A-Train

This is all based on a 30-minute test drive with no passengers and on the highway, back roads, city traffic, poor roads, smooth roads, even a big parking lot so I could do some emergency braking and cornering tests. The dealer is located in such an area that I was able to plan a route where I would be able to get quick snapshot impressions. My current vehicle is a CLS55 so I might be influenced by having hopped out of that car and directly into the ML63. Also, I drove a friend's E63 last month and that had been my only prior 63-engine driving experience. I recognize the limits of such an ML test drive versus longer-term drives or ownership experience but it'll have to do for now...

Back to the ML63, which had under 100 miles on the odometer so the engine is obviously very green and needs a few thousand miles of break-in...

Acceleration off the line / low end to 3.5K RPM: I believe that the numerically higher final drive is unique to the ML for the 63-engined Mercs. The car felt equally quick off the line as the E63, so perhaps the extra weight of the ML more or less evens out the final drive advantage. Either way, it pulls cleanly from a stop, not as "grunty" as the CLS55 but definitely not weak. Let me put it this way... if someone coming out of an economy car drove the ML63, that person would think the ML pulled like a freight train.

Acceleration mid-range (3.5K-5K RPM): seat of the pants, felt very similar to the 55. It would take a stopwatch for me to ever know the difference.

Acceleration high end (above 5K RPM): I have a good relationship with the dealer and regardless, just wouldn't venture that high into the rev range. I just don't want to do anything that would be a burden to the eventual vehicle owner. Do unto others... or something like that.

Brakes: there is too much pedal travel for the brakes to begin to bite. There is virtually no braking the first 1.5" of travel and then the brakes feel similar to the 55. Not sure if the pedal travel is typical of ML63's or if the brakes needed more warming up or just needed to be broken in a bit...

Seats: seem the same as the CLS55; supportive and nicely bolstered.

Handling: though I was aware of the higher center of gravity, I felt more confident in the ML than the CLS. I have thought from day one that the CLS55 was definitely set up much softer than the E55, which was traded-in towards the CLS, and definitely not as quick as the E55 and with lighter steering than the E55. (Ran the CLS at the drag strip a few weeks ago and went 12.7X at 112.XX and I have no doubt the E would have been good for 12.4's at 116.XX. Anyway...) The ML feels like it has less roll than the CLS at 7/10's driving. I drove mostly in Sport mode but also Comfort briefly. I would imagine that it is easier to get into trouble with the ML because I was pushing it pretty hard and it was quiet and smooth and little roll. In the CLS, I would have felt a more progressive lean and tire noise. I'd imagined that in the ML you are either in great shape in a turn or push to hard and you're quickly in tough shape. I wouldn't hesitate to push the CLS to 8/10s but I would be cautious of doing so in the ML.

Transmission: feels just as good as in the other 7-G transmissions I've driven (S550 and GL450). However, the ML63 transmission made a noticeble "clunk" noise and then bucked the car on two occasions when I accelerated pretty hard to 4K and then quickly lifted off the gas. Maybe the 7G anticipated it would need to upshift and then realized it was supposed to downshift or hold the gear and ended up getting a bit confused?

Cabin: is pretty much like any other ML but with some extra leather / alcantara, similar to the difference level in the CLS500/550 and the CLS55/63. Looks very nice, a very familiar Mercedes feel (and parts) and I'd imagine it would be similar to living with the CLS55, beside the obvious cargo and fold-down seats of the ML versus the CLS' trunk (which is actually surprisingly spacious).

Controls: as someone who uses navigation a lot, the controller (up/down, left/right, enter) is now more of a knob that can be pushed / tilted rather than each direction being it's own unique button as in the CLS55. It is now not as direct in feel or precise in use. Not a big deal but I'm not sure why they changed it. I did notice, and this may be due to improved maps / software compared to the CLS55, that the navigation was more precise in terms of its audible voice instructions and the screen colors / tracking. The nav was in the same visual / mapping view mode as my CLS, but for example, the ML says "turn slightly left in 300 feet" with more visually contrasting directional arrows on the light blue background screen whereas the CLS voice would say "turn left" with less contrasting arrows. In the city, this can make the difference between making the correct turn and making the wrong turn or simply missing the turn. Controls are otherwise similar as the CLS but some buttons appear slightly smaller.

Running boards: I like the way they look. It had just lightly rained and the rain does accumulate a bit but not into puddles, certainly. I wouldn't have thought much of it except for there being some threads here about running boards... the rubber grip pattern on the boards looks nice; aggressive and sporty without trying too hard.

Overall: the ML is a very solid choice in the luxury performance SUV market segment where there are just perhaps two primary competitors: the big Range Rover Supercharged (I'd label it 75% luxury / 25% sport) and the Cayenne TT (75%% sport / 25% luxury, which is how I'd also peg the ML63). The ML63 and Cayenne are very similar on paper and in their mission (fastest luxury SUV around -- or any SUV for that matter) and the Range Rover is more about the most comfortable ride around while also having a good engine (would have been a great engine 3 years ago but the bar is higher today). I'd be eager to try the facelifted and new interior Cayenne coming in the Spring with a rumored bump from the current 450 up to approx 500 bhp. Also, by then, the ML550 might be out, which might cause some ML63 potential buyers to pause and consider what may then be a better value compared to the 63 but still won't be as exciting or desirable. Regardless, assuming a reasonable deal can be struck with the dealer (it has been rare that we couldn't in the past -- known each other for many years and vehicles and we value the mutually beneficial relationship), I'll likely take delivery of the ML63 I ordered a while ago when it's here next month.

Thanks for reading,
A-Train

EX-BEEMER

A-Train...I gotta say it...EXCELLENT review!

You got all that from a half hour drive? Very astute, and I might add, very accurate. It took me a week or more before I was able to deduce some of the finer aspects of the ML as compared to my old E55.

Very good job in writing your review... You sure you don't work for C & D or M/T? Naw of course you don't, if you did you'd be praising the "flawless performance and handling of the BMW X5" (I'm sure their paychecks are all drawn from a Bavarian bank)

MSDLTD

It took me a week too! to decide I made the right decesion.
And WOAH...it was...the overall agressive seat position and the two hands on the thick steering wheel rim add to the wolf in sheeps clothing attitude.I would like to see this car tested against Real sports cars...ie.....boxster/BMWZ4/corvette/mustang etc.

jeanmarc

Thanks for the review but I have to disagree with what you said here. Realistically, the ML63's ONLY competition would be the Cayenne TS. I spent some time with the RR Supercharged and would have to say it's more like a sub-ML 500 (I currently own a ML 500) rather than anything close to the ML 63.

Looking at performance from both manufacturers sites it shows 0-60 times on the ML63 at 4.8 sec... and a horrid 7.2 seconds for the RR Supercharged. Even the ML 500 does it in 6.7 with all the comfort you could ask for.

Maybe I'm just Pro-MB

michaelt

Do you think the ML63 would compare favorably to one of these vehicles???
Any comments.