SuperDavid

I will buy a new car for my wife, I have a C350 2008 no problems never nice car, I went to dealer to buy the ML, I dont see many differents between GC and W166 inside and outside. the price is very high (here in PR), the GC is 5.7 liters 360 hp, 390 torque 4x4 and all the options, satelite tv, sirus, 2 memory seats, 20" inch rims, etc. the ML has 302 hp. Both were design by Fiat and both are assembly in USA not in Germany. Why Pay more than $30k (Here), Can we compare both SUV? please send any comments I have to buy a SUV this week.

DC-IT

You already have a M-B so why not stay with the same brand?
The GC is NOT a Benz and of a different class.

If price is a concern why not look for a deal on a 2011 ML350 BlueTec?
You'll be a lot happier when you have to fill up!

PGT

the ML was designed by Fiat? WAT???

smiley47

The GC, the Dodge Durango and the W166 ML were designed by Daimler when they owned Chrysler as part of the global platform trend. They share many features according to several auto writers for major car magazines.

PGT

Well, yes. Doesn't mean that they were designed by Fiat. DC split before Fiat became involved.

smiley47

These all-new, ground up designs are in the pipeline for years. Fiat just took advantage of the design work completed when they picked up Chrysler but they did not design it. Google it.

PGT

ummm.....I'm referring to the OP's claim:

translation = he's wrong.

smiley47

My bad. I misread your post as "Doesn't THAT mean that they were designed by Fiat"

translation= we're on the same page.

PGT

yes. LOL

jon2002

Why not give them both a thorough test drive and see what you think? I'd imagen the w166 would be quieter and better insulted, with less nvh.

caf

I shopped both vehicles pretty closely, as well as the X5 and the Touareg. I first drove a Grand Cherokee Overland. Great value--loaded with lots of cool options, and the stitched Saddle brown interior with the Rugged Brown exterior was really sharp looking. The vehicle I was looking at was a 2011 and stickered at about $48K. I think I could have gotten a significant discount.

I had two hesitations with the GC. I only tow occasionally, but when I do I need about 6000 lb. capacity. The 6 cylinder is not adequate for that purpose, and my sister just got a 6 cylinder and finds it marginal on power even in daily driving. The V8, has great power, of course, but sucks gas like a (insert favorite simile here). We used to have a Jeep Commander, and it's hemi V8 combined with a relatively small fuel tank meant very frequent gas station stops. What I really wanted is only available in Europe--a diesel, so I can have good torque and towing power, but still reasonable economy.

My second hesitation with the GC was that although it drove OK, there was just no feedback from the steering at all. It was sort of like the steering wheel on an early video game controller.

Friday I drove the 2012 ML350 (gas version). I thought the driving experience was much better than the GC. Although they share DNA, I can assure you that the end product is quite different. And of course, the ML has a diesel option.

I ordered the diesel ML350 on Saturday with premium package 1, tow package, and steering wheel. Sticker price $55,340. I was able to get about $2K off without any trouble. I'm pretty happy with the deal.

K-A

LOL @ "Designed by Fiat". These things were pretty much frozen by the time Fiat took over Chrysler.

The GC/Durango IS a full ML underneath, and it won't end there. The Maserati Kubang also is "On the Jeep Platform", which oddly enough Press reports aren't stating that it's actually the "ML Platform", as Jeep seems to have laid claim on the chassis, by peeing on it first (releasing it first). This platform is a dirty little sl*t, to be frank.

I haven't driven either, but the GC is being hailed as one of the best things since sliced break (for the SUV world, that is), and obviously credit goes to Mercedes there. Naturally, M-B will have refined the overall car to compliment there badge on it. The interior kind of tells you the whole story. The Jeeps is nice, for an American car, but from a Benz fans perspective, still underlying-ly "cheap". The ML's interior looks very similar, but it just refines and "fixes" things further.

Me, personally, I like my SUV's American (kind of the whole point of SUV's to me), and I don't feel right driving a Benz built in Alabama. So I'd choose the GC and put the extra cash in my pocked, to compliment my "other car": A Benz.

50cent

Anyone who thinks the GC=ML, should not buy the ML because you know little about cars. I think the GC is probably too much car for you (not directed at OP).

Sure there are similarities, and for good reason, but equating each vehicle to one another is silly.

YYZ-E55

Incorrect.

Only the following parts are common to the GC and the ML:
Parts integral to the concept (not common parts): front end structure and main floor (not rear floor), but different materials, own tooling and separate production units
Front axle/rear axle subframe (excluding axle kinematic components)
Seat structure, front (steel structural components only, not elements which determine comfort such as foam or cover)

K-A

Aren't they on the same chassis, same hard points, etc.?

YYZ-E55

Absolutely not. See my post above. The elements listed above are the only commonalities from a platform perspective. Daimler and Chrysler went their separate ways quite early in the project due to very different customer expectations regarding the end product (ie: cost/price, driving dynamics, etc). The GC is a great vehicle and the value for money is huge, but it is not a Benz.

K-A

Wow, I learned something new. I have read, been told, and through that was under the impression that these cars were on exact same chassis'. Interesting.

YYZ-E55

Also note the different materials used - undoubtedly relevant in tems of chassis rigidity, safety, etc.

