No more Ml350 bluetec? Are they crazy??
I guess when the lease is up next fall, I will move on to the new Audi Q7 diesel or BMW X5 diesel with enough power and gas mileage. Mercedes is taking the wrong route to abandoning current customers with the Ml350 bluetec and giving them a smaller engine just to get slightly better gas mileage. Either way this engine doesn't cut it for the bigger ML and is fine for the GLK. The reviews have been poor for this engine in europe and many calling this engine weak or noisy and unrefined.
I think Mercedes will loose lot on this with the bad marketing and putting the ml400 between the ml350 and the Ml250 bluetec too. Too much overlap and poor planning. To those who have the Ml350 blutec, would you ever consider Ml250 bt?




It has 369 ft/lb of torque, which while not the 455 ft/lb of the 350BT is more than many/most cars out there on the road. The final drive ratios haven't been published or anything yet to know if MB has done anything to help get it off the line easier. There's 500 lb of weight difference between a GLK and an ML, which is not that much in the grand scheme of things. The 2.1L is not unrefined in either the E250 or GLK250, so I'm not sure why it would be in the ML.
That said, if you want speed, you don't buy a diesel. The US is just catching up with the rest of the world in terms of downsizing to more appropriate sized engines; and it's a shame it didn't start 20 years ago.
Last edited by MDMercedesGuy; Aug 17, 2014 at 09:11 PM.




People said the same thing when the C250 replaced the C300. This is the way the world is going.





There wasn't any political motivation behind my statement.
We'll see how you feel about following the crowd when we're paying fuel prices equal to the rest of the world sans the Middle East.
Trending Topics
Last edited by Barry45RPM; Aug 19, 2014 at 09:20 AM.
The Best of Mercedes & AMG




It's very quiet in the E, and when audible is more of a slightly nasal sounding rumble than anything else. I'd imagine it will be the same or quieter in the ML.
, it's all about taxes, US fuel taxes are lower than the RoW, the actual cost of fuel to refiners is within pennies worldwide.With apologies to all for climbing on a political soapbox, if the US had any cogent national energy policy for the past 35 years, we wouldn't need to follow the weak policies created by the "rest of the world".
"Give me horsepower or give me d...." wait, should it be "give me torque, or give me death?
It d*** sure isn't "give me mileage or give me death".




Both were quite nice to drive - I definitely preferred the Bluetec though. I can't stand how the V6 in the gas 350 sounds, and the torque made it a much more pleasant drive.
My dealer is supposed to get their first 250s in around 9/30. That just happens to be my birthday - I have a feeling I've figured what I'm getting myself for turning 32.
There's plenty of time in life (statistically) for an MB SUV!




Last edited by MDMercedesGuy; Aug 20, 2014 at 10:00 AM.
new Audi Q7
new MB GLK (larger)
Refresh of the ML with new interior
More choices next year and we'll have better insight to the performance of the ML 250. If I had to make a choice now it would be the BMW X5 diesel.
The alternative will be the ml400, and they discuss the broad tongue curve starting at low RPMs. It's horsepower is in line with Audi's gas six.
I like the fact that it takes 10% less crude to produce a gallon of diesel than a gallon of gasoline.
I also enjoy torque. The 455 foot pounds is the other reason I bought this car. It is powerful and gets 25 mpg all day.
I get the reason for the 250. I am just asking as a buyer of a premium brand please continue to offer the 3 liter in the us.
All I can say to Mercedes marketing is that if the offered the ml 3 liter bluetec with the 9 speed in 2016, sign me up. I don't need to look elsewhere. If not the I will have to test drive the new Q7 TDI as well as the Cayenne TDI, before I make my decision.




