Is there a clear disadvantage to buying the 3.2 L over the 4.3 L or the 5.0 L? - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

kayooh · #1 08-28-2003, 03:21 PM

Hello List,
I am seeking the collective wisdom of the group on the possible purchase of a used ML.

Are there any pitfalls one should be aware of? Is there a clear disadvantage to buying the 3.2 L over the 4.3 L or the 5.0 L?? Of course the smaller capacity engine would have less power, but would the reduction be bad enough to make me wish I had gone with bigger engine.
I became aware through this list of some potential problems with the harmonic balancer, limited number of replacement keys and some others I don't recall at the moment, so is there other issues to consider or worry about?

I do love MB products, yet the ML is a tad too small for me, so I am also considering the 4.6 L Range Rover which is the perfect size for me. Maybe someone on the list is in a position to compare the two.

I should also mention that I am only considering '98 model years or newer.

Thank you all.

itb76 · #2 08-29-2003, 04:17 PM

The size of the ML was a big part of its appeal to us--large enough for the family and our stuff, small enough to not drive like a pig. The 3.2 powers the car adequately, though it's no hot rod. It has no trouble towing a 5,000 lb. trailer. Gas mileage is 17-20, except when we're towing. For reasons I can't remember, Consumer Reports preferred the 3.2 over the 4.3; probably it was the gas mileage. 2000 and newer models are said to be more reliable than our '98. Good luck!

ML320guy · #3 08-29-2003, 08:08 PM

The 8 cyl. engines obviously offer more power (and less gas mileage), and they offer bigger wheels and possibly a few other things "included" rather than options. I've had two ML320's and I'm satisfied with the power (and gas mileage). But, with the popularity of bigger wheels, I wish it had at least 17 inch rather than the 16's. The newer ML350's may come with 17's. Either way, don't consider buying prior to the 2000 model year, it is much improved over the 98/99's.

timhcollins · #4 09-02-2003, 02:09 PM

Well, I can help a bit, I think. Mrs Tim H has a 99 ML320 with 40k miles and it performs well enough both around town and on the highway. In fact, it is quite sporty when compared with my 98 Range Rover 4.0 (which has a powerchip so its a bit like a 4.6)

The ML feels lighter and more sporty than the RR which is obviously heavier. There is only the 2 of us so we don't need acres of space, both cars seem to have enough for us. When we go on a trip with friends, we take the RR because it has that little bit of extra room over the ML. Even the RR4.6 is no sports car so you should drive both before plonking down your $$.

If I were you, and it was going to be my only car, and I didn't need the space, for all round driving pleasure, I would probably pick a 99 or newer ML430 or 500 if the budget was right. If you want to tow, definitely go for some kind of V8, the RR is a really good tow vehicle because it is heavy.

PaulH · #5 09-02-2003, 11:42 PM

I have a 2000 ML 320 and there is plenty of power and better fuel economy. I get 15-16 around town and 23-24 on the open road. So, unless you plan to race , stick with the 320. However, as stated above, get a 2000 or newer. There were reportedly over 200 improvements and/or changes between 1999 and 2000. Good luck.

G-Benz · #6 09-03-2003, 12:06 PM

I would agree with everyone else here...my ML320 suits my needs perfectly. I don't tow anything, but I do haul a large amount of music and sound gear on weekends.

I use the W124 for daily use, and the ML for weekends and vacations, so fuel economy is tantamount for long road trips. My previous SUV was a Honda Passport so I wanted to still get a stylish SUV without having to wield a luxury liner through traffic!

Ours is a family of three, so I don't need anything larger.

My 99 has been fairly trouble free, but the 2000+ models have so much more to offer...