Motorweek results

0-60 = 5.3
1/4 Mile = 13.6 @ 108mph

Very disappointing! I'm beginning to wonder why MB is overstating the potency of the 6.3? Don't get me wrong, Motorweek loved the truck, but I'm disappointed in their numbers.

 

......I watched Motorweek on the stupid speed channel, only to find out that Speedchannel was showing lasts weeks episode. While watching that, I missed the new episode showing on PBS that contained the ML63 review.

........anyway, the results are kinda what I thought. Lower torque on a heavier vehicle. The trapspeed is pretty good, so I think someone can probably get slightly better numbers, but this is probably the ballpark. Further convinced that the upcomming G63 will be even slower than this and not even be real competition to the G55. Go get a G55.

Ted

 

Looks like the ML63's numbers are slower than the E550, damn. When I pick up my truck in December, I should do a head to head comparison between the 2.

 

Everyone is going to get different "numbers" since there are so many variables and driving techniques.

By experiencing the whole vehicle and how it drives, the instant power (lots of it), the very responsive transmission, surefooted handling, quiet ride (relatively of course) among other great attributes make this ML63 a blast to drive fast or takin' it easy.

I now have about 4,400 miles on my ML63 and have used a total of one quart of oil and have had no problems. Still feels tight with no squeaks or rattles.

I added the storage bin (plastic with dividers) to the cargo area and find it to be helpful in keeping stuff from flying around back there

Dave

 

You people keep forgetting it was the same show that could not get the Gallardo below 5sec in 0-60...

 

A) this was an awful review.
b) Motorweek's results are consistently much slower than anyone else's. Based on their results with Cayenne S (also slower than everyone else's and Porsche's own quoted time), they estimated TT in the high 5's.
c) Nonetheless, I am beginning to think actual results are going to be around 5, and not 4.8. This is extremely disappointing, but somewhat consistent with an inability to get the CTTS to go 4.8, despite Porsche's claims, as the tests I've seen suggest around 5. I guess both manufacturers got ahead of themselves on this, and that's too bad, because they are usually conservative.

 

I've got a real test for you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X_w6a...elated&search=

Cayenne Turbo S is slower on 0-100 km/h and the difference is not that marginal.

They got pretty consistent results as their numbers are very close to manufacturers claims.

Merc claims ML 63 makes 0-100 (0-62mph) at 5.0 sec. In test they make it at 4.9 sec which means a 4.3-4.6 sec 0-60mph.

Porsche claims 5.3sec 0-100 km/h for Turbo S and they got the exact same result. This is very convincing IMO.

 

Very good point. Either they just can't drive, or their test surface is a little too slippery.

 

I just don't get this constant complaing about 0-60 times. So what if it is 4.8 or 5 seconds, this is a 5000lb truck we're talking about.

Plus Motorweek is not the show for absolute 0-60 times. The best way to tell how fast the ML63 is to wait for Car and Driver and Road and Track to test it and then average the numbers. We all know C&D's time will be faster than what MB quotes and R&T will likely equal the MB given number.

For a 2 tenths of a second difference (by a slower than usual source) and we're talking "extreme disapointment", geez whiz. That is just plain silly.

M

 

What he said.

 

..........you are correct, except that the people pushing this car were expecting 0-60 arround 4.3 secs because of all the hype. Look at CycloneRcr's post. 2 tenths of a second from 5.3 places you at 5.1 secs 0-60, far far away from the 4.3 secs people were implying. So read between the lines. This is exactly what happened with the E63. It is not the exact numbers from Motorweek that is causing the belly ache, it is the realization of what it means. No, the ML63 is not faster than Enzo afterall.


Ted

 

Nah I still don't see that. Speculation is just that, speculation. Just because the ML63 didn't live up to a specific person's made up hype doesn't mean it's performance is "extremely disappointing", that nuts. Yeah we know Mercedes' 0-60 times have been conservative in the past, but now I think they're not so much so anymore, they've giving real world numbers in some cases now. I know you're joking about anyone thinking a ML63 or any Mercedes would be faster than a Enzo.

As far as the whole E63 things goes, it is tired and extremely overdone at this point. The professionals are getting good numbers for some 63 models like the CLS63 vs the CLS55 so really don't see what all harping is about. If some can't understand that the E63 is a more competent all around car than the E55 then they've sunk to a simple drag racer mentality. These are European cars, specificially German cars, not drag racers. All around competence is what they're for, not just heroic 0-60 times.

M

 

to see the review on "Top Gear"..the British show...now those boys really throw thier vehicles around..........

 

Are there any 1/4 mile drag strips still open w/in a 2-hour drive of Boston? The one I go to, New England Dragway in Epping, NH, is closed for the season and doesn't re-open until Spring. Would like to know firsthand how the ML63 does... Thank you.

 

I agree with you totally

 

As I was the one to use the "extremely disappointing" phrase, I thought I might comment. Given that the whole idea of spending $90k for a 5,000+ lb. gas hog that is top heavy is already ridiculous, it is the small things that give some modicum of rationale for this kind of purchase, and at this price, one expects that the advertised capabilities of the vehicle should be a reality. What else other than purely subjective reasons is there to purchase this vehicle versus the Cayenne, for example? What is the justification for the price of the AMG model versus the ML 500? The body and general set-up of the interior is the same, so if the suspension, wheels, transmission and engine are worth $30k, they should deliver what is promised. Perhaps they will, but my current vehicle, CTT, pretty well tested to what was stated. Porsche claims 0-60 in 5.2, and Autoweek - which I feel is generally close to real world - achieved 5.16, so I'll wait to see if they conduct a test if the ML63.

