DIFFLOCK - What a load of bullshit

came across what? there is no link in your post.

I hate to say it but I do agree with much of what he says, though yes he is extremely Land Rover biased, but then I guess thats why he is editor of "Land Rover Enthusiast".

However I think it is far more easier to find more positive reviews outside of the UK. I give you two more, one UK and the other South African.

http://www.4x4mag.co.uk/aprfeatures/maggwagen.html

http://4xforum.co.za/vguide/g_wagen.html

I especially like his reasons for a G. I guess he seems to be a bit of a Harald.

I dont know how many of you have mailed the editor of that article but I have. Reminding him of certain Diesel LR's that could barely pull 55mph and about that G55AMG if he thinks LR's have performance. And what crap that is about values! I'd like to see any LR that has a chassis as good as a G after 20 years - it'll probably have had two new ones by that time!

Get to it boys, let him know what a burk he really is.

Yeah, but at least the other reviews on G's are much better....

The Old, Old G55 AMG

http://www.difflock.com/buyersguide/newcars/gwagen_long.shtml

And the G500

http://www.difflock.com/buyersguide/newcars/G-wagen/index.shtml

Where is the G400, G270, ..... etc?

Obviously though, the people who wrote these have a bit of sense and arn't heavily biased!

Mercedes-Benz products have traditionally been rather soulless models of efficiency (other than the G or some of the classics like the Pagoda, I personally find mercedes rather boring and corporate...), vehicles to be admired and respected rather than liked irrationally. The G-Wagen is no exception to this rule. It does everything expected of it without fuss, but equally without showing any quirks (though not sure if dealing with an unreliable LR should really be considered a good quirk...) which would give it real character. In that context, its lack of road performance is an irritation....

Nevertheless, a G-Wagen makes a good, uncomplaining everyday vehicle, suitable for anything from hypermarket shopping to long -distance motorway cruising. For the latter, however, diesel models are best avoided...

Like all Mercedes, the G-Wagen is extremely well-engineered, extremely reliable and extremely durable. Engines, for example, should give 150,000 miles without major trouble....

Mercedes parts are notoriously expensive, so it is fortunate that very little ever goes wrong with a G-Wagen (I think this says it all!). Service intervals are annoyingly frequent, but there are enough non-franchised Mercedes specialists in the UK for owners to make substantial savings over main dealer prices...

etc...

Not saying the article is spot on and not denying he is biased, but like Russ says he's not that far off the mark. The 463's "character" is questionable like a Volvos and certainly doesn't compare to the other classic Mercedes. But what it certainly has is presence and mystique, and at the end of the day I would choose a G over anyother 4x4.

The reason that the Gs have never sold in any number in the UK is surely due to Merc's pricing policy and not to any inherent faults with the vehicle. Compared to the competition they have always been priced too high.

Given that the bulk of 4x4 customers do not actually need a 4x4 for their everyday use, paying ten grand over the odds for a rather tutonically-styled vehicle that is able to lock all four wheels together is ten grand too much for most people.

I was looking on (is it Caversham's ?) site and saw a swb, two years old with the full AMG kit, offered for seventy grand. It cost a hundred grand new. It looked as though it was lowered, so probably would not go anywhere near where either of my old buses are able to get to, quite apart from the fact that its tyres were so fat that in greasy soil the low ground pressure would probably give it no grip.

I fail to see how a tarted-up truck, which is what a 4x4 is essentially, or to use the Australian vernacular 'a ute' (utility vehicle), can possibly be worth a hundred grand other than to someone with far more money than sense who is prepared to spend that sort of money simply to demonstrate to the world that he is able to raise the finance on it.

I frequently drive up alongside the local salmon river, one of the most renowned in Scotland, on the single track. If I am driving the woman's Peugeot 205 [1] and come face -to-face with a brand-new Range Rover belonging to one of the sportsmen who is fishing the river it is the little Peugeot that has to take to the grass every time. Your man in the sixty-grand motor is not going to get its wheels muddy... This again begs the question as to why he bought a four-wheel-drive vehicle.

But I digress. If Merc' had not attempted to sell the G as some sort of superior vehicle for people with their heads up their bums, and had rather tried to sell it to farmers and the like who were buying Defenders, and had made it compeitive with the Defender and had publicised it properly, I am sure they would have sold a far greater number of units.

The would only have had to demonstrate it going around the contour lines of a wet, greasy hill against any Land Rover product to prove its capabilities, as every Land Rover derivative I know of will spin-out on the top-side wheels in those conditions.

The G is probably the best utility vehicle that has been made in Europe, though to my mind they went backwards when they fitted permanent 4wd, and it is Merc's own fault that they failed to actively sell it as a utility vehicle, but just tacked it on to their saloon car range and aimed it at the same sort of customers that bought their cars.

