Range Rover Sport TDV6 or Mercedes ML320CDi
Discussion
Wifey wants to swap her C200 Merc for one of the above.
Originally she thought the ML would be the one - she loves Mercedes - but recently her head was turned by the RR Sport.
Whatever she goes for will be around 1yo and under £30K. It'll get used only the road but will be called upon to ford some of the flooded roads we get round here several times a year.
I personally think the ML would make more sense for her but as I want a Disco-3 for my next road car, my argument is weak.
Originally she thought the ML would be the one - she loves Mercedes - but recently her head was turned by the RR Sport.
Whatever she goes for will be around 1yo and under £30K. It'll get used only the road but will be called upon to ford some of the flooded roads we get round here several times a year.
I personally think the ML would make more sense for her but as I want a Disco-3 for my next road car, my argument is weak.
Mars said:
Wifey wants to swap her C200 Merc for one of the above.
Originally she thought the ML would be the one - she loves Mercedes - but recently her head was turned by the RR Sport.
Whatever she goes for will be around 1yo and under £30K. It'll get used only the road but will be called upon to ford some of the flooded roads we get round here several times a year.
I personally think the ML would make more sense for her but as I want a Disco-3 for my next road car, my argument is weak.
Personal taste. Get her to drive both and see what she prefers. I drove the ML and really liked it, looked at the Q7 but couldnt warm to it, and then finally bought an x5.Originally she thought the ML would be the one - she loves Mercedes - but recently her head was turned by the RR Sport.
Whatever she goes for will be around 1yo and under £30K. It'll get used only the road but will be called upon to ford some of the flooded roads we get round here several times a year.
I personally think the ML would make more sense for her but as I want a Disco-3 for my next road car, my argument is weak.
Its a very personal thing. Both are good cars, both will depreciate like snow dropping off a ditch.
Of note the ML was lightly facelifted recently, but its hardly noticable so not enough to make you not buy a used one.
pgilc1 said:
Personal taste. Get her to drive both and see what she prefers. I drove the ML and really liked it, looked at the Q7 but couldnt warm to it, and then finally bought an x5.
Its a very personal thing. Both are good cars, both will depreciate like snow dropping off a ditch.
Of note the ML was lightly facelifted recently, but its hardly noticable so not enough to make you not buy a used one.
We've arranged a test drive of the ML this Weds. We tried to do the same for the RR-Sport but the local dealer ignored us while we stood around, so we're looking for another dealer now.Its a very personal thing. Both are good cars, both will depreciate like snow dropping off a ditch.
Of note the ML was lightly facelifted recently, but its hardly noticable so not enough to make you not buy a used one.
TommyTT said:
RR Sport any day of the week. Though everyone on PH seems to hate them???
If we could afford the TDV8, both initial and running costs, I think that'd win. My friend has one and it's bloody incredible. It accelerates like my 3-litre Legacy. Well, it feels like it is anyway.But we are tipping a very subtle (almost imperceptible) "nod" towards economy (don't laugh - compared with my Leggy at 19mpg, these are positively "green") so the TVD6 RR is the only one we will consider. Its purchase price compares well with a similarly aged ML320 too, so it'll come down to driving experience, no doubt. Just wondered if anyone had any insights into ownership.
I prefer the D3 because it's far more practical. Those rear seats make all the difference for me. My wife's inlaws are not from this country, so when they (or her friends) come over, we inevitably have to take both of our cars. I hate MPVs and have a regular requirement to ford flooded roads to get to and from work so the D3 will be the one for me next time.
Couldn't afford it last time round, and the Legacy came up too cheap to ignore.
Anyway, wifey doesn't like the "boxy" looks of the D3 but does think the RR-Sport compares well with the ML. It's going to be her car (bought and paid for by her) so she can have what she wants. Both have decent fording numbers in their specification (700mm standard I believe).
I just fancy being reasonably well-informed when we (yes, my opinion counts) make the decision.
Couldn't afford it last time round, and the Legacy came up too cheap to ignore.
Anyway, wifey doesn't like the "boxy" looks of the D3 but does think the RR-Sport compares well with the ML. It's going to be her car (bought and paid for by her) so she can have what she wants. Both have decent fording numbers in their specification (700mm standard I believe).
I just fancy being reasonably well-informed when we (yes, my opinion counts) make the decision.
I'm currently driving a face-lifted ML320cdi and I must admit I quite like it; it's pretty civilised on the road (even on it's 21" Alloys!!) and the engine is fantastic; IMO much better than the dated lump in the RR Sport. The ML needs to have the right spec though, you should look for a Sport with COMAND, Parktonic, Comfort Pack and Telephone Pre-Wire; this should be on most models, but cars without them are out there and should be cheaper.
