(first posted 12/2/2015) (The Deadly Sin designation has been used here almost exclusively for GM cars that directly contributed to the death of that corporation. I described their nature and purpose here. When I saw this, it created a bit of a doctrinal crisis for me, since Mercedes never died. But then I revisited the actual doctrinal meaning of the Deadly Sins; according to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, a mortal or deadly sin is believed to destroy the life of grace and charity within a person. That applies well enough here. PN)
I had the brochure for these. In my mind they were just about the coolest cars in the planet back in ninety-something-or-other when that title changed every time I got a new brochure or saw a new car on the street. I still find them extremely good looking. Sadly, they fell from grace in my head the second I came to understand the definition of the words “Quality” and “Reliability”
The story of the ML starts, oddly enough, with Mitsubishi. In 1991 Mercedes came to the conclusion that their only SUV, the G-Wagen, was getting a bit long in the tooth. They wanted to get something fresh in the market and decided that instead of going at it alone they would develop the new SUV jointly with Mitsubishi Motors. This was announced publicly in June, 1991. Two versions were developed; one for Mercedes, the other for Mitsubishi. They both used the Montero/Pajero platform. For some reason or another, the project was cancelled in May 1992 (newspapers cited the wonderfully vague “Technical problems” as the reason.)
Me? The conspiracy theorist in me likes to think that they had a conflict of interest with their just released Montero. Or that the technical problems had more to do with different approaches at how to position it on the market. Who knows.
Whatever the reason, it meant that Mercedes had wasted a year already, and the G-wagen wasn’t getting any younger, although the new SUV would end up not replacing it anyway. After the Mitsubishi incident Mercedes must have decided that the only way to go at it would be with a completely new vehicle. Since SUV sales were much bigger then in the US than in Europe, and also to spread currency exchange risks, Mercedes decided to build their first (and to date only) plant in the United States. The Tuscaloosa, AL, plant currently Manufactures the GL-Class and the C-Class, but back then its only intended purpose was going to be the new SUV.
Back in Deutschland, the development of the new model was going swimmingly. Mercedes gave the people a taste of what was coming in the 1996 Detroit Auto show with the Vision AA concept, which had more than a little of the ML’s design in it. Finally in 1997, the first Mercedes ML320 rolled from the state-of-the-art Tuscaloosa plant to great praise. Motor Trend gave it their Truck of the Year award in 1998. It’s easy to see why. Now all the refinement and quality one was used to in a Mercedes was available in civilized SUV form, and technological advancements like stability control and a traction control system that could simulate locking differentials and without much sacrifice in the way of road manners like you would get on a G-Class.
So why is this a deadly sin? Well, behind the shiny new technology and the pretty pretty styling hid one of the worst examples of Mercedes’ monstrous malaise era. As Jeremy Clarkson found out when he was invited to test one and the model that was presented to him had exposed screws, an ill-fitting trunk release and panel gaps so large that he could literally stick his hand through. Then, when he took it off-road, a piece of the sunroof weatherstripping fell off on his lap.
Owners began to report power steering fluid leaks, oil sludging if you followed the 10k oil change intervals, so many problems with the locks you wonder if people didn’t just left them unlocked so that when the electrical gremlin came at night it would lock it instead. The gearbox was the infamous “Sealed for life” unit. Numerous problems with the fuel pump and sender were also reported, as were problematic catalytic converters.
It certainly wasn’t the paragon of reliability like the legendary W123/W124/W126. The ML was the antithesis of what Mercedes had been cultivating and promising for many decades. Mercedes seemed to get the message and set to work on sorting out the bigger quality problems, an effort which concluded on the refreshed 2002 model like the one featured on this article (Special Thanks to Brendan Saur for catching it). The window switches were still iffy and the 5G-tronic remained primed and ready to start slipping after 100k miles or so but it was a much more reliable vehicle nonetheless.
That served it well until 2005 when it was replaced with the new (W164) ML. And this time they got it right from the get-go. It was much more reliable than the car it replaced. And Mercedes-Benz forums, which despite being filled with Merc lovers still admit the W163 was ‘poor’ in regards with reliability, seem to have a lot less problems with its successor; the most common complaint seems to be an unnatural appetite for tailight bulbs.
Am I too harsh for throwing a deadly sin to the ML? Were the teething troubles just a compound of a completely new design built on a completely new location with completely different people and lack of experience in the segment all blown out of proportion because of brand expectations? Nope. There’s a reason why we have those brand expectations. The “Spare no expense” Mercedes would’ve made sure that every single ML rolling off the line was as tight as a drum, it would’ve engineered it solidly without sacrificing any toys, and to hell with the development budget. Not this time; like the W210, the ML was developed by a Mercedes that felt pressure from the likes of Lexus and started competing on cost. Das Beste oder nichts became just something that was plastered on the walls at headquarters instead of something to live by. Acting in flagrant defiance of your core values is a deadly sin if I’ve ever seen one.
(N.B. – Photos of the featured black ML by Brendan Saur)
Related Reading:
Tuscaloosa is in Alabama, y’all.
Obviously! Elephants clearly vary by region, and everybody knows, in India the ears are smaller, and in Alabama the Tuscaloosa.
I am very familiar with Alabama elephants – I shot one, eary one morning, still in my pajamas. I was kind of drunk from the night before, and how he got in my pajamas, I’ll never know.
The only elephant I know of i Tuscaloosa is this fella. He’s still alive and kicking. Roll Tide!
