GLE [Spyshots] 2015 Mercedes GLE Facelift (formerly M-Class) (X166)

[dafour]

Hi,

Please don't misunderstand me. I’m not saying that they are changing the C pillar, but that they are changing the aspect from all the rear part

The rear part of the W166 has always produced me a disturbing feeling. The jump in before and after the C pillar makes me feel that something is missing. It's like two different cars

But nothing about changes on the pillar

 

[Merc1]

What? If nothing changes then what are you talking about?

I suspect the ML and GL facelifts will be at the same time and the MLC/ML coupe will come at the same time, all for the 2016 model year in the U.S. Along with a new GLK. Major SUV push.

M

 

[frenchie]

I can tell you for a fact that the 2015 MY ordering guide is already out, and no facelift. That's really pretty sad that it takes MB almost two years to get a FL into production, while we have to look at pics of it out running around.
Here are the 15 changes.
ML250 BlueTEC replaces ML350 BlueTEC
ML400 4MATIC replaces ML550 4MATIC
No more 6-disc changer! – Single disc CD/DVD standard AND in P01 with COMAND with Navigation
Navigation map updates included for 3-years with COMAND with Navigation
Start-Stop Technology ("ECO" button) now on ALL engine variants
Diamond White Metallic name changes to designo Diamond White Metallic (no change to color)
Passenger Memory with 4-way Lumbar (242) added to designo Upholstery Packages
Introduction of 317 Comfort Package which includes:

• 282 2nd seat row pass through
• 297 Rear sunshades
• 311 Heated/cooled cupholders

usaually facelift is in 5th model year. 2016 be on schedule

 

[Merc1]

No it isn't. Mercedes doesn't normally wait until the 5th model year to do a facelift on a regular model, only an SL maybe. It has happened, but it is not the normal practice.

M

 

[Rolf]

usaually facelift is in 5th model year. 2016 be on schedule

Except for the SL, the Mercedes models are facelifted mostly 4years after been introduced. Life cycle normally 7 years per model, except on the odd occasion like with the current S-class replaced previous model after 8 years in production and the SL is normally more than 10 years in production.

 

[Wolfgang]

http://www.autobild.de/artikel/mercedes-ml-mlc-neues-cockpit-5206339.html

 

[ThroughandThrough]

Still the red-headed stepchild of Mercedes.

 

[Serpens]

The ML? How do you figure? It's their bread and butter SUV.

 

[ThroughandThrough]

Look-wise.

 

[Carmaker1]

No it isn't. Mercedes doesn't normally wait until the 5th model year to do a facelift on a regular model, only an SL maybe. It has happened, but it is not the normal practice.

M

Yep, that is definitely limited to the SL and the Gelandewagen (G-Class). The W164 had only 3 1/2 years before the facelift was launched in October 2008 and had a shorter 6 year life cycle. I understand an early 2015 arrival, but late 2015 seems rather excessive. It's not an S-Class, so I'm not even sure what warranted this amount of development time investment.

 

[klier]

Look-wise.

It's the C pillar. Keeping it for 'tradition' while in reality it's a failure. Like the round headlights on the E class, but at least they finally got rid of those.

 

[tennmb]

It's the C pillar. Keeping it for 'tradition' while in reality it's a failure. Like the round headlights on the E class, but at least they finally got rid of those.

Totally agree. The large C pillar is a useless design element that makes the ML look down market and smaller than it actually is. Not too mention the visability issues. They've had it since the original ML, which was absolutely forgettable and one of the worst vehicles ever designed by Mercedes.

 

[Wolfgang]

Suspect the M-Class excellent roof strength may be related to the design?

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/mercedes/m-class/2012?print-view

 

[Rainer271]

 

[tennmb]

looks like the front bumper and lights receive the same facelift as the facelift for the previous generation ML.
I so wish they could have changed the shape of the rear lamps to match other MB products. That is one of the most disconneted elements of what is otherwise a handsome desgin.

 

[tennmb]

Suspect the M-Class excellent roof strength may be related to the design?

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/mercedes/m-class/2012?print-view

GLK has comparable roof strength and no obnoxious C-pillar.
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/mercedes/glk

 

[Wolfgang]

^^ Suspect it may not be the final rear lamp design.

^ Agreed. The GLK is a lighter vehicle, though, and thus has to sustain less force?

GLK roof strength peak force 26,647 lbs / strength to weight ratio 6.41
ML roof strength peak force 31,545 lbs / strength to weight ratio 6.68

 

[Wolfgang]

PS. K-A posted a table a while back.

http://www.germancarforum.com/commu...rcedes-benz-m-class.37738/page-20#post-561406

 

[dafour]

PS. K-A posted a table a while back.

http://www.germancarforum.com/commu...rcedes-benz-m-class.37738/page-20#post-561406

Mhhh

I can understand the argument, but it doesn’t convince me very much

First, is roof strength a relevant decision factor for a car? I understand it might be. security is important… But then, how does impact the “panoramic sunroofs” that all the automakers have as an option to this factor. No idea, but I suppose it will impact on safety elements in any way… .
So, if we accept that and anybody cares or talk about it, I wonder, It’s really roof strength a so key factor? It’s really roof strength a valid argument to excuse any other considerations on design? I don’t think so.

Second, in parallel to security, there are esthetic factors, emotional elements linked to a purchasing decision. M-Class C pillar and rear part are controversial. Natural competitors have a better appealing in many market reviews in terms of external styling. So, why don’t to change it? Why don’t to accept that a re-evolution (like the A-class one), can be needed. Sure we can maintain good roof strengths with a redesign.

 

[Wolfgang]

^ Suspect for Mercedes enthusiasts roof strength may be more important than for others.
For me it is, having survived a major crash in a MB. Even the smart has a strong roof.

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

IIHS

starduzt / Iceland

Roof strength may or may not be related to the C-pillar design.
Regardless, am quite fond of the M-Class C-pillar. Fortunately there are also many other SUVs, for folks who may prefer other designs.