I have not received my ML63 yet - should be here soon - so my disappointment is certainly not with the vehicle, but with MB, at least at this point, but I hope to be proven wrong.

 

I agree that a manufacturer's numbers should be understated rather than overstated; is a much better way to manage people's (especially buyers') expectations, let alone their reaction to actual performance tests once the car is out. I do not know if Mercedes published estimates on 1/4 mile or 0-1000 meter performance.

Regardless, I agree that there is no big deal between .2 to .3 seconds for 0-60 in the sense that such a difference can easily be attributed to track conditions, car-to-car production tolerances, etc. It's cool to be able to say a car does 0-60 in 4.X seconds versus 5.X seconds but not a huge deal, especially when it comes to it being an SUV. I would be a bit bothered if there was a .4 seconds or greater difference in mnfr's 1/4 mi estimates versus actual road tests because for that type of run, the track differences, car tolerances, etc., should get essentially negated. I'd then simply wonder (even if unfounded) if the car was making as much power as claimed, and then I'd begin look at in-gear performance claims and wonder how those stack up (e.g., 30-50 mph in 3rd gear, etc.). Many believe that in-gear performance is a much better look at real-world performance, so perhaps it should get a closer look from the get-go. But 0-60, 1/4 mi, top speed, etc. are much more interesting for most people, for mass market magazines, and for general mainstream discussion purposes.

As to the question above on why buy an ML63 rather than a Cayenne TT/TTS, other than for subjective reasons, here's a few reasons some might have:

- based on the online forums, it seemed like the Cayenne's had a bunch of problems for MY03-04, though most seemingly corrected for MY05-06. This included issues with the P-car's remote control fob not working or having literally a 2-3 foot range, trunk rattles, navigation / screen freezes, extreme turbo lag, lazy / delayed upshifts, etc.

- a refreshed exterior and interior on the upcoming '08 Cayenne due out Spring '07 (there is no MY07 for Cayennes) with a standard power bump from 450 bhp to a rumored 500.

And I'd imagine there are plenty of non-subjective reasons for someone to buy a P-Car rather than an ML. As for the list of subjective reasons to do MB or P, that's a huge, fun, unwinnable discussion in and of itself. Glad for all of us that both manufacturers are in the sport/lux SUV game...

 

..............I agree that .2secs from manufacturer's estimate is not a big deal. The problem is that many were hoping that the manufacturer's estimate was actually conservative and that the car was actuallly faster than MB says it is, especially since no easy mods exist at the moment. This why I believe there is all the commotion. For instance, the G55 was rated at 0-60mph of 5.5 secs by MB and motor Trend tested it at 4.7secs. http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...iew_specs.html

If you were expecting that kind of result, then Motor week results will be disappointing. Like I said, the trapspeed is pretty high at 108mph, so the car is capable of going faster than the Motor Week results. How much faster is not clear, but 0-60 of 4.3 secs seems unlikely except if the Motor week driver was a qudraplegic.

Ted

 

MotorWeek may have gotten a slow car. At the end of the day if test results average under 5 sec O-60 and low 13's for the quarter MB will have no problem. If the Motorweek numbers turn out to be about average, a lot of people will likely resist paying up for the ML63 and wait for the ML550.

 

were you guys expecting that the ml63 would get 0-60 in 4.3 sec? a recent test of the e63 did this time and you expect a suv that weighs a LOT more to do similar times?

 

Given all the specs, I expected 5.3 to 60 mph and 13.2 in the quarter at 108-110 mph.

 

Atco,NJ and Englishtown, NJ both have tracks that are still open.

As a matter of fact,
the best possible timeslips will be produced with the present condidtions.

Some ML63's need to get down there and properly represent the AMG crowd.
I am DYING to know what the ML63 will run with a good driver and a well prepared track.



SOMEONE PLEASE RUN YOUR ML63 AND POST YOUR TIMESLIPS AND VIDEO FOR THE REST OF US AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.

Thanks in advance.

 

You're making way too much out of nothing. A few tenths of a second isn't going to matter in a vehicle this fast until you start racing other vehicles like it. Also to go by one roadtest is really, really overdoing it, especially Motorweek. This is nitpicking to death. See what Road and Track, Car and Driver and others come up with before being so disapointed with MB. Motorweek isn't the one to base all this on. No one here has a butt that sensitive to be able to discern .2 secs difference!

M

 

If that is the case, then people should wait until a real magazine test the ML63 then. Motorweek loves everything they test and they're really a decent show, but they aren't Car and Driver or MT or Road and Track when it comes to their drivers/tests etc. Besides I think the days of MB giving conservative numbers are pretty much over when you start seeing 4.3 secs for a car like the E63. Car and Driver got the CLS63 to 60 mph in 4.1 seconds....! That is astounding when you think about it, but I think it is just plain impractical to expect this type of peformance (i.e. beating the factory times) each and every time.

At best, once all the major mags have tested the ML63, you'll be able to see what the avg 0-60 time is, they can't all be the same anyway. Road and Track and Motor Trend test cars in Cali, but C&D tests most of their in Michigan, most of the time.

M

 

If the 0.5 sec 0-60 difference and the fraction of a second difference in ET between the E63 and the E550 holds up in the eventual ML63 vs E550 comparison (when the latter gets the new engine) it will be hard to justify the price premium of the 63. No doubt the ML 63 is a great SUV but there are just too many $30-40,000 everyday cars capable of low to mid 5 second 0-60 times for the ML63 acceleration to be special. I was close to pulling the trigger on a ML 63 but now I'll wait for comprehensive tests of the ML 63, the X5 4.8 and the ML 550 when the new engine is available before I decide.