Jump to content

Talk:Mercedes-Benz GLE

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Moving this page to GLE-Class

[edit]

Mercedes-Benz now refers to this class of cars as GLE and have been doing so for some time. With that in mind this page should be moved to GLE-Class and M/ML should redirect to it. Atald 15:06 Aug 01, 2017 (UTC)

Platform

[edit]

Isn't the new M- platform also shared with the Grand Cherokee? -- stewacide 08:23, Dec 31, 2004 (UTC)

Now this is completely unrelated to this but I own a 1998 ML-320 and despite all of those "build quality" problems mine has held up beautifully over the years. 162K miles and it still runs beautifully, but of course, one car isn't a "sample". 64.203.216.146 22:29, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image selection

[edit]

The W163 images have been changed back to the first two that were contributed to this article. (Check the history if you need confirmation.)

These are superior to more-recently posted images for the following reasons.

The ML400 CDI is in immaculate showroom condition, demonstrating some of the versatility that has undoubtedly made the M-Class a top seller and one of the most-loved Mercedes-Benz models. Plus it's Brilliant Silver (color code 744), which is arguably the best color in which a Mercedes should be depicted.

The ML55 AMG represents the top of the range among W163 models, shows some of the AMG styling, and in basic black could only look better if photographed at night.

These are fine examples of the W163 model series and both photographs are well-composed with plenty of interest for the viewer. "Too much glare" is standard in a photo of a shiny Mercedes-Benz automobile. DrX au 04:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recent image contributions have been included where they enhance the article, and reverted where the previous image was (IMHO) superior. I think the F1 medical car image adds interest to the article, so it stays. Discussion on this issue is welcome. DrX au 13:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new gallery is interesting, and I hope it will illustrate the evolution in styling and refinement since the first MLs hit the streets. This would seem to be the most appropriate place to include a shining example of your proudly-maintained ML. Using the "Less is more" principle, I think we should limit the gallery to one example each of (front and rear views) : 

  W163 Original 1998/9 model
  W163 Post 2002-facelift
  W164 2006 model
  W164 2009 facelift

Standard (non-AMG) versions with stock wheels and accessories, freshly washed, in interesting environments (maybe golf course or beach rather than local carpark), taken from a suitable distance (avoid fish-eye distortion) will be favoured. A variety of colors couldn't hurt either.DrX au (talk) 20:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(There is already an AMG-version at the top.)

ML63 AMG - 6.2L vs. 6.3L

[edit]

There have been a number of reverts on this issue, but there should not be any controversy. The ML63 AMG's M156 engine displaces 6208cc; both the official websites mbusa.com and mercedes-amg.com list this figure. This is very appropriately 6.2L. And, as pointed out by a plethora of magazines and reviews, the ML63 displaces 6.2L (please see: Motor Trend, C/D, R&T, Edmunds, etc.). That 6.2L is correct should be common sense (i.e., the truth) - but with all these verifiable and reliable third-party sources, this is not even an issue of truth vs. fact. --SesameballTalk 12:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change in SC factory

[edit]

"The back was commonly referred as a shoebox so DaimlerChrysler spent most of their $600 million dollars on redesigning that part."

$600 million for a tail gate? It's a wiki joke, right?

"Mercedes-Benz extensively publicized the US$600 million spent to update its factory and add manufacturing space for the new R-Class. According to early automotive press reports, the 2006 M-Class vehicles demonstrate vast improvements in quality"

This paragraph comes out of nowhere and borders on a non-sequitur in the section on the current model. Clearer set-up and elaboration of changes to the factory are needed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.169.176.34 (talk) 16:14, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

M Class / ML Class

[edit]

"It is and always has been known as ML, not M. I merely moved the page to the appropriate title" according to User:Andrew Nutter.

