jr1966 - I've owned several Jeeps and a G500. The G rides similiar to the short wheelbase version Jeep. I have not driven a long wheelbase Jeep, though I assume a large improvement in ride quality.

However, the bigest difference between the Jeep and the G is the steering effot and pedal effort. Many find the G exhausting to drive as it requires a bit of strength. I know my wife finds her Yukon much easier to drive.

That being said... I sold my G 2 years ago and am now shopping for another one. The new one will be for me, not the Mrs... and I plan to drive it daily. Having owned one I know what I'm in for.

Of all the cars I've sold, I miss the G most...

 

I've owned Landcruisers and Lexus LX470's for the SUV needs. I think the Landcruisers and LX's are the best of the SUV's. Luxury, dependiblity and they will go anywhere. They have not been embraced by the Hip/hop gang banger crowd so they are not on the most stolen list. I like the idea of the G class and I think they are well built. I question their dependiblity? Anyone have any comparisions between the LC/LX and the G's?

 

Exactly what FactoryKitted had to say except the AMG Motor and power is the bulk of the love ... if you get a 500 non AMG you will drive it over a cliff.

Dario

 

1fast1, thanks for the feedback. The reason why I ask is because there are no longer an MB dealer in my area and there are no Gs in where I live, except for one G55 that was newly brought in a couple of months ago of which I do not know who the owner is. I have to do as much research as I can in the forums before I ask my friend to get one for me in the US mainland and have it shipped over, so I don't really want any surprises.

You did mention that the G rode similar to the short-wheelbase Wranglers. However, which Wrangler are you referring to? The YJ (leaf-sprung) or the TJ and the current JK (coil-sprung)? My wife doesn't have any complaints with my coil-sprung LJ (long-wheelbase TJ) but I'm not sure about the short-wheelbase except with the fact that I do know it rides better than the YJ (which rides really bad as I've driven one of those). The current short-wheelbase JK rides well.

I don't really mind the steering effort as I grew up driving cars with no power steering. Pedal effort? I drive a P996 which has a higher than average pedal effort, so that may also be a non-issue for me too. My wife may complain though as she is very used to driving our LR3 and Lexus GS, the two easiest vehicles to drive among what we have. She doesn't have to drive the G though, if I do get one.

 

no worries jr1966. The pedal effort s much harder than your 996. I had a 1999 996 as well. You mentioned you have a LR3. Have you had a chance to drive a LR discovery? That is the closest thing I can think of. I have a 2003 Disco right now and it is very similar in stearing effort and ride quality.

I had 2 YJ wranglers... similar in ride quality as well. The G is pretty rough.

 

I've owned a G500 and G55. Best SUV's that I've ever owned. My wife was the primary driver and loved them. We had to move on to a GL after our third child. Needed the the extra row of seats.

 

I would go for a G550, with the 7-speed it is very fast, G55AMG is a waste of money at the moment with the 5-speed automatic, if they would build a 7speed G55 or G63 it would be a rocket..... but G550 is perfect daily driver....good luck with your choice...

 

Thanks for the feedbacks. I had driven a Discovery 2, but never a 1st-gen Disco. If it is anything like a Disco 2, then it is very acceptable. Curious why you mentioned your 2003 Disco and YJ Wranglers are similar in ride quality. I recall when I drove my friend's YJ (in stock form) it was very jumpy while the 2001 Disco2 loaner that I drove for one full day wasn't jumpy at all. As long as the Gwagen's ride isn't jumpy, then it should be acceptable for my wife and a prime candidate to replace my LJ.

 

I have a 2003 G500 since new with 94k miles on it now and a 2007 jeep wrangler sahara unlimited since new with 43k miles on it and there is no comparison in terms of ride quality . The G500 is by far a better riding and more solid feeling truck. Yes the steering takes more effort as does opening and closing the doors but not in a bad way. It just feels more solid like a bank vault I am not fond of no steering or pedal feel anyway. It certainly isnt rough around the edges and I wouldn't say it drives like a truck. It just doesnt feel like a car which is what most suvs are trying to be like these days. My wife has put the majority of the miles on the G500 and loves it. I would only replace it with another G500.

 

Have you ever driven a G55? If not, you should. It's a riot to drive. Worth every penny of the premium, in my opinion. Kind of like comparing a Cayenne S to a Cayenne Turbo.

The 63 engine isn't being used in the G55 for a reason. It would kill the performance. The 55 engine makes enormous torque and is perfectly matched for such a heavy truck. It's much more powerful than the 63.

