SLK200 vs ML230?
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 2,410
From:
RE: SLK200 vs ML230?
YEP!
I have one bit of (worthless?) advice.
Don't! make the change.
Incidentally ML 230? Didn't realise they did one. Performance must be pretty dire.
How can you possibly consider a change from a (fun?) 2 seater to a 5 seater tank!
I suggest middle ground would be a better bet BUT if you choose to disagree with my input just consider this...
How much more is your annual fuel bill going to be especially if you use the vehicle around town ......and what will you gain?
4 X 4 ownership is a marketing "life style" dream.
Unless you REALLY need to go over REALLY rough terrain you are better off with a conventional vehicle and if the extent of your off roading is going to be going to the beach how about a 4 wheel drive E Class or similar.
In nearly every functional aspect 4 X 4 scores less well than its conventional rival....UNLESS you need to go seriously off road. I don't mean unmettled roads (no tarmac) I mean boulder strewn! Rally drivers don't use 4 X 4 vehicles due to their weight, high centre of gravity, lack of agility etc. They use conventioanl 2 wheel drive vehicles with 4 wheel drive fitted. The only advantage of a 4 X 4 tank is the ground clearance.
Ride...Poor due to heavy suspension components.
Handling...Poor. 2+ tons. ESP is the only thing that keeps vehicles like this acceptable during high speed avoidance or blow out situations. You don't have to look much further than the Ford Explorer "problem" to substantiate this.
Noise...Less refined. Lower gearing required to shift the mass.
Safety..Not as good as perceived BUT a menace to other road users in smaller vehicles. Command driving position gives an air of being "Superior" to other road users but don't get the idea that the vehicle is safer..or stronger.
Longevity...basically the same as a conventional car since the ML doesn't have a separate ladder chassis. Maybe its just ahead in this area but all cars now last 15 to 20 years and fashion dictates change before rust sets in. In the UK MB give a 30 year warranty against rust. Not worth the paper it is written on.
Performance...Acceptable BUT at what cost. Much worse than conventional vehicle.
FUEL CONSUMPTION. Get ready for circa 15 (or even worse) vs 30 mpg in your SLK.
JFYI ML is made in the USA not Germany. Maybe this is an advantage. I just report it as a fact.
However after all that my wife still wants me to get one instaed of my current w220 S Class! No doubt she will get her way in the fullness of time.
....and what about the eco lobby?
Stuart.
I have one bit of (worthless?) advice.
Don't! make the change.
Incidentally ML 230? Didn't realise they did one. Performance must be pretty dire.
How can you possibly consider a change from a (fun?) 2 seater to a 5 seater tank!
I suggest middle ground would be a better bet BUT if you choose to disagree with my input just consider this...
How much more is your annual fuel bill going to be especially if you use the vehicle around town ......and what will you gain?
4 X 4 ownership is a marketing "life style" dream.
Unless you REALLY need to go over REALLY rough terrain you are better off with a conventional vehicle and if the extent of your off roading is going to be going to the beach how about a 4 wheel drive E Class or similar.
In nearly every functional aspect 4 X 4 scores less well than its conventional rival....UNLESS you need to go seriously off road. I don't mean unmettled roads (no tarmac) I mean boulder strewn! Rally drivers don't use 4 X 4 vehicles due to their weight, high centre of gravity, lack of agility etc. They use conventioanl 2 wheel drive vehicles with 4 wheel drive fitted. The only advantage of a 4 X 4 tank is the ground clearance.
Ride...Poor due to heavy suspension components.
Handling...Poor. 2+ tons. ESP is the only thing that keeps vehicles like this acceptable during high speed avoidance or blow out situations. You don't have to look much further than the Ford Explorer "problem" to substantiate this.
Noise...Less refined. Lower gearing required to shift the mass.
Safety..Not as good as perceived BUT a menace to other road users in smaller vehicles. Command driving position gives an air of being "Superior" to other road users but don't get the idea that the vehicle is safer..or stronger.
Longevity...basically the same as a conventional car since the ML doesn't have a separate ladder chassis. Maybe its just ahead in this area but all cars now last 15 to 20 years and fashion dictates change before rust sets in. In the UK MB give a 30 year warranty against rust. Not worth the paper it is written on.
Performance...Acceptable BUT at what cost. Much worse than conventional vehicle.
FUEL CONSUMPTION. Get ready for circa 15 (or even worse) vs 30 mpg in your SLK.
JFYI ML is made in the USA not Germany. Maybe this is an advantage. I just report it as a fact.
However after all that my wife still wants me to get one instaed of my current w220 S Class! No doubt she will get her way in the fullness of time.
....and what about the eco lobby?
Stuart.
Thread Starter
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 35
From:
RE: SLK200 vs ML230?
You love speed, so do i but...howcan isay this in a civilized manner? no room for s_x. [8D]just trying to brake the ice anywayz. i love my car its a chic trap as theysay here in Greece. But thats not what i need.you are more than correct aboutthe fuel consumption an all... I was in Australia in 2003 and thats what they were saying on T.V. 4wdrv's are not as safe as they may seem. Only if theycome with full srs package drivers side etc.
I allso got my eyes on aC200 2.000cckompresor for21.000 euro year 2001.
I allso got my eyes on aC200 2.000cckompresor for21.000 euro year 2001.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
