"We've compared the M class with the G-Wagen... - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Lebenz · #1 01-23-2002, 03:00 PM

on the off-road test track. The M class runs faster."

http://www.autonews.com/article.cms?articleId=20941&a=a&bt=jeep+g-wagen

Very good article dating to 1997 on the development of the ML. Fairly technical & explains a lot of the suspension & driveline choices employed in the ML and the technological advances that permit the ML to employ a mix of simpler hardware yet produce “superior” results.

Worth the read

Enjoy!

G-Man · #2 01-23-2002, 05:52 PM

Well Tracy,

I'm not sure how to respond. I know you think this, and the Paris-Dakar post, is helping to make your point regarding the MLs off-road prowess. I don't want to start another flame war, it will only be deleted anyway. I will try to illustrate some distinctions.

I think first we need to preface off-roading, which has many definitions. Paris-Dakar and high speed rallies are one type of off-roading(desert running). Trucks like the ML and the Hummer do well in these situations because of the independant suspension. They are more stable at speed, as referenced in the article. Then of course, in my neck of the woods, the locals consider racing through a huge mud puddle as off-roading. This requires big power and bigger tires, I doubt anybody here is considering this. The type of off-roading I prefer would be best defined as trail riding with some rock crawling, though rock crawling can get rather extreme too. To avoid further confusion, trail riding and rock crawling are what I am referring to when I say "off-roading".

So for my type of off-road use being "faster" through an off-road course is of no use to me, or most recreational off-roaders. The course used would also be in question. I have built a small off-road playground for my trucks. It is designed to challenge them, and scare first time passengers(which it does). The ML would simply not make it over this course, it would be hung up on the door sills within the first 20ft. This little course of mine also pales in comparison to the type of trails I like to run in my G. So while the ML may be capable enough for some, it does not fit my needs. I would also like to reference back to Harold Peitschmans site. He owns an ML320 and a couple Gwagens. His "home track" is the Rubicon trail, possibly the toughest passable road in the US. To get the ML through he removed the bumper caps, carried wooden ramps, and brought a Gwagen along to pull the ML over tough sections. I find this very demonstrative of the MLs shortcomings in tough off-road conditions, and the reason I consider the ML primarily a road car.

I'm not sure why such great offense was taken in previous threads. Certainly the ML is a capable machine. It just does not have the capabilities I need. While many Gwagen and ML owners will never go off-road, those that do know what works and what doesn't. In the real world, the MLs off-road capabilities are not sufficient to tackle most trails. This is in spite of technology and the best efforts of the engineers. It is clearly stated in the article that on-road manners were important. I also think the article is a bit of marketing, I think the truth has been stretched.

To further make my point I would like to see an ML in Moab. This is a premier off-road venue in the US. The MLs limits would be found rather quickly. The trails rated 3 - 4+(scale 1 - 4+) would stop the ML. I have led a trail ride on one of Moabs 4+ trails. We ran three stock Gwagens on this trail with no damage. It is a testament to a dedicated design. The ML simply is not that dedicated. Its true stregnths lie elsewhere.

If you can get over my rude demenor, pack up the ML and head on down for our next Gwagen outing. There is even a G500 in Seattle that you could caravan down with. You can try out your ML, and I am really not trying to be insulting here, and could ride along in a G through the really nasty stuff. It is truely a good time. I did not sense any snobbery, even from the guys that dropped $150k each for the G500s that showed up.

Your point about the ML being a capable machine is duly noted. Unfortunately I will never believe it is the off-roader you seem to want to make it out to be. Correct me if my impression is incorrect, but you seem to be trying to correlate the MLs abilities with those of the Gwagen. I assure you that in the conditions I operate my G there is no comparison. I would be more than happy to demonstrate its capabilities in the real world, as opposed to in a magazine article.

Brent

Frank X. Morris · #3 01-23-2002, 07:23 PM

Howdy Lebenz
Good Reading!¡ Gives a good insite into the design philosophy. Much has been, let's say, "enthusiasticly" discussed about the mechanical prowess so I will let that rest. The comment in the article about the small percentage of owners that go off-road.(That pertains to all SUV owners) It is a mission in my life to get people to get out and enjoy the backroads in the world. If not in their own vehicles at least ride with someone that is willing to take riders. When my Mog is done being restored and I get a Gwagen I will invite anyone that wants to come along.(If anyone wants to ride in my Jeep YJ thats ok too). At the present time my work schedule makes it hard to get together with other people. But that is changing soon. So I hope to see some of the forum members on the trail.

