If you're looking for the most fuel efficient, gorgeous big SUV, this is it.

The Spies are back in Idaho this week testing the new 2008 Mercedes ML and GL550 SUV’s.

We will be driving them tomorrow and will be posting photo galleries and videos all day long so keep checking the homepage for updates.

The BIG treat so far was getting our first seat time in the ML320 and GL320CDI diesels.

We’re sure the new 550’s that we drive tomorrow will be impressive but it would be hard for us to say no to the diesel versions if we were in the market right now.

In our two hour drive from Boise today we got OVER 30MPG on the ML and in a short test this afternoon, I was getting 25MPG in the honking big GL320CDI (see MPG computer photos)!

How could you buy a Suburban or a Tahoe and get 11MPG when you can get virtually the same room in the GL (see photo size comparison)?

There is no question if ANYONE asks me what large SUV to buy, I would put the GL and ML diesel’s first on the list.

Mercedes does diesels right!

Awesome!

Check out our teaser photos and keep checking AutoSpies.com often for updates…

david989 - 8/6/2007 7:49:29 PM

-8 Boost

The old Toyota Landcruiser next to it is more fuel efficient. I'd take that anyday over this wannabe SUV.

enthusiastx11 - 8/6/2007 10:48:18 PM

+7 Boost

we'll all know you're just a parody of the lexus freaks.

for the those of you who might take his comments seriously, the landcruiser gets similar mileage to the giant american SUVs.

ICON - 8/7/2007 1:05:58 AM

+6 Boost

Yeah david989 we get it already...toyota/lexus make the best vehicles in the world and you wouldn't buy any other kind...blah-blah-S T F UP!!! and let the rest of us have an intelligent dialogue.

MaranelloMaster - 8/6/2007 8:28:00 PM

+5 Boost

True, the 'slade may look flashier and definitely has great road presence (the GL looks exceptionaly nondescript from the rear...), but the engineering is nopt really as good (its essentially a Suburban with a few more bits of chrome and a different engine) and the mileage is horrid compared to the CDI GL.

Personally, I would take a Range Rover, even though it's smaller - because its interior is unmatched by ANY of its competitors.

cdoke - 8/6/2007 11:07:27 PM

+1 Boost

utahnkid,

"I WOULD agree about the Range Rover.. When it had the pre-Jaguar engine"

Why? The Jaguar engines are " more powerful, more fuel efficient and cleaner than the BMW engine it replaced "

Rupert - 8/7/2007 5:10:36 AM

+1 Boost

I've been in an Escalade and the interior was nothing to write home about, and certainly wasn't up to the same standard as the Germans or Lexus.

pushrod27 - 8/7/2007 2:51:05 PM

+2 Boost

You guys are lost. The Escalade has ten times the style and presence of any other large suv. Only the Range Rover comes close. Not to mention the 400 horses. Say what you want, I'll take an Escalade ESV all day and be one happy camper.
Especially with gas prices the way they are, driving a block-long Escalade makes a loud statement of power and wealth that few other vehicles can match. They are extremely comfortable inside as well.

S4cabriofoxone - 8/7/2007 8:32:05 PM

+1 Boost

utah, if I remember, your family owns an Escalade, so I would have to say that you're a bit biased. I don't own any of these SUVs, and I can say with confidence that I'd take a GL320 CDI. The Escalade is flashier, but for some people, that's not a good thing; its interior is also far cheaper than the top-notch, RR-equalling Benz.

No, the Caddy isn't cheap on the inside, but for the price, it should be better. Before you tell me how great of a value it is, you can get an extremely well-equipped GL320 CDI for $65K, which is similar to a well-optioned, gas-guzzling Escalade. And if you need a gas-guzzler with some class, you could get the Range Rover or GL450. Range Rover too much money? Buy used. Or even a Range Rover Sport. I just wouldn't buy an Escalade, although I like the Yukon Denali.

dumpsty - 8/9/2007 10:22:49 AM

+1 Boost

Both SUVs have a definite presence. But the Escalade is much more flashier by design. I'm glad M-B chose to make the GL fairly "low-key", where most people don't even give them a second look. I don't think GL was intended to be flashy either, but to simply imply reliability, luxury, and exclusiveness.

Did anyone mention that bimmermike is an ass? Such mockery is ridiculous. And an attempt to emulate something he’s seen on MTV (or BET) only displays his ignorance of other cultures.

budfrogS4 - 8/7/2007 8:30:19 AM

+1 Boost

I don't know MB's displays very well but could that be trip mpg? I know Audi has a current and trip mpg display.

EL34 - 8/6/2007 9:05:54 PM

-2 Boost

Thank you Agent Double O One for the excellent photography.

audirevolution - 8/6/2007 11:00:04 PM

+1 Boost

Impressive MPG.
Diesels are definately the future.

DiamondJim - 8/6/2007 11:58:53 PM

+1 Boost

don't know if anyone would be cool enough to explain this, but while i was at the revamped BP filling up with 93 octane gas, i saw an option on the same pump for Diesel fuel yet it said it was only 40 Octane.

