OT ML270CDI Mercedes (Tip Tronic)

gtvlusso

Hi All,

Unacustomed as I am to buying decent cars, I always buy old heaps that seem to run and run, my wife has decided that an ML class Mercedes will be here transport of choice for the forthcoming birth of Gtvlusso jnr.

1, Am I insane for buying a sodding great big thing?
2, Anyone got any good/bad experiences of such a vehicle?

I went to put a deposit on a CRV and wife changed her mind.....

I am going to be very poor for the rest of my life.

prawny

A mate of mine has one, he loves it but I wouldn't buy one, try a leasing company for something of that size, save having to put a mega deposit down.

-ve's: tax aint cheap, insurance aint cheap (but not too bad) thirstier than the equivalent e-class and everone will hate you.

Why not talk your wife into a nive volvo xc70 soft roading ability and dog and kid friendly but without looking like a chelsea tractor. I have but now I need the cash to get one.

I've got a C-max for the wife and kids I love it, I wish my dad had one when I was young.

gtvlusso

I have 2 other kids to + dog - cars get full when we travel!

My wife won't have a Volvo because her dad has one.

£245 per annum on tax and about 30mpg (same as BMW gives at the moment).

Everyone hates me now, so.....:-(

I don't know - I tried all the arguments including the "have you seen how much parts are", but in reality, parts are no more expensive than an Audi A6.

prawny

You don't want an Audi anyway!

If your Mrs really wants a 4x4 buy her a Defender and tell her to get back in the Kitchen!

Thats what I'd do (yeah right!)

prawny

An unusual alternative?



Not at all sexy though but good honest comfy family transport (I realy love cars)

Aguila

If I ruled the world all SUV style 4 wheel drives would be banned. Given what we know about climate change I cannot understand how anyone can justify owning these things.

Now i realise that you "need" to tow things etc but there must be a less environmentally damaging thing to do it in??

The CRV would have been the lesser of two evils by far.

jedster

I reckon you should point out the blind spots near to the car and the ability for toddlers to hide in said blind spots...

Seriously.

I've noticed a bit of tendency for expectant mothers to opt for fook off big 4x4s. They are cunningly designed to GIVE THE IMPRESSION that they make you and yours safer which has a powerful effect on the maternal instinct.

Of course reality is a bit different.

I reckon an E class estate would be a better option if she wants a merc. Personally we went for a 5 series touring.

prawny

Now if it's space you need how about a voyager?



:shock:

mickbrown

I remember a matre of mine having a go at me for considering a polluting 4x4.

Then I pointed out his 15 year old Golf spews out a lot more crap than what I was considering.

But yeah - Defender - get one of those. Real man's car.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Not sure what your budget is or the age of the car you're looking at is.

That said...

XC90 and A6 Avant would be obvious alternatives, but you've ruled them out. Beemer 535d estate is a lot of car for the money. I would have one, but Mrs. G66 has a thing against Beemers.

E class can be had with a third row of seats, which might give a more practical and flexible option.

Or a Disco 3, which at the mo (and the list changes much like the wind) is top candidate to replace our A8 if it ever dies.

Or really large it, in a 3.0 diesel Q7. Coming though!

As to the insanity - no. Not remotely.
As to the MLs, don't know much; early models had questionable build quality, I think. Have you checked the reviews on Top Gear, or had a browse at the Merc forum on Pistonheads?

wgwarburton

+1 for Subaru If that's not big enough, get a proper people carrier, it'll tow well enough and won't be too high, soft and heavy to drive properly. Cheers, W.

Aguila

mickbrown wrote:

I remember a matre of mine having a go at me for considering a polluting 4x4.

Then I pointed out his 15 year old Golf spews out a lot more crap than what I was considering.

But yeah - Defender - get one of those. Real man's car.

That's fine then, so long as someone's worse than you you should be able to do whatever you like!

Am I the only one who believes we need to start taking some personal responsibility for emmisions??

Anyone who's watched the news this week should be able to see that governments are not going to do it for us.

gtvlusso

Hmmm - I guess, becuase I have found a cheap ML, I am prepared to go with it.

The whole polluting argument is a bit stifled as the 2.7 diesel is not in the most polluting band. In fact it is in the same band as allot of exec cars and so on. I think we get the whole polluting thing from America, where they do fit 6 litre petrol engines to 4 x 4's....rather than look at the facts/comparison with a big estate or exec car.