The 7-speed tranny is not used because it can't handle the abuse that the 5 speed can. They've never paired a 7 speed with a 55 engine for this reason. The 5 speed has proven to be bullet proof and is the only tranny that I'd want in my G. It's an awesome tranny and well suited to this vehicle.

 

I agree. It does drive like a truck compared to most SUV's but is not nearly as rough around the edges as a Wrangler or Disco. The exception is the '03 and '04 G55 which rides REALLY rough. They softened the suspension in '05. The steering feel is typical of an off-road capable vehicle. The weight of the doors, etc., is due to the fact that it's built like a tank. My wife weighs 110 lbs., used to drive a Lexus, and the G is by far her favorite vehicle.

I've owned a G500 and a G55. Never had a problem with either vehicle.

 

A faster, less torquey solution
As Inside Line has noted in its review of the ML63 AMG, the new 6.2 is a marvel of an engine. It's lighter, more powerful, cleaner, just as fuel-efficient and, arguably, more durable than the 5.5 it replaces. It's also the first engine in a Mercedes-Benz passenger car to be developed completely by AMG, which fully exercised its motorsport expertise when developing the V8's unique architecture.

In its state of tune for U.S.-bound E63 sedans and wagons, the 6,208cc four-valve DOHC V8 puts out 507 horsepower at 6,800 rpm compared to the E55's 5,439cc three-valve SOHC supercharged V8's rating of 469 hp at 6,100 rpm. Well and good. The newer car should be more powerful. Torque? The bigger V8 twists out 465 pound-feet of torque at 5,200 rpm compared to the (what's this?) 516 lb-ft of torque from the outgoing V8. The E55's torque also peaked earlier, at 2,650 rpm. Sounds like a step backward.

However, there was good reason for the reduction in torque. This allowed Mercedes to fit its new, sophisticated seven-speed automatic in place of the old five-speed. Though the new gearbox is far more efficient than the five-speed, and though it was not built to handle the massive torque of the supercharged engine, its limit of 542 lb-ft, say Mercedes engineers, gives it the required durability to handle the 6.2's far-from-paltry crank twist.

Even better, the loss of torque has had no impact on the car's performance. Let's turn to the factory for this conclusion, which says the 6.2 can launch the E63 sedan from zero to 60 mph in 4.3 seconds. (That's a worthy accomplishment for a 4,035-pound four-door — and it's also probably a conservative figure. Certainly the 514-hp European-spec car we drove in Germany felt much quicker.) To compare, the E55, according to factory numbers, takes 4.5 seconds to achieve the same speed. Race is over; the E63 is quicker. (Just to save you the trouble of looking it up, the similarly sized BMW M5 makes the dash from zero to 60 in 4.5 seconds.) Credit the E63's more efficient seven-speed transmission, improved aerodynamics and, surprisingly in this day of the bloated automobile, a moderate overall weight gain of just 45 pounds compared to the E55 sedan.

 

-The 63 engine makes peak torque (465 lb/ft) at 5,200rpms.

-The 55 engine makes peak torque (516 ft/lbs) at 2,750rpms.

There's no comparison.

Car and Drive has the G55 hitting 0-60 in 4.7 seconds and the ML63 in 4.5 seconds. Keep in mind that the G has the aerodynamics of a brick and is 600 LBS heavier that the ML63!

Power curve is key in a 5700LB vehicle. Have you ever driven a HD pickup with a gas engine versus one with a turbo diesel? The 63 engine would kill the performance of the G55. Also, the G is made to perform off-road. 99% of them will never be taken off-road but the G is built to be a serious off-road capable vehicle. A peaky engine is not something that you want when off-roading.

The 5-speed tranny is proven and rock solid. The 7-speed is not strong enough to propel a 5700 lb vehicle with this torque curve.

Also, look at the real world E55 vs. E63 performance at the drag strip. While the E63 is a terrific vehicle with a great engine, it can not hang with the E55 at the drag strip. This is due to the power curve of the engine.

AMG makes excellent engines but the 55 is much better suited for the G55. This is Mercedes flag ship SUV. Last thing that they want is a reduction in performance.

 

Well then, these posts are VERY encouraging. Time to put my Wrangler up for sale and shop for a G-wagen.

I'm sure there aren't much electronic issues in the G compared to any recent MBs of the past couple of decades considering that these were made without much changes since the 70s. Can anyone confirm this?

 

100% correct......drive a G55 and THEN you'll understand why it has the Kompressor engine.