I prefer the look of the RR but the prefer the drive and image of the ML. Obviously the thing to do is to get her to go and drive them both and see what she thinks.
We've got a nice ML420 sport with AMG kit and Wheels in stock for about your budget
I prefer the look of the RR but the prefer the drive and image of the ML. Obviously the thing to do is to get her to go and drive them both and see what she thinks.
We've got a nice ML420 sport with AMG kit and Wheels in stock for about your budget
Thanks for that. We'd already decided that the Command was a definite requirement if she buys the ML. She has it in the C200 already, along with the Parktronic, but she has the Ipod connector which means she cannot have the telephone connector. That was the story 3 years ago when we bought the C200. Is it still the same now?
The ML420 is just too much for her. Most importantly the car must be not significantly more than a year old, must have the smallest mileage of those we compare, and cheapest under £30K.
The 420 will just cost too much to run, but thanks.
The ML420 is just too much for her. Most importantly the car must be not significantly more than a year old, must have the smallest mileage of those we compare, and cheapest under £30K.
The 420 will just cost too much to run, but thanks.
Mars said:
Thanks for that. We'd already decided that the Command was a definite requirement if she buys the ML. She has it in the C200 already, along with the Parktronic, but she has the Ipod connector which means she cannot have the telephone connector. That was the story 3 years ago when we bought the C200. Is it still the same now?
The ML420 is just too much for her. Most importantly the car must be not significantly more than a year old, must have the smallest mileage of those we compare, and cheapest under £30K.
The 420 will just cost too much to run, but thanks.
You can have both now, the iPod will go in the glovebox and the phone in the centre armrest. There is also a 3mm AUX input in the glovebox as standard on all cars, so rather than paying for an integration kit (about £450) you can just plug it in with an AUX cable, although you can't control the ipod via the COMAND unit.The ML420 is just too much for her. Most importantly the car must be not significantly more than a year old, must have the smallest mileage of those we compare, and cheapest under £30K.
The 420 will just cost too much to run, but thanks.
I know what you mean about the 420, it's a stonking engine, and they are almost the same money as a 320 of the same age/mileage now, but they probably only manage early 20's to the gallon.
When you find one, if you want to post or pm me any details I can check the deal for you; not saying you won't know what your doing, but I might be able to help in some way.
Thanks for that. I'll definitely give you a shout if she decides to go with the ML. I think she's booked us to review one at the Aston (central Brum) Mercedes branch... well, that's the one she uses for her servicing (nearest to her work). I'll see what they come up with as there's a PX of the C200 to consider too. In fact, that might sway us towards the ML as I'd imagine Mercedes will give her a better deal on the C200 than a Landy dealer.
But, we're not averse to driving anywhere for the right deal. Picked up my first Caterham from Caterham Surrey, the 2nd one from Dartford, the Cerbera from Yorkshire and the Legacy from Leeds.
But, we're not averse to driving anywhere for the right deal. Picked up my first Caterham from Caterham Surrey, the 2nd one from Dartford, the Cerbera from Yorkshire and the Legacy from Leeds.
Okey dokey... we went for a test drive of an ML320CDi yesterday. It was an MY08 one although not one of the September 08 facelifted versions.
We still haven't test driven a RR-Sport but I have experience of the Disco-3 TDV6 which I was comparing the performance of the ML against, and a RR-Sport TDV8 which I was comparing the interior fit and finish against.
That make sense?
I believe that the ML is a bit lighter than the RR-Sport. Land Rover claims 2455Kg but I couldn't find a Mercedes claim on their website. Other websites only show figures for the original shape ML which is about 300Kg lighter than the RR-S, but that wouldn't be an entirely fair comparison as the new ML must be heavier than the original one. It's a massive vehicle, but it still looks and feels smaller/lighter than the Rangey.
Anyway, the RR-Sport is "only" a 2.7-litre against the ML's 3-litre but the way the ML pulled and pulled was far better than the Disco-3 TDV6. Far better. It's got 225bhp/376lbft and a 7-speed auto gearbox (with 2-reverses for some reason) against the RR-S 190bhp/324lbft and 6-speed auto gearbox. The gear shift was seemless. The engine seemed to give a constant wall of torque from rest to around 70mph (we tested this around Star City, Aston and Nechels, sort of central and to the North of Brum so higher speeds were impossible).
The interior was absolutely consistent with my wifes C-class too, All the toys are there but there is no gearstick on the central tunnel. Instead Mercedes has positioned it on the steering column, which we both quite liked. It left the central tunnel free for oddments pockets or cupholders (your choice when you order). This gear lever has a button on the end to give you immediate PARK. Hit it in any gear and you instantly get to PARK. I didn't think to ask what dould happen if you knocked this before you'd come to a halt, but as everything was electronic, I assume there's some sort of safety lock-out feature.