Unfortunately - I cannot find a reasonable argument against the ML as much as I would like to (I would rather have a CRV!)

greg66_tri_v2.0

Aguila wrote:

If I ruled the world all SUV style 4 wheel drives would be banned. Given what we know about climate change I cannot understand how anyone can justify owning these things.

What specifically is more environmentally unfriendly about an SUV-style 4x4 than either (a) a people carrier; (b) a people carrier with 4x4; (c) a car; (d) a car with 4x4; (e) an SUV with 2WD?

Quite puzzled by this claim.

greg66_tri_v2.0

prawny wrote:

Now if it's space you need how about a voyager?



:shock:

I don't think he wants a convertible.

Stuey01

Greg66 wrote:

Aguila wrote:

If I ruled the world all SUV style 4 wheel drives would be banned. Given what we know about climate change I cannot understand how anyone can justify owning these things.

What specifically is more environmentally unfriendly about an SUV-style 4x4 than either (a) a people carrier; (b) a people carrier with 4x4; (c) a car; (d) a car with 4x4; (e) an SUV with 2WD?

Quite puzzled by this claim.

Nothing. It is lazy stereotyping.

An old VW Campervan kicks out a lot more shite than a modern 4x4, yet they are loved by the hippy community.

greg66_tri_v2.0

gtvlusso wrote:

Unfortunately - I cannot find a reasonable argument against the ML as much as I would like to (I would rather have a CRV!)

The lack of a third row of seats? With 3 kids and a dog, I'd've thought that's a legit need.

DonDaddyD

What about a R Class merc and the beemer varient?

greg66_tri_v2.0

DonDaddyD wrote:

What about a R Class merc and the beemer varient?

Good call. The X5 can be had now with a third row, IIRC.

The R class is a proper big mofo.

skins2

May I suggest you test drive one first, making sure you can live with the following:

Mercedes ML320 CDI 4matic

Executive summary: the most pointlessly depressing vehicle it has ever been my sad task to drive.

*Everything* about this car is depressing. It is oversized, overblinged, overcomplex, overexpensive, and over here.

It fails to understand the simplest points about user interface design. Having noted a hundred years of development (remember, Benz was one of the first car makers) and a steady movement towards a common user interface, Mercedes have applied their own rules:

1) Simplicity. It's passe. No-one needs that. Instead, let's make one control have a dozen functions. Why have two stalks - say, one on the left for light functions and one on the right for wiper functions - when you can put all that on a single stalk? With motion up/down, push/pull, poke, and not one but *two* twists, one of which goes in both directions for similar but different functions.

Further, make most of the actions different depending how far you *move* the control... for example - poke the end of the stick and you get a single wipe - poke it harder, past a fairly stiff stop, and you get a windscreen wash.

2) Clarity. Given that the switch is so complex, no-one will have any time to read it, so we'll hide it behind the steering wheel arm where it's completely invisible. Oh, and while we're at it, let's use a centre console with about a dozen identically sized buttons doing completely unrelated things, undifferentiated in any way except for miniscule icons, which, to further improve matters, also have their function written upon them - in type so small it's impossible to read from a distance and which has an added bonus of further shrinking the icons.

3) Automation. The target audience of this car will obviously be so busy wondering why they bothered to spend forty grand on it that they won't have time to push any of the buttons, switched, or other controls. So we'll let the car do it for them... automatic gear box, well, if you like autos it's not *too* bad apart from the usual 'did sir really want to go faster?' delay while the converter wakes up.

The lights have a nine-position switch - one of which is an automatic position to allay sir's fears that he might inadvertently used the wrong combination of lights. Instead, sir can be treated to *sidelights* - an illumination for which there is *never* any excuse when the vehicle is in motion. Also, it is impossible to select the rear fog-lights only - though of course the front fogs can be left selected at all times, should sir wish to drive like a pratt.

The wipers have indications on the switch - observed using a small inspection mirror to see around the steering wheel - which suggest anything from 'off' through a couple of intermittent speeds and then a couple of continuous speeds. Quite why these markings are present is something of a mystery since the only one which works as advertised is 'off' - all the rest are automatic and all deliver exactly the same - irrespective of your chosen setting, if the car thinks is raining too hard it will wipe faster. The randomness of the intermittent rates is particularly annoying.