Nope, Mercedes Benz itself refers to it as the M-Class. See their official M-Class page. It may be confusing that all M-Class models currently on offer appear to have an ML prefix.
Also see discussion on the template page Template talk:Mercedes-Benz vehicles. The Seventh Taylor (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The M-Class is probably the only Mercedes-Benz model series that is not badged with the same prefix. (Compare A, B, C, CL, CLK, E, G, GL, R, S.) It has been noted that the "ML" prefix was chosen to avoid clashing with BMW's M-series. In common usage, M-Class owners refer to their vehicles as MLs or M-Class. e.g. "What sort of car do you drive?" "I have an M-Class Mercedes" or "A Mercedes ML320" DrX au (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

M-Class or ML-Class? Which is correct, or are both acceptable? http://www.topgear.com.ph/features/feature-articles/is-it-m-class-or-ml-class DrX au (talk) 11:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The name "ML-Class" is used occasionally, usually informally. The name is only used in the aka field as "ML-Class" as an alternative name. I agree that it is not usually used, but has been used at least once in official documentation [1]. Given that the GL-Class is always referred to as such (never as G-Class in my experience) and all other Mercedes models have model numbers (e.g. SLK 500) and class names (e.g. SLK-Class) that correspond, it seems reasonable to assume the M-Class / ML-Class would be no different. Upon further research, one will discover this is not the case, but considering it has been used officially, I believe it is appropriate to list "ML-Class" in the "aka" field. I'm still waiting for your official source from Mercedes-Benz stating that any use of the term "ML-Class" is wrong, yet you continue to engage in an edit war quoting your own seemingly superior knowledge. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth states: "editors may not add their own views to articles simply because they believe them to be correct, and may not remove sources' views from articles simply because they disagree with them." OSX (talk • contributions) 11:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've been helping to edit this page for over 5 years, and you were happy enough with the original wording for the first 4. I'm sorry I didn't notice this error sooner, but I don't check it that often. The Top Gear article says "it's officially called M-Class, not ML-Class". It is. It's OK to admit error.
The brochure is not "official documentation". It's marketing material with a typo, because someone didn't check.
GLs are always referred to as GL-Class, because there is a separate G-Class. There are also separate S-Class and SL-Class. But there is no ML-Class. Search the Daimler media site, and the only hits on ML-Class are misquoted employees or employees who made errors.DrX au (talk) 11:42, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry that I did not conduct each and every one of my edits to Wikipedia on the first day I started editing in 2006. Not a good argument. I make changes when I see fit and given my interests and time available. In an ideal world, I would make every car article perfect right now, but this is impossible. Be reasonable please.
Take a look at Google, there are 610,000 uses of "Mercedes" AND "ML-Class". Yes, this is a lot less than the 10,100,000 for "Mercedes" AND "M-Class", but it shows that it is a notable alternative title. I'm not proposing the article use "ML-Class" as its primary title, but just to have its usage documented briefly. This is akin to the Holden 48-215 being commonly referred to (unofficially) as the Holden FX. Uncommon names can be notable in some circumstances. The very existence of an article "Is it M-Class or ML-Class?" suggests there is some confusion at the least.
I can't see how marketing material by Mercedes-Benz is considered "unofficial". Is a government television advertisement unofficial because it is marketing? I have issue with your statement "It's marketing material with a typo, because someone didn't check." I keep coming back to the same issue that you fail to address; that is, please verify this statement rather than simply repeating it back to me ad infinitum. The justification "because I think so" does not trump a source by the company the shows its usage. It is not about what is actually true, but what can be verified. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:00, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't repeated anything. And if you think Google searches can validate anything, Carribean yields 10.5 million hits. So should it be "Caribbean (or Carribean) Sea"? Just because a lot of people make mistakes or are confused, doesn't make errors acceptable. DrX au (talk) 12:33, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes you have, you keep saying it is wrong without providing an official source that contradicts the one I provided, or now, the second source provided by Thomas.W below. I have changed the way "ML-Class" is presented in the article to hopefully appease your issue with its inclusion. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:44, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I provided the official source in the linked Top Gear Philippines article, (at 11:21 UTC) wherein a journo interviewed a Merc employee at a launch event and stated "it's officially called M-Class, not ML-Class. ... Case closed." But you don't like being told what you haven't read. And if that wasn't good enough, 17 years of published brochures with the term "M-Class" and zero with "ML-Class" until one kid in a down-under RHD market messes up a draft and it makes it to the printer, and now you have an official document. Crumbs. This article was just fine for 10 years without mentioning "ML-Class", but I can put up with your messing it up for a relatively short period. DrX au (talk) 13:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(And re: the Philippines, journos and newspaper editors have been misspelling it since the 19th century, but that doesn't mean the encyclopaedia should say "The Philippines, commonly erroneously spelt ...") DrX au (talk) 23:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The M/ML isn't among their current vehicles but this page at mercedes-benz.com refeers to the vehicle as the "ML-class", saying that a certain technology started with the ML-class in 2009. Thomas.W talk 12:29, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