We did own a 2003 ML 350 (purchased new). We had it for six years and put over 120,000 miles on the car. We had only two problems: a sensor on the transfer case that kept malfunctioning (replaced 3 times, twice under warranty and the third time the dealer ate it as an act of goodwill) and a rear window regulator that gave out after 5 years. I understand the earliest models, 1998-2002 were the most trouble prone.
Other than those glitches mentioned the car was a good one for us. True, it did not compare in quality of materials and finish to my 1995 E 320 coupe but it was about on par with a later 2007 C 280 we owned.
The ML was my wife’s car and she drove it all over the country. She and the children took it on a 6,000 mile odyssey across the Great Plains and Rockies in the summer of 2007 and, fortunately, had no problems. She now drives a GLK 350 and likes the more compact size but still finds it comfortable for long trips. She and her sister drove from Houston to San Diego and back, with side trips along the way, this past September and logged an average of 24mpg.
My sister-in-law did most of the driving and she has a rather heavy foot. I figured that out from there periodic texts telling me which town they were in. 🙂
By the way the way, the plant is near Tuscaloosa, Alabama (Vance is the closest municipality) not Mississippi. I took a tour of it in 2008 and the logistics of the assembly process is remarkable. That is mostly what happens there; assembly of components brought in on a just-in-time basis.
The MB M class is released and the soccer moms of the world rejoice!
I miss the Montero (the real one, not the “Sport” model) – almost as good as a Land Cruiser for much cheaper.
I am a little more forgiving of the early ML350. The quality issues were at least partly the result of trying something new and doing it in a new Alabama plant. Most of the issues were fairly minor and now Mercedes has a great vehicle to sell. I don’t think a few years of teething troubles after a big change qualifies as a deadly sin. Just make sure the dealer stand behind them and set the engineers to work fixing the issues. Same with the X body with GM.
The more serious issue, probably due to the long gestational period, is that they were too truck like, at the exact time when Lexus showed where the market was going with the more carlike RX300.
It wasn’t the teething troubles. It was the relatively lax build quality and engineering integrity.
German car fans love to blame “the plant” for any and all quality problems a car may have, especially when said plant is not in Europe.
The infamous “Alabama Trash Can”…the early ones were atrocious…I was working in a MB dealership in the early to mid 2000s and the service writers made lots of money on those beasts.
Plenty of them still around. A second cousin of mine has a W163. Silver metallic, 270 cdi diesel, automatic transmission, no rust. Maybe the most common version sold.
I can attest he doesn’t look like a soccer mom, nor drives it like one.
Popular among contractors and the like.
Regarding the 270 cdi, the same engine was also available in the Jeep Grand Cherokee back then. It was called the 2.7 crd in the Jeep SUV. Later on the GC got the 3.0 liter V6 Mercedes diesel.
Different engine, I think, a VM 2.7 liter four, I thought.
The 4-cylinder diesels in Jeeps (Wrangler, Cherokee) were -and are- VM, 2.5 and later 2.8 liter. The current 3.0 V6 diesel in the GC is also VM Motori. The 2.7 was Mercedes’ inline-5.
Our Sprinter van ate tail light bulbs too. And if you replaced the drivers side with anything but genuine factory bulbs, the transmission would shift funny. No joke.
I’ve found that every European car I’ve ever owned ate bulbs, regardless of make.
My current Volvo 240 with brand new taillights can’t make it 6 weeks before frying a bulb. Had the same experience with my e36 BMW 318i and Mercedes W126.
I can remember these being pretty popular in the wealthy enclaves north of me, but I never really warmed up to the styling on them. As for the quality issues, I don’t think this was the only M-B vehicle that suffered. Today, the Chrysler merger is popularly viewed as a bad deal for M-B, but for the first few years, it was Chrysler’s fat profits that kept the lights on in Stuttgart. I have always wondered how M-B would have done had it remained independent.
If the reading I have done about the interaction between M-B and Chrysler is any guide, the “technical issues” in the joint project with Mitsubishi probably had something to do with M-B insisting that Mitsubishi knew nothing about how to design an SUV at that price point, but that M-B (despite never having done it) knew best.
And where else but CC to get a touch of religious education along with our automotive history lesson! 🙂
I remember the Wall Street Journal doing an article on the vehicle about a year or so after it came out. In addition to the technology and build quality problems, they were also discovered to be virtually useless in the snow after Chicago (guess they sold a lot of them there that fall) got snowed under one winter. And little design deficiencies: Slush would easily get under the door and slop up the door frames making a mess of those Brooks Brothers suits and Lord & Taylor long coats. Not exactly acceptable for the yuppie laywer or financial analyst going to the office.
I was very surprised as the article was extremely scathing. You’d have though it was Consumer’s Reports testing a Yugo.
“making a mess of those Brooks Brother’s suits and Lord & Taylor long coats”
Syke, your breaking my heart.
Bad in the snow? My 2005 (which admittedly had P275/55R17s) was a beast in the snow, one of the things I really liked about it. Didn’t bother to shovel my driveway- put it in low range, selected reverse, and took my foot off the brake. Done. Up to bumper height, not problem. Even drug its running boards through.
If the DaimlerChrysler “merger” was what it was advertised to be before the fact, they should’ve Corvair’d the M-class. Zero development budget, sales only as long as someone’s buying and there’s no new legislation to be met, no replacement.
With Jeep in the brand portfolio, a Mercedes (or for that matter, Dodge) SUV was surplus to requirements.
Ridiculous. Jeep buids an entirely different kind of vehicle.
Agreed, even if the ML and Grand Cherokee would later share a platform.
