Moab Utah Trip Pics - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

G-Man · #1 10-02-2002, 11:19 PM

We did a little 4-wheelin last weekend, check out some of my pics

http://homepage.mac.com/brentholm

Jason Beal · #2 10-03-2002, 04:19 AM

Looks fun. I am about four hours from Moab, it is a trippy place for sure.

need2speed · #3 10-04-2002, 09:33 PM

What a great series of pics!! How do you think an ML320 would fare if the front and rear bumper covers were removed?

G-Man · #4 10-05-2002, 09:46 AM

The bumper covers would only solve one of the issues the ML has on really tough trails. Keep in mind that one could run a good portion of the 3 rated trails in Moab without any mods, though a good set of tires is highly reccomended. The trails we ran were 3.5-4+, the toughest trails there.

The big hang-up, literally

, would be the door sills between the weels. Many of the obstacles are steep stair steps like the ones in the picture below. If you had enough tire exposed in front you may be able to pop up on the step but I bet you would get hung up in the middle. My G has a 2" lift and touched in the middle only once. The other G along was a stock '00 G500 and we scraped that on along in quite a few spots. The ML is considerably lower than that. So I would say that no, an ML would have no business on a trail like "Golden Spike".

The lockers are a different story altogether. On these "steps" I doubt the traction control system would be truely effective. Often times you needed full traction from all wheels, right now! Not having that would make for a very dangerous, even life threatening situation. Trails like this can be very dangerous. We do them for the fun of it, and the challenge but, going there ill equipped is not wise.

I think there is a ton of stuff in Moab that would be a blast in the ML. There are a lot of trails out there. The G was developed to thirve in this type of enviroment. Even the G benefits from some improvements on the toughest trails. So IMO the ML would not be a good idea on the couple trails we did. You could try it but, I would expect quite a bit of expensive body damage by the end

#5 10-05-2002, 12:00 PM

Great pics, I don't know what I am more impressed with; the performance of the G or the fact that someone spends the money on a G and then really puts it to the test. Awesome Awesome Awesome.....

G-Man · #6 10-05-2002, 12:46 PM

Tracy,

I am not sure how big a set of tires will fit on the ML. Has Wolfgang gotten 285/75-16s on his? That is basically a 33" tire, it is the size I will fit next spring. If they fit, it certainly would help! I still do not think that the door sills would have adequate clearance, maybe but, the ML was definately designed with easy egress in mind, ie; lower step in hieght.

As for less tippy, I would take issue with that. The G has quite a bit more suspension travel. As you can see from my pics, there were many occasions when I lifted a tire. Certainly the more you can keep in contact, the more stable you will be. We get back to the solid axle acting like a lever pushing back enhancing stability. The MLs independant set-up does not allow for this. So even if they have similar sidehill ratings, in real world situations the G is a far more stable platform.

Check out the pic below. That one scared the pants off of me! The truck is leaning every bit as far over as the pic suggests. My friend, the driver, had no problems with it. In fact he did the same thing last year. ML maybe? Jeep, NEVER!

Mick,

Wouldn't you feel like you jud HAD to use it?:p One of the motorcyclists we met on the trail was wondering how we could take such fancy iron on such an extreme trail. I asked him if they looked damaged? Nope, they look great! he replied. Case closed in my book. With a little planning the G is a formidable off-road tool. It just begs you to test it.

The other vehicle we ran into was a heavily modified Jeep. 37" tires, 12" lift, extended frame, ARB lockers, HUGE amounts of suspension travel. These guys were truely amazed by the G's. We did every obstacle they did

If you could see them in person, I suspect you too would be amazed, I know I am, everytime

#7 10-05-2002, 06:36 PM

I am also impressed with your garage full of high quality cars....how does one guy accumulate such a nice collection

G-Man · #8 10-05-2002, 08:21 PM

Well.... The last three on the list are all sort of "works in progress" The '91 BMW has 145k miles on it and is for sale. The 944 Turbo is my track car, currently on its second blown head gasket in 12 months time. That one will be sold soon, after it is repaired this time. The Unimog is slowly being sorted out. It has well over 250k miles and 30 years under its monster tires

It is close to ready, I have spent qutie a few hours on it over the last year. Mechanically it is almost ready for a trip like Moab.

So I have three pretty nice cars. The three cool older cars I picked up cheap because I have this German car affliction

Of course after I unload two I will be on the prowl for a Porsche 928 S4. The G500 has turned me on to big German V8's, God help me

#9 10-05-2002, 08:38 PM

Let me know when you sell the Porsche....

ML320 · #10 10-06-2002, 12:38 PM

Quote:

As for less tippy, I would take issue with that.

Brent,

Tracy raised a good point: there's no question the G rolls over more easily. A recent example: in the German Baja last month a G560 rolled over in a rutted curve and became just another "obstacle" for other competitors to drive around. There's a movie on the site below showing the G twice, on its side.

The M-Class won the T1 category. An $800,000 BMW X5 diesel prototype won the T2 category.

http://www.baja-deutschland.de

Hey, great MOAB pics.

Wolfgang

First in the production category:

First in the prototype category:

G-Man · #11 10-06-2002, 08:35 PM

In a high speed rally the ML obviously outclasses the G-wagen. The G has never done well in racing to my knowledge. Rally races favor cars like the ML and X5 for thier indepenent suspensions. For the same reason I take a Porsche to the racetrack, and it kills similarly set-up live rear axle Mustangs. Speed favors that type of arrangement. It engenders stability.