PS. @DrX au: and @OSX:, you're both currently at four reverts, so you're on thin ice... Thomas.W talk 12:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Thomas, that is the aforementioned quoted employee who made an error in an interview. And a moot point, but my first good faith edit doesn't count as a revert, so I'm on 3. DrX au (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like how you justify things however you like—delusional. I can assure you, both of us would be warned if not blocked should an administrator get involved. WP:3RR mentions nothing about a first good faith edit. OSX (talk • contributions) 12:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More instances of "ML-Class" on the MB website: [2], [3], [4], [5]. OSX (talk • contributions) 13:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I checked all your "official" examples. 3 are links to blogs and social media posts, which are independently authored. Benzinsider's article has the correct term twice, with only one error, apparently sourced from AI.com. Aman Sancheti used the incorrect term writing for motorbeam.com. MB Bahrain have a mistake in one of their Fb posts. And there's a typo on the official Bevolisten main page. This is a pretty low error rate considering 1.05% errors in Daimler's media site. If you think the opening sentence is cleaner than the one in October 2014, that makes one of us.
I also googled "M-Class or ML-Class" and most of the 73 results are copies of this Wikipedia page, that you have allowed to propagate since 12 months ago. I thought Wikipedia was about co-operative editing, not hostility, personal attacks, and futile publications-not-truth arguments. I can't find an official statement to prove that "2 plus 2 does not equal 5", but if enough people said otherwise, I'd have to reconsider. DrX au (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you search Daimler's official media site, "ML-Class" yields 12 results, including Thomas's quote, while "M-Class" yields 1,136 results. 6% of Google hits is not common, it's occasional. Perhaps you should look up the definition of "revert". DrX au (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DrX au: No, you're the one who should check what constitutes a revert; any edit, or series of consecutive edits, that undoes other editors' actions, whether in whole or in part, counts as a revert. There are a a few exceptions, though, but "good faith first edits" are not included among them... Thomas.W talk 13:26, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First generation section query

[edit]

"Helmed under Bruno Sacco" - what the heck does that mean? May be an Americanism that has so far escaped my attention, but unlike most I encounter, I can't fathom its purpose. Peridon (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the design credit on the W163. While Peter Arcadipane is listed among the inventors of the prototype "AAV" from the Californian Advanced Design Studio (US patent D382833), he is not listed on the patent of the W163 body (US patent D383091). It is possible that Peter Pfeiffer was the main designer, but if you read other Benz bodystyle patents, Bruno Sacco, as the head of design, has his name first on all the Sindelfingen ones. DrX au (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Mercedes-Benz M-Class. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:00, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mercedes-Benz M-Class. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mercedes-Benz M-Class. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:35, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Mercedes-Benz GLE-Class/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MrLinkinPark333 (talk · contribs) 22:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Hello. Thank you for submitting this article to Good Articles Nominations. Unfortuantely, this article will have to be quickfailed due to Wikipedia:Good article criteria#Immediate failures #1 "It is a long way from meeting any one of the six good article criteria". Specifically, this article is a long way from passing criteria #2 Verifiable with no original research. The list below is a list of verification issues summarized into categories. The parts that I'm listing are where the uncited parts start.