There is a reason Jaguar has come out with an SUV despite sharing showrooms with Land Rovers
The W163 (1st gen) was designed BEFORE DaimlerChrysler existed. It was a body on frame design, and most of the engineering development work was done by Freightliner ( a MB division) in Oregon, which explains a lot. Not that Freightliner has poor engineers, but Freightliner products/processes are entirely different that the SUV market.
W164 (2nd) generation was developed by DaimlerChrysler SUV engineers, and would be unibody. There were both swb (ML / W164) and lwb (GL / X164). The roots / basic parameters of the design were shared with.. the swb (WK2 GrandCherokee), and the lwb (WD Durango). However each side of DaimlerChrylser did their own development, components, etc.
First of all, the W163 was designed with a lot of input from both the passenger car division, and the truck division. But that would be the MERCEDES truck division, not its North American subsidiary, Freightliner.
The W164 was NOT designed in conjunction with the previous generation Jeeps. It was probably a poor decision, but there were reasons- for one thing, the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Durango of that era had a SRA, while the ML had a Mercedes Multilink. They shared no engineering at all, so far as I know.
The W166 is what you are thinking of. It was designed together with the X166 (the GL) and the Jeep Grand Cherokee and Dodge Durango, although the Durango is actually exactly a stretched Grand Cherokee rather than a derivative of the X166.
The then president of Mercedes-Benz USA was quoted in Car and Driver saying that if Mercedes-Benz had spent $500 more on each ML, the quality issues would never happened.
Too late…
If MB had spent $500 more on each on Q control, the price would have been $1500 more at retail. Which is significant. Now if he had said $50 more, now that would be noteworthy.
I guess it’s a law on car blogs that if a discussion talks about a vehicle which was well known for poor quality/reliability, it won’t be long before someone chimes in to say they’re wrong because the one (one!) example he had was flawless.
except for the things which broke, of course.
And that one example will have been from towards the end of the production run *after* the company realized they dun goofed.
A friend of mine told me his father works in that ALABAMA M-B factory, and that they also make (made until recently?) the R-class there.
By any chance is the “R” the 2nd Deadly Sin?
R-class AMG: Hot Rod Station Wagon or Hot Rod Minivan?!?!?
Minivan.
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/future-classic/future-classic-2007-mercedes-benz-r63-amg-the-least-desired-amg/
I always thought the W163 ML looked even more like a minivan than the R-class did, especially when viewed from the rear. Later models had off-roady design cues stuck on to give it more of an SUV-ish look.
The 2nd Deadly Sin (the first one, IMO) is the 1997 W168 A-Class. Look at this interior, it belongs in a Renault Twingo, not in a Benz. It never even came close to being a serious VW Golf alternative / competitor.
Based on the W168 A-Class, this Mercedes-Benz Vaneo, the W414-series.
This particular model is notorious for abundant amount of body rust due to the design flaw. You don’t see many of them on road anymore…
more than the Sprinter? ‘cos that thing had to have been made from compressed rust.
Was going to say this.
Thanks for that link ! I never saw the FCC before. I think I’d rather drive an Aixam GTO.
Sigh*. The FCC isn’t that bad, because Porsche did something even more strange. As a 3yo kid at the time I just couldn’t believe how a company making Porsche 911 could do that. And I clearly remember where the name C88 came from, and I thought it was dumb already. ( then, Citroen, Daihatsu followed the same dumbness at the turn of century. ) I can’t find anything from Ford, Mitsubishi or Chrysler, and I am so curious about how they would look like.
http://www.carnewschina.com/2014/01/16/china-car-history-the-china-family-car-project-and-the-porsche-c88/
Of course, that means you’ve never heard of such Porsche projects as the Seat Toledo and Lada Samara.
Mercedes + Porsche = W124 500E.
One of my all-time favorite (factory) sleepers.
I always suspect if this particular model was salvaged from the 1994 China family car project, Mercedes FCC.
http://www.carnewschina.com/2014/01/22/china-car-history-the-china-family-car-project-and-the-mercedes-benz-fcc/
Just to offer an American’s perspective, in the late ’90’s I travelled to England on business and was offered my choice of an A Class or a Corolla at Hertz Heathrow. I took the A Class and while it had some flaws, I really enjoyed it. And for me to be able to tell people I got a Mercedes rental was fun. A few years prior, I had reserved an Alfa 155 in Italy, and was given a Fiat Marea. So this made up for it a little …
I think you’re correct in proclaiming the W163 a ‘deadly sin’ Gerardo. The ML (along with the W210 & W202 for that matter), did much to undermine the reputation for quality and perfectionism that M-B had carefully cultivated over the course of many decades. I no longer see very many of these early ML’s on the roads, which perhaps is also a telling sign.
One thing I would add to the ML’s list of failings was the incredibly cheap interior these were saddled with when they debuted in 1997. M-B faced much criticism for the quality of the plastics and switchgear when the ML debuted, though to be fair, the ML eventually received an updated interior that placated the critics.
Looking back on the W163, what I find remarkable is how it so closely encapsulates the values of the nineties, a time when the trappings of upward mobility, or at least the illusion of such, appeared within reach of the average person. I don’t think it was any coincidence that the ML was chosen as Annette Benning’s ride in American Beauty. The cultural reference is entirely in keeping with the theme of the movie, the illusion of wealth, prosperity, and permanence, built upon a fragile facade – just like the ML.
IIRC that whole era was the pits for Mercedes; anecdotally a lady I worked with a while back had a 2003-ish C300 which was an absolute POS as well.