GregW / Oregon

park423

If the ML and GC are so different, why did they have to make the interior look nearly identical. People in general cannot see nor are knowledgeable enough to consider these cars "different" based on chassis/platform or hard points (whatever that is) etc... What consumers will see is the near identical interior layout and design (like a Tahoe and an Escalade which are obviously based on a single platform) and assume (because of Daimler and Chrysler's well publicized former marriage) that the two cars are derivatives of each other and potentially cheapen the ML's cache. The interior is definitely the best part of the W166 and a much bigger improvement compared to the so-so exterior (and yes, I have seen one in person) but wish it wasn't so close to the Cherokee. When it comes time to renew my wife's ML lease next year, the deal better be a good one or I am jumping to an X5 (to me the best looking SUV).

K-A

If you go to general car Forums or Websites, every article posted of the GC or ML has tons of comments regarding the other car, as if they're interchangeable, etc. M-B really goofed with the Chrysler marriage. The fact that the GC came out first, doesn't help anything either (some people who aren't in the know assume that the "chassis is Jeeps".

MercedesFTW

Have you seen the X5's interior? Very bland IMO!

dougiebear

First out the gate should tell you something?????
Have you ever seen a Jeep video of research and testing on youtube like the well documented research and testing of the ML?
Jeep is bigger and bulkier to my eyes.

GregW / Oregon

Not counting the active safety systems, here is some of the testing done and the more passive safety features which show the German attention to the smallest detail.

"Body: high energy absorption in the event of a front impact
The extremely robust occupant compartment of the M-Class, together with the front and rear deformation zones, forms an effective basis for the occupant protection system. The focus of the work here has been the tangible reduction of the loads exerted on the occupants. In the case of front impacts, the engineers were able to achieve more uniform deceleration, and therefore a lower peak load on the occupants. This was made possible by means of:

■Design of the front axle carrier as a crash element, which is able to deform in a specific manner and in the case of an offset crash, for example, can divert the energy to the side of the vehicle opposite the side of impact
■A novel aluminium gearbox crossmember mount with offset function: isolated against noise and vibration during normal operation, in the event of a crash this component is activated via hooks so that the centre tunnel can absorb additional energy in this area (diesel versions only)
■Guide ramp on the brake booster, thus preventing unwanted block formation between the brake booster and the damper dome. The brake booster is also rotated to minimise possible brake pedal intrusion
■A crash joint ensures that the mudguard is pushed away at the driver's door, and prevents the door from jamming after the impact. For the most part the doors can be opened without much effort
■Ultra-high-strength steels in the A-pillar enhance the stability of the passenger compartment in both front impacts as well as in different rollover scenarios, primarily enabling doors to be opened easily after an offset crash
■Projected sills create a direct load path to the front wheel. As a result, any possible forcing or intrusion of the wheels into the footwell can be avoided
■Optimum energy conversion in the event of a front crash despite relatively short front-end length, thanks to enabling the load paths from the crashbox to the longitudinal body member, from the wheel to the sill, and due to the deformable subframe, which guides forces into the centre tunnel via the engine/transmission joint
■The energy-absorbing steering column deforms up to 100 millimetres when subjected to external forces, thus freeing up additional deformation space for energy conversion. As a result, the loads on the driver can be reduced in the area of the head, neck and thorax
Side-impact protection thanks to intelligent bodyshell
Similar to the design of the front area of the new M-Class, the vehicle's intelligent bodyshell design also performs impressively in side-impact accident scenarios. The specific distribution of high rigidity and high deformability helps to ensure that the occupants benefit from favourable kinematics in the event of a side impact:
■The lower part of the B-pillar, an important component in side impacts, is highly compressible, whereas its upper part is extremely rigid. As a result, intrusions and the speed of intrusions in the lower area are reduced, while in the upper area high-strength steels on the exterior sides of the pillar prevent it from buckling unfavourably in a side impact. In addition, this design solution increases the stability of the passenger compartment in the event of a rollover
■The stiffening of the floor structure by means of a supporting element made of an ultra-high-strength material running across the entire width of the vehicle, and ultra-high-strength reinforcements in the driver's seat crossmember, help to reduce deformations, primarily in the event of a pole impact. As a result, the occupant survival space benefits from even better protection, and the thorax load on the occupants is reduced
■The geometry and body connections of the pillars and the roof frame made of ultra-high-strength material have been optimised to provide the best possible crash safety

Brilliant finish: the rear assembly
The rear area of the M-Class also protects the sturdy passenger compartment in crash situations thanks to specific deformation work, therefore minimising the loads on the occupants. A special impact test conducted to check tank leakage gives an indication of the exceptional load capabilities of the rear part of the M-Class body. The test involved running a crash carriage into the rear of the M-Class at 80 km/h. The tank system survived this fatal impact without suffering any leaks.

To enhance rigidity, increase the energy absorption capability and improve deformation behaviour, the multi-piece rear longitudinal members feature a continuous closed cross-section with stepped plate thicknesses (tailored blanks). The spare wheel well forms an integrated part of the steel floor, and a steel flexible bumper bracket carries the rear bumper covering and is connected to the rear structure via two steel crashboxes."

K-A

What I'd like to know is how much High Strength and Ultra High Strength Steels the ML uses VS what the GC uses, and how much of those structural passive safety elements are also used by the GC as well. The GC has an extremely robust, "Benz like" cage, if you check out its IIHS Crash Test results.

I would be shocked (in a bad way) if M-B didn't go through further lengths to safety-prioritize the chassis that these cars share, but I'm still curious to see just what the differences are when you get to the bones of it.