ML350cdi – brief review.

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

hawk20

MB Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
4,344
Location
Lymington, Hampshire
Car
ML250 BlueTEC Sport Jan 2013
ML350cdi – brief review.

By January this year my ML350cdi Sport (W164) had completed 37,000 miles and had reached 3 years old. I bought it at 18 months old, one private owner, 18k miles, approved used, from an MB dealer, with full MB service history. I also met the previous owner who had had a trouble-free 18 months needing only the annual service after a year and 12k miles.

I had to scour the country to get the spec I wanted (used MB search engine) as both wife and I drive the car regularly so I really wanted memory seats. Found the right one in Kings Lynn (250 miles away) but they said immaculate and the price was good. Bit of trust needed but it lived up to expectations and I had right of refusal.

RELIABILTY. The only fault in the first 37k miles has been the EIS (electronic ignition system) which occasionally meant you had to turn the key a few times before anything happened. An intermittent fault. They changed it under guarantee and no problems since. Everything else has behaved perfectly.
SERVICING. I like the service plan which for the ML cost £36 per month which works out at 3.5p per mile and included brake fluid change at 2 years, and ATF change at 37k miles. We all moan about servicing costs but really it’s a small part of the total cost of motoring.
BRAKES I had read that MLs, notably the older ones, are pretty heavy on brake pads. But after 36k miles the original pads are still fine and the discs as well. I do few long runs nowadays, mainly twisty turny stuff locally, and so this was a pleasant surprise. BTW the brakes are powerful, nicely progressive, and not at all heavy to operate.
GEARBOX We drove to Cornwall for a motoring holiday the week after I got the ML and with our two dogs and loads of luggage the big-estate-car nature of the ML proved its worth. I found an occasional lumpy gear-change from the 7 speed box a bit annoying so when we got back I went to MB Southampton and they said there was a September 2011 software update available. They did the update free and since then the gear-changes have been impeccable. Really worth having this done.
ECONOMY For a 3 litre engined, 2.5 ton lump the economy is pretty remarkable. Locally I get 27 mpg without much effort and on a run, not straying much above 70, I get 33mpg.
COMFORT I find the ML the most comfortable of all the cars I have owned. The high driving position suits my bad back just fine; the seats are excellent, the legroom is ample (which with 33 inch inside leg I rarely say about any car) and even in the back the seats are really comfortable.
FUNCTION The boot space is huge –biggest in class- and the ground clearance means pulling off-road in the New Forest and elsewhere, to walk our dogs, creates none of the problems of crunched front air dams we have had with other cars. And it pulls off mud, snow and the rest as though it is not there.
LOOKS I like the rugged looks, and the fact that it is one of the more distinctive of MBs recent designs.
DRIVING The 3 litre diesel is so quiet you have to pinch yourself to believe you aren’t imagining it.
The power is all you could sensibly hope for, hurling 2.5 tons from 0-62 in around 8 seconds (or 7.2 seconds for the last of the W164s)
The deep-throated rumble of the V6 when accelerating is to my ears a lovely sound.
The ride is excellent -a big improvement over earlier models- very like a large saloon car.
Tall she may be, but the ML is not as big as she looks - in fact about 8 inches shorter than the E estate we had before, which helps parking. Parktronic is great.
The steering is just the right weight for my taste with plenty of feedback and good self centering.
Grip to accelerate out of wet and slippery corners is amazing with 4wd.
To my surprise all four tyres wore evenly and I did 30k miles on a set of Continentals.
INTERIOR I usually like leather but the Sport model comes standard with Artico and Alcantara. I have been surprised by how well it looks, how incredibly easy it is to keep clean and most of all by how well it has kept its shape. In fact the whole of the interior looks like new after 3 years and 37k miles.

CONCLUDE
Loved it.
Have I tried the new model? Yes. Stupidly drove the (W166) ML250cdi last July and was impressed. I was offered over 50% of what mine cost new, in part-ex against the new 250cdi ML despite the long waiting list (about 6 months) and they would hold the price till delivery occurred. Deal agreed and I have recently taken delivery of the ML250BlueTEC. Will report when I’ve had it a while.

Footnote
Original ML 1998 to 2005 was called the W163 series. Then came the W164 (as reviewed above) from 2005 to 2011. Then confusingly the new model is the W166 from 2012.
Mercedes claim best in class economy of 44.5mpg combined for the ML250 BlueTEC (and only £170 VED) and 39.6 mpg from the new 350 BlueTec. Amazing if true …….
 
Hi Chris.


I'm saddened to see no ones replied to this thread. A review about a Mercedes on a merc forum and they discuss bankers bonuses instead.

