Looks ugly though. The 2006 ML probably looks better.
http://forums.autoweek.com/thread.jspa?forumID=31&threadID=11326&messageID=213611
http://forums.autoweek.com/thread.jspa?forumID=31&threadID=11326&messageID=213611
ML vs. X5 looks: wait for both cars to come out w/o camouflage and then compare apples to apples. Look at the ML Spy shots here (http://www.cardomain.com/id/brenttush8382) and compare them to the link in the first post - all camouflaged it was an ugly duckling too.nissanlove said:your right murano 123 the new 2006 ml does look better. way better if you ask me. this new x5 looks really short. maybe bmw is planning on scraping the x3(which they should) , slot the x5 in around that area and build a much larger x7 based on the 7 series platform. although they do have the engines right, it's said that there will be a v10 to rival that of the porshce cayyene turbo.
this is the new mercedes ml
Mercedes ML63
agreed. i seen a 2003 X5 pretty cheap lets say alot cheaper than my 07Test drove 2003 X5 this weekend and it is shorter than the MO, heavier, harder to turn and you can feel when gears shift.
MO still number 1!