sosh

My dealer had a ML500 that he let me have for the better part of the afternoon yesterday. A few comments and thoughts:
Rode very well, similar to my E Class. Was very comfortable. Vision to the rear is great but limited to the rear quarters and the side view mirrors were not as good as the W163. This ML was pretty bare bones, appearance group, entertainment package and metallic paint were the only options. Could not find the switch to fold the mirrors. Did not like the aluminum trim on the interior. Did not have the auto dimming on the interior rear view mirror. Had a manual adjutable steering wheel, not the electric. The Alcantra or what ever they call it seat inserts were terrible, felt and looked cheap. Reminded me of the mouse hair velours found in 60's and 70's GM cars. It will soil easily and wear rapidly. Did not have the drawer in the dash above the ashtray as it must come with the premium package. Power was similar to my 02 ML500 but the trans is smoother shifting and shifts more often. All in all I felt as if it was not a follow on to the W163 but an entirely new vehicle that slightly resembled the 163. I also did not like the positions of the driver's stalks and the column shift. I feel that at least in the learning stage while it is intuitive, this shifter will cause problems when valet parking. Remember valet's are usually not rocket scientists. Found also that the wheel blocked the instrumentation and I disliked the lack of an engine temp gage. I must think this one out to see if I really want the one I have ordered. The consol also is ugly and my dealer is finding out if they can order the euro consol.

Jason.Bare

So, did you like anything about the ML?

sosh

Yes, ride, handling, comfort and exterior styling. Fit and finish was also very good

Jason.Bare

Oh, OK. Did you consider the shifter location functional or more like a step back in ergonomics?

GregW / Oregon

In my test drive, I found the shifter surprisingly easy to get used to. I think with a little use it will be second-nature.

The shift buttons on the back of the wheel are not as good as fixed paddles, IMO--you must search for them with the wheel turned. Also, the transmission will not hold a gear at redline when manually shifting but will automatically upshift, which I don't care for.

sosh

Can't say the shifter is a step backward but its very different. I have no problem with it and do not feel that my wife will either after some indoctronation. However I feel that a parking valet will at least till they see and use a number of these. I use valet parking often and as I said before these are not the most intellegent people on earth and they will have problems with it. I would have preferred the shifter in standard configuration on the consol and the hell with the wheel shift buttons. This is not an F1 car but a daily driver SUV.

GregW / Oregon

I think the main value in the ability to manually shift is to provide some decellerative force without having your foot on the brake when going down hill, not for maximum acceleration. You can also manually downshift to be in the correct gear in anticipation of passing, etc.

sosh

I fully understand why one would want to shift and the rationale behind it, I would rather shift by tapping the consol mounted shift lever than using the wheel buttons in the 164.

GregW / Oregon

Well, logic says if you can perforn the same function with less movement, it's better. I, too, am used to the console shift knob as a result of 40 years of driving. But, the whole reason for that location was manual linkage.

Now that it's electronic, I have no problem adapting to a location that requires less hand movement. I just don't think the switches on the back of the steering wheel are the best of this genre. When the wheel is turned and your hands are not in the usual spoke relationship, you must search for the buttons. The fixed paddles, ala BMW SMG and others, seem better to me. That was the point I meant to make.