As to the sluggishness of the diesels... Just how fast does one need to travel in a utility vehicle ? Both of mine- three litre fives- are as happy as larry at sixty-five mph and get up to that speed as rapidly as I would expect a heavy vehicle with the aerodynamics of a bungalow to do. The diesels may be slow revving and short on horsepower for thier size, but there is a bonus in that : they are never stressed, they are over-engineered, and as a result they give very little trouble. I would rather that any day than trade for a higher revving engine that is stressed by a turbo and whose timing integrity relies upon a rubber band rather than a dependable, self-adjusting duplex chain. The only thing better than a duplex, to my mind is a timing chest full of nice gearwheels.

Journalists are not interested in steady, reliable utility vehicles. They are more interested in fast 4x4 road vehicles and flash interiors. Land Rover journalists cannot see past a Land Rover, despite the fact that the vehicles have major drawbacks that have, in nearly fifty years of production, never been addressed by the company that produces them.

There is the old joke about the British - If it hurts, it is good for you. Land Rover encapsulates this philosophy and adherents of the marque take positive pleasure in driving inside a swimming pool when it rains, being unable to demist the screens, not being able to adjust the seats adequately, constantly banging one's elbow on the door, freezing in the winter months, having a gear-shift with a throw of near 500mm and getting bogged-down in simple situations. " Oh ! That's what a Land Rover is all about", the proud owner says, beaming with pride, " It's part of the pleasure of owning a Land Rover"

I have owned five LRs, including two RRs, and I can honestly state that I got no pleasure out of any of them. I needed them for work, but they constantly broke down, and apart from the RRs they were exceedingly uncomfortable and unpleasant to drive.
Even the RRs handled badly and rolled alarmingly.

By contrast, the first G that I bought some two and a half years ago has never missed a beat, and like the Mercedes saloons that I have owned it is utterly reliable, solid, comfortable, warm, and gets to places on the hills that a LR could not approach. The roadholding and balance of both of my Gs is irreproachable.

Merc should have targetted the farmers, foresters, electricity companies and the like, and punted the G as a utility, rather than punt it upmarket as a toy and attempt to draw the cream off thier premier European market.

Thought these might be amusing....................especially for Jesus.
Fortunately my friend in the LR (about 1.5Xthe bhp and 8 X the cost of my G) saw the funny side as well!

Oh and one my G in its natural environment.

Anyone with half a brain would not have followed foot-deep tracks filled with water when there is good, firm ground either side of the tracks that he could have driven over with no problem at all.

[quote=
What I like about the 460 is it’s simplistic but rugged engineering. As the Americans would put it there are few “mission critical” weak points in it. Get you home tool kit = big hammer, adjustable spanner, mole grips, wire, duck tape etc. OK air con and ABS I could go for, but stability control, traction control, electronically controlled variable valve timing, cruise control (which is of course linked to the engine management), fly by wire throttle etc etc. no thanks.

I agree with your sentiments. Air-con is fine by me, especially in our very humid atmosphere in the UK. It is also a mechanical or mechanical/electrical system that is relatively easy to understand, although slow seepage of refrigerant gas to atmosphere is hellish difficult to pinpoint, even with the aid of refrigerant dye and uv detector lights.
Fast leaks are easy.

Most people one speaks to about air-con immediately start talking about the drain on engine torque, but I think that is a small price to pay to be able to drive in a vehicle filled with wet passengers on a day when it is pouring with rain and not have the thing fug-up

Folk tend to think that air-con is only applicable to hot countries. Whilst it is delightful to travel in a vehicle whose interior is blissfully cool at 17C where the outside temp. is somehwere around 44C, It is also very pleasant in the UK to be able to set the thing to the temperature one desires and to have the delivered air free of moisture, and thus avoid condensation on the interior glass of the vehicle.

None of my vehicles, unfortunately, are fitted with AC':('

in Van/Station Wagon with 2.850 mm wheelbase

in chassis/cab with 3.200 mm wheelbase (I think but not 100% sure)

later replaced by a 3.400 wheelbase (for ambulances and other special aplications)

The W463 was/is made with Cabrio/Station Wagon with 2.400 mm wheelbase

in Station Wagon with 2.850 mm wheelbase

and in Station Wagon with 3.430 mm wheelbase for the G55L AMG (not sure whether this is the same as the W461)

So that's a total of three, four or five, depending whether the 3.2 existed or not and/or whether the XXL wheelbase for the 461 and 463 are the same.

But in any case it's more than two as the lesser being that wrote the article claims!

max & mort,

it must be 4 or more. the 461 came, like jesus outlined, in 3.2 (to be correct it was 3.12)
so with the 3.4 that's allready 4 wheelbases.
i would assume the XL is based on the 3.4. the frames for the 460/461/463 are in general the same, just with different points to hold the body of the car.

there are more wheelbases than that in the market, i just refered to the ones wich where done in graz directly.
there are others like the streched ones, from styling garage hamburg, and ultra limousines, or special ambulance or military ones done for example by binz.

BTW jesus, when you start naming the bodyversions as well, this will be a very long thread, because even employees in graz don't remember what they've been producing in the last 25 years. just think about the pick-ups with single- or crewcab. the swb pickups for the sas, the lwb cabrios and so on and so on.............

Russ