For the type of off-roading I like to do, the G is a far better platform to operate from. The articulation of the coil sprung live axles keeps it from rolling over. That of course in conjunction with a low center of gravity which I am sure the ML shares.

The same feature that makes the G great at rock crawling kills it on a bumpy high speed corner. A rutted corner clearly favors four wheels moving quickly and independently. The G hits the ruts and transfers the forces to the opposite side via the solid axles. This is bound to upset the balance and cause a rollover.

I would love to see an ML show up at a G gathering, be it Colorado or Utah, for some rock crawling. I would particularly like to see an ML show up with a fearless driver so that we could see the differences. Maybe I have underestimated the prowess of the ML but, I would suggest for sure that, you have underestimated the capabilities of the G in extreme manuvers

G-Man · #12 10-06-2002, 10:00 PM

You take some pretty broad swipes at the G-class on your site. Maybe we should discuss some of them?

First off I would like to know your sources for some of the numbers you published. You claim the ML can take an 84% side slope. I find that interesting since MB, it's maker, lists no such number. In fact MB's worldwide site only claims the ML can climb a 60% grade hmmmmmm.........

Secondly, you show a picture of the G's rear suspension then proclaim "The G lacks wheel travel" Funny, I liked the quote from the guy who has written a book on the ML, Harold Pietschman "Since wheel travel is almost non existant the ML constantly lifts its legs when the terrain gets rough" very interesting......

For good humor you post a pair of pictures side by side for a clearance comparison. One is an ML with a lift kit, 33" tires and no running boards. The other is a stock G500 with running boards. You then point out that the G has only 8"s clearance under the boards and that the ML has 20"s and 14"s under the center of the truck. Seems fair to me

My G on 265/75 tires has 13"s of clearance at its high point, the method you chose to evaluate the ML on. With a 2"lift and 33" tires I will have 24"s under the rockers. But we shouldn't muddy the waters with like comparisons now shall we.

I also enjoyed your commentary on how wheels break off of G's. I guess if people were not trying to race the darn things it wouldn't happen. The reasons for choosing the ML over the G for high speed adventures are obvious. The G was never designed for it.

You list the G's gas tank as the lowest point all the way across. Then you refer to this feature as potentially "explosive" What a joke! Have you ever SEEN a G? I have two of the buggers. FYI, the tank is above the axle line, I can clearly see axles from behind, below the tank. Besides there is a factory skid plate, unlike the ML, and like the ML, the tank is made from a nearly indestructible polymer.

I saved my favorite quote from you for last, "Lockers are for those who can't use 4ETS" That one is a true classic:p

I find it very interesting that you constantly are using high speed rally events as your basis for the MLs off-road capabilities. I also find it intersting that you don't use YOUR ML in that fashion. In fact you appear to be gearing it up for the type of off-roading I like to do. So lets get together and see if you are willing to put your ML where your mouth is. Just a friendly contest. Sure I may be a little smug throughout, but as you can see I wear a small chip on my shoulder regarding my chosen mount. I will lead, you try to follow. I am sure DUTCH is willing to ride along and hook you up to my tow strap. That way we can drag that pathetic minivan with a lift kit across some real terrain

Now don't take this too personally. I just found some humorous discrepancies on your page. This IS (mostly) tongue in cheek. I would love to do some wheelin' with you. Your ML looks pretty capable.

G-Man · #13 10-08-2002, 04:00 PM

Tracy,

You are absolutely correct in that we have been here and done this before. You are absolutely incorrect on a couple other points. Ground clearance is NOT king off road. Someone with no or limited experience off road may THINk that but, it is not the fact of the matter. I have gone places in my G with considerably LESS clearance, where Jeeps with considerably more clearance have had trouble. Wheel travel and yep, you guessed it, lockers play a more important role in my EXPERIENCE.

I think you are GROSSLY overestimating the effectiveness of the 4ETS system. Mr. Pietschman, who has written a book about the ML, readily acknowledges that even though, the 4ETS system is superior to no form of traction control, it does not hold a candle to the effectiveness, consistancy and reliability of lockers. This is a man with many years of off-road teaching experience, including our militaries special forces. He is also a big fan of the ML but, smart enough to recognize the clear superiority of the G-Class design:p

Again, Bring on the ML's! I am more curious now than ever as to the true capabilities of these fine Mercedes Benz porducts. Now all we need is an owner with big enough cajones to bring it on

The pic below demonstrates the articulation advantage of the G's solid axles, it is more than a sophist view I am afraid.

Jim Anderson · #14 10-08-2002, 04:20 PM

But what about a Unimog?

G-Man · #15 10-08-2002, 04:46 PM

Excellent question Jim. I have not yet had a chance to formally try out my Unimog like that. It is actually rated for some REALLY extreme stuff. I have to say that it is a VERY disconcerting feeling to lean over in the Mog. You are sitting much higher to begin with and the Mog is rated to take even more extreme lean angles. I also think that before I get too crazy in the mog that I am going to build some type of rollover protection into it. The cab is awfully flimsy if you were to roll. The G by comparison has a super tough rollover cage built in. I would also like to change the springs to something a little softer. It is a two ton truck after all. I also have my eye on a winch for it. It sure would be a nice feeling to know you could save yourself. Nothing else on the trail is likely to be nearly as large or heavy to rescue it if need be. The last couple items would be a spare tire, which I do not currently have and fitting a counterwieght to the rear, they are really nose heavy when empty.

I have the equipment to haul the Mog and the G. I seriously considered it this year. There is a very good chance I will get it out west next summer/fall. Mine has some wild crawler gears and 39" tall tires. I suspect it is quite formidible off road