RE: Who thinks the ML has been behind MB standards?
Quote:
C-Rod - 9/29/2005 11:14 PM
The 98's and 99's, in general, are a joke...no thought at all...just rush it to market, "don't worry..they'll buy it..its a Mercedes"......MY 00 and on...a little better..MY 02 and on much better, but still nagging issues...fuel pumps, harmonic balancer's....l'll be curious to see the sales of the W164, l have yet to see one, on the road...[:0]
I have not had a single problem with my 99.
I drive it off-road.
I treat it like the truck that it is.
I have 93k miles on the thing.
Thanks to paying attention to the experiences of other owners, I have avoided every single problem...and saved lots of money.
Frankly, anyone who bought a frame rail constructed TRUCK and expected to be driving an S class...is a joke. A bad joke.
The pedestal mount Nav system isn't as pretty as the MCS, but it is actually positioned much better. It doesn't interfere with visability, and it doesn't require looking DOWN at the MCS.
I will never buy a 164. An R class might be in my future as a replacement for the minivan when the kids are older.
I will wait and buy one for half price with 36,000 miles on it in perfect condition...better than new because the trips in for recalls will be complete...still under factory warranty...after someone else has played the part of unpaid beta tester. Some like driving around in a Benz with a dealer loner sticker on the back. My time is worth too much.
My 163 might end up getting a full body transplant...all of my off-road gear transferred to an 05 ML500 someday. Or replaced by a G.
__________________
"I feel much better ever since I gave up hope."
RE: Who thinks the ML has been behind MB standards?
Quote:
Benz4Dirt&Sky - 9/30/2005 3:25 PM
I will never buy a 164. An R class might be in my future as a replacement for the minivan when the kids are older.
The R is a good replacement for a minivan. One interesting thing it has is the dog-bone shaped piece between the two huge center console cupholders is removeable. Not only does this make a huge “triple-wide� cup-holder, the removed divider piece has a built-in bottle opened on the bottom. These days, the only bottles that need opening are imported beer, so it seems MBZ has gone from one extreme (no cupholders – it’s not safe to drink and drive) to the other (let’s make it easier to drink beer while driving)!
Quote:
My 163 might end up getting a full body transplant...all of my off-road gear transferred to an 05 ML500 someday. Or replaced by a G.
If you could have a forth vehicle, go for a G-Wagon. Otherwise, forget it. It’s a horrible daily driver – it makes the ML seem like an S-Class!
RE: Who thinks the ML has been behind MB standards?
Quote:
Benz4Dirt&Sky - 9/30/2005 4:25 PM
I have not had a single problem with my 99.
I drive it off-road.
I treat it like the truck that it is.
(...)
I will never buy a 164. An R class might be in my future as a replacement for the minivan when the kids are older.
Same here. I'm very happy with my '99, and I take it off-road regularly. Why are you down on the 164? The off-road package looks promising; at least on paper it seems better than anything the 163 could deliver.
I'm starting to think about upgrading, but decent off-road performance is key for me -- if there's anything awful about the 164, I'd like to know!
[:0]
Has anyone heard of how the Touaregs/Cayennes are holding up? They've been out for a couple of years now. I really liked the Touareg that I sat in at an auto show a couple of years ago...
To me the Touareg is okay, i hust don't want to spend $40k+ for a Volkswagen, as for the Cayenne I rememeber a member here owns one. I odn't see many Touaregs around here we have about 3-4 VW dealerships, only seen 1. As for the Cayenne only twice, one Porsche dealer. I would imagine the Cayenne is doing pretty well.
RE: Who thinks the ML has been behind MB standards?
While my ML320 is a very nice truck to drive I think the bean counters went way, way, cheap when they allowed Arvin to provide the shocks and struts. Arvin! They made my knee action shocks for my 47 Chev!
Similar items that should never fail include the power door locks, the harmonic balancer. and many trim parts that fade and crack prematurely.
Cosmetically, why paint the rub strips so that they look like crap when they get hit? It's a rub strip for goodness sake. It should not show damage from incidental contact. Same with the back bumper cover.
I still pick it as my first choice to drive, though, and my wife won't drive anything else!
Jim in Phoenix
__________________
Jim Friesen
Phoenix, AZ
98 ML320
79 300SD
RE: Who thinks the ML has been behind MB standards?
Quote:
kimon - 9/30/2005 8:50 PM
Same here. I'm very happy with my '99, and I take it off-road regularly. Why are you down on the 164? The off-road package looks promising; at least on paper it seems better than anything the 163 could deliver.
I'm starting to think about upgrading, but decent off-road performance is key for me -- if there's anything awful about the 164, I'd like to know!
[:0]
I am solely basing my assesment of the 164 on the fact that it is a unibody construction vehicle. More car-like, and less truck-like, which is better for most ML customers.
RE: Who thinks the ML has been behind MB standards?
Quote:
Benz4Dirt&Sky - 10/2/2005 6:30 PM
Quote:
kimon - 9/30/2005 8:50 PM
Same here. I'm very happy with my '99, and I take it off-road regularly. Why are you down on the 164? The off-road package looks promising; at least on paper it seems better than anything the 163 could deliver.
I'm starting to think about upgrading, but decent off-road performance is key for me -- if there's anything awful about the 164, I'd like to know!
[:0]
I am solely basing my assesment of the 164 on the fact that it is a unibody construction vehicle. More car-like, and less truck-like, which is better for most ML customers.
I think I may head in the direction of the G.
Not a slam of the 164, just personal preference.
Okay, thanks. I need to do more research and test-drive one on the rocks...
Linear Mode