Aside I think the 250cdi in a numbers terms is a game changer as it has the same torque as my old 320 V6.

An ml may well suit a 6 better but I'd have taken the 166 250cdi too as the performance will be good and whilst I doubt it'll meet the 44.8mpg claim it'll still do 35mpg to 40mpg which is great in this segment of car.

EIS failure isn't common so on your 164 I think you've been unlucky.

Keep the reviews and updates coming.
 
Last edited:
Ooh, a long post to get to the punch line!

A combination of the W166 styling and four cylinder engine put us off the W166, and we opted for a W164, but i must say coming round to the W166 styling and e idea of super efficiency.

I saw a grey ML250 on Tuesday night and I stopped and stared. :cool: nice choice.

The 48mpg (IIRC?) seemed to good to be true so I would be interested to hear how you fare in real life.
 
I'm saddened to see no ones replied to this thread. .

I don't think you should read anything into that - after such a comprehensive write-up, there's not much left to add!

I love this type of vehicle and just wish I had the justification (and mind-set :) ) to hose money into cars like this.
 
I have a W166 ML250 Sport on order, and it should arrive next month. I ordered it in December.

Thanks for the review of the W164, was good reading, but looking forward to reading your thoughts on the W166 .
 
Totally agree with you, really comfortable and the only drawback i can see is its quite wide to park in supermarket car parks:thumb:
 
Totally agree with you, really comfortable and the only drawback i can see is its quite wide to park in supermarket car parks:thumb:
Oddly it looks wider than it is. Check it out on the MB website and although the body is a bit wider than the 164 the mirrors are carefully sited so that overall width is not a lot more than an E class -including mirrors. And the big advantage for parking is that it is 8 inches shorter than the E class.
 
hawk20 said:
Oddly it looks wider than it is. Check it out on the MB website and although the body is a bit wider than the 164 the mirrors are carefully sited so that overall width is not a lot more than an E class -including mirrors. And the big advantage for parking is that it is 8 inches shorter than the E class.

Would that make it C class sized roughly length wise.

I love the things unwashed hippy types say about 4x4s taking up lots of space. They would if roads weren't horizontal....but as it were.

Whilst an SUV won't drive as well as a car, many do not care and like the lofty upright driving position and view out.
 
Rory said:
I don't think you should read anything into that - after such a comprehensive write-up, there's not much left to add!
.

Agreed, it's nonsense. we all read it and it was a great post.

Will be interested in your experiences with the 4 pot diesel in the ML, I think I would shy away from it having driven lower powered SUV hires in the States, but as *** says the torque on that engine is very respectable.

Also wonder how long it will be before they offer the ML in a diesel hybrid version (if they don't already)
 
BigSilverEstate said:
Agreed, it's nonsense. we all read it and it was a great post.

Will be interested in your experiences with the 4 pot diesel in the ML, I think I would shy away from it having driven lower powered SUV hires in the States, but as *** says the torque on that engine is very respectable.

Also wonder how long it will be before they offer the ML in a diesel hybrid version (if they don't already)

The diesel hybrid will be the one to get.

The electric motor will hide any deficiencies in power and low speed refinement.
 
I read somewhere the new ML will feature a third row of seats towards the end of 2013/ start of 2014.

Has mercs abandoned this idea?
 
Ooh, a long post to get to the punch line!

A combination of the W166 styling and four cylinder engine put us off the W166, and we opted for a W164, but i must say coming round to the W166 styling and e idea of super efficiency.

I saw a grey ML250 on Tuesday night and I stopped and stared. :cool: nice choice.

The 48mpg (IIRC?) seemed to good to be true so I would be interested to hear how you fare in real life.
I think it is 44.8 combined. I managed 42 mpg on a longish demo in the 250 on A roads without a lot of traffic. On mine I have been surprised how much really cold weather affects economy -(takes longer to warm up and uses fuel to keep you warm of course). But on the few warmer days we have had, mine is beginning to loosen up. Only just done the first 1,000 miles so not worth testing yet.

BTW they still do the 6 cylinder 3 litre. That has a combined figure of 39.2 mpg, a top speed of 139 and 0-62 in 7.4 seconds but hardly relevant on UK roads IMO. Nice though:)
 
We have had our W166 ML250CDI BlueTEC since December - it was a pre-reg with 44 miles on the clock so essentially new.
Early days yet - still only 2700 miles on the clock, but very impressed.
Fuel economy is very variable, the OM651 engine is very versatile, but thirsty when cold or pushed hard. Much of the driving has been short journeys in cold weather, but even so with a few longer runs thrown in to warm up it's averaging 35ish MPG.
On a recent run to Cumbria up the M1/M6 it achieved 42MPG.
Put it through it's paces a bit in the Lakes - up a steep mountain pass (called 'The Struggle') with 4 passengers I was very impressed with the torque - didn't seem to struggle at all!
 