The Mercedes faithful of course blamed Chrysler, for some reason.
Circa 1995 to 2005 was Mercedes’ Malaise Era. Things picked up with the W211 (E-Class) Mk2, introduced in 2006.
That really was a good refresh, and ours in the USA came from Germany again after an unsuccessful South African sourcing.
I’ve been making a mental list lately of “Cars That Caused Me Not To Like New Cars Anymore,” and the Mercedes ML is on the list.
Prior to the ML, Mercedes embodied rock-like durability, timeless design and over-engineered quality. But I saw the ML as living proof that nothing was sacred anymore; after reading this article I guess the Deadly Sin label really applies.
But amusingly (or not) is that the ML appeared to sell well, despite its many glaring faults… and that’s probably the main reason that they irritated me so much — since I saw so many of them.
Another thought on the ML: for some reason, they often seem to drive slowly. I don’t know if that’s reflective of the cars themselves or their drivers, but I’ve noticed that phenomenon for years.
People who buy them. I drove mine like a scalded cat. That was one Benz feature it DID have.
I would like to nominate my 1985 190d 2.2 to be a recipient of the MB Deadly Sin honor.
It was a sadly unworthy successor to my 1980 Peugeot 505 Turbo Diesel.
The MB was inferior to the Peugeot by all measures. It was also a constant drain on my wallet. I was never so happy to see a car go.
Maybe mine was a one off lemon, or…
I’m not sure why you call this deadly sin #1. I was of the impression that the DS numbering was based on severity, rather than time of discovery. The W202 was the the first deadly sin chronologically- it was the first car Mercedes started to lose the idea of Das Beste Oder Nichts. It was the first car that was designed with Lexus’s pricing in mind.
The W211 was the worst sin they made. They introduced half baked technology, the assembly quality was abysmal, the reliability was absolutely atrocious, and on top of that, it wasn’t even the top of the game in safety for those years. Thank god the W212 was a step back to form.
Also, my understanding is that in real quality and reliability, the W164 was actually worse. My service advisor, in fact, suggested that I buy a late W163 instead of a W164, due to its superior build quality and reliability. Although the W163 I had was so bad, I actually considered buying something other than a Mercedes on my trip to buying my Mercedes Metris. I looked at the Ford Transit, Transit Connect, Promaster, Promaster City, and NV200 (and Sprinter) before I pulled the trigger on the Metris.
I didn’t have any transmission problems with my 2005 (beyond some stuff related to the broken motor mounts in the last 5 months of ownership). And if you throw jackrabbit starts, constant short stops, and blowing through traffic like a nutcase over 3 years and 110k miles, I’d insist, either there were some lemon transmissions, or what. I shoulda blown that tranny apart, but I didn’t. My reason for tolerating some mechanical problems on my Benzes is that I think the way I drive would obliterate most lesser machinery.
Lastly, I would not say that the ML350’s format against the RX was a poor choice on Mercedes part. Let us remember that at the time the ML350 debuted, there were only two purpose built vehicles sold as purely luxury SUVs- the Range Rover and the Gelandewagen- and that was really a military vehicle. The Lexus LX, Acura SLX, and Infiniti QX4 were just gussied up regular SUVs. Mercedes, I’d guess, assumed that real off road capability was going to be needed to sell them. Toyota didn’t. Toyota happened to be right, but I doubt the time frame had anything to do with it.
After all, the RX was the first luxury cross over, and the first mid-size crossover period. Nobody knew how it would fair in the market. And Mercedes, even in the depths of their worst hour, was still an engineering driven company- much more so than conservative Toyota has ever been.
The deadly sin designation is not used to designate severity or time of discovery. Merely the order in which they are written.
Deadly sins are numbered strictly chronologically according to their publication date.
And Mercedes, even in the depths of their worst hour, was still an engineering driven company- much more so than conservative Toyota has ever been.
I’m not sure I understand. The word “conservative” can of course be applied or interpreted in a number of ways to an automobile company, but to me, it seems switched here. The RX was anything but “conservative”; it was another rather bold gamble like the Prius, both of which paid of incredibly well.
I’d say Mercedes was overly conservative. The automobile world was changing rapidly, thanks in large part to Toyota having redefined it, and Mercedes struggled for some time to adjust to the new paradigm. Their muddled combination of old school technology and cheap interior and build quality as typified by the ML and the W202/W210 shows that very clearly.
Mercedes had to learn some very difficult lessons, and they have mostly mastered them, although the CLA comes across as something Lexus would sell.
Ok, so it’s article/discovery based. Gotcha
Calling the Prius conservative would be unfair. I don’t believe in that kind of hybrid as the future, (although I like light hybridization), but it was certainly revolutionary.
But the RX? What was revolutionary in its engineering? It’s a tall unibody transverse front driver with, iirc, a haldex style AWD system. The market was certainly revolutionary, but not the engineering. Perhaps you could argue a revolutionary application of conservative engineering.
Mercedes is conservative within themselves, I suppose. But their engineering is usually different than other companies. Take the ML. The suspension was all independent, despite it being designed as a truck. Torsion bar front, too. The 4Matic system was the first of its kind. The bloody V6 was an 18 valve twin spark- I think that was unique at the time. The transmission was a full 5 speed rather than a 3 or 4 speed with a lock up torque converter for the extra ratios. And while it did have a full truck frame, the body was also unitarily self supporting. Window switches remained where they belonged- on the center console. Side impact airbags. Standard stability control (Did Toyota even have stability control in ’97?)
