Nothin' finer than a white Mercedes!

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

The following, courtesy of Wolfgang Henke. A ML with 14” of ground clearance and a few other mods:

back



right side



front


winch:


side shot with with Fulda 315/75 R16 tires:


shocks and springs



extra fuel where the spare used to be stored





source for above:

http://www.extrem-motorsport.de/

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

Howdy Tracy,
I'm taking a guess here but I think the measurement is taken in the middle of the vehicle where it is highest. If you look at the first pic . and look at the left rear wheel you can see parts down lower. Thats where the measurement should be taken. IMHO.
Overall this is a nice vehicle. I have no problem with the vehicle just the way I think they measured it. By the way that is how they measure the Hummer. That's how they get 17" of clearence. But if you look under them their A arms come down to about 8". Everyone else measures the low point which happens to be the diff. Look under a Mog and you have 16" of clearence. This is a pet peeve of mine so I had to rant. I hope you took it as constructive rant

__________________
Frank X. Morris
17 Kia Niro
08 Jeep Wrangler 4 door unlimited

Frank,

Good observation, and not only do I not mind the feedback, I encourage it! I don’t know the measurement point, or whether the 14” is the max or min clearance. If you look at the “front” pix you will see that this lift was accomplished without crowding the wheel wells. Also given the tire sizes I’d suggest the lower A arms are a lot higher than 8,” maybe 10” to 12. something or more inches. Plus note that the center line of the tires is below the bottom of unmodified bumper. I just went out to check my ML and the clearance to the lower A arm in the rear is about 8” (the tires are at their half life, btw), the center line on the rear tires on mine sits about 4” lower that the one illustrated, plus mine doesn’t have as much room between the tires and the wheel well as the one illustrated. The front suspension of mine is lower yet. If they properly changed the other elements to support this (axles, control arms, torsion bars, etc) that is one seriously elevated ML!

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

I agree with Frank, we should be comparing minimums with minimums. The minimum on my G with 265 tires is 10" under the diffs. The minimum under my Mog with 12.5-20 tires is 18". However I would have to concede that on the ML raised to 14" down the center, that it would be very usable clearance.

The changes make the ML much more usable off road and I doubt they impinge on its roadworthiness much. I still have doubts about the traction control being as effective as lockers but, I would like to see it in action before condemming it. I think that truck as configured would go most of the places I have taken the G without incident. That makes it pretty darn capable. Factor in MB durability and comfort features and you indeed have a fine off-roader. One feature of my G that I have admired is its suprizingly supple off road ride. It is far better that anything I have previously used, though I have never wheeled in a Rover, which is likely similar.

So with some suspension changes and larger tires the ML can likely be brought to near G capable. However with the same round of changes applied to the G, it becomes nearly unstoppable Lets face it, the G is a tough act to follow. It was designed primarily for extended heavy duty off road use. It was not subject to the same passenger carrying criteria as the ML. That is its edge, and when fairly compared it will always be favored off road, just as the ML will be favored on.

I am pleased to see that there is interest in off roading regardless of the chosen mount. I am especially glad to see it coming from people driving vehicles that while capable, are rarely used for anything other than cars.

__________________
1995 G320
1984 280GE
1971 Unimog 416

Right you are Brent, My discussion, with the exception of this last post featuring the black MLs that are raised, have been about stock capabilities. What we have in the MB line is the ML, the G and the Mog. Each offers stock capabilities not found in the other. Each can be heavily modified making the sky pretty much the limit. It gets down to the old suitability to a task issue, and what is done to change the “rules.”

This has been an interesting and fun study for me, which, as you recall started with the “mini van with a lift kit” slam by 280 GE, who, BTW, has been conspicuously silent from that point on. I think it safe to say that the ML is a pretty darned capable vehicle that advances the state of the art. I imagine the engineers at MB had discussions similar to ours, and were probably over-ruled in the end by the folks at marketing to permit the ML to sell to the market it does, without infringing on plans to market the G to the USA.

For some odd reason, MB has been shy about promoting their trucks capabilities in the USA for most of its history. The irony, IMO, is that the capabilities of the ML are all but hidden behind the stylish body paneling and low step-in height. The real irony is that all of the new 4-matic line mostly share the same electronics and drive components. This being the case, could you imagine what an enthusiast could do with a 4-matic station wagon???

BTW, here is a finishing touch for the rock crawling ready ML

Skid pad for the gas tank:

“The one piece blow-molded fuel tank is made out of a 4 mm military spec high density polypropylene plastic, also used in the G-Class, but tucked into the frame and well protected on the sides. The leading edge of the rear lowered bottom is somewhat exposed and can be protected by a thin sheet of similar high-density polypropylene stuck under the same clamps as the tank, or even better with a plate as shown below and attached to the frame rails.” (Wolfgang Henke)



and another day in the rain at Moab:

Attached Thumbnails

 

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

Howdy All,
First A question. Is the gas tank along the drivers side?¿ With all our talk about clearance the one thing that helps is knowledge of where those low points are and how to maneuver the vehicle to get them past an obsticle. One thing I didn't see that I would do is put rocker panel protection on. There are some that fit almost flush with the rocker panel so you don't notice it that much. It's relativly cheap insurance especially with an unlifted vehicle.
Any moisture makes "slick rock"- slick rock Trivia time; One story about how "slick rock" got it's name is that the people that came in using horses were having trouble with the horses sliding on the sandstone because of the metal horseshoes.