If Diesel is only 40 octane, doesn't that suggest there will be other sorts of problems like carbon clogging up the fuel injectors and carbon buildup in the combustion chambers.

if diesel is the future then why is the octane so low?

cdoke - 8/7/2007 12:16:27 AM

+3 Boost

From my understanding octane ratings are a sort of general rating of the ignition volatility of the fuel. Diesel would burn slower, perhaps but I would imagine that the difference is insignificant with respect to the amount of time the chamber is allowed to combust.

So it may combust slightly slower, but that does not necessitate that it will burn any less completely.

cdoke - 8/7/2007 12:30:15 AM

+3 Boost

Thinking about it...

It may not even be that complicated. You would think I would have a ready answer given that I am a Petroleum Engineer. A low octane rating corresponds to a higher tendency to autoignite. Diesel therefore has a higher tendency to autoignite- which is good for the functioning of a deisel engine.

After all that I am going to end up at the same thing. The octane rating, to my knowledge, has no correlation with the completeness of combustion. So any emissions differences are a function of the difference in chemical makeup between gasoline and diesel.

chewy - 8/7/2007 2:28:41 AM

+3 Boost

cetane, buddy, not octane. 40 cetane is perfectly fine for a diesel engine, completely different measurement system

DiamondJim - 8/8/2007 1:06:05 AM

+2 Boost

excellent cdoke

zoogies - 8/7/2007 12:08:11 AM

+1 Boost

That was a mistake to drive those in Idaho. Being a Mercedes diesel, they were probably really expensive and driving in Idaho is just stupid because they're the worst drivers in the whole country. I live in Utah so I would know because they come over here all the time. Like 50% of all accidents are the fault of Idahoans.

Threepoint1415926 - 8/7/2007 2:00:32 PM

+1 Boost

Diesel is expensive in Idaho for some reason... I could say the same about Utahians! But I dont have to considering which state is green and which state is orange in this article:
http://www.autospies.com/news/Like-We-Didn-t-Already-Know-Study-Shows-36-Million-Licensed-Americans-Unfit-To-Drive-15562/

zoogies - 8/7/2007 5:36:07 PM

+1 Boost

Yeah that's true, Utah drivers also suck. But only because they (excluding myself) use the right lane as a driving lane, not a passing lane. It bugs me. And also, I should be clear that the only Idaho drivers that are bad are the ones from Franklin County. Now they are some naive and stupid people there.

Threepoint1415926 - 8/7/2007 6:45:26 PM

+1 Boost

You mean the left lane, no? Left lane is for passing. I think that's something that all states have in common... slow people cruise in the left lane and feel comfortable there for some reason when they need to keep right. I keep a white board in my car with "keep right" written in reflection for my fellow driver's education. If the cops are too busy "teaching" speeders than I figure I owe it to my community. I know in CO (my other home) left lane bandits are a HUGE problem. Bigger than here in ID.

Oh, btw, you think franklin county is bad? Watch out for anyone with "2C" - Canyon County

xj13 - 8/7/2007 1:04:44 AM

0 Boost

I had a diesel X5, and once you've driven a diesel there's no going back, I would get 500 miles to a tank.
I mean 500 newtons of torque at 2100 rpms, wow.

1) RANGE ROVER
2)GL550
3)X5

Htay7500 - 8/7/2007 6:24:06 AM

0 Boost

I prefer the lc because of its reputation and history but these cars aren't bad. Its good to have these kind of cars. Its a really good combo of both fuel-efficiency and 7 seating on the gl.

Htay7500 - 8/7/2007 6:28:07 AM

+1 Boost

the escalade IS NOT An OFF ROADER. I'd take anything else over that.

M35MT - 8/7/2007 8:08:03 AM

0 Boost

I love MB's cars, but something about their SUV's puts me to sleep...I think the styling works somewhat better on the smaller ML, and the interior only looks good in black (whereas the Range is beautiful in cashmere/ivory/etc.)

enthusiastx11 - 8/7/2007 12:49:16 PM

+2 Boost

it's amazing how every 'friend' you know who owns a german car gets a lemon.

most of my social circle drives german (bmw, mercedes, audi, porsche) and i have yet to hear these horror stories that you have. and even people who have had minor problems (high tech stuff like cupholder malfunction) wouldn't trade their cars for some benign people mover.

I95SPEEDINGTICKETS - 8/7/2007 8:51:05 AM

+5 Boost

I have to bring up this topic

The Audi Q7 Diesels are Very Good especially the new 4.2 TDI (326bhp & 760nm) which Propels the Q7 to 62mph in 6.4 secs. That is the same time the 4.8i Petrol BMW X5 needs to achieve the same task.

Even the 3.0TDI produces 230bhp and 500nm.

MeanVulcan - 8/7/2007 12:07:53 PM

+2 Boost

Too boxy=not sporty. Besides most people that can afford a luxury SUV do not prioritize fuel efficiency. For a more complete package (handling, performance, practicality, looks and fuel efficiency) I'll take the Q7 over any other luxury SUV. Bring the V8 TDI to the US and its a no contest on any category.

enthusiastx11 - 8/7/2007 12:46:03 PM

+2 Boost

sorry guy, but have you noticed the massive consumer interest in all things 'green?' giant cars that get 11mpg are becoming politically incorrect.

affluent american families are the ones most aware of environmental issues and are most interested in being perceived as 'green.' these are the same families buying luxury SUVs.

though we're hardly saving the planet with these things, buyers will notice the fuel economy.