I read somewhere the new ML will feature a third row of seats towards the end of 2013/ start of 2014.

Has mercs abandoned this idea?
From my point of view, I hope so; because all seven seaters reduce the legroom in the front and rear in order to cram in a third row of seats. Hence the R class has less legroom in the front than the A class -believe it or not.

But the GL offers 7 seats.....
 
Will be interested in your experiences with the 4 pot diesel in the ML, I think I would shy away from it having driven lower powered SUV hires in the States, but as *** says the torque on that engine is very respectable.

Also wonder how long it will be before they offer the ML in a diesel hybrid version (if they don't already)
Five minutes ago in time 100hp per litre from a petrol engine was thought pretty tasty. Now Mercedes offer 204 hp from this 2.143 litre diesel.

And 500 of torque used to be the province of 5 litre V8's.

According to Classic Cars the 5 litre V8 Ford mustangs in Steve McQueens time did 0-60 in 10.8 seconds and had a top speed of 116 mph.

Now we have a diesel engined 2.5 ton 4x4, with barely over 2 litres of engine, that will do 0-62 in under 9 seconds and has a top speed of 130 mph. Such is progress. We are greedy.:)

On hybrids if the E class is anything to go by, it would be a lot more money. And a lot more to go wrong in later life.

Worth driving the 250 BlueTEC because with the twin turbos, the huge amount of torque, and no turbo lag, it really does not feel underpowered. In fact in any gear at any revs, just touch the accelerator and it it's off.
 
From my point of view, I hope so; because all seven seaters reduce the legroom in the front and rear in order to cram in a third row of seats. Hence the R class has less legroom in the front than the A class -believe it or not.

But the GL offers 7 seats.....

The 7 seats in our 163 was one of the reasons for choosing it. I think Richard from Comand Online mentioned on MB USA forums the seats belts for the third row are on EPC.

Is the new GL out yet? It looks nice, but boy does it accommodate a high price tag!!!
 
The 7 seats in our 163 was one of the reasons for choosing it. I think Richard from Comand Online mentioned on MB USA forums the seats belts for the third row are on EPC.

Is the new GL out yet? It looks nice, but boy does it accommodate a high price tag!!!
Yes on the 163 they put the extra seats in the boot area and kept good legroom further forward. Trouble nowadays is the fashion to have the third row forward facing -and some boot room- and then you have to shift the other seats forward. For example I find the front of the X5 short of legroom and the Audi Q7. And, for another example, the LandRover Freelander has more front legroom than the bigger Discovery (but the Disco gets 3 rows of seats). It's all compromise I guess.

What is EPC?
 
Last edited:
Yes on the 163 they put the extra seats in the boot area and kept good legroom further forward. Trouble nowadays is the fashion to have the third row forward facing -and some boot room- and then you have to shift the other seats forward. For example I find the front of the X5 short of legroom and the Audi Q7. And, for another example, the LandRover Freelander has more front legroom than the bigger Discovery (but the Disco gets 3 rows of seats). It's all compromise I guess.

What is EPC?

Electronic Parts Catalog.

I have not considered an X5 or Audi Q7. The Q7 looks rather big, I have always wanted a merc and the 163 fits the bill nicely. Its just getting on a bit now, I wouldn't mind something a little fresher.

Do you think shifting the seats forward is why it is taking so long for mercs to bring out the extra seats in the 166? In the 163 there could be more legroom for the seats in the boot. I am surprised mercs did not launch the 166 with the seats to rival the X5 from the word go. The GL is a bigger car than the current X5. I know the 163 didn't have 7 seats to begin with, I think it came in around 2000.
 
Electronic Parts Catalog.


Do you think shifting the seats forward is why it is taking so long for mercs to bring out the extra seats in the 166? In the 163 there could be more legroom for the seats in the boot. I am surprised mercs did not launch the 166 with the seats to rival the X5 from the word go. The GL is a bigger car than the current X5. I know the 163 didn't have 7 seats to begin with, I think it came in around 2000.
We differ on this. I hope they leave it as it is. They never added a seven seat option to the 164 series - it would hace meant rear facing seats in the boot or ruin the legroom in the front and rear seats to squash in a third row. So they do the 166 as a five seater and the GL and R class for those who want seven seats. Seconhand R's sell at very sensible prices. Could be worth a look?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom