ML or Wagon?
 

I'm interested in looking for a W210 wagon or a W163 ML. There are times where I purchase bulky products that won't fit into my sedan. Any of these two models would be adequate though. Which one would be more reliable and less problematic down the line? Should I stay away from a certain year/model?

The wagon suits people that like cars rather than SUV's..
The ML is more truck like. Also the 1998-2000's were more troublesome than the later models.

OF course with either choice have a independent Pre-purchase inspection done!

The 210 would be more reliable and less problematic. Get the latest year possible starting with 2000 - the 2002/2003 are supposed to be the best.

I'm curious, for the 1998-99 wagon, what kinds of problem will you find more likely than the later years? I'm not sure but I think these models don't have the engine/tranny dipsticks? If so, are they easy to maintain? Thanks.

Take it from the owner of a 2001 E320 and 1999 E320 4M wagon...the wagons are great! Definitely go with a AWD 4Matic. The E-class cars are super-stable at speed, handle great, and feel ultra comfortable.

Model year 2000 is not a good choice (problematic SRS sensors, etc.); I would personally go with a 1998-1999, 2001-2003 W210.

Both the 1999 and 2001 have had identical issues: MAF, catalytic converters, window regulators, leaky rear axle.

How much would it cost to repair the axles?

Are all W210 wagons 4-matics and have 3rd row seats?

No, not all W210 wagons were 4-matics. Most were not.

The 3rd row seats were an option, but I'd be willing to bet that most came with the 3rd row seat.

Also, I'm 99% sure that the 210 wagons have significantly more interior room than the ML. This is true of most SUV / wagon comparisons.

The 5 series and 3 series BMW wagons have more interior space than the X5 and X3 SUV's.

2001 E320 wagon has a dipstick.

I had a 98 ML for one year it had every issue that they sent a service bulletin out on. I finally unloaded it back to the same MB dealer (they took it to the auction) my 01 E wagon is great, and do miss having coffee with the mechanics. The only thing I would change would be 4-Matic, Command, and get rid of Tel-Aid (not possible). Smmooth, comfortable and still a hauler (load leveling rear)!
The post on BMW having more cargo space, is definately wrong. I think MotorTend did a three car comparison and MB won on space, but acceleration or handling, something it came up second. The 211 is a little smaller. I still like my 85 300TDT for all around "wagon".

I read that the W210 had the Spring perch rust problem, and it is "not" a problem for the 4matics. Would the Wagons without 4matics be affected by the spring perch rust too?

Elsewhere, but not the perches.

I'd go for the wagon on style issues alone. I don't think the M's look very nice on the outside.

Rear axle leak was a $150 repair...otherwise, they're great.
All Mercedes except 2005-beyond models have oil dipsticks. Most built after 1997, however, do not have a transmission dipstick.

BTW, the third seat was standard...good luck in your search...check maintenance records...oil changed every 12-14K with city driving=oil consumption at 100K. ):

I'll add my voice to the wagon vote. We love ours. Tons of cargo space when needed, and with the 4Matic and 4 snow tires it is pretty much invincible in the snow. The only benefits I can see to the ML is that it has more ground clearance, so could handle really deep snow. Also because of the increased ride height you get a better view down the road, if that is important to you. Of course the bigger ride height also leads to more truck-like handling.

I think the wagon is the more practical choice. The ML is more about image than utility, really.

I agree with the wagon suggestion. I own a '98 E320 4matic and I have found it to be more reliable than any previous Volvo wagon I have owned. Pleant of room, I use the car for work as a educational sales rep and I bring a lot of materials to my school customers. The car drives great, very good acceleration and handling. I also agree that the wagon looks a lot better than the first generation of MLs.

Best of luck and certainly go with the 4 matic if you get ANY snow or ice at all during the year. The 4 matic is fantastic in poor weather, I was very surprised at how well it handled in snow/ice on the roads.

I have a few cars among them are a 1999 ML 320 and a 1992 300 TE estate wagon. When I tow a trailer or a boat I use the ML. I've towed with the station wagon and it will do the job but the handling of the wagon is degraded and it just doesn't inspire confidence. The wagon is more comfortable than the ML.

I also prefer the ML if I'm going to the mountains, plan on driving on poor roads, like forest service or gravel road and also in snow or any other bad weather.

While I can't comment on the wagon since I never owned one, I'm pretty happy with the ML. Yes, the 98-00 years were considered problematic, but most (at least for me) were corrected under warranty while having other routine services performed. In other words, I've had little to no on-road issues with the SUV.

I prefer the ride height offered with the ML when taking long trips. I don't tow anything yet (so I opted for the 320 instead of the 430 for fuel savings) but it's nice to have when I eventually will.

I'm always hauling something on weekends, so the SUV suits me well. I'm the equipment manager for my daughter's soccer team, as well as a musician, so if I'm not hauling corner flags and soccer balls, I've got amps, speakers and flight cases. Otherwise, it's bags of mulch and flats of perennials on other occasions.

To me, the cargo height advantage is what steered me towards an SUV over a wagon. And for most of my hauling needs, this is essential.

I'm curious, would the 4matics use more fuel than the rwd models? Would it have better tractions on dry roads? I never had an awd vehicle before.

Yes, 4matics get slightly lower fuel economy because of extra weight.

We have enjoyed our 210 wagon and intend to keep it for several more years.
However I may look at the G-wagon (G500) for my next hauler. Not as much cargo room as the 210 wagon however -very cool:cool:

It appears to me that about half the 210 wagons are 4-matics. Even here in Texas there are many to be seen. AWD on a road car in Texas is about as pointless as it gets, IMHO. RWD was a requirement for my car, as I am unwilling to deal with the extra complexity and lower fuel economy of a 4-matic car.

Third seat was standard on U.S. 210 wagons. Also standard is the cargo cover/dog net.

Fool economy for the RWD 210 is 21/27 per the sticker. Adding 4-matic degrades both city & hwy by one MPG to 20/26.

Don't know that I'd recommend any one year 210 wagon over another. For the most part they are all pretty much the same with regard to reliability and build quality. Model year 2000 saw some restyling of the front end and also small improvements to the interior.

I have a 2001 210 RWD wagon and am mostly satisfied with it. I say mostly satisfied because it replaced a 124 turbo-diesel wagon that I would argue is the best MB wagon we've ever received in the U.S., giving the poor 210 some large shoes to fill.

- JimY