__________________
Frank X. Morris
17 Kia Niro
08 Jeep Wrangler 4 door unlimited

The Moab "slickrock" actually offers pretty good traction when wet. When the going gets really steep though even dry surfaces are a challenge. We did an optional climb while I was out there. It is nearly vertical from the drivers perspective. I started up, probably with a little too much throttle.I had all lockers engaged and was about 50 yds up when ALL FOUR tires began to howl and lose traction. Talk about a pucker factor There is a LARGE tree at the bottom that would be unavoidable if you came down too fast. I eased off the gas and onto the brake, the G slid back about a foot and stopped. Gently getting back on the gas brought us right up to the top. Doing that one in the wet would be foolish, though there are lots of trails that would be easily passable with just a little extra caution

__________________
1995 G320
1984 280GE
1971 Unimog 416

Frank, the primary fuel tank starts just in front of the driver’s side rear tire and runs foreword. There is an image above of a secondary fuel tank that takes the position of the spare tire. The leading edge of the primary fuel tank is a little exposed but is as rugged as it gets, that’s why I put in the pix and notes about the skid plate.

On an ML, the lower A arms are the lowest portion of the underside everything else sits higher. Well, except for the rocker panels, that is. That OEM low step in height is the reason…..

Brent, I bet that little slide got yer heart a thumpin’! Thanks for sharing the story!

What I liked about the slick rock pix was both the ML and the number of scrape marks where others high centered at what you’d have to think is a frightening moment in time. Never occurred to me that some of those were created by horse shoes!!!!

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"

I know I am off topic but, I put up a few more shots of my new Benz http://homepage.mac.com/bwinterholm/PhotoAlbum7.html

__________________
1995 G320
1984 280GE
1971 Unimog 416

Howdy Brent
With all that nice stuff the back seat has I'll be a back seat driver any time

__________________
Frank X. Morris
17 Kia Niro
08 Jeep Wrangler 4 door unlimited

Astute observations. We HAD the "ugly thread previous to this one. The debate included more mudslinging that fact. It seemed to make everybody a little uncomfortable. This time we agreed to debate in a more adult fashion and I also am very pleased at what came of it.

We have agreed that the differences are attributal to different design motives, and we agree that each has its rightful place. This was a huge leap forward when compared to the argument that started it all. I certainly have learned much more about the ML. I suspect the ML side has learned much about the G. So we have come away better people.

The white G on 35s was likely Harold Pietschmans rig. He has an off-road website www.4x4abc.com and is an off road instructor for military personnel. He also owns an ML interestingly enough.

__________________
1995 G320
1984 280GE
1971 Unimog 416

sorry all, but I just HAVE to get my $0.02 in.

I think it would be safe to say that this is a debate which will go on as long as the 500E/E55 debate has (if not, longer).

something to remember, and this may have already been brought out in an earlier post, is that the designs and purposes of the ML vs. G are radically different. do not forget that the G-wagen was initially conceived as a millitary vehicle for the Shah of Iran (or so I've heard. Someone please correct me if I'm mistaken.) and the ML was designed as a consumer vehicle for the North American market. Also keep in mind that there are a couple of decades in between the inception of both vehicles.

This is not unlike a comparison between a Jeep CJ/YJ/TJ and a Jeep XJ/Cherokee. this is not to say one is better than the other...just different and geared (no pun intended) toward particular and different markets with a little bit of an overlap. We'd probably have as much luck debating the attributes of a Land Rover over a Range Rover.

That having been said, I'm quite familliar with off-roading having owned a pair of Jeep YJ's with 33's, additional skid plates, redone gearing, dual ARBs, winch, etc, etc, etc... PERSONALLY, I prefer the G over the ML. Mainly because I feel the build quality is superior and I'm into the more technical aspect of off-roading.

I realize it's a bit of siting on the fence, but I think both models have their respective places in the market. I just prefer one over the other.

BTW, congrats to all submitters to this thread for maintaining a lively and FRIENDLY debate. Most debates of this nature have a tendency to degenerate into mud-slinging fests and name calling, but you all have maintained your poise while taking part in defending your points of view. Well done!

That all having been said, several years ago I saw several pics in an Off-roading mag that were of, among other vehicles, a white, 5-door G-wagen with 35" BFG MT's and it looked pretty wicked.

__________________
'94 W124.036 249/040 leder; 8.25x17 EvoIIs
'93 W124.036 199/040 leder; 8.25x17 EvoIIs, up in flames...LITERALLY!
'93 W124.036 481/040 leder; euro delivery; 8.25x17 EvoIIs
'88 R107.048 441/409 leder; Euro lights
'87 W201.034 199/040 leder; Euro lights; EvoII brakes; 8x16 EvoIs - soon: 500E rear brakes
'70 R113.044 050/526; factory alloys; Euro lights

Howdy Yen-Hsen Liem,
Glad to have your 2¢ bring it more often One thread was locked for over enthusiasm but that has passed. You are right about 2 different design purposes but we would like to bring it down to one mutual goal and that is to enjoy the backcountry in whatever vehicle you drive

__________________
Frank X. Morris
17 Kia Niro
08 Jeep Wrangler 4 door unlimited

Wanted to share the following, which I found on another site:

http://forums.mbnz.org/forums/w163/view.asp?thread=557


I had a 98 ML320 and currently own a 99 ML430. There were a number of bugaboos with the first car, but they were all minor and the kind of thing to expect with the first production run. The 99 was much better--no real issues, so I would expect the 00 to be even better.

BTW, the reason for the new car so soon--I was on a surface street (zoned for 35) when I was hit by a Camaro going over 107 MPH (the police re-enacted the accident). My ML 320 spun and rolled across four lanes of traffic and a median strip. Both my 18 month old( strapped into a Britax car seat in the back) and I WALKED AWAY from this with nothing more than a few scratches from flying glass. The Camaro that hit us literally broke in half.

For me, there was not even a moment of hesitation about whether to get another ML.

__________________
...Tracy

'00 ML320 "Casper"
'92 400E "Stella"