So this is the first test on the facelifted ML63 I have seen and I was shocked as I am looking to buy an ML63 in the future:

Autobild Sportscars March X6 vs ML vs Cayenne, the old one tested 2/2008:

X6 4.4 / ML 63 fracelifted/Cayenne Turbo S/ Q7 V12 TDI /OLD ML63
0-100 km/h 5.3/5.4/ 4.5/ 5.4/5.1
0-200 km/h 20.8/18.8/16.4/20.8/17.8
1/4 mile 13.58/13.58/12.81/??/13.33

Just for comparison (From 2/2008 autobild):
SRT 8/Cayanne GTS/ Touareg R50
0-100 km/h 5.0/6.1/ 7.1
0-200 km/h 21.0/24.7/36.5
1/4 mile 13.32/14.16/15.12

Consumption l/100km, respectively
14.9/21.3/21.9/15.3/21.3
21.6/18.1/14.0

In my opinnion the Audi looks surprisingly slow, but the consumption is good, the BMW is surprisingly good in both areas!!! ANd I am no longer a BMW fan.
I believe the ML63 underachieved as new and old versions. Looking at these results I really have to think about it...

Interesting. I better keep my old beast then. lol

The Cayenne Turbo S, 0-60 in 4.5 and the old ML 5.1?!

What's this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kBHp...e=channel_page

The car is not slow... since when was 5.1 secs to 100kph for an SUV slow? It's just that there are a few of these very fast (and very expensive) SUVs out. Even in that league the ML does pretty well (e.g. 0-200kph) and am sure it would do well in some other metrics too given the engine (e.g. 40-120kph). What I do find interesting, and agree with you, is why the difference btw pre and post face-lift ML AMG.

Videos are fun, but give no real proof. Driver, gasoline, tire etc. How do you know it was a cayenne turbo s in the video for sure?

Here is a srt video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epmGE--EtN0

I have roasted a Turbo S a couple of times myself. The turbo lag really kills it.

If you look at that members other videos, they show other angles of the cars. It clearly says Cayenne Turbo S, although it could be fake.. I doubt it because it would'nt have kept up like it did. It would be more comparable to the FX45 vs ML63 video. (same member)

It is an interesting observation. I noticed the same phenomenon with my E55. My 2004 E55 was noticable faster than the same (non-facelifted) 2006 model.

Most forum members attributed it to an engine software upgrade that seemed to tame the beast somewhat. Many owners went so far as avoiding any software upgrades during service to keep from having their cars castrated. It was felt that AMG designers originally build these engines to max performance, but the warranty bean counters and attorneys eventually creep in and ask MB to tame it down.

Maybe the same thing is happening to the ML63?

I have told my service manager to NOT update the engine management software and remind him of this each time I'm in for service. Just picked up my ML63 after service "C", and I have to say it actually felt stronger than ever before!

I test drove the ML63 just yesterday. It was not slow, but it didn't "feel" very fast. If it's not going to give me the sensation of being a very fast car, I might as well get an ML550 or something. I'm actually pleasantly surprised to learn also that the Range Rover Sport for 2010 is going to have about 500 bhp. Can't wait till they launch the new model in June.

Oh sebring silver bite your tongue! ML63 kicks ***!

LOL

I know it's fast. A quick glance at the blurring scenery and the speedometer confirms that. But for some reason, the car didn't have me hanging on for dear life like you'd expect a 500+ hp car would. Admittedly this is my first time behind the wheel of an ML and the test drive lasted only 15 minutes or so.

Maybe it's my expectations that needs adjusting. But since I have time before I need to make a decision, I'll wait to check out the upcoming RRS first.

I have to admit, the first time i took the ML63 for a drive after spending like 2 weeks straight in my new C63 the ML felt like a bus. the C63 spoils everyone for life. The ML also used to sound ferocious to me but after being in the C63 i find that i can barely hear it.

After spending the weekend giving my black ML a nice detail i decided to get reaquainted with it and am driving it for the next week or so and leaving Mr C in teh back of the carpark. When its nice and clean the black ML turns almost as many heads as the C63.

I think being up higher gives the illusion of it being "slower".

Of course if you're used to a car like the C63 you're going to find the ML63 slow. Yes it has less horsepower but the center of gravity is lower, it weighs less, it's not as long or wide.. You see what I'm getting at. Basically, compared to most other cars out there, the ML63 is no slouch.

Oh no, an SUV is slow, why oh why!!!???

Dude, it's a frikkin' SUV. It wasn't made to intimated a Lamborghini; the simple fact it can is pretty darn impressive. With all due respect, what the hell were you expecting from the ML63? An 11-second 1/4mile?

Well i have been drivinf my ML63 for 2 years but it took my only 2 weeks in teh C to lose the sensation. Now seems to take forever to kick down! Thus i now seem to spend all my time in manual hammering everywhere in 2nd not only for the feel but for the engine note

I've recently had my ML63 remapped to the 'black edition' spec and wow, what a difference.
Power delivery is all the way through the rev range, throttle is more responsive all the way through the range. I've found that I'm not using the kick down feature as much as before.
Oh, and as a side affect you get a little more torque and about another 40Bhp

Andy

Tell me more about this Black edition spec and how you got please. The only other ML63 editions i have heard of are the Performance Studio and 10th Annuversary models and i havent heard of any engine performance chages in the literature for these new models, allchanges seem to be aesthetic only.

Please elaborate!

It's not an edition as such. Its an ECU remap by a 3rd Party company here in the UK. From what I understand its a fairly unique one too, they travel to the middle/far east to these remaps. The basis is from the AMG Black Edition CLK.
I believe the figures are: 40-50 increase in torque and 40 increase in Bhp.

Oh, I completely agree that the ML looks and is great. I will definitely do more research before settling on my final target.

One other drawback for me is that here in this neck of the woods, the ML is a very very common car (albeit not the 63), and most of the drivers are housewives and soccermoms (or are they the same thing) who invariably are really bad drivers.

Gotta keep looking for now.

Hey, just noticed your stable. Very nice.

Though I gotta ask, why 3-sedans? lol

O no, I just sold my R8 for a facelifted Ml63 so that while I get space (that I needed for my 3 m old daughter), I will still have a fast car.

X6 was slower on paper and 1 seat left.
Cayenne TTS is nice but I hate the fact that Porsche's option list is longer that toilet roll (and Carrera is the only real Porsche).
Q7 looks dated.
the dealer offered me a pre-facelift for a much lower price but I thought new must be better.

Here are a few nice, but crappy quality vids I found. The results are very similar to what I expected.

ML63=Cayenne turbo
ML63>>X6 50i

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHCceaCOFjg&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wCUD6AbMLD0&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Km_c...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KkBz...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8ssW...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o0g6ZfdQCeE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgien...eature=related

Hi Andy
As your only up the road from me could you tell me who you used for your upgrade? How much was it? And did they do it mobile?
Do you think it was definately noticable,as i have been thinking about it for a whlie now having had mine for over 2 years fom new,I am starting to get a bit bored now but cant face 40,000 loss if i sell !!
Cheers Dean