Plenty of legroom in the rear, and loadbay D-rings for securing your luggage.
It's so big it has 6 parking sensors front and rear. I've not noticed this before whilst following traffic. I've only ever seen 4 at each end. I think the parking sensors might be more useful than I'd normally credit too because the car is shorter than you think when you're driving it. The salesman asked me to park it behind a van when we'd finished and I stopped without any of the parking sensors having registered at all. It took a real sense of bravado to get to the point where all of them had lit up, and then we checked the gap to find about 10 inches of clearance. I felt all along that I was about to park *inside* the van...
... which brings me to the styling. Now I like Land Rover products but the bonnet on the ML seems a much more "sensible" affair than the Rangey one which seems to stretch out for miles ahead. This gives the ML a sense of being more "wieldy" in traffic. My first impressions of the Land Rover products was that they take up a lot of road-space. Of course it isn't actually true - I believe the Disco only has a slightly larger footprint than my own Legacy - and in fact the dimensions of the RR-S and ML are very similar, according to their own websites (lets see if I can do a table):
So, not much in it. I wonder though whether the relatively shorter bonnet of the ML leads to either a loss of legroom in the rear of the RR-S or less luggage space. Dunno. That's something to check out when we get a test drive of one of the Landy products.
Anyway, although I think I'm won over by the ML without even testing the RR-S, my wife wants to remain impartial and get a test drive in the Landy product. Good for her I say. It's going to be her car and paid for out of our joint income.
Having just said "good for her", I thought perhaps she might have lost focus a little as we went to leave the Mercedes dealership when she said she might in fact like to try an E-class next.
Sigh.
We still haven't test driven a RR-Sport but I have experience of the Disco-3 TDV6 which I was comparing the performance of the ML against, and a RR-Sport TDV8 which I was comparing the interior fit and finish against.
That make sense?
I believe that the ML is a bit lighter than the RR-Sport. Land Rover claims 2455Kg but I couldn't find a Mercedes claim on their website. Other websites only show figures for the original shape ML which is about 300Kg lighter than the RR-S, but that wouldn't be an entirely fair comparison as the new ML must be heavier than the original one. It's a massive vehicle, but it still looks and feels smaller/lighter than the Rangey.
Anyway, the RR-Sport is "only" a 2.7-litre against the ML's 3-litre but the way the ML pulled and pulled was far better than the Disco-3 TDV6. Far better. It's got 225bhp/376lbft and a 7-speed auto gearbox (with 2-reverses for some reason) against the RR-S 190bhp/324lbft and 6-speed auto gearbox. The gear shift was seemless. The engine seemed to give a constant wall of torque from rest to around 70mph (we tested this around Star City, Aston and Nechels, sort of central and to the North of Brum so higher speeds were impossible).
The interior was absolutely consistent with my wifes C-class too, All the toys are there but there is no gearstick on the central tunnel. Instead Mercedes has positioned it on the steering column, which we both quite liked. It left the central tunnel free for oddments pockets or cupholders (your choice when you order). This gear lever has a button on the end to give you immediate PARK. Hit it in any gear and you instantly get to PARK. I didn't think to ask what dould happen if you knocked this before you'd come to a halt, but as everything was electronic, I assume there's some sort of safety lock-out feature.
Plenty of legroom in the rear, and loadbay D-rings for securing your luggage.
It's so big it has 6 parking sensors front and rear. I've not noticed this before whilst following traffic. I've only ever seen 4 at each end. I think the parking sensors might be more useful than I'd normally credit too because the car is shorter than you think when you're driving it. The salesman asked me to park it behind a van when we'd finished and I stopped without any of the parking sensors having registered at all. It took a real sense of bravado to get to the point where all of them had lit up, and then we checked the gap to find about 10 inches of clearance. I felt all along that I was about to park *inside* the van...
... which brings me to the styling. Now I like Land Rover products but the bonnet on the ML seems a much more "sensible" affair than the Rangey one which seems to stretch out for miles ahead. This gives the ML a sense of being more "wieldy" in traffic. My first impressions of the Land Rover products was that they take up a lot of road-space. Of course it isn't actually true - I believe the Disco only has a slightly larger footprint than my own Legacy - and in fact the dimensions of the RR-S and ML are very similar, according to their own websites (lets see if I can do a table):
| Dimension | ML320CDi | RR-Sport |
| Width between mirrors | 2127 | 2170 |
| Overall length | 4781 | 4788 |
So, not much in it. I wonder though whether the relatively shorter bonnet of the ML leads to either a loss of legroom in the rear of the RR-S or less luggage space. Dunno. That's something to check out when we get a test drive of one of the Landy products.
Anyway, although I think I'm won over by the ML without even testing the RR-S, my wife wants to remain impartial and get a test drive in the Landy product. Good for her I say. It's going to be her car and paid for out of our joint income.