MeanVulcan - 8/8/2007 11:57:11 AM

+1 Boost

Clearly I was not referring to the Hummers or other super gaz guzzlers. I was referring to new SUVs such as the Q7 and specifically the TDI which has a much better than 11 mpg. A trend to support environmental concerns does not mean these same people looking to buy a luxury SUV will put fuel efficiency as their #1 priority. I would not buy this SUV if it gave me a few mpg better than a Q7 because fuel efficiency, although important, is not my deciding factor. Because you do not agree with my view doesn't mean that I'm at the other extreme, I simply do not hold fuel efficiency as my #1 deciding factor, as many other do.

farabira1 - 8/7/2007 5:58:19 PM

+1 Boost

Look when people buy SUVs in the margin of above 50 thousand they are not really looking for fuel efficiency, because they already have the buck to pay 50 grand so fuel cost should not matter to them. What matters is pedigree, legacy, and of course class leading accountability in performance, prestige, ride comfort, luxury, and off road ability. If all this characteristics are considered, then undoubtedly the only SUV that can truly call itself to be a master of these attributes is the one and the only Range Rover. Even though the GL may have more power than the Range Rover, it just can not match its half century of proven magnificence. And also look at that interior, i am sorry to say this but Mercedes really seems to have downgraded their quality with these unattractive, and fairly cheap looking materials so much so that anyone who has had the chance to sit inside a Range Rover will not consider it nothing more than shabby.

MeanVulcan - 8/8/2007 12:02:20 PM

+1 Boost

Mostly agree, except that most people in the luxury SUV market could care less about off-road capability and much more on on-road performance and safety, as well as styling and comfort. Considering this, I think the Range Rover, although nice looking, has no value compared to the MB, Q7 or even the X5. It's more expensive than these SUVs but does not offer better performance, comfort and cargo space.
Range Rover is all about the name, much like Jaguar, except the Range Rover is the best SUV at what people do not really desire - off-roading, while the Jaguar is not best at anything.

elCHUY - 8/7/2007 6:20:09 PM

+1 Boost

the most i can get from my c230 is 27mpg :(

speedmaster - 8/7/2007 6:28:44 PM

+1 Boost

Funny how they have a picture of a FJ40 and someone makes the comment that it has better gas mileage.

I don't think so.

I have a restored Land Cruiser Fj40 w/ original engine and tranny like the one pictured but 10X better in appearance.
I can never get better than 8 mpg. The MPG depends on how you tune the carb. Ever heard of a carburettor?
I'm on various land cruiser boards,most fj40 owners get 15 mpg tops. I know, if someone offered me the merc, I'd trade my fj for it in a heart beat. the FJ40 is very uncivilized.
Sure, it looks macho and is cool but a daily driver, it is not. Trust me on this... Coming from an owner.
99% of you would never survive 2 miles in a fj - no power steering, heavy steering, 3 speed stick shift with locking hubs, it wobbles, top speed of 80 mph. And did I say, heavy steering? The thing is hard to drive physically. And no A/C.

I'd take the mercedes. But since I own a Range Rover Sport. I'd stick to my beloved Rover.

Rupert - 8/7/2007 6:52:56 PM

+1 Boost

Do you just show off the FJ or do you drive it off-road or compete in rallies.

It's pretty cool that you have a working 50 year old car on your drive.

We had a 1992 Range Rover, that was agricultural enough! I remember the draughts through the door handles...

Threepoint1415926 - 8/7/2007 6:53:48 PM

+1 Boost

Why does the argument with diesels always have to be fuel usage.... Can you consider someone buying a diesel because they like diesels? I can, because I'm one of them! Diesels (and specifically this motor) are a perfect match for the character of SUV's in my opinion. Need some stump pulling power with your SUV, perhaps to get that big boat out of the water, no problem. Want some instant uphill pulling power for passing that stupid camper on a mountain road, got you covered. Oh yeah! and it gets great mileage! The mileage issue to someone like me is a bonus, not the reason for purchase.

speedmaster - 8/7/2007 8:29:47 PM

+1 Boost

Rupert,

My FJ40 is a show-off car I take to Starbucks. It's not 50 years old. It is 35. I used to take my newer FJ60 offroading and Discovery.

I plan to take the RR Sport off road in 2 years (after the newness wears out). Getting real offroad tires for ANY SUV is really hard now. I cant even find 17-18" wheels for the RRS.

I'm looking trade my FJ for a 91-97 FZJ80 landcruiser or Range Rover classic.

Rupert - 8/8/2007 7:32:54 AM

+1 Boost

35 is still pretty old...

Tip with Range Rover classics - if it has air suspension, and it goes wrong, don't fix it, replace it with regular springs. We had that done on ours when the car started to sink.