When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
I picked up a late 2021 GLS63 around 4 weeks ago and initial impressions are pretty much disappointment across several fronts, but mostly in the way it drives, sounds, feels etc. its just not quite full bore AMG like my X166 was in terms of feeling powerful, fast, loud etc. the X167 is very mute, lots of lag, feels like it needs more shove to get it going before it feels like that, and the exhaust pops and bangs are so tame Im almost struggling to hear it.
My 166 used to shake the windows in comparison. I know emissions regs and MHEV will have changed the way cars can sound but I believed MHEV was an aide to throttle response, it doesn’t feel like that.
The 48V roll bars are over sensitive, it doesn’t feel natural in this platform compared to others I’ve driven.
Build quality is poor, lots of niggly issues, faults etc which should not be present on a car at this price point, and for me it feels too “regular Mercedes@.
I had a Bentayga W12 last year and whilst not as nice to look at it did all of the things I mention much better, and it was a olde vehicle and wasn’t even their Speed model.
Im a long term AMG owner, mostly in the SUV line up and whilst the 167 is nice in some ways it’s not hiring the spot for me so far.
The 167 is a much more refined vehicle than the 166. IMO the166 was just a very stiff suspension on a much more flexible chassis.
The stiffer chassis allows better suspensions, which in most cases feels softer, but provides significantly more grip.
The 166 had horrible grip on anything that wasn't smooooth, while the 166 just sticks like glue over railroad crossings mid-corner.
That, combined with active sway bars, give it the quick response you don't like. Also more ride improvement (and, simultaneously, sharper handling).
Did you drive one before you bought it?
Edit- You're in GB, so you're lucky you can even hear the exhaust!
Honestly, outside of the G63, the AMG SUVs are not very AMG in general. The G is not refined, but that's what makes it good. It's the quintessential off-road beast and it has pedigree. I think even AMG doesn't think their SUVs are particularly AMG, because if you've ever attended an AMG Driving Academy event, they don't show up with any of them, except for the G63. The GLE, GLS neither have the off-road chops of the G, nor the driving dynamics of the other AMGs. They are fast minivans. The GLE and GLS don't even get the MCT transmission, which makes other AMGs feel more raw. I think the X166 had more G wagon DNA.
It's kinda funny you post this, though. Sometime last year I dropped off my C63S coupe for service and somebody had dropped off a GLS 63 earlier. I was standing next to it when one of the staff had to move it. I was thinking to myself how very dull this car is. The way the engine starts up due to the mild hybrid system was so uneventful. I don't know if the GLS has Emotion Start, but in most newer AMGs you can press and hold one of the shift paddles while starting the engine for a more interesting startup. It mostly only does something during a warm start, but it blips the revs and the exhaust pops and crackles.
At the end of the day, the GLS is just a big and heavy lump. The ESP is never fully off in these, either, because they would flip over in the hands of a hooligan and AMG isn't gonna want that press coverage ever since the B Class failed the moose test, so they are never that exciting to drive. Personally, I don't get the appeal of these, but to each their own.
Last edited by superswiss; Feb 4, 2024 at 06:14 PM.
I picked up a late 2021 GLS63 around 4 weeks ago and initial impressions are pretty much disappointment across several fronts, but mostly in the way it drives, sounds, feels etc. its just not quite full bore AMG like my X166 was in terms of feeling powerful, fast, loud etc. the X167 is very mute, lots of lag, feels like it needs more shove to get it going before it feels like that, and the exhaust pops and bangs are so tame Im almost struggling to hear it.
Do you have it in Sports+ mode?
I went from a 2020 GLS580 to a 2024 GLS63 and the power difference was dramatic even in Comfort mode. But in Sports+ mode it is basically a supercar. There is also a button to open the exhaust and it is loud as hell.
Im sure its a technically better suspension set up but mine wanders around the road if it’s remotely windy, needing constant steering correction, the crosswind assist thingy worked way better in the 166 or the larger staggered tyres, bigger car etc are not doing the 167 any favours.
I agree it’s powerful but isn’t responsively powerful, it has to be wound up, so the MHEV isn’t providing that instant power they’re meant to, and the exhaust whilst loud isnt AMG pop and bang theatre like it was in the 166, probably because of emissions regs and MHEV.