G-Man · #4 01-24-2002, 08:32 AM

One other thing I found interesting in that article was the comparison to the Jeep and Explorer. I suspect that part of the off-road course demonstrates sidehill capabilities. This is a big strength of the Gwagen. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if those Germans designed the same capability into the ML. There was definately more though put into the MLs design than the Ford or Jeep. I suspect that where the ML or G would be very stable the Exploder would roll, Jeeps are also notoriously tippy machines.

People always ask if the G is real tippy. A natural question as the G is one of the tallest vehicles on the road and is narrower than an ML. The low center of gravity allows seriously gut tightening manuvers. I took a fellow G owner as a passenger in Moab. He was a first timer to real off-roading. The first day his questions revolved around the theme "you aren't really going to try that are you???". By the end of the second day he was egging me on to climb or drop off every obstacle in sight. I have to agree with you Frank, it is pretty rewarding to annoint a newbie. I try to do the same as you, last winter I even took my mother-in-law, THAT was interesting!

Brent
Done Rambling :p

Lebenz · #5 01-24-2002, 02:19 PM

Brent and Frank, Thanks for the comments! Unfortunately I just started a project that has me swimming up to my ears. I will be busy through the weekend but not before my day off tomorrow for what I hope will be another epic day on the slopes (we’ve gotten about 4’ of cold smoke this week. Tuesday was outta this world)!

I want to pursue this topic as I’m finding that the ML actually has most of it’s more rugged capabilities hidden from plain sight. I found a cool article yesterday that showed that at least 80 members of the ML design team came from the G team. For some reason the source I found won’t let me get at the articles again (autonews.com)

I also found a link saying that the ML was conceived as a replacement for the G wagon. There are a lot of articles covering this area. Here is one:

http://www.autonews.com/article.cms?articleId=37151&a=a&bt=ml

The following is an excerpt from that article: M class connection?

The Mercedes M class, introduced in September 1997, was conceived as a replacement for the Gelaendewagen, more suitable for U.S. tastes than the clunky original.

Paul Halata, CEO of Mercedes-Benz USA, says he doesn't expect to see the present G class more than another two to 2½ years. A redesigned M class is not due until around 2005, but a replacement could come sooner if Mercedes speeds up its eight-year cycle. Mercedes isn't saying whether a new M class and a new G class would share development.

The leather-lined 2002 G500 has a new interior and high-tech features such as electronically controlled traction control, yaw control and satellite navigation.

Piarulli says the target audience for the G class is younger and wealthier than M-class customers - age 44 for the G500 compared with 50 for the ML500, and a median income of $353,000 for the G500 compared with $182,000 for the ML.

Until I can spend more time on this, here are a couple of links and pix denoting some background information:

In my link in the previous note a Gerhard Fritz was referenced. Dr Fritz is the head of G, M, and V class development. Here’s a little something about him and the ML:

http://www.mbusi.com/pr/worldcar.html

And about it’s tippyness; there is an article here by our Webmaster, Lee Scheeler that makes reference to http://www.peachparts.com/mbcot.htm
(Note you will need to scroll down a ways)

And here are some pix of the ML in Moab
http://communities.msn.com/MLAdventures/pictures

And about the merger of the ML & G wagon, as well as the expected lifespan of the current G see

http://www.whnet.com/4x4/mlg.html

Enjoy! I will probably not be able to make much ground but will sneak a few minutes here and there to add more info, and more importantly to address Brent’s nicely illustrated points. In the end I think you will find that the differences between the ML and the G are more in comparatively small and in the case of the ML correctable degrees rather than in paradigms.

And I would like to add that Brent is correct that the ML is designed for road use. But only in trivial ways. However, add a little bigger tires and remove the definitely-not for off road plastic bumper covers and all that changes.

About the ML’s climbing ability, here’s a pix from Pietschmann’s site. He rates it as able to climb a 45 degree hill. Cool, no?

To quote Phillip Roth: “Now we may to begin.” Yes?

G-Man · #6 01-24-2002, 05:07 PM

I've done that climb in your pic, it feels steeper than it looks even in that pic.

