users that may be from Quebec Canada for some questions on road salting and the impacts on a current model GLE? Namely, is there a lot of salt used on the roads and if so has it caused any issues?

For the rest of the users, any comments on the GLE53 and what to look out for? I am looking at a used unit with low km's.

Our 2015 ML350 Bluetech has been a wonderful drive but I am thinking about modernizing a little. I will miss the fuel efficiency oft he diesel (road trips where I am getting over 1200km of range on a single tank has been amazing). Might miss the space in the old ML as I am seeing that the new unit is actually smaller for storage.

 

Google says salt is used in Quebec. Consider it like buying a car from New York or Massachusetts.

M256 inline 6 is known for disintegrating engine wire harness. Expensive if not covered by warranty.

 

Interesting, and definitely concerning. Thanks for the heads up as I had not heard about this. Rather crazy for anyone to think that a biodegradable wire sheathing would be a good idea in a vehicle that is exposed to the elements. Guess it works fine in a museum.

 

European cars are required to be easily recyclable and or biodegradable. In this case it's the spark plug wires, not the entire wiring harness.
If the plugs have been replaced at the recommended 50k MILES, the wires have likely been warranted. If not, have them inspected/replaced under warranty.

 

In order, based on the highlighted text above.

Salt, or more likely magnesium chloride, doesn't appear to harm these models.

Yes, you will be disappointed with the fuel economy. My 2015 BlueTech got around 30 mph (not kph) on the highway, my 53 gets about 23 or so. It's been an adjustment.
You might consider a 450. I was very impressed that my highway mileage hovered around 31-32. In comparison, the 4cyl GLE350 I had as a loaner for a thousand miles only got 30!
Even with 32mph, the gas tank is smaller than your 166, so the range is reduced. We plan on a range of about 500 miles per tank, highway, on our 53.

Space. The SUV is HUGE compared to your current GLE. More backseat legroom and it seems like an extra foot of cargo space.
Unless you're looking at a Coupe which is way too small - I bang my head getting in, and Yes the Coupe boot is tiny.

The chassis on the 167 is a major improvement over the 166. Stiffer, giving the suspension a better platform to work from. Resulting in better ride and handling, and overall quietness. AMG's went from harsh to supple.

The downside of the 450 is a ride floatiness, and I might actually prefer steel springs over air for that model. Your 166 is also a bit floaty, a downturn from the 164 it replaced.

The best combo of ride and handling is the AMG ARC (AMG Ride Control), active sway bars.

 

Good to know. The vehicle only has 13,000 miles on it (21,000km). Plugs won't have been addressed.

What I was reading was a compounding issue linked to the M256. Oil leaking from camshaft position sensors, which then wicks through the wiring harness, migrating to vital components like the ECU and O2 sensors and causing electrical failures. Not sure this is due to the bio sheath or just an issue with the engine assembly. Still researching.

 

I believe those concerns are mostly relegated to the V6 and V8 versions.
Many sources, such as Consumer Reports, conflate all Mercedes engines bit they're not correct.

 

Interesting notes on the ride being floating on the air suspension. I actually like the ride of my 2015 and at the time when I compared it to the non-air version the airmatic was a huge improvement for handling. My 2008 Acura MDX with its non-air suspension was way better than the ML with non-air. It was the air suspension in the ML that improved the suspension over the MDX. Guess it is a "shaver floats your boat" sort of thing (sorry, just had to use the phrase). I am going to go find a GLE 53 to test drive against a 450 first just to be sure I like the feel.

As for space. Surprisingly, and disappointingly, my online research indicates that the rear storage is quite a bit smaller. I had to skip around to find dimensions as web sites appear to be all over the map. For the ML I could get most of the dimensions from the owners manual except the width without mirrors and cargo capacity. For the GLE I don't have an owners manual to verify.

Exterior and Cargo Dimensions

GLE vs ML
Length 194.4" vs 189.1"
Width (without mirrors) 79.3" vs 75.8"
Width (with mirrors) 84.9" vs 84.3"
Height 70.2" vs 70.7"
Cargo capacity (2 row seats up) 33.3 cu.ft. vs 38.2 cu.ft.
Maximum cargo capacity (second row seats down) 74.9 cu.ft. vs 80.3 cu.ft.

Amazingly, over time it hasn't gotten that much larger on the outside except for length. The oddity is the interior space for storage. So I went to Edmonds and figured I would have to trust them on the interior dimensions (though they were off on exterior width for the 2015 ML saying the dimensions were without mirrors when they were actually with mirrors).

Front Seat Dimensions

GLE vs ML
Front head room 40.5 in. vs 38.9 in.
Front leg room 40.3 in. vs 40.3 in.
Front shoulder room 59.3 in. vs 58.5 in.

Rear Seat Dimensions

Rear head room 36.9 in. vs 38.5 in.
Rear leg room 40.9 in. vs 38.4 in.
Rear shoulder room 58.3 in. vs 58.4 in.

Basically, they added 2.5" of leg room in the back, and sloped the ceiling so there is less overhead space. This contributes to a storage compartment that is 4.9 cu ft smaller in the GLE.

The extra length of the vehicle I figure is related to the inline 6 vs the more compact V6. Even the older V8's appear to be shorter than the inline 6. In short (pardon the pun) the extra length did not end up contributing to more space in the cabin.

 

The rear cargo room on the 167 SUV is significantly longer than the 166. I can put my oversized umbrella in there!
The rear opening is shorter floor to ceiling, so it's harder to put chairs etc. in there.

I have a two row, (the only configuration on a 53 I think) but a 3rd row loses cargo space to the folded seat. I think you also lose a spare or inflation kit, and might be stuck with Runflats.

Make sure you're comparing 2 row to 2 row, and SUV to SUV (not Coupe).