It just doesn’t feel dynamic, it isnt plush enough to be luxurious at the very pinnacle of luxury SUV ownership so it feels a bit undecided what it wants to be, and for me here in the UK the staggered tyre set up isn’t working, far too fidgety.
I expected this to be my best AMG by miles, but so far it’s my worst by miles.
Were you unable to test drive the vehicle before acquiring it? It seems like a lot of these subjective issues you have mentioned would have come up even during a short test drive.
Just a short drive, weather conditions weren’t great at the time so I didn’t take that much into account due to the very wet, very cold and very windy conditions.
I initially thought it was G Wagon withdrawal that made the GLS disappointing but it hasn’t improved and I’m clear why now.
Just a short drive, weather conditions weren’t great at the time so I didn’t take that much into account due to the very wet, very cold and very windy conditions.
I initially thought it was G Wagon withdrawal that made the GLS disappointing but it hasn’t improved and I’m clear why now.
Bummer 😞
Well you could always trade it in and take a little hit or maybe get a custom ECU tune.
.......
At the end of the day, the GLS is just a big and heavy lump. The ESP is never fully off in these, either, because they would flip over in the hands of a hooligan and AMG isn't gonna want that press coverage ever since the B Class failed the moose test, so they are never that exciting to drive. Personally, I don't get the appeal of these, but to each their own.
I'm going to disagree with you.
At the track, my GLE 53, the plain old 6 cylinder, equipped with DPP / ARC, circulates with the S2000s and a little bit head of 944s. Leaves the WRX crowd in the dust.
There was an occasional W211 AMG55 that was in about the same grouping, but he seemed to be cautious.
It's not a GT3 Cup Car or a modded ZO6, but the GLE 53 AMG is rousing fun at the track. It's a great do-it-all vehicle, with compromises of course. But it tows my RV, hauls a lot of stuff, and is very responsive.
And yes, hooligan me has spun off the track and kept shiny side up.
I can turn off three levels of Nannies, so if there's intervention I don't think I've found it.
My GLE isn't that much smaller than a GLS, so I think the responsiveness would be there as well. If equipped for handling.
At the track, my GLE 53, the plain old 6 cylinder, equipped with DPP / ARC, circulates with the S2000s and a little bit head of 944s. Leaves the WRX crowd in the dust.
There was an occasional W211 AMG55 that was in about the same grouping, but he seemed to be cautious.
It's not a GT3 Cup Car or a modded ZO6, but the GLE 53 AMG is rousing fun at the track. It's a great do-it-all vehicle, with compromises of course. But it tows my RV, hauls a lot of stuff, and is very responsive.
And yes, hooligan me has spun off the track and kept shiny side up.
I can turn off three levels of Nannies, so if there's intervention I don't think I've found it.
My GLE isn't that much smaller than a GLS, so I think the responsiveness would be there as well. If equipped for handling.
Well, let's put it a bit in perspective. Your GLE 53 weighs about 5000 lbs, heavy, but the GLS 63 comes in at a whopping 6019 lbs. That's a whole other ballpark (over 300 lbs heavier than the 166 btw). I'm too lazy to compare the power to weight ratio between all the cars you mentioned, but you are probably pulling away from them on the straights, then losing some time in the corners, but not enough for them to catch you. You can certainly strong arm an SUV around a track and make up time on the straights if you have the extra power, but at 5000 lbs you gonna chew up your tires and cook the brakes eventually if you are really getting on it.
As for the intervention, the rollover protection is always active. You probably just didn't feel it as you had your hands full spinning out and you haven't pushed it enough yet to feel it on the track, but you'd likely be fading the brakes first if you took it to that level.
Last edited by superswiss; Feb 6, 2024 at 04:10 PM.
I just find its fidgety on all road surfaces, like driving in windy conditions that want to move the vehicle around and you need to correct the line regularly, or like the tyres are all mushy, body control is not great given the tech fitted to the 63, too much pitch and roll in C, then the fidgeting starts in S, but it does improve the rolling.
I agree it’s powerful, but it doesn’t feel responsive like the 166, that was like a rocket once you went for it, and sounded way nicer, “proper AMG”. The 167 takes too much to get started then the moment is gone, the 166 just went bang, gone.