Congrats on the snowfall, it has been bleak around here. Winter just isn't much fun without the white stuff around.

G-Man · #7 01-24-2002, 05:49 PM

I am very pleased to see that we can continue this little debate regarding our chosen mounts.

The MLG issue is still debatable.I don't think it is clear even to MB what exactly they are going to do. To bring the G here for only a few years does not make much sense. The underground rumour is that MB paid $30 million to buy the rights to sell the G here. I know that sounds strange but, Europa Intl held legal distribution rights to the G in this country. So MB had a serious outlay to do this. I think they are testing the waters right now. They will build the G regardless for the various militaries. I think if the G sells well they would be inclined to continue updating the original rather than replace it. I suspect they are also gauging whether or not there is room for two MB SUVs.

It was neat to see some ML pics in Moab. You gave me just what I asked for you little devil.

Of course the trails pictured are rather tame. To take on the more difficult trails you will need more than larger tires on the ML. I might note that we had a G500 make it through a 4+ trail on the stock 65 series 18" tires. That surprised me, AT tires are still king in the rough though. The ML has a few strikes against it for off-road use. The bumpers, obviously. Then there is the limited suspension travel. This means more tipping and less traction. The traction control system I think is a liability off-road. When you get in a tight spot, teetering on two boulders, I want my mechanical lockers. The ETS system needs to detect wheelspin to activate. The slightest slip in a scenario like this means you come away with custom sheetmetal.Another issue is the low sill hieght to facilitate egress. This means a poor breakover angle. Which in plain english means you will high center much easier than in the G.

Certainly the ML CAN go off-road. I still maintain that the G is far more at home in the dirt, at least for my style of off-roading. It is something you would probably have to experience firsthand to believe. I really think that is the only way to make a convincing case. Sure the ML is very rugged, better than its competitors in true MB fashion. But it wont go where my G will, even substantially modified. In that case, a few simple mods to the G and it is widely accepted as the finest off-road machine on the planet. You've got a tough row to hoe on this one Tracy

I look forward to continuing this saga, and I am very pleased to see we can do it in a civil, fun, fashion.

Brent

blau · #8 01-24-2002, 07:08 PM

Know I am going to start something.

The title of the finest off-road vehical should go to the "World Cup Cross-Country Champions" and that is the ML430.

While the G may perform certain off activities better than the ML. The ML has clearly proven it is more superior to the G in over-all cross country championship. Because off roading does not just include rock climbing, it included things like dirt road, open grass fields, mud fields, sand dunes.

To me clearing going fast on dirt roads, open grass fields, muds fields, and sand dunes the ML's with its ESP, ETS, and independent suspension is superior. You are going to try to blash through a mud field, soft sand if you can. Who is going to have time slow down and lock in your differencial(s). Let ETS do it.

The point is that the G may be better on certain types of cross country terriagn, but the ML is superior on more other cross country terriagns and that is why the are the Over all "Cross-Country Champions"

blau

p.s. what hell happen to spell check!!

Gilly · #9 01-24-2002, 07:38 PM

In my opinion it depends on the circumstances to which vehicle is best. In some situations, the ML will outperform a G due to it's lighter weight, I have in mind higher speed running such a dunes and open trail with no or little outcroppings, such as rocks or stumps. The way MB kept everything up between the frame rails is especially impressive. This is a good reason to have 4 wheel independent suspension on a vehicle like this, so the diff can be up above the frame rails.
In other cases where the going is slow and steep, such as rock climbing and bad terrain, the G is the way to go. It's important to remember on the 2002 versions in the US that it normally is running with ETS and ESP, until an axle is locked.
Gilly

G-Man · #10 01-24-2002, 09:24 PM

blau,

That isn't starting anything. I purposely gave an explaination defining my type of use. If yours includes high speed rally type running I think the ML would be the faster choice. I hesitate to say better because I am confident that over the long haul the G is going to prove to be more durable.

Gilly alluded to another similarity, the first being a low center of gravity, both are designed to keep the vitals safely tucked inside the safety of the frame. This is contrary to most SUVs that drive around with all kinds of stuff hanging below the frame. Jeep is terrible for this, I don't know how they keep exhaust on those things.

One flaw in the independant suspension is that upon a serious compression of the suspension both wheels go up and the diff becomes the low spot that strikes the rock or stump. With a solid axle the diff moves with the wheels keeping it from harm.

