Ml
Thread Starter
Member
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
From: UK
Mercedes C270 CDI Est
Ml
Lets face the ML is a poor car the MB should have never made, they make very well engineered cars, but not this one, They should have stuck to cars not SUV s, BMWs X5 is ok but not up to the job, There is only one true offroader and thats the Range Rover or the good old Lander Rover, The rest are just playing at it.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 4,260
Likes: 6
From: Philadelphia area
2010 ML550, 2010 E350 4M, 1966 Corvette Convt C2
Disagree strongly. Rovers, at least in the US are pure junk with very poor design and quality control. They have a terrible reputation and very poor resale value. I am on my 2nd ML and find them very well engineered with now acceptable quality control but in one way I do agree partially is that my E320 4Matic has much better fit, finish and quality. I would rate it as excellent and the ML quality good.
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 864
Likes: 1
ML
Forget Rovers, quality wise, they are worse than the ML's, though they are excellent offroaders. MB did make a sound market decision to build an SUV. Remember that in 1998, there were no X5's nor were there MDX's and the ML was king then. the problem with MB's philosophy was to try and make a mass market SUV. And there they failed miserably. First they went with cheap plastics, then they had supplier problems, then they just got snobby and didn't care much about addressing customer complaints - and this is still true in some cases!!! Then the competition caught up. To make matters worse, the vehicle is loaded with extensive complicated interconnected electronic safety and management systems that can cause a lot of headache if they fail, and they do fail. All they had to do was use proven technology from a warchest of reliable products, like the E-Class, for example. For example, why did MB use a different window control logic for the ML when they could have adopted the proven E-Class code. Then there's the fuel pump issue, 4yrs and running - snobby attitude. i don't believe MB's engineers don't have solutions for these problems. MB has to keep the vehicle cost down, so we suffer. The irony is that they're hardly inexpensive. I'd pay a few more $K, to have a better quality built ML. It's rather embarassing when Consumer Reports prints that they can't recommend the ML because of "reliability" problems - I read that as quality problems 'cause the vehicle is reliable.
Ofcourse, it's all easy for me to say all this, I don't make the decisions, I just buy the truck and cars, and I love them.
Ofcourse, it's all easy for me to say all this, I don't make the decisions, I just buy the truck and cars, and I love them.
Last edited by Darkmann; Nov 19, 2002 at 09:28 PM.
Newbie
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
CLK 320
Disagree Strongly!
The first post states that the Range Rover/Land Rover is a good vehicle... ARE YOU NUTS! Those cars spend more time in the shop than they do on the road... ask anyone who owns one! The BMW might as well be a minivan with a decent Engine. In my opinion... the ML is the ULTIMATE SUV. It cruises nicely at 80, takles any terrain(snow, mud, ice, rain, etc,), I love the cup holders (so many cars have terrible cup holder positions), when its all shined up it looks fantastic!, and above all it is a funcitional vehicle: pulls our 22' Searay, hauls four people plus camping equipment... the list goes on... this is the ULTIMATE UTILITY SUV! THere is no comparison to date... only a newer model with nicer bells and whistles.