Coupled with poor build quality, silly faults and a lack of luxury at the price point I just think the 167 version of the 63 is a let down. I know some things are better but so many are the same or worse than the 166 so this is not progress.
I actually thought about 4 new Michelin PS4 tyres as they were really great on my 166, and a Hunter alignment and roof force balance of said tyres to rule out alignment and tyre issues, because it just feels so unsettled but I doubt that’s the cause?
I’m not experiencing any of the lag or stability issue in a 2024 AMG GLS 63. In fact much better than my 2018 X5M and 2014 M5.
I guess the real question would be what expectations are out there on a full size, 3 row, SUV. In no way am I expecting performance similar to my 2017 AMG GTR or other AMG sedan/coupe/shooting brake.
I also don’t think comparison to the Bentayga is realistically possible…about 70-80k more expensive in ultra luxury range, and it’s also a smaller, 3 row SUV in terms of capacity with literally no space behind third row. Designed for different customer parameters to some extent. Took a 2023 for a test drive and loved it but did not fit what I was looking for.
I just find its fidgety on all road surfaces, like driving in windy conditions that want to move the vehicle around and you need to correct the line regularly, or like the tyres are all mushy, body control is not great given the tech fitted to the 63, too much pitch and roll in C, then the fidgeting starts in S, but it does improve the rolling.
I agree it’s powerful, but it doesn’t feel responsive like the 166, that was like a rocket once you went for it, and sounded way nicer, “proper AMG”. The 167 takes too much to get started then the moment is gone, the 166 just went bang, gone.
Coupled with poor build quality, silly faults and a lack of luxury at the price point I just think the 167 version of the 63 is a let down. I know some things are better but so many are the same or worse than the 166 so this is not progress.
I actually thought about 4 new Michelin PS4 tyres as they were really great on my 166, and a Hunter alignment and roof force balance of said tyres to rule out alignment and tyre issues, because it just feels so unsettled but I doubt that’s the cause?
The smaller engine going to exaggerate some turbo lag (even with the minor electric assist), so it probably takes more to get going than your 166 as you feel and will be slower from a stop until it gets going. I think the advanced suspension with the active sway bars allows them to keep the suspension softer for comfort and stiffen up when needed, which probably doesn't feel as you are used to. I'm actually amazed at how well something so big and heavy handles.
What tyres (can't believe I just spelled it like I'm English) and size are on the vehicle? Wide tires are always going to tram with road imperfections, but mine is not overly bad for how wide they are, and it isn't a problem for me. I've got the 23 inch 4S tires, but my 22 inch winter setup, while mushier rides fine and handles pretty well also. I think at the very least you should check the alignment and tire pressures and at least confirm it's in spec.
At the end of the day, the 167 is faster and objectively handles better than the 166. But, drama/stiffness/noise always feels faster even if it isn't. It stinks that you are disappointed with your new purchase, but however much AMG "feel" there is or is not to you, the actually speed and handling of AMG is clearly there and better than what you had (although that doesn't make it a more enjoyable car necessarily). I'm very happy with mine, but I bought it years after I was last in an 166 63, so can't compare like you can.
Well, let's put it a bit in perspective. Your GLE 53 weighs about 5000 lbs, heavy, but the GLS 63 comes in at a whopping 6019 lbs. FWIW My GLE weighs 5250# wet.
That's a whole other ballpark (over 300 lbs heavier than the 166 btw). I'm too lazy to compare the power to weight ratio between all the cars you mentioned, but you are probably pulling away from them on the straights, then losing some time in the corners, but not enough for them to catch you. I pull away more in the corners than in the straights, but both. The S2000 was closest, corners and straights. You can definitely feel the AMG massaged AWD doing its job.
You can certainly strong arm an SUV around a track and make up time on the straights if you have the extra power, but at 5000 lbs you gonna chew up your tires and cook the brakes eventually if you are really getting on it. (I finesse, not strongarm, but you're right the front tires were inadequate and the brakes fade.