Their hybrid drive and that million dollar Lexus not withstanding, Toyota tends to try to perfect proven concepts. Mercedes tends to go its own way.
Saying the RX was not revolutionary, is like saying that the first Mustang wasn’t, because it was just a Falcon. The car market changed after it, first in the USA and then around the world.
I didn’t say the RX wasn’t revolutionary- it is the very model of the what became the meat of the auto market is.
However, it’s engineering was frankly pedestrian. In fact, that was the the very revolution it perpetuated: sell the average American a pedestrian transverse front drive platform with raised ride height and a SUV shaped body. Prior to this SUVs were engineered to handle off road, and to be durable, capable trucks.
The very revolution was that the average car buyer, idiots that they are, would really rather have a tall hatchback version of a Camry with a Haldex clutch for some semblance of AWD. Selling them a capable product was entirely superfluous.
I think you are all agreeing with each other; the engineering of the RX was not out of the ordinary, but the concept as a whole was novel and it created a new market segment, or at least the luxury segment after the the earlier, similar CUV in the 1994 RAV4. Even the success of the Jeep Cherokee and Grand Cherokee should have been instructive to a move away from BOF.
In light of the RX one year earlier and the X5 one year later, you might say that M-B did not have the same insight/foresight as to where the industry was headed; however I understand that the ML was first conceived to replace the G-wagen, which explains a lot.
“The very revolution was that the average car buyer, idiots that they are, would really rather have a tall hatchback version of a Camry with a Haldex clutch for some semblance of AWD. Selling them a capable product was entirely superfluous.”
For people who don’t need the off-road capability but rather just all-weather capability, or heavier towing, a traditional SUV was indeed superfluous and came with multiple compromises/drawbacks. A CUV would appear to be a good compromise between a traditional passenger car and an SUV for a lot of people.
I agree John. A lot of people jumped on the RX300’s bandwagon, as the had before on the Explorers and before that on the Voyager/Caravan/Espace. These band wagons allowed those like JohnC. and Mrs. JohnC., who stuck with Volvo wagons during our nineties to early 2010 child rearing duty years, to look down our noses,(up?), at those masses with those wasteful tall things with unused capabilities but didn’t get 31mpg on the highway and didn’t handle so well on you know roads. It was fun and at least there were choices if you looked.
Based on what some people say about the German automakers, it seems they think “good engineering” means “make things as overcomplicated as possible.” Like Audi. “Let’s put the three timing chains on the back of the engine, then fit it with failure-prone tensioners which will make you disassemble the entire front of the car to fix.”
or better yet, “German Engineering” = “Why use one moving part when six or seven will do?”
And when those six or seven parts still won’t deliver the expected results, just lie about it! 🙂
This commenter doesn’t get how the market really works. He may be impressed with engineering gee-gaws and such, and meanwhile the folks that buy a Lexus ES or RX could’t care less about what’s under the hood or floor, as long as it does the job smoothly, quietly and dead-reliably.
Remind me again why Toyota is by FAR the most profitable automaker?
And regarding the RX: “Revolutionary” most of all means to affect change. Which car did that more; the RX or your beloved ML? Don’t forget, this business is all about the sales and profit margins, not the gee-whiz factor.
What makes you think I don’t understand it? Liking and understanding are different. Your average punter is an imbecile. Car companies design vehicles to sell to your average punter. The market is based around the concept that most luxury car buyers are lease candidates who don’t care about the car as much as the image it projects to their fellow imbecile.
Toyota is immensely profitable because it has caught this reality better than any other. I get that, too.
But the truth is, in terms of excellence of being a car for people who actually like cars, and enjoy the benefits of that engineering, a Mercedes is a better vehicle. Are they less reliable? Sure. Part of the cost of owning something I enjoy.
As for your comment about the RX, read my post above.
Stop making flash assumptions about me, what I think, or my ideas on how the world works. You are smarter than that, or my perception is off.
“But the truth is, in terms of excellence of being a car for people who actually like cars, and enjoy the benefits of that engineering, a Mercedes is a better vehicle. Are they less reliable? Sure. Part of the cost of owning something I enjoy.”
always amusing to watch the contortions of someone making excuses for why it’s ok for their status symbol to be a POS.
Good engineering to me means the car is as intuitive and as simple to maintain – from filling washer fluid to pulling a transmission – as it is to drive. Mercedes USED to be that way, they even had clever hood hinges to allow for more space to do major engine work if necessary. The cars they made back then propagated the “German engineering” myth, the rest (Audi, BMW) merely rode those merits whether they had them or not. At the other end of the spectrum the same could be said about the Beetle, any task, no matter how lofty could be accomplished in an afternoon by anyone without being a mechanic.
When I was little, I thought these vehicles were cool, in part because of their appearance in the Lost World Jurassic Park, which I watched religiously as a kid. Growing up, I’ve made it a point to slaughter some sacred cows, and I realized two things.
1: Lost World was not a good movie
2: The Mercedes ML was not a good SUV
I would easily call this a Deadly Sin, but not for the bad build quality, because let’s be honest we could condemn the entire product line between 1995 and 2005 for bad quality faults. No, this car is a DS to me because this car was the beginning of one thing, the dumbing down of Mercedes.