Indicators complete the inanity of the automation - they suffer from the currently fashionable three-flash disease: a light touch on the indicator stalk causes three flashes on the indicator; holding it in this position for longer than three flashes keeps it flashing till you let go; moving it past the click keeps it flashing until cancelled. It is impossible to make a single flash; it is impossible to cancel a three-flash inadvertently started.

4) Ergonomics. Most people are right-handed; and most sensitive and accurate in their right hand. Yet Mercedes have chosen to force the use of the left hand for every common driving function. The only control which is required by law to be on the left is the indicator (wrong side to my mind but I suspect a Euro legislation which specified 'left' rather than 'centre'). Using the left hand, it's obviously best that the control falls easily under the first and second fingers, right? Nope, the little finger is the one that finds the control - washing the windscreen becomes tiring after a while...

The cruise control is similarly afflicted. It is at least visible - at the ten o'clock position - but it also suffers from function overload. Ignoring the 'maximum speed' mode, it has been marked in such a way that - having got out of the car to peer in the windscreen to see the markings on the top and back of the stank - implies that pulling it towards you will turn it on, and that moving it up or down will increase or decrease speed.

No.

Pulling it towards you resumes a previously selected speed. If it's *not* already on, moving it up or down will select your current speed; if it is on, moving up or down will change your speed by one mile per hour - unless you happen to go past the soft click, in which case it will change by five miles an hour...

And consider the hidden switches *behind* the steering wheel. Mounted in the back of the wheel arms, they allow manual control of the auto-box. Of course, once one has selected a gear, it will remain in that gear unless the car decides that sir is driving too fast or too slowly for it. There is no obvious way of getting out of the mode if - as is all too easy - one catches one of these switches by accident. It seems - though I'm not certain - that moving the gear lever in the correct direction will switch back to automatic.

5) Standardisation. On a European car, the gearbox control and parking brake are traditionally placed somewhere in the region of the central tunnel. Instead, the parking break is set using the left foot, and - just for consistency - released with the right hand. The gear control is bolted for no readily apparent reason to the steering column right side. The space thus released in the centre of the car is re-used as a helpful storage space with a couple of cup-holders placed right where they interfere with the storage of anything useful, like a map, and with what appear to be retaining walls only until you get to the first corner - at which point you discover that they are in fact grab handles and your phone is under the seat.

6) Style. This is apparently an optional extra. Bling it has, style it doesn't. 'Nuff said.

7) Space. This is a huge car. But unlike the tardis, it's smaller on the inside than the outside. In a car so big, Mercedes have managed to make every seating position cramped. A masterpiece of engineering; there's even a special bit of trim designed to stick into the driver's leg.

8) Economy. They forgot to put that in. A lazy turbo-diesel, seventy-five on the motorway, and the best it can do is 30mpg? C'mon, guys, you can do better than that.

I'm going to have to stop. I can feel my blood pressure rising too high... to be fair, this is not all Mercedes' fault; Vauxhall were probably the pioneers of the pointless interface changes (feedback-less switches, anyone?) and Renault have also played with where the parking brake lives. But this car is a masterpiece. Everything it could get wrong, it has.

I'm very pleased to announce that it's going back to the hire shop on the morrow; the only bad news is I've another five bookings...

Neil

Taken from here: http://www.fccuk.org/forum/ubbthreads.p ... Post519693

I second the 5 series vote as ours has not returned any troubles in the 5 years we have owned it (e39 540i).

Aguila

Greg66 wrote:

Aguila wrote:

If I ruled the world all SUV style 4 wheel drives would be banned. Given what we know about climate change I cannot understand how anyone can justify owning these things.

What specifically is more environmentally unfriendly about an SUV-style 4x4 than either (a) a people carrier; (b) a people carrier with 4x4; (c) a car; (d) a car with 4x4; (e) an SUV with 2WD?

Quite puzzled by this claim.

What's to be puzzled about? Just look at the CO2 figures or fuel consumption.

Yes I grant you there is no such thing as a non polluting car and you can put the examples you have quoted into an order of badness. Generally speaking these huge SUVs (I'm thinking merc ML, X5 or X3, Cayenne, range rover etc) are very heavy and have fairly big engines. That adds up to high emissions. Bear in mind most of the time you will not need something that big. The vast majority of people you see in them are all alone with nothing towed etc.

Also dont get me wrong I do have a car but I bought the least polluting option and sold our second car using the proceeds to put in extra insulation to the house, change boiler and (hopefully) get a wind turbine for the roof.