Small sentences without citations

[edit]
  • First generation (W163; 1997–2005): "Four-wheel, electronic traction system"
  • Second generation (W164; 2006–2011): "Models using Bluetec Diesel engine "
  • Third generation (W166; 2011–2019): "Open front and rear differentials", "These plants perform final assembly", "In the second half of 2015 a facelifted W166" and "The previous Popemobile"
    • Body variants "The C292 coupe was unveiled"
  • Fourth generation (W167; 2019–present) "The fourth generation GLE-Class was unveiled"

Parts of paragraphs without citations

[edit]
  • First generation (W163; 1997–2005) - Awards subsection from W163 criticism onwards
  • Second generation (W164; 2006–2011) - 1st paragraph (2003 design patents)
    • Facelift 1st, 2nd, and 5th paragraphs (2007 designs, headlights, 2011 edition)
  • Third generation (W166; 2011–2019) - 1st paragraph (refine)
    • Facelift (GLE-Class) - sentences from five-door coupe onwards in the only paragraph

Entire paragraphs without citations

[edit]
  • First generation (W163; 1997–2005): 2nd paragraph (release of W163), paragraphs 5 to 7 (Alabama construction, Ml 430, Jurassic Park)
    • Facelift: 1st and 2nd paragraph (2001 update, 2005 closure)
  • Second generation (W164; 2006–2011): 2nd to 4th paragraphs (new factory, W164 platform, 2006 features)
  • Third generation (W166; 2011–2019) - 3rd paragraph (W166),
  • Fourth generation (W167; 2019–present) - 2nd paragraph (GLE engines)
    • Long-Wheelbase GLE-Class (V167) - 2nd paragraph (LWB GLE size)

Other

[edit]
  • The tables at Engines (1997–2005) and Engines (2019–present) are uncited
  • Most of the production at Production and sales is missing
    • Some of the sales parts are uncited.

Overall

[edit]

Since this is a long list to read, the main things that you need to know are:

  1. Whole uncited paragraphs: four in 1st generation, three in 2nd generation, two in 1st generation facelift subsection, 1 in 3rd generation, 1 in 4th generation, 1 in Long-Wheelbase GLE-Class 4th gen subsection,
  2. Partially uncited paragraphs: three in 2nd generation facelift subsection, one in first generation, one in second generation, one in third generation, one in Facelift (GLE-Class) 3rd generation subsection.

With the twelve whole uncited paragraphs alone, this article is a long way from passing criteria #2 Verifiable with no original research for a Good Article. This is not including the seven additional paragraphs that are partially uncited. Therefore, I will have to quick-fail this article. I hope this review does not discourage you from working on this article. Feel free to nominate this article again in the future once these issues have been resolved. Please also see Wikipedia:Good article criteria for the Good article criteria that reviewers look for in a nomination. Thank you for nominating this article at Good Articles Nominations! :) --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Mercedes-Benz GLA-Class which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-existence of "Long-wheelbase (V167)" GLE

[edit]

While the GLE (W167/V167) is referred to as a long-wheelbase model in India, the dimensions are identical to the international GLE. It appears that the GLE is available as a single wheelbase model across the globe, with a 2,995mm wheelbase. There is no evidence of a 3,075mm-wheelbase GLE, as mentioned on the Wikipedia page. db (talk) 05:01, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Grammar matter

[edit]

While minor, this edit by 750h+ is unnecessary and incorrect. The quoted material is what is being described as “formerly”; the article “the” is not part of that. If, for example, a phrase read, “The electronic musical pioneer Wendy Carlos (formerly Walter Carlos)…”, it would be incorrect to write instead, “The electronic musical pioneer Wendy Carlos (formerly the early electronic musical pioneer Walter Carlos)…”. No modifiers, including articles, belong in the clarifying phrase. Strebe (talk) 17:56, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mercedes-Benz_GLE&oldid=1264135554"