This was the vehicle that convinced the boys at Stuttgart that what they needed to do was not craftsmanship, design, and prestige, it was chasing the trends and fashion statements that their U.S customers were lapping up. Forget build quality, forget good design, just go after every market segment and chase the Noveau Riche consumer for everything its worth. You’ll sell better than you did, and then you start to get lazy, make a car for every occasion, stuff it with pointless electronic doo-dads to impress the people who like the shiny baubles, and just rake in the dough. Building cars that have massive panel gaps, transmission problems, and rust holes that would rival a 70s Ford? “What does it matter? We’re German for God’s sake, Ze Americans will buy it anyway, there’s nothing wrong with our cars.”
And because this car sold so well, everyone had to follow it. The X6, the Cayenne, the Touraeg, the Q7, the G550 that’s the German mirror image of the Land Cruiser and Land Rover’s evolution from rugged workhorse to Chelsea Tractor. Even the upcoming Bentley, Jaguar, Maserati, Lamborghini, and Rolls-Royce SUVs can all be laid at the feet of this ugly little unreliable POS simply because of how well it sold. I’m not going to act like it wasn’t inevitable, after all the SUV craze was taking the U.S by storm and the Navigator was on it’s way to becoming the progenitor, but the fact it got as out of control and the results that came from it are disparaging. This car set a very bad precedent, I can understand if the Japanese were to make something like the RX back, they would do that kind of thing because we would view them as world leaders in design. I can even understand the U.S creating the Navigator and the Escalade (Gag!) because that sort of brash, over decadent, gas sucking, take no prisoners approach to luxury is what the U.S were good at. (I always compared the American Full size luxury SUV as the logical successor to the Brougham craze, only with more added pretentiousness and not having the excuse of nostalgic kitsch to fall back on.) The Germans on the other hand, didn’t need to go for this low-brow route, I’m not saying they should’ve catered to their old customer base and damn everyone else, if they did they’d all be gone by now, but the move down market didn’t need to be this painful. They could’ve offered a nice car in a cheaper segment, at a lower price point, that offered what the company’s virtues were about. Instead, they followed a trend, and the rest, sadly, is history.
And that long winded explanation/theory is why I believe the ML is worthy of a Deadly Sin title.
I’m not a Mercedes person, but as an observer of things automotive I think this is very well stated. The ML was a combination of dumbing down the SUV, and Americanizing (in a bad way) a Mercedes. And personally, I think the styling … both details and proportions … is hideous, but I realize that’s subjective. Today’s CLA is the epitome of this trend. Of course, my automotive values were stamped by having my first ride in a Mercedes being in a 219 Ponton, and later spending a lot of time in the back seat (and later a bit of time behind the wheel) of my friend’s parents 190 Fintail. I also like the analogy between the Escalade/Navigator and broughams. Very appropriate.
Joseph,
VERY well said.
+1.
I remember the first Jurassic Park sequel used these as product placement, second only to AMC in James Bond’s Man With the Golden Gun in terms of blatancy and cornyness
I remember too, I thought they were cool when I was little. Then I grew up and realized it was just a complete dumbing down of anything resembling enjoyment or fondness for what came before it. Kind of like the movie itself come to think of it.
Also, I saw Jurassic World in the theatres this year, and they did the same blatant product placement as well with newer Mercedes Benz products. Old habits die hard I guess.
Yeah pretty much how I viewed them as a kid too. I haven’t seen the recent one, I pretty much guessed the plot of it to a friend who saw it opening week and his response was “yeah, pretty much”.
I did think the Bronco/Blazeresque removed rear roof sections in the movie cars was cool. I think that movie previewed the ML320 before they went into production, and that was something I expected the production models would have the capability of, but nope(or at least no one owner ever realized it)
Actually, the W163 ML is very capable off-road. Personal experience talking.
Cool story bro. Did you just skim my post for the word “capability” so you could make that retort? Because I neither mentioned nor critiqued what it could or couldn’t do off road.
Its interesting that no one has mentioned that Jeff Goldblum still drives his freebie ML that he received for appearing at some dealer promotional events when the ML was launched.
These ‘popular’ things have made M-B as common as Wal Mart or McDonalds.
These in blue always looked very similar to my blue 2001 Chevy Venture.
I really do think that part of the problem was the brochure that MB sent out to all sorts of people; on the order of 48 pages, very detailed, almost like a technical manual in some respects. This, I suspect, primed people to expect another typical bank-vault-quality Mercedes like the 220S, 250 and 280 sedans that a good many Americans had become familiar with.
For instance, the 1960 220S sedan that I had in 1967-1968 was rock-solid even though I bought it used with close to 100K miles on it. I used it to commute from Tacoma to my job in Bremerton on a highway that at the time was mostly two-lane. Its roadability, its brakes, and the acceleration, aided by the 4-speed transmission, enabled me to make excellent time on the trips and to take advantage of the passing stretches that were available. I remember after several months hearing a couple of co-workers talking about “the crazy bastard in the yellow Mercedes” – had to have been me, there weren’t any other Benzes on that commute. All this performance out of 164 cubic inches…. I suspect my experience was not all that different from those of other people who had Mercedes cars in the 1960’s and 1970’s, and for Mercedes to start building cars that simply were not all that great was indeed a deadly sin.
First part is shades of the Edsel, where Ford promised something truly different to a market that craved something truly different, and delivered a Ford with a different grille.
Good write up. I thought about getting one of these a while back, but took notice of how many were posted as “mechanic’s specials”.
