Mercedes ML500 | Shed of the Week
As one V8-toting Mercedes exits stage left, another descends into Shed's lair...
Earlier this week we told you about the motor industry’s dastardly plan to bin off V8 engines. Mercedes finds itself in a high-profile box seat on this one by virtue of the fact that they have always championed the V8 format. Despite the hopeful sounding name, their latest and possibly last new-built saloon eight-banger, the AMG E63 S, doesn’t have a 6.2-litre megalodon engine. They’re down to a mere 4.0 litres these days, hardly enough to generate a ripple in your trouser turnups. Once again, however, Shed of the Week fans have all the luck because as if by magic here is a SOTW-qualifying (MOT’d and under £1,500) V8 Mercedes with a suitably manly amount of litres about it - i.e. five. Don’t say we never give you anything.
Mind you, looking at it, you might not want to be given it. This is a used car in a very literal sense. Not quite as used as that Volvo T5 we had the other week. Why, this Merc even has a matching colour bonnet. There aren’t many angles from which a dent or a ding of some sort isn’t visible however. Shed doesn’t actually mind that. He can easily imagine this big old girl being hammered through a muddy Lincolnshire field on a daily basis and still coming back for more.
But enough about the village postmistress. This ML is a 2002 example. That’s good because it benefits from the big improvements in build quality that were brought in for that model year. As part of that facelift exercise the 292hp 5.0 version replaced the 272hp 4.3. Our shed is therefore an early ML500. If it had been a pre-facelift ML430, the dimensions of its already generously-sized Tuscaloosa-spec door shutlines would have been visibly growing and shrinking over each new Lincolnshire bump and berm.
On the endlessly fascinating subject of car names, Shed isn’t sure where the ‘L’ in the ML badge comes from. It certainly couldn’t have stood for ‘Leicht’ (Light), M-B’s traditional rationale for the L in its badgery, because the M(L)500 bent the scales at 2,210kg, which is a lot even in today’s L for Lardy age.
Still on names, before the W163 was launched in 1997, BMW had put the boot in on Mercedes’ plan to follow its usual protocol of a single letter denoting the class followed by a three-figure number denoting the engine size. Legal sorts reckoned that an M320 or, as here, an M500, would leave M-B wide open for a ‘passing off’ suit, as we call it in the UK when one business tries to flog something similar, or similarly named, to something that’s already being sold by someone else.
In this case it was the whole M badge thing that BMW had been carefully nurturing since 1978. You could therefore sort of understand why they wouldn’t want confused punters thinking that a loosely-assembled body-on-frame SUV was in any way related to an E39 M5, even if it did also have a 5.0-litre V8 under the bonnet.
It was a good V8 an’ all. The single-cam 24-valve M113 appeared in a lot of Mercs because it was smooth, torquey and durable. It had forged conrods, an aluminium block, and an intake manifold made of magnesium. Mercedes didn’t bother to put a redline on the M113’s tachometer, presumably figuring that owners would never venture anywhere near the top 7,000rpm mark, max power having arrived 1,400rpm earlier - so why waste any red paint?
The M113 wasn’t perfect. It could suffer from oil and/or coolant leaks, plug and coil problems and sensor issues, but then so could many other engines. You’d want to make sure that the five-speed auto box was changing smoothly though. A flashing low range light was telling you there might well be wear in the transfer case department.
By the time this car came in, Mercedes had done away with the ‘one column stalk does everything’ design that Shed still enjoys using on his S124 to this day. Other less welcome things that could come with a W163, mainly pre-2002 facelifters, were wonky door locks, window regulators, fuel pumps and gauges, dash warning lights, wipers and brake light switches. The power steering could leak too, and the suspension could play up.
Going back to the ML’s same-colour bonnet, another colour does appear on the under-grille section: brown. Looks like there are a few rust scabs on the filler cap too, an item that will become a familiar sight to the next owner given the fuel consumption figure of 19mpg on a good day and maybe half that on a better one. But after ten minutes with the wire brush drill attachment, a few dods of Kurust and some hefty squirts of rattlecan silver you should be laughing re the bodywork.
Post-facelifters were generally speaking a lot better on rust protection than pre-FLs. Having said that, you might want to extend your wirebrushing to the wheel arches which are visibly nibbly. You’ll be amazed at the results you can get. Some corrosion to the rear subframes was noted on last July’s MOT, along with worn rear tyres and a bit of steering play, but that’s all pretty generic stuff for a 20-year old car.
Having laughed gaily at your newly-restored bodywork, all that would remain would be to try and smile through the tears as you forked out £143 on filling up the 83-litre tank, assuming you’d been lucky enough to find unleaded at today’s advertised average price of £1.73 a litre anyway. And then do it all again 350 miles later, assuming you managed to hit that 19mpg number anyway. Get it down to 10mpg and you’ll fall well short of 200 miles before the forecourt pain restarts er, anyway. Eeeh, it’s just like being in an EV! Only noisier.
For an old Merc it's relatively good condition, these things were rotting through in their first decade. What with that and the electronic gremlins why didn't Mercedes get relegated to the status of Lancia?
Frankly when we all go EV these things won't be missed.
I’m guessing a cheap car with an almighty thirst is probably a pretty hard sell at the moment especially when you factor in the other issues of this age Mercedes.
Owned mine for 5 years and apart from some minor electrical problems and a small power steering leak (which I fixed myself) it has been a wonderful car. Fuel consumption and associated costs are catastrophic and in these times, even more so.
On the towbar subject, my car has a factory fitted towbar which is easily removable with the use of a key, perhaps this feature gives the impression that fewer have them fitted?
I live in Spain, so my towbar remains in place to help deter those who park carelessly or ram their cars into spaces.
The Germans are great at making a car feel and drive German.
However, I don’t think I could bear pumping that kind of petrol money into a shed.
I remember the fuels bills used to absolutely cripple me in the X5 4.8iS, so after that experience I now go with diesel in an SUV instead. I definitely miss the lovely petrol V8 rumble though!
On the one hand, it's remarkable that crap like this didn't bring the company down. But from a commercial perspective, seems like it was the right way to go for Merc. New 'buyers' are only in the car short term courtesy of finance, so they just don't care about baked in build quality issues. That'll all be someone else's problem.
Performance? Poor.
Fuel economy? Poor
Build quality? Poor
The poor thing felt like it had been made with the cheapest and flimsiest materials known to man, the interior was particularly bad, every piece looking like it was hanging on for grim death despite the car only having done around 40k.
I thought a ‘classic’ Range Rover I once owned was bad, but this thing took the biscuit, making the Range Rover seem like a Rolls Royce build-wise in comparison.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff