I've seen the official volume specs on MB's site for the cargo area, but it's always nice to have individual dimensions. What would be most helpful are length and width dimensions of the floorspace. Maximum width where the sides of the cargo area slope up is nice, but the floor dimensions really help to get an idea for the kinds of things that will and won't fit. Anyone mind doing a couple of quick measurements? Thanks in advance.

Jeff

 

That would be nice to see. The W164's cargo area is smaller than the W163. More room for the passengers maybe? I would take measurments for you. If only I had a W164.

 

A couple of early reviews mentoined that very fact. The exterior dimensions on the new model are longer than the old, but it offers less cargo space. Mercedes obviously put a premium on occupant space. Here's a quote from CanadianDriver from June on the new ML:

"Surprisingly, the cargo area of the new 2006 ML is smaller than the previous model even though the new ML has larger external dimensions. Mercedes' figures show 29.4 cubic feet behind the rear seats in the new model, and 34.7 cubic feet in the 2005 model. With the 60/40 split rear seats folded down, there's 72.4 cu. ft. in the new model and 81.2 cu. ft. in the old model. Obviously, Mercedes has decided that passenger room is more important than cargo room. "

 

Well there is no point in traveling if your passengers aren't comfortable.

 

The kids in the the 2 car seats in the backseat of my car don't really care how much room is back there. ;-) That's why I'm ineterested in the cargo space dimensions comes - strollers, double stroller, etc. I know they'll all fit, but I'm interested in how much space I'll have left over.

My wife is looking into a new SUV. Up until now, we've looked into the X5, Range Rover and Lexus GX470. She has a 2000 Dodge Durango now and wants to go with something nicer We found that we never used the 3rd row, so we decided not to go with a vehicle that big this time around. She also liked the idea of an SUV that didn't drive like a land yacht. However, she doesn't want to go so small that her cargo space gets cut in half.

When looking into the models above, I took the kids' strollers with me for size comparison. It's a good real-world test to see what space you have left after putting one of them in since she usually keeps one in the cargo area. My basic test was sliding each into the cargo area longways. I couldn't even close the tailgate on the X5 with the single stroller. I didn't have the double with me, but I was pretty sure that it would fit in the GX470 since the single went in with room to spare. I as able to just fit the double (is a front and back double - vs side-by-side) into the Range Rover and close the tailgate. I know from the brochure that the length of the Range Rover's cargo area with the second row seats in normal position is 42.3".

So, I'm interested in the dimensions of the new ML's cargo area for comparison's sake. I actually was thinking all along that the ML was too small so I didn't even consider it. But I saw mention of the larger external dimensions in an article and figured it was worth checking out.

Jeff

 

Haven't measured it but, my initial take is that the W164 is a bit narrower but a bit longer than my W163. Thats with the rear seats in the normal up position. Believe that the floor to ceiling measurement is a bit less in the Wi64.

 

The X5 is a joke. The GX has the tailgate that swings to the right basically eliminating curbside loading. The Range Rover is nice.

 

Yeah, while I liked the drivability of the X5, that cargo area was tiny. I did notice that quirky design of the GX470 tailgate. Additionally, while the interior is certainly nicer than a Durango, it's not all that special. My wife and I really like the look of the Rover and the interior. My only real concern is the reliability.

The JD Power numbers have it almost dead last for numbers of problems reported. Comments I've seen from owners in Rover forums seem to confirm that. They usually say they absolutely love the car, but that they have had various issues with the car, even several within the first few months of ownership. Most say that the issues don't outweigh the things they love about the car, but it has given me pause. I really don't think my wife will go for a vehicle that is more likely to have several service vistits to the dealer in the first year.

Of course, MB has slipped in this area themselves and I've heard MB service techs joke about owners of the first year of a new model being the "beta testers". I've had the first year of the redesigned C and only had a couple of minor issues with it, so that wasn't the case for me with that vehicle. Although, I think I've read where the first couple of years of the last ML were plagued with issues.

 

Here are some. I can take specific measurements tomorrow.

 

Nice find Greg! And thank you in advance for the measurements you will take. It's not 100% clear which number represents the length of the cargo floor, but It looks like the 813mm is the distance from the back of the second row headrest to the cargo door. If I'm reading it right, 1063mm is the length I'm looking. I would expect that distance to be longer than from the headrest given the sloping of the seats. That 1063mm converts to 41.85" which is pretty darn close to the 42.3" in the Range Rover. If it is indeed the right number, then the ML certainly made our list.

 

What is the height under the cargo divider ?
What is the height from the bottom of the cargo area and the top of the back seats ?

 

I took these this morning. It's hard to be precise because there are few straight lines in the hold, and the position of the front seats will affect some figures.

Width at floor level - 43"
Width at mid-height - 50"
Length qt floor level to folded 2nd row - 66"
Length, diagonal (from base of hatch to headrests) - ~72"
Length at floor level to upright 2nd row - 40"
Height - 36-37"
Height under cargo cover - 17.5"
Hatch height - 34.5"
Hatch width (widest) - 45"
Hatch diagonal (max) - 48"