Never liked those when they were new and still don’t. Like the VW Tuareg and Porsche Cayenne, they were a cynical attempt at getting people buying cars they don’t really need, that is, an image. It worked in the US but here (Austria) they were quickly established as the preferred mode of transportation for money-laundering Russian Mafiosi and hence avoided by most. If you wanted something like this and were respectable you got a Range Rover or a fully-optioned G-Klasse (= Puch G here)…
Were the ones in Austria made in Alabama or by Stayr-Puch? If made in Alabama, I can see why Austians might feel annoyed by them. Selling a three pointed star jeep in Austria, made in Alabama, they have nerve.
I am not aware of these ever being produced here – perhaps you confuse them with the Grand Cherokees… As for selling them here, they even sold in Germany and sold well. People would do anything to get the right image (or well what they conceive to be the right image).
The globalization even brought Russian mobs to Austria… I never thought of that.
I didn’t see too many of them in Michigan though, luckily.
Well the ones we have here now use the country as a place to launder money and give their children “Western” education – there are certain very good private schools here where a large percentage of the moms doing the run are instantly recognized as Russian oligarch and Mafioso trophy wives. The petty crime specialists have been warned to keep low by the heavies and hence are not causing problems.
Sour grapes. I love my ML! You have to own one to understand. And yes, I know my headlights are frosty. ?
The second deadliest sin of Mercedes-Benz would have to be the CLA. It’s virtually a remolded Nissan/Infiniti, FWD and all. Unheard of for M-B to collaborate with another auto company with the sole intention to employ their parts/processes/etc, even when they owned Chrysler.
That’s not the main reason why though. It’s cheap. The solidarity isn’t there, in fit and finish or materials. The ride isn’t as smooth as expected. I drove one for 300 miles and while it wasn’t terrible, it wasn’t impressive. I was more impressed with my aunt’s 2015 Honda Accord, and I’m not exactly a Honda fan.
For a few thousand dollars more, you could get a C-Class (personally, I’d go for a well-cared for, low mileage W204).
Alternately, you could probably own a nicely optioned Mazda 3, or a maxed out non-ST Ford Focus for the same downstroke and monthly as a four-year lease as a strippo CLA with vinyl seats, no sunroof and one of the (two?) non-extra-cost colors.
X2. I never even looked at these when I started looking for a new car due to what I consider as over-bloated price which – this being Austria – the market accepts. I did get a 3 and it’s as you pointed out, the same spec CLA would have been 30% more expensive – although I don’t think it’s a better car.
The CLA is a Benz engineering effort long pre dating the tie up with Renault. Infiniti is selling a rebadged A-class. The only Mercedes that is a Renault is the Citan. They also use Renault engines in the FWD version of the Vito- the RWD version uses a Benz engine.
The M270/M274 family is very Benz in excecution, the major difference between them is the orientation (transverse/longitudinal), so the CLA250 uses the same basic engine as the C300.
My looking at the CLA made me conclude it was fairly solid, and not that particularly cheap inside. How it rode, I dunno. I didn’t fit in the blasted thing.
You’re fully correct. The CLA is the sedan version of the current A-Class hatchback. That’s all. And the all-new Infiniti Q30 is fully based on that car, not the other way around.
Mercedes uses small Renault diesels, 1.5 / 1.6 liter. Nothing wrong with that, you can’t beat the French when it comes to small displacement diesels. Bigger diesels are all Mercedes’ own engines. You know, like the 2.1 liter in the Infiniti Q50.
My sister did exactly that. While the car was in development, I was sending her constant information regarding the CLA. Instead, she bought one of the last generation C-class cars in its final model year. Her second Mercedes in a row, she loves it. Took a CLA out as a loaner when her’s was in for service, and hated it. “Not a real Mercedes” in her eyes.
I have limited MB experience, but know enough about cars to be aware of MB products being a crap shoot – some are a combination of poor reliability and high repair costs that could make the script for a horror movie.
Still, the heady feel of MB products on the annual auto show floor is hard to deny. And, MB history (and good marketing) puts the MB brand on something of a pedestal.
It makes wonder how many well-off buyers ignore the dirty rumors and then pay out the bucks and stay relatively silent when the wisdom of their purchase becomes questionable. That, combined with MB products selling in relatively low numbers keeps their Deadly Sins from tarnishing MB the way the General’s Sins tarnish GM. GM Deadly Sins had a habit of selling in the millions, and when every block in your neighborhood is graced by at least one, its hard to keep a secret.
As MB moves to broaden their market scope and share, they would be wise to ensure their products match the hype.
I can only speak for myself, but I have owned a lot of Benzes – a Stroke 8 240D, several W123s, a W116, a W202, a W124, a W163, and now a W447.
The repairs I have had break down into stupid niggles I can put off (and I choose to tolerate) and a few wowsers that gave me heart palpitations- although all but one of those were on the W163. I gave up on the cars because of an accident, tired of the slowness (W123 240D), needed a wagon (W123 300D), my dad bought me something to remove what he saw as an eyesore (W123 300TD), a bad wiring harness (and not loving the whole gas thing- W202 C220), giving up a toy to start a business (W116 300SD), a botched accident repair resulting in unrepairable rust (W124 E300 Diesel), and a combination of dislike and excessive wear from using an SUV as a high speed memory foam pillow sales vehicle. I just bought the W447 and still love it.
I know a Toyota will cost me less to own per mile, unless my theory that they don’t hold up to heavy duty high speed abuse is true (I have no actual evidence, just a gut feeling).
But I love the incomparably solid feel of a Benz. I love the bullet train handling at triple digit speeds. I love the overall feel of them. I prefer their control layout immensely. And I have had far too many run ins with their exceptional safety systems. Nothing to make you believe in a cars surviving an accident that involved two ricer Hondas, a semi truck barely missing you, and going sideways at 80 mph to make you brand loyal.