As for the intervention, the rollover protection is always active. You probably just didn't feel it as you had your hands full spinning out Actually my hands weren't full at all, it was just a normal spin out. My attention lapsed and I was paying attention to that ZO6 overtaking me. Amateur move on my part.
and you haven't pushed it enough yet to feel it on the track, but you'd likely be fading the brakes first if you took it to that level. (I finesse, not strongarm, but you're right the front tires were inadequate and the brakes fade.
....
I think the cars are more capable than you think, with ARC.
Certainly more capable than the 166.
The smaller engine going to exaggerate some turbo lag (even with the minor electric assist), so it probably takes more to get going than your 166 as you feel and will be slower from a stop until it gets going. I think the advanced suspension with the active sway bars allows them to keep the suspension softer for comfort and stiffen up when needed, which probably doesn't feel as you are used to. I'm actually amazed at how well something so big and heavy handles.
What tyres (can't believe I just spelled it like I'm English) and size are on the vehicle? Wide tires are always going to tram with road imperfections, but mine is not overly bad for how wide they are, and it isn't a problem for me. I've got the 23 inch 4S tires, but my 22 inch winter setup, while mushier rides fine and handles pretty well also. I think at the very least you should check the alignment and tire pressures and at least confirm it's in spec.
At the end of the day, the 167 is faster and objectively handles better than the 166. But, drama/stiffness/noise always feels faster even if it isn't. It stinks that you are disappointed with your new purchase, but however much AMG "feel" there is or is not to you, the actually speed and handling of AMG is clearly there and better than what you had (although that doesn't make it a more enjoyable car necessarily). I'm very happy with mine, but I bought it years after I was last in an 166 63, so can't compare like you can.
Its on the 22" wheels rather than 23's, I had the tyres slightly higher than the recommended pressures for the 3 passenger set up (I drive it to work most days) but with lots of tramlining reduced it down, its now 34 front and 33 rear, still feels like its moving around in the road. The tyres are mixed front to rear mind, Yokohama front and Conti 6 on the back, so maybe the 63's sensitive to that too?
I'm not suggesting it hasn't moved on as a vehicle, it has, no question, I just find it a bit too soft in C and fidgety in S on the motorway, but still with too much movement in the body, only S+ sorts that out but driving around in S+ all the time seems a bit much, the gearbox is a bit jumpy around town etc. for that.
Comparisons with 166, Bentayga etc. are still relative I feel, because those cars for me were 2016 vehicles, so older tech, but the improvements aren't there, the Bentayga did a better job of smoothing the ride to be super refined, then the thing could take off at will, the 167 GLS63 isn't really doing either of those as well, and thats current tech.
Im disappointed but yes maybe Im expecting too much, not sports car dynamics for sure, just more control, more planted feel as opposed to the feeling that its snaking around, and a bit more get up and go. The 167 is a lethargic large vehicle with lazy throttle unless you really push on, so feels every bit its size, which I really didn't expect, but just my initial thoughts on it.
Its on the 22" wheels rather than 23's, I had the tyres slightly higher than the recommended pressures for the 3 passenger set up (I drive it to work most days) but with lots of tramlining reduced it down, its now 34 front and 33 rear, still feels like its moving around in the road. The tyres are mixed front to rear mind, Yokohama front and Conti 6 on the back, so maybe the 63's sensitive to that too?
I'm not suggesting it hasn't moved on as a vehicle, it has, no question, I just find it a bit too soft in C and fidgety in S on the motorway, but still with too much movement in the body, only S+ sorts that out but driving around in S+ all the time seems a bit much, the gearbox is a bit jumpy around town etc. for that.
Comparisons with 166, Bentayga etc. are still relative I feel, because those cars for me were 2016 vehicles, so older tech, but the improvements aren't there, the Bentayga did a better job of smoothing the ride to be super refined, then the thing could take off at will, the 167 GLS63 isn't really doing either of those as well, and thats current tech.
Im disappointed but yes maybe Im expecting too much, not sports car dynamics for sure, just more control, more planted feel as opposed to the feeling that its snaking around, and a bit more get up and go. The 167 is a lethargic large vehicle with lazy throttle unless you really push on, so feels every bit its size, which I really didn't expect, but just my initial thoughts on it.
