Cheap ML63

[daveenty]

Possibly too cheap?

Not on the bay but on Piston Heads

 

[Alex]

Drop it D, you've made the right choice...

 

[T5R+]

Suspect it is a scam at the price.

 

[Harridog]

Lots of leather, gloves and coat...strange photo of the drivers side?

 

[daveenty]

Drop it D, you've made the right choice...

Only having a browse.

Suspect it is a scam at the price.

Well, that's me and you both.

Lots of leather, gloves and coat...strange photo of the drivers side?

Like a car which you may just have chanced upon perhaps.

I don't think I'd be going to view it, and certainly not with a pocket full of cash. As above, if it looks too good to be true.....

 

[JohnBell]

Fraud advert 100%

 

[sjmaxwell]

A lot of dirt and wear on the steering wheel

 

[StuartK]

I drove my dads ML once and have to say they drive terribly. I can't think of any fathomable reason for buying a 6.3 one. However £6300 is very, very cheap and I suspect any monies would need to be paid via cousin Benson.

 

[abecketts]

Think the listing has gone, but for £18k on pistonheads a ml63 could be yours, check the reg for mot history and it's a Ml250, caveat emptor

 

[Deleted member 37751]

The 4.0 twin-turbo V8 CDi engine suits the W164 much better than the 6.2 V8 in my opinion; the ML63 I took on an extended test drive left me feeling underwhelmed, it was a shame Mercedes dropped that diesel engine.

I was watching the ML63 prices for a while and some have been hanging around for a very very long time, but on paper they should be good buys really for certain folk; north of 500bhp N/A V8, 4x4, high driving position etc

 

[flat6buster]

The 4.0 twin-turbo V8 CDi engine suits the W164 much better than the 6.2 V8 in my opinion; the ML63 I took on an extended test drive left me feeling underwhelmed, it was a shame Mercedes dropped that diesel engine.

I was watching the ML63 prices for a while and some have been hanging around for a very very long time, but on paper they should be good buys really for certain folk; north of 500bhp N/A V8, 4x4, high driving position etc

Did not like my 420, the 500 petrol seemed lighter and better. Maybe I just prefer petrol. Mid range of the 420 was pretty good but the 500 no slower really day to day and no thirstier, quieter when wanted but sounded nicer with a window or the roof open. Same mpg for both real world.

 

[Deleted member 37751]

Did not like my 420, the 500 petrol seemed lighter and better. Maybe I just prefer petrol. Mid range of the 420 was pretty good but the 500 no slower really day to day and no thirstier, quieter when wanted but sounded nicer with a window or the roof open. Same mpg for both real world.

I really liked the 420, hilarious mid range torque, would easily do 30mpg on a run and 23-25 locally.

Can't comment on the 500, but on the trip on the '63 it was showing 12mpg on the trip computer over 2000 miles which, taking into account the underwhelming drive I had, just thought there wasn't that much of a difference for the sake of more than halving the fuel economy.