As for the “Image” aspect, I believe in the general engineering excellence of MBs image. What my neighbors think about what I spent for my car, I could care less.
Actually, I liked the seating position. I think this was the only benz that had the headlight switch on a stalk on the steering column instead of a dial. Also, look gas fill cap is on the left. Really is an American German.
My sister got to play in these ML Benzs at a display sales day on a racetrack here in NZ she didnt want to buy one but went along anyway, apparently powersliding these around is great fun and they handle ok when the limit is exceeded.
Great write-up, Gerardo. Easily read and informative.
Interesting. I’ve never known a maintained ML to be bad enough to justify calling it “unreliable.”
Typical Euro-car electrical hiccups aside, I don’t think they’re that bad.
Their “badness” is exaggerated by people who know nothing about them! I’ve owned several W163s since 2009, they’re amazing vehicles. I think a lot of Americans just automatically dismiss Benzes as the frivolous playthings of the wealthy when in fact they are hard-working and durable. My 2003 has 189k miles and still looks and drives great. It is also a pleasure to maintain, dead easy.
I know this thread is old that’s one reason I wanted to comment now. I own a 2001 ML320 with 365,000 miles on it. It’s still a reliable daily driver and with it’s new wrap and wheels and tires gets plenty of compliments. It’s never had a major mechanical failure just the typical annoyances such as the transfer case actuator getting stuck and light bulbs, my god it can go through some bulbs. I have a theory on why some Americans think it’s unreliable. Simply because they couldn’t be bothered to actually read the owners manual and have no idea how to properly operate and maintain it. Most of the transmission “failures” weren’t and aren’t failures at all. For example if your battery completely discharges (goes dead). One of the myriad problems you’ll have is the trans in limp home mode. It won’t shift. You have 2nd and reverse. How many idiots replaced the transmission just on this example alone? I personally know of several. I could go on and on. Was the build quality on par with the rep? Hell no but it’s not that bad to be deemed unreliable and a deadly sin.
I’m aware beauty is in the eye of the beholder, however my eyes never beheld any beauty for this mini van.
Were it a Mazda or a Nissan I could forgive it, but this is a Mercedes Benz. I never saw anything aspirational in it.
I don’t have much real personal experience with Mercedes, but this SUV and exposure to a couple other of their vehicles from this time period are the reason for that. I don’t remember Jeremy Clarkson’s review of the 163, but I do recall reports of lots of problems with them, and someone at the office complaining about his and dumping it. At the turn of the century (heh!) I was was just buying my first “luxury” car; I bought (new) a BMW 328i. That got me invited to a advertising “driving event” the following year where I got to test drive a Mercedes along with BMW and other competitors – and I was unimpressed. I’d had the illusion that the Mercedes were more solid and of higher quality than my BMW – a bank vault of a vehicle and a good long term investment! – in buying a BMW one traded off that quality of materials and long term reliability in return for more fun in driving. I was okay with that. And yet… That certainly wasn’t my impression on the test drive. The Benz came off as “a German Taxicab” with all the quality and refinement, cheap plastic, park bench seats, and driving pleasure one would expect from a taxi. … Then my rich uncle bought an E Class in 2004, having finally abandoned Cadillac as a lost cause. He kept it for less than a year because of -constant- electrical problems most of which were fixed, but they never did find out why it liked to roll down the driver’s side rear window at random times, including over night in the garage. He went back to Cadillac, and I’ve never gone to a Mercedes dealer.
So, if a deadly sin is a vehicle that in itself may be acceptable, but influences customers’ perception of the company in a negative way, I think this fits the pattern.
NB: I am NOT saying that BMW are of superior quality; I have owned or leased a string of them in the past 20 years and I would never own one not under factory warranty. However, they never shattered my illusions that they are nice cars to drive as long as you’re not the one paying for the repairs.
I remember there were complaints about its stiff ride, so MB ran ads bragging about how smooth it was. A small dog drinking tea in the back seat.
Goes to show how “blobby” so many vehicle designs still were. I like the sharper lines today, in spite of the dearth of styles.
I owned a 2003 ML350 for 14 years before I sold it last November. It had been good for us although it was not trouble free. With 160k miles , it was the highest mileage vehicle I ever own. In general I like this vehicle, it remained solid in its end. My plan was to keep it for my children when they start driving in three years. But it got hard to run around without proper registration and insurance without eventually getting trouble with police. We unloaded.
I understand it is a vehicle with bad reputation but I bet most people never really own one. When it was put on market in late 1990s, it was much better than Ford Explorer, then symbol of SuV. 4Runner and Pathfinder were there but were not suitable for general family usage. Japanese later offered MDX and RX350, they were popular. But in my view, only GX460 could out match with its V8 and excellent all-wheel drive system. Mercedes moved on to address its reliability problems with engineering and financial trick (short term lease). We now witness Mercedes as common sign. New generation people are inspired to drive a German high end vehicle . Mercedes now sells four main series of SUV, S, E, C, B and A, in addition to G-Wagon. With booming Chinese economy in last 2 decades, it also catch the heart of newly rich Chinese. So its sin works out good without resolving its reliability issues — Consumer Reports constantly rates Mercedes SUV as unreliable vehicle.
I think my least-favourite thing about these was how often it seemed Mercedes devotées were unwilling to accept that every company has hits and misses; instead going out of their way to fansplain that the W163s sucked because they were built by—ewwwwww—Americans.