Locking a diff on the G does not require slowing or stopping, just a push of a button. Beyond the ESP and ETS locking a diff also disables the ABS.

Gilly · #11 01-24-2002, 10:39 PM

G-Man:
If you think that statement through about the independent suspension flaw, it really doesn't make sense. How could a wheel rebound up high enough to make the differential strike an object? The bottom of the tire would need to rebound up so high that it was higher than the bottom of the diff, that can't happen, certainly not on an ML anyways, not with the diff being up between the frame rails. The half shaft would hit the frame rail before that ever came close to happening.
The real beuty of the independent suspension is that it allows go much more ground clearance for driving over an obstacle, such as large rocks that are in your path that can't be driven around. With the solid axle the bottom of your differential will always be closer to the ground, unless you use a scheme such as the Humvee's geared hubs, or some other way to effectively raise the differential in relation to the axle shafts.
Gilly

G-Man · #12 01-25-2002, 10:49 AM

I think a trip to the MBUSA website would be appropriate right about now. They have a great animation of what I describe. I didn't get the link but go to G500 through the models pulldown. Then open up the features and go to off road performance. Navigate to the ground clearance demo.

You are somewhat correct in you assesment. On flat ground there is no way to stuff the diff into the ground. In places where the ground is peppered with obstacles it is a different story, as demonstrated by MBUSA.

The other issue I have pertains to this statement "With the solid axle the bottom of your differential will always be closer to the ground" What is the measurement to the bottom of the diff on an ML? The G has pretty impressive clearance. The other thing is that the diff housing on the ML is very likely aluminum (correct me if I am wrong) while the diff in a G is housed in a VERY heavy duty steel section. It is designed to withstand multiple serious hits without damage. I think the ML is listed as having ~8" of ground clearance.The problem is that 8" is all you get, it is the min and max clearance. My G, on stock sized tires, has 10" under the diff and 12-14" minimum under the remainder of the axle. I noticed on 4x4now.com that it is pointed out that the gas tank on the ML creates a problem off-road. One picture shows a ton of damage to the, admittedly tough, Gwagen style tank. Putting a skid plate on it would only diminish the already slim clearance.

All of the above serve to demonstrtae compromises made by MB to make the ML more carlike. There are unfortunately at the expense of its off-road capabilities.

G-Man · #13 01-25-2002, 11:21 AM

Funny, I went to MBUSA and they list the ML at 8.7" min clearance and the G500 at 8.3". That is strange because I measured mine in the garage and it is an honest 10" under the lowest point. Maybe that is with flat tires:p

Kuan · #14 01-25-2002, 12:33 PM

Blau,

You would only need to lock the differentials if 4ETS can't get you through, and frankly, by the time you figure that out, you're probably stuck. Knowing when to lock the differentials is part of reading the terrain. It's an added capability available only in the Gwagen.

On the whole, I think driver ability is the most important when it comes to offroading. This applies to rock crawling, river fording, and blasting through sand dunes. All the toughness in the world cannot save you from falling off the back of a sand dune... a good spotter will.

Kuan

G-Man · #15 01-25-2002, 01:26 PM

Kuan,

You're sorrect on dirver ability. It applies to all motorsports. I have seen a 4 cyl 944 fend off a 10 cyl Viper on the racetrack. It was all the driver.

On the contrary, when we had a G gathering in Moab we had one novice in a G500. With a little coaching he was able to go places in a stock G that would require serious modification of another vehicle. The spotting was important but, no amount of spotting would get an ML up the Z turn on the Moab Rim trail. You need the proper tool sometimes.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Wal Mart lawsuit...nonsense or not?	mikemover	Off-Topic Discussion	11	07-02-2004 03:45 AM
Autocrossing a 400E and 300TE	400ERACER	Mercedes-Benz Performance Paddock	9	06-05-2004 02:50 PM
Concours pics including our class winning 300TE	Greg in Oz	Off-Topic Discussion	4	09-29-2003 04:42 AM
C Class manual transmission definitely C class	Trinity	Tech Help	8	04-05-2001 08:56 PM
1995 C class wheels on a 1991 E class?	CJ	Mercedes-Benz Wheels & Tires	4	11-26-2000 09:36 PM