48 views and no questions. Wrong forum, I guess. [:)]
I know for a fac there are folks on the 164 thread that have the R on order. Either they do not want the truth or they want to find out on their own. [:D]
I wanted to let others know that I had a chance to drive a R500 this weekend at my dealer. Honestly I am not impressed.
I have a an 06 350 and the V6 seems like a better performer then the V8 in the R500.
The R500 weighs 4,929 lb., compared to 4,623 for the ML350. So, doing the math, the R has 16.3 lb/hp, compared to 17.25 for the ML. Looking at that only, it ought to be a better performer. But, the ML has a lower axle ratio of 3.90 (vs. 3.70). So, even with the R's better torque and power, they are probably very close in acceleration.
__________________
<HTML>
<B>Greg</B> Lake Oswego, Oregon, USA
<HR>
<B>2006 ML350</b> - Pewter/Charcoal Alcantara/Aluminum; Packages: Comfort, Lighting, Entertainment, Appearance, Airmatic, Sunroof; Options: Nav, Sirius, hitch, heated seats, power liftgate, roof rack; Mods: ML500 skid plates, ML63 20" wheels.
<B>2001 BMW M3 Coupe</B> (5/01 prod.) - Titanium/Cinnamon w/ many mods.
If you just purchased a new ML, then there is a good chance you are not in the target group for an R-Class. Otherwise, you might be comparing it to a . . . Sequoia maybe?, e.g., about the same length, but its loooong wheelbase still is shorter than the "R" by nearly 8" and its turning circle is bigger than the "R" even though they are about the same length (and width). They both have about the same payload but you can carry a lot more luggage in a Sequoia because its about 10" taller; however, the "R" is nearly 500 lbs lighter than a Sequoia with 4WD and the "R" has more power and torque and the torque comes on a lot quicker and even with that, I have to imagine the "R" probably will get better mpg. Moreover, based on the MB's marketing, I also imagine the "R" is not just in a different class but on an entirely different planet when it comes to comparing luxury features, ride, noise, etc.
[8D]
If you just purchased a new ML, then there is a good chance you are not in the target group for an R-Class. Otherwise, you might be comparing it to a . . . Sequoia maybe?, e.g., about the same length, but its loooong wheelbase still is shorter than the "R" by nearly 8" and its turning circle is bigger than the "R" even though they are about the same length (and width). They both have about the same payload but you can carry a lot more luggage in a Sequoia because its about 10" taller; however, the "R" is nearly 500 lbs lighter than a Sequoia with 4WD and the "R" has more power and torque and the torque comes on a lot quicker and even with that, I have to imagine the "R" probably will get better mpg. Moreover, based on the MB's marketing, I also imagine the "R" is not just in a different class but on an entirely different planet when it comes to comparing luxury features, ride, noise, etc.
[8D]
I drove the R to test drive as another car. Granted there is more room, but I was not at all impressed. I had a chance to drive the Chrysler Pacifica a few weeks back from a friend of mine. The R is a high end Chrysler Pacifica, with better options and logo.
I do not want to seem like I am bashing the R, but I would of thought I would have been more impressed.
The R was not for us, but I am sure MB did their research on their target market.
If you just purchased a new ML, then there is a good chance you are not in the target group for an R-Class. Otherwise, you might be comparing it to a . . . Sequoia maybe?, e.g., about the same length, but its loooong wheelbase still is shorter than the "R" by nearly 8" and its turning circle is bigger than the "R" even though they are about the same length (and width). They both have about the same payload but you can carry a lot more luggage in a Sequoia because its about 10" taller; however, the "R" is nearly 500 lbs lighter than a Sequoia with 4WD and the "R" has more power and torque and the torque comes on a lot quicker and even with that, I have to imagine the "R" probably will get better mpg. Moreover, based on the MB's marketing, I also imagine the "R" is not just in a different class but on an entirely different planet when it comes to comparing luxury features, ride, noise, etc.
[8D]
I drove the R to test drive as another car. Granted there is more room, but I was not at all impressed. I had a chance to drive the Chrysler Pacifica a few weeks back from a friend of mine. The R is a high end Chrysler Pacifica, with better options and logo.
I do not want to seem like I am bashing the R, but I would of thought I would have been more impressed.
The R was not for us, but I am sure MB did their research on their target market.
I certainly agree with the comments about R Class looking too similar to Pacifica. DCX made a big mistake by allowing Pacifica to be released earlier then R-Class. Whatever everyone says, it will be always labeled as Pacifica clone. Pacifica was never a hit and I hope R-class changes that for MB/DCX.
I was also in the market for R-class or M-Class but selected ML350 just because of the ride height and the looks. M-Class looks far better then R-class and somehow I don’t like the front looks of R-Class. It is quite different then the original GST Vision concept..
Other drawback that I consider is the price, if you select the fully optioned R500 the price almost touches to S-Class and S-class will always be more prestigious then R-Class. I know it is not direct comparison but buying MB is always about prestige and class.
Anyways, I am quite happy with my M-Class and will not switch to any other class for quite a long time. Thanks
R-class and M-class are totally different.
I was waiting for the Audi Q7 - i think it's comparable with the R - but finally bought the ML.
I didn't like the R-class and Q7 because of its proportions, measurements and looks, which remind me of stationwagons and minivans.
Also, in Europe, R and Q7 aren't quite adjusted to our smaller roads and cities.
Pacifica and R-class comparison is like apples and oranges. They come from different trees, have different shapes and flavors, though they are both fruits.
Same thing with the Pacifica and R-class. They both serve as sports-tourers, but they're completely different.
The R-class, M-class and soon to be GL-class share the same chassis underpinings. As those who have already test driven the car can vouch, some of the interior components are shared as well.
Does this make the R-class the same as the M-class or GL-class? No. The R-class is for families who want a Mercedes with third row capacity that's not an SUV, yet handles like a sports car.
The Pacifica is for people who want an expensive Chrysler. [:D] And these are few.
Linear Mode
