Both these numbers are official MB data. Yet 95% of the motoring press go on and on about the increased interior space (including luggage) of the W164. These same very worthy gentlemen of the press also stress at great length the weight reduction brought about by the change to unibody construction, yet:
These numbers refer to the 270CDI and 280/320CDI. I was never any genius in maths, but to me 10 kilos added to the net weight and 50 kilos off the payload is not going forward - or have I again got it wrong?
Just out of curiosity, and spurred by a test in a French motoring mag, I measured the luggage compartment of my 270CDI over Easter:
Width (at the bottom): 110 cms (around 135 cms higher up).
Depth: (at the bottom) 97-105 cms (depending on the position of the rear seat).
Height (below luggage cover): 49 cms.
The same numbers for the W164: 103-128 cms, 105 cms and 46 cms.
No doubt, the W164 is far more advanced technologically than the W163, and probably more refined too - but more roomy? - I doubt it. The only thing that puzzles me is that it's gotten considerably bigger on the outside, and has a smaller luggage compartment, yet the vehicle's flanks don't seem to be excessively fat.
I guess that we'll have to learn to limit ourselves a little as far as luggage goes - after seeing a German TV test of the W164 yesterday, my wife gave the W251 the definite and final thumbs-down - so now we're down to "details" like getting the W164 with multicontour macadamia leather or sport ash alcantara interior, and Desert Sand or Alpine Rain exterior. Your opinions are, as always, welcome [;)]
Cheers from a grey and rainy Luxembourg,
Birger
__________________
2007 Lexus RX400h, Navajo Beige, Ivory Leather, Birds-Eye Maple
RE: Luggage compartment numbers - and your opinion neeeded
Hello again Birger.
In Norway we pay importduties of the weight of the car and according to the EU weights used to calculate importduties the numbers are as follows:
W163 - 2000-2001 ML 270 CDI - 2065 kilos
W163 - 2002-2005 ML 270 CDI - 2125 kilos
W164 - 2006 ML 280/320 CDI - 2110 kilos
These numbers includes 68 kilo driver and 7 kilo luggage, aacording to the EU-norm.
The interiorspace is another story. I guess that some space is lost making the new ML more carlike and "nicer" in the back and also more silent.
__________________
MB Viking.
2006 ML 63 AMG arrived! Whooowww!
New 2008 C220 CDI AMG Sportpackage arrived. More sporty handeling than my 2002 C32T AMG!
2008 Audi R8 arrived!
RE: Luggage compartment numbers - and your opinion neeeded
Hi, ansan
Yes - I read the bit (in the web test) on the Norwegian ownership taxes and was shocked. One shouldn't think that you're sitting on quite a lot of oil ressources the way motorists are being robbed in your country.....
Funny, though, this difference between the German and Norwegian net weight numbers. They should be calculated from the same basis, even though Norway isn't an EU Member State.
And as these numbers, as you rightly state, include one smallish driver and a little piece of luggage - and IIRC a full tank, this might account for the added 10 kilos net weight for the W164. Fuel capacity has gone from 83 litres on the W163 to 95 litres on the W164. I guess 12 litres of diesel might weigh around 10 kilos......
RE: Luggage compartment numbers - and your opinion neeeded
I guess this shows that we shouldn't believe everything we read in motoring mags. I guess a writer will believe anything if the manufacturer gives him enough wine.
I'll be interested to hear what you think of the new 6 cylinder diesel engines opposed the existing 5 cylinder one.
I'm not keen on the rear seat folding system on the W164 would have been nice to have kept the existing one but made it easier to operate.
I wonder how they will differ in the largest box they can handle. People can't believe that a ML can carry a full sized freeze with the hatch closed (freezers are typically smaller than refrigerators). I expect the "inverse TARDIS" feature of the 164 will comparatively result in a much smaller box to be swallowed. Also I wonder what the cargo floor to roof dimension is. Maybe they thought the competitor to the 164 was only the X5, they forgot about the 163!
__________________
warning triangle, 133,000 miles
RE: Luggage compartment numbers - and your opinion neeeded
Thanks, GregW, for this:
which very clearly shows a couple of things. First of all note that the VDA norm is "measured with water", that is, all cavities are counted (also the space below the floor, as you can see from the blue shadows).
Considering that the W163 carried 633 litres, and has no below-floor compartment, this aggravates the difference between the two vehicles even further [:(!]
Also, the fact that the badly-designed (al least 5 cms too low - see VW Touareg, Peugeot 407 and others how it should be done) luggage cover makes out for a 51 litres difference may be the explanation why - on a $50K vehicle! - you have to dish out an additional $187 for the cover. That way MB can promote a 551 litre luggage compartment, and not only 500 litres. Incidentally, measured by the same method (and it has a luggage cover as standard) the smaller, cheaper BMW X3 has a luggage capacity of 480 litres with the seats up - and (this is understandable) 1,560 litres with the seats down.
I still think we'll end up getting the W164, but some doubt has surfaced when you consider the "evolution" between the W163 and the W164. The rear seat room might have increased, but the variability of the rear seat has been reduced - and I just noticed that the rear seatbelt shoulder mounts are no longer adjustable - progress???
One alternative (if we take it that our 270CDI should be replaced) could be to get one of the remaining Final Edition W163's that should be nicely discounted - and then while we're at it, get the V8 CDI engine that initially isn't offered on the W164.
Same interior room, same not up-to-date, but reliable mechanics and electronics, and quite an engine. Probably less expensive than a W164 320 CDI.
Another alternative, more modern than the W163, with enough space up front for the two of us, and nearly as much luggage space as the W164: The BMW X3 3.0d - nice, though not as nice inside as the W164, but with a huge sunroof, probably better handling on-road, and with the same options some $11K less expensive than the W164..... - and unfortunately also a dealership that isn't as friendly as the MB one [:(]
ccweems wrote:
Quote:
Also I wonder what the cargo floor to roof dimension is.
It's 87 centimetres on the W164 - and I forgot to check my W163 before leaving this morning, sorry.
RE: Luggage compartment numbers - and your opinion neeeded
I haven't taken the exact measurements but the W164 is narrower than than the W163 at the cargo floor by at least 3 maybe 4 inches. Tried to put a set of golf clubs (left to right) in the W 164 and they barely fit. So much for a progressive, new design.
The dealer finally figured out that the rear seat cushions are removable so that you can still put very long objects in by taking out the seat bottom and tilting the passenger seat way back.
Linear Mode
