German Car Forum

"Talk to anyone at AMG, and he will tell you the target vehicle for the ML63 AMG is the Porsche Cayenne Turbo. Forget other sporty utes such as the Range Rover Sport, the Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8, or the BMW X5 4.8is: AMG focused on one truck, and one truck alone. The ML63 was even developed on the fearsome Nordschleife of the Nürburgring, where it laps the 12.9-mile circuit in “about 8 minutes, 40 seconds.” Not so long ago, that was a good Porsche 911 time."

3-page article: http://www.caranddriver.com/previews...-ml63-amg.html

fast car but no star. Seems to be a lot of those these days.

Just $70,000! last time I checked, the E55 wagon was abut $82,000!
Sounds like the ML63 will even be cheaper than the competition. I`ll take one please!

If Car & Driver are right on their estimated pricing the ML63 will be a bargain. In contrast the X5 4.8Si is more than a grand more and you don't get a 7-speed or 500hp.

I will not back off from trading my ML350 for one of these ....

I have no doubt that the ML63 is a capable performer, but in the German magazine Autobild, they tested one and said "That the AMG M-Class cannot go offroad anymore." So why buy a gas-guzzling SUV that can't go offroad? I just don't see the logic behind this. If I want a fast car, I'll buy a fast car, not a fast SUV that can't go offroad anymore.

Admittedly, very few M-Class owners will go offroad anyway...but still...

That's a good observation Cawimmer.

And I entirely agree.

What's the point of a fast SUV that doesn't go off-road?

Take the Ford F-150 SVT Lightning for example.

It can accelarate from 0 to 60 Mph in 6s. That's not bad at all for a Pick-up truck. Thing is though, the Lightning is only available as normal RWD (2WD).

So what's the point of buying a fast truck, that doesn't handle as a sportscar and it yet doesn't have the off road ability that a truck must have?

Happily however, Land Rover thought on that and while the Range Rover Sport still is a mud plugger, still feels nimble and agile as a sport saloon.

Think the Range Rover Sport as a BMW M5 on high-hell shoes.

Exactly. If I was in the market for a performance SUV, I'd still expect it to be able to go offroad. The RR Sport and the Cayenne I guess are still biased towards speed, rather than what their SUV prinicple was meant to do, but I agree that they seem to be significantly more capable than the X5 4.8is or the ML63 AMG when it comes to offroading.

Logic? We don't need no stinking logic.

Guys, you can throw reason and logic to the wind when you are discussing these types of cars. IMO, it is illogical to discuss off-road capability in an ML whether it is a 350, 500, or 63. I have been selling MB since 98 and I can count on one hand the number of my clients who ever had any interest in taking an ML off-road. And that was considering the much more off-road ready body on frame chasis. i already have a number of people who are ready to buy the ML63, and they have either owned a Cayenne Turbo or have considered one. This vehicle will be a steal comparitively. The Cayenne Turbo is a rip off price wise.

I agree.

If the creation and purchase of cars was entirely dictated by logic we'd all be driving around in a Toyota, or at best, Lexus.

Performance wise one is better off with an estate but SUVs are much cooler, larger and better looking. The cool factor is why people are as we speak bulging out 120k for a Cayenne Turbo S which is slower, more expensive and consumes a whole lot of more fuel than the more sensible choice which is E63 estate or RS6 avant.

Eastate or avant still wont have as much space inside as ML or Cayenne.

None of these cars are sensible, they are all beasts!

they sure are..my friend has a cayenne turbo..ive driven it many times..its just sick..
the way it gains speed..its freaky.. and its so large and you sit high up..its a very wierd experience to say the least..

To haul the kids and dog around when you need to, then go humbling the neighbor in his Cayenne when you don't.