Last post on Aug 14, 2013 at 8:07 PM
You are in the Mercedes Benz M-Class
What is this discussion about?
Mercedes-Benz M-Class, Mercedes-Benz ML55 AMG, SUV
Apr 14, 2005 (9:54 am)
My 2002 ML500 is still under warranty until this December (4 years).
Also, I have free maintenance until the warranty expires.
The only out of pocket expense have been a set of new tires. (about $700)
I added a wind deflector on the front hood and mud flaps ($400)
Rear brake pads installed at 18,000 miles. ($220) I don't think it needed it so soon because now I have 23,000 miles on the rear and the light has not come on. When I take my ML in for tire rotations (non MB shop), they always tell me that my brakes are getting close to needing to be replaced... I'm going to wait for the "brake pad" light to come on before I change them.
The adjustment I've had under warranty, other than regular maintenace....
*** fix the loose molding at the bottom of the front bumper (twice)
***rear cup holder broke
***squeak in dash at the base of the windshield (90% fixed) rattles on occasion at freeway speeds. The hood was removed and something was done at a body shop at the firewall or just above it. There was a note from MB on how to fix it if a customer complained of that noise.
***one speedometer light went out.
Every car I have ever owned had "adjustments" that needed to be done. I've owned 4 Nissan's, a Peugeot, a couple of Jeeps, and a disastrous Oldsmobile diesel.
This past winter right before Christmas, we had an ice storm. WOW, what a difference if you have AWD with stability control. I felt like I could go anywhere with no problem. On many occasions, the two-wheel-drive cars and SUV's were having a real problem getting around. I drove around many stuck vehicles without any problem at all.
Also, when I went off roading near Joshua Tree National park, it's not a good idea to have mud flaps that are not flexible. I knocked my front mud flap loose and had to have it re attached at the dealer. If they were flexible, there would be no problem.
Footie, I like the new 2006 ML style... it definitely looks like a Mercedes product to me and not much different than mine, especially the shape of the windows.
Apr 14, 2005 (11:57 am)
I am buying a new SUV and my husband and I are in disagreement about what to get. I want the Lexus GX470, and he wants me to get the new ML500. The main thing I don't like about the ML500 is that I feel cramped sitting in the drivers seat (and I'm a small person). I just don't feel like there's much room to move in. Can anyone give me any advice on which to get?
#7714 of 8199 My advice is free!
Apr 14, 2005 (3:47 pm)
Unsure32, I'm surprised that you feel cramped in the ML. I'm a normal sized guy and I have plenty of room.
One obvious difference is that the Lexus has that "BIG" swing-out door instead of a lift gate. That type of design does not work for me. For one thing, it opens backwards. If you are parallell parked, you are in the street trying to unload groceries, etc. If you pull into a garage and close the garage door, it better be deep for that big door to open. The lift gate on the ML acts as an umbrella when raining if you are loading things.
The 2006 ML's do not offer a third row seats like mine; the Lexus does.
#7715 of 8199 Cost of 2006 ML350
Apr 14, 2005 (7:14 pm)
I am thinking about purchasing the 2006 ML350. How much would it cost me if I only want leather seats as my only option? I used the "build your own" on the MB website and it was confusing b/c it seemed that I had to get the sunroof in addition to the leather. Why is the leather option costing over $6000?
#7716 of 8199 Re: The 2006 ML [lovemyclk]
Apr 15, 2005 (2:51 am)
finally the voice of reason. it never ceases to amaze me the number of people that despite all of the evidence to the contrary, believe they can have it all! you cannot have 7 passenger space and cargo room simultaneously, unless you are going to increase the size of the vehicle sic tahoe surburban expedition. then these same people would bitch about fuel economy and the bulk of the truck. the new ml is a midsize suv, it does not have floor pan space for a third row that could comfortably accomodate anyone other than 2-3 children. and putting children in the third row of a mid sized suv even the new longer wheelbase m class is lunacy. in the event of a moderate to severe rear end collision there is not adequate buffer between the third row seat and the intruding vehicle. guess who becomes part of the crumple zone! how does that grab you? still want to be trendy???????
#7717 of 8199 Re: The 2006 ML [mgreene]
Apr 15, 2005 (8:24 am)
Exactly! Functional design dictates that to accomplish a particular mission, the design should be optimized to satisfy the objectives of that mission. If I'm hauling tanks, Hummers and troops, the C-5 is a better functional design than a 747, although the 747 may have better "performance" characteristics.
Same thing with autos... if carrying 7 is your objective, plenty of folks would love to put you in a minivan. Unfortunately, functional design does not translate into the "cool" factor craved by today's buyers. Until the new R and G-Class vehicles hit the streets, MB may not be your best alternative for hauling the troup. Fantastic choice, however, for that family of four!
#7718 of 8199 Re: The 2006 ML [mgreene]
Apr 15, 2005 (9:27 am)
... it does not have floor pan space for a third row that could comfortably accomodate anyone other than 2-3 children. and putting children in the third row of a mid sized suv even the new longer wheelbase m class is lunacy. in the event of a moderate to severe rear end collision there is not adequate buffer between the third row seat and the intruding vehicle. guess who becomes part of the crumple zone! how does that grab you? still want to be trendy???????
You're missing a major point here. There is a vehicle that comfortably holds 2 kids in the thrid row, and provides an exmplary level of safety even in a rear-ender. There are photos of it being rear-ended at 50-60 mph with zero intrusion into the third row.
It's the 1998-2005 M-class.
The Volvo XC90 also has impressive rear-collision protection and yet still manages a third row that is more than roomy enough for kids.
So yes, you can have your cake and eat it too.
I don't expect cargo room with the third row in use, but I expect the flexibility of having a third row to use for short-term passenger carrying.
#7719 of 8199 Re: The 2006 ML [wmquan]
Apr 15, 2005 (12:21 pm)
i don't know that i am missing anything.i believe i am asking is the prize worth the potential price? for me the answer is no. furthermore, the majority of posters bellyaching over the lack of a third row seat are not thinking in terms of merely hauling the wee folk, they want to put adults and cargo in something not designed for it. i guess as long as you are right you can have your cake and eat it too. but if you are wrong, that is one bitter bitter cake. your choice.
#7720 of 8199 Re: The 2006 ML [mgreene]
Apr 15, 2005 (3:46 pm)
What you're missing is:
... putting children in the third row of a mid sized suv even the new longer wheelbase m class is lunacy. in the event of a moderate to severe rear end collision there is not adequate buffer between the third row seat and the intruding vehicle. guess who becomes part of the crumple zone! how does that grab you? still want to be trendy???????
You're saying that a third-row in a mid-sized SUV is not safe. The 1998-2005 M-class has proven that it IS safe, by using the proper design. So has the Volvo XC90. They have engineered the chassis so that they can safely take a hit that would probably collapse the third row of some of the lesser, full-sized SUV's or minivans.
#7721 of 8199 New M-Class....
Apr 15, 2005 (6:32 pm)
I thought everyone knew that Mercedes left off the third row because they want you to buy the pricier G or R-Class vehicles. True the R and next G are built on a long version of the same chasis, but I have no doubts in my mind that Mercedes a leader in safety could have built the ML with a third row and still have the level of protection their cars are famous for. The E-Class wagon has had a third row seat either as standard or as an option for at least the last 20 years. Haven't heard anything adverse about this setup when it comes to rear collisions. This seat even faces rearward!
They did this to give the G and R reason for being, not because they couldn't engineer the ML to be safe with a third seat. Mercedes has for sure slipped in reliability, but safety is still one of their strong points.