In practice I gained a huge amount of space with the 167.
All the stuff on the floor and on the various countertops went in one load, in the cargo area. More luggage in the back seat itself.

 

!

 

Interesting. I am definitely careful to compare SUV to SUV knowing that the Coupe is not the same room. Great to hear from someone that has had the 166 to provide real life experiences.

I am also careful on the 2 row to 2 row aspect. It is interesting to hear that there is more room in the non-3rd row version. With the third row I know you are forced into runlets (not a fan of) so my assumption (and attempted confirmations) was that this was the space used for the seats.

 

I have the GLE63 W167. It did not come with run flats and with the 3D sound the subwoofer is where the spare would have been under the cargo floor. I think all of them (like mine) with 3D sound came with the "Tirefit?" kit which basically is just a can of tire goo sealant that injects into the tire and a small compressor that are tucked under thae cargo floor

 

Thanks Sparky66. Good for me to ask the dealer and have a look.

I wonder how capable the AirMatic suspension would be to perform as an air compressor. Suppose they would need to provide a long hose though.

 

The factory Tirefit kit is a small bag with the compressor and sealant contained within it.

 

That was what BMW issued with their earlier cars (the Conti kit). I've seen similar in MBs (my 2010 diesel where the DEF tank replaced the spare) but packaged differently.
Is that a current kit?

 

So I am back from a test drive of the 450 and the 53. A couple of observations that really surprised me.

1. Space wise, there is definitely more room in the W166 over the W167 in the back. We had ours and the 450 sitting next to each other with the hatch open and it is obvious. The floor height on the 450 is higher and the rear windows tilts in more coupe like (this was not the coupe version) than the W166. The storage space I can get over as it just makes for a bigger excuse to get a bigger roof box for the ski trips.
   
2. The 450 was the base suspension (no AirMatic). The 53 has the AMG version of AirMatic. The 450 was on 21" all season tires and the 53 on 22" dedicated summer tires. Being that it is 4 degrees celsius (39 degrees F) the dedicated summers are not an ideal ride. That said I would say the AirMatic is still my preference over the traditional suspension.
   

Here is the issue I have though with the W167 (both regular and air suspensions), the ride is like an ADHD person on cocaine! Both vehicles, in Comfort, were like a rocking boat in waves. It was the most bizarre feeling. Another description might be a highly tight ride where when you hit a bump the front end wants to jump up and then when the rear wheels hit the back end wants to jump up. Now I am thinking about the Calgary Stampeed and watching bull riders. I have seen the posts where people call the W166 a floater, but I would currently say that I find its road manners/feel more civilized and dare I say enjoyable. Not sure what the 450 with AirMatic would be like.

This is now having me looking to test drive an X5. My buddy with an X5 almost fell over when I told him what I was thinking, and wants me to join him on the dark side.

 

I also am on my 2nd GLE 63, and this is 100% correct. And tirefit is a piece of ****. Not that changing a tire on these cars with their weird lug nut system (separate rather than integrated) and jacking up a huge car and then lifting a giant tire onto it with a tire hanger is a picnic. And if you blow a sidewall tirefit/sealant is useless. But my new GLE without Burmeister 3d (no longer offered) comes with folding spare. Hope I never need to use that either but at least it’s in there!

 

@SchneiderIS Comments:
there is significantly more boot space in a 167 compared to a 166. Even with the sloping roofline, the distance from 2nd row seatback to tailgate is almost a foot longer. Take a tape measure because looks can be deceiving. The opening is smaller floor to top, though - if you carry things taller than the opening (the "ceiling" is higher than the opening), you just have to plan differently.

The ride on 22's is generally awful, and they shouldn't be operated below 45*F because the tread can fracture. Plus there are very few tire options in that size. Recommend against.

Did you verify tire pressures on the test cars? I carry a tire pressure gauge when I am comparing vehicles because cars on many dealer lots are wrong, since many use the doorpost label (wrong on MBs) instead of the gas flap (correct). I'd say 50% are wrong.

It sounds like you are biased toward a BMW. Go ahead and get one. Your friend will appreciate your purchase.😄

 

I have to say the ride on my 22s is absolutely fantastic, and Pirelli now makes all-seasons that I just installed for winter and they’re great too. Not as fun as Pilot Sports, but those are for spring and summer!

 

I was thinking about the tire pressure too and may go back to check on it. Agreed on the 22" being a crazy option for comfort. I will take a tape measure on the next test, but I took arm length measures at the time and though it appeared to be possibly 2" deeper, it was definitely not taller. Wheel wells on the 166 are slightly more intrusive but not enough to make a significant difference.

On the BMW side, I actually really don't like the interiors or exteriors.

 

I run dedicated winters here during the winter. As for Pirelli, I have had just too many of them wear out far too early and with crazy shredding of the tread. Won't touch the brand ever again.

 

I decided to get more specific on the storage space with some real measurements. So far I have my W166 measurements. It will take a few days before I can get into a W167 to take its measurements, unless someone else here can help.

W166

• Width at the floor by the hatch opening: 43.5"
• Width at the top of the cargo cover: 52.5"
• Depth from bottom of the seat back to the door of the hatch: 39"
• Height of the hatch opening: 33"
• Height from the floor to the ceiling at the middle of the cargo cover: 34.5"

 

I was curious myself.
In bold above.
Interesting comparisons.

 

Interesting indeed.The base is certainly wider in the W167, and it looks more consistent going up. The W166 has a taper up that does give space in an odd shape comparatively. The height of the W167 was also a surprise with the total height of the W167 being about 1 inch lower.

Thanks for taking the measures and posting.

 

The places you measured were well thought out, to give an overview of the differences.
I remembered the choke points from the times I overloaded them both.