Besides C, S, S+, don't forget you also have the Individual mode where you can create your own setup. So you can combine the best settings from each of the modes into your own personal mode. Put the suspension in S+, but keep the engine/transmission in the Sport setting for example. There's also always manual mode for the transmission. I mostly drive my performance cars in manual mode. That's really the only way to drive them properly, IMO, but that's assuming you know what you are doing with the gears. I drive these cars like I drive cars with manual transmission. Always making sure I'm in the right gear for my next maneuver instead of leaving it up to a computer. Also, your tire situation needs a closer look. With an AWD vehicle you shouldn't mix tires from different brands with different tread designs etc. Make sure you've got a proper tire setup. You may also wanna consider getting the transmission adaptations reset. The previous owner(s) may have been driving it like grandmas. These transmissions adapt to the driving style.
I did wonder about the mixed tyre set up, it really does feel like it moves around on the road surface, roads are dry, its not windy, temps are around 12 degrees C, but it doesn't feel great, I just didn't expect the tyre treads would affect it like that, if it is that. Both are Mercedes rated.
I do play around with the settings to try and find the best mix for me, but none of that provides a settled ride quality and the more aggressive engine or gearbox settings can be a bit jerky, MHEV fanciness ey, MB should've stuck with good old V8 Bi Turbo
@carlosamg50 Mixed tires are a definite No, especially if you push the car as it sounds like you're used to doing.
They probably accentuate Tramlining, and handling will be unpredictable at best.
Matched tires should help with the tramlining, and you can adjust the harshness with tire pressures.
I agree that the refinement of the 167 vs. the 166 masks its improvements. It's a more subtle performer, with the legendary German car characteristics of good ride and handling in the same package.
I did wonder about the mixed tyre set up, it really does feel like it moves around on the road surface, roads are dry, its not windy, temps are around 12 degrees C, but it doesn't feel great, I just didn't expect the tyre treads would affect it like that, if it is that. Both are Mercedes rated.
I do play around with the settings to try and find the best mix for me, but none of that provides a settled ride quality and the more aggressive engine or gearbox settings can be a bit jerky, MHEV fanciness ey, MB should've stuck with good old V8 Bi Turbo
Yeah, get those tires sorted and get it aligned. Strangely, my trusted tire source only brings up one tire suitable for the GLS63 with 22" and it's not even a performance tire. It's a grand touring summer tire and it's the original equipment tire. That right there kinda shows it's not really a performance car. I think that's the first AMG I come across that doesn't use performance tires.
Last edited by superswiss; Feb 7, 2024 at 01:01 PM.
Yeah, get those tires sorted and get it aligned. Strangely, my trusted tire source only brings up one tire suitable for the GLS63 with 22" and it's not even a performance tire. It's a grand touring summer tire and it's the original equipment tire. That right there kinda shows it's not really a performance car. I think that's the first AMG I come across that doesn't use performance tires.
I try to buy from a Tire Guy too, but it seems that few survive these days.
Mercedes tires also shows a performance 22" tire, Yokohama.
An advantage of MB sourced and installed tires is that there's a 2 year road hazard warranty included, not pro-rated.
I've found my Dealer is often cheaper than TireRack. https://www.mbusatirecenter.com/?sd_...E&gclsrc=aw.ds
Yeah, get those tires sorted and get it aligned. Strangely, my trusted tire source only brings up one tire suitable for the GLS63 with 22" and it's not even a performance tire. It's a grand touring summer tire and it's the original equipment tire. That right there kinda shows it's not really a performance car. I think that's the first AMG I come across that doesn't use performance tires.
Interesting…when I go to Tire Rack for a 2024 with 22inch wheels I get several max performance summers to include PS4S and numerous P Zero all with the MO tags. Perhaps I got the model year wrong…
Negative on the litmus test for a ‘performance car’ since there are options for max performance affixed to this AMG SUV.
Interesting…when I go to Tire Rack for a 2024 with 22inch wheels I get several max performance summers to include PS4S and numerous P Zero all with the MO tags. Perhaps I got the model year wrong…
Negative on the litmus test for a ‘performance car’ since there are options for max performance affixed to this AMG SUV.
I looked it up for the 2021, which is what OP has. Not sure why tire rack only comes back with one option.
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Slideshow: A one-of-one U.S.-spec Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren Roadster became even rarer after a factory-backed transformation at McLaren's headquarters.