It's incredible to me that people care so little about what is happening to the world, I have heard climate scientists talk a few times and it really is alarming. This is something that if not occuring in our lifetimes will certainly occur in our children's. There is no place for not acting now.

Did you know for example that in climate scientist speak the period we are entering is now officially a "mass extinction event" along the lines of previous ice ages etc.

Bassjunkieuk

FWIW we have a old (K-Reg) Toyota Lucidia Emina as our family car, which can get the 7 of us around in relative comfort for what was reasonably priced car at the time.
I know it's not a great big new car but it's 4WD and has a decent sized boot unlike most of the modern MPV's and we still have a seat to be occupied :-)

The Voyagers are nice, and I do quite like the styling on the newer ones. My friend has just got rid of his CRV, which seemed really nice but not sporty enough for his liking so once again caved in to his inner boy-racer and got a Zafira VXR (again!) :shock: A car that is shockingly fast for something designed to car 7 people, not that I complain when I get taken out for a ride and don't have to worry about the petrol bill :-D

Aguila

Stuey01 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

Aguila wrote:

If I ruled the world all SUV style 4 wheel drives would be banned. Given what we know about climate change I cannot understand how anyone can justify owning these things.

What specifically is more environmentally unfriendly about an SUV-style 4x4 than either (a) a people carrier; (b) a people carrier with 4x4; (c) a car; (d) a car with 4x4; (e) an SUV with 2WD?

Quite puzzled by this claim.

Nothing. It is lazy stereotyping.

An old VW Campervan kicks out a lot more shite than a modern 4x4, yet they are loved by the hippy community.

Again with the stupid non realistic excuse. How many VW campervans do you see on the roads?? How many huge SUVs do you see on the roads??

Another thing worth mentioning is the huge amount of energy that is used making these things. The carbon footprint of building a merc ML is huge.

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

The R class is a proper big mofo.

Yep and they aren't 4x4's jeeps, SUV's or even vans. They're like what if Mercedes made cars to American specifications...

I quite like the look of them from the outside, haven't been in one though.

prawny

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

What about a R Class merc and the beemer varient?

Good call. The X5 can be had now with a third row, IIRC.

The R class is a proper big mofo.

No and No!

R classes are for airport taxis and the style disabled, who needs an ugly 4WD exec people carrier, wrong on so many levels

And X5s are just X5s fine if your wearing Ugg boots and velour trackies or a dealer but not for anyone else.

I'm not a huge fan of the ML but as far as exec SUVs go it's a decent left field choice.

The build quality issues were on the original I think they sorted that when they built the new one, but took away most of the off road ability unless you stump up more cash for to off road pack.

Greg, dont mention the Q7 please :?

jedster

What about a R Class merc

We test drove one of these when be bought the 5 series. If you get the LWB version they are ENORMOUS but the standard length one is still very big on the outside but seems smaller than an E class on the inside. Also like the ML its a US design and build and it shows. It has a merc badge on the front but really lacks the class of a German car.

We concluded that the E class was a better bet than the R series but a bit dull. So we got a 5 series. The 535D Touring that Greg mentioned. It's very good. A bit unnecessarily powerful :oops: ( :twisted: )

Aidy

Aguila wrote:

Another thing worth mentioning is the huge amount of energy that is used making these things. The carbon footprint of building a merc ML is huge.

Especially more so than any other car?

Whilst we're at it, seen the stats for impacts of "green" electric/hybrid vehicles? Those batteries come from somewhere.

prawny

DonDaddyD wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

The R class is a proper big mofo.

Yep and they aren't 4x4's jeeps, SUV's or even vans. They're like what if Mercedes made cars to American specifications...

I quite like the look of them from the outside, haven't been in one though.

:shock:

DDD yesterday

[/b]

Wallace1492

Go green, one of these with a trailer:

DonDaddyD

My Dad has a 3ltr diesel 5series.

Say what you might, it was the same engine as the 'sport' varient and when driving with him, I kept my car in second merely to keep him in view... (lets not get over analytical about this. After an eye operation, he drove me and my car back from the hospital and taught me how to drive, gears and all).

My girlfriend prefers not to get in his car as a 20min journey will leave her feeling ill.

Fooking Powerful and big to boot!

greg66_tri_v2.0

jedster wrote:

A bit unnecessarily powerful :oops: ( :twisted: )

Wash your mouth out with soapy water, young man!