Having just said "good for her", I thought perhaps she might have lost focus a little as we went to leave the Mercedes dealership when she said she might in fact like to try an E-class next.
Sigh.
If you have a look through the Broadspeed web site they have brand new base level RR Sports from just over £30K, which could be an option to you.
We looked at a RRS 2.7 when my wife wanted a new 4*4 but having driven one we both decided upon a Freelander 2 TD4 HSE with a command shift auto box. If you are looking for a great ride quality and lots of toys then these can be had for substantially under £30K for a car 6 months or so old, or around the £26-£27K brand new from Broadspeed depending on colour, extras etc.
We looked at a RRS 2.7 when my wife wanted a new 4*4 but having driven one we both decided upon a Freelander 2 TD4 HSE with a command shift auto box. If you are looking for a great ride quality and lots of toys then these can be had for substantially under £30K for a car 6 months or so old, or around the £26-£27K brand new from Broadspeed depending on colour, extras etc.
Mars said:
I prefer the D3 because it's far more practical. Those rear seats make all the difference for me. My wife's inlaws are not from this country, so when they (or her friends) come over, we inevitably have to take both of our cars. I hate MPVs and have a regular requirement to ford flooded roads to get to and from work so the D3 will be the one for me next time.
Couldn't afford it last time round, and the Legacy came up too cheap to ignore.
Anyway, wifey doesn't like the "boxy" looks of the D3 but does think the RR-Sport compares well with the ML. It's going to be her car (bought and paid for by her) so she can have what she wants. Both have decent fording numbers in their specification (700mm standard I believe).
I just fancy being reasonably well-informed when we (yes, my opinion counts) make the decision.
Dont worry about the wade depth (just dont drive fast Couldn't afford it last time round, and the Legacy came up too cheap to ignore.
Anyway, wifey doesn't like the "boxy" looks of the D3 but does think the RR-Sport compares well with the ML. It's going to be her car (bought and paid for by her) so she can have what she wants. Both have decent fording numbers in their specification (700mm standard I believe).
I just fancy being reasonably well-informed when we (yes, my opinion counts) make the decision.
)
You're Redditch way IIRC? If so the Spa town based LR dealer that also happens to do Saab and Seat is a waste of space. Utterly useless, never follow up, never answer calls, never actually manage to sell anything. Shukers at Ludlow have a very good rep if you fancy a run out. Dunno about the bunch in Solihull.
RE performance - the TDV6 is "adequate", though with a remap can be vaguely spritely. Compared to the V8s both diesel and petrol, it's anaemic and noisy.
RE space/shape - We had a few friends around not long after we bought the Rangie, and if you compared specific lengths and so on, there's naff all in it, you look at them side by side and you find the Full-fat Rangie, but also to a lesser degree the Sport, look much larger. It would appear it's principally down to bodyshape - the big square cut jaw and bonnet of the Rangies make's them look bigger than they actually are when set against a Cayenne, ML etc. However, I hear what you're saying about the feeling of size, but to be fair, having that square-edged bonnet is great: in small gaps / around town or whatever you can tell exactly where the car ends, which in my mind is more difficult when a bonnet slopes away from you.
Dunno about the ML, but in the floods the other week and last year, we regularly had the Rangie wading deeper than most ofther things without difficulty.
RE performance - the TDV6 is "adequate", though with a remap can be vaguely spritely. Compared to the V8s both diesel and petrol, it's anaemic and noisy.
RE space/shape - We had a few friends around not long after we bought the Rangie, and if you compared specific lengths and so on, there's naff all in it, you look at them side by side and you find the Full-fat Rangie, but also to a lesser degree the Sport, look much larger. It would appear it's principally down to bodyshape - the big square cut jaw and bonnet of the Rangies make's them look bigger than they actually are when set against a Cayenne, ML etc. However, I hear what you're saying about the feeling of size, but to be fair, having that square-edged bonnet is great: in small gaps / around town or whatever you can tell exactly where the car ends, which in my mind is more difficult when a bonnet slopes away from you.
Dunno about the ML, but in the floods the other week and last year, we regularly had the Rangie wading deeper than most ofther things without difficulty.
matc said:
Good write up, also interested to hear your thought on the RR once you've driven it. I would probably steer clear of the E-Estate, unless it is an exceptional deal as the new saloon is out next year and the estate a few months after that.
There's no way she'd consider an estate. My wife likes "classic" looks in a car. It's all about image and for some reason estates don't cut it for her...... which is a shame as it means she doesn't like my Legacy.
But you're about not buying any "E" at the moment because of the imminent arrival of the new one. We got a little caught out when we bought the C because that was superceded about a year later.
Gassing Station | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff