What is better between the two?

Hi Paul, I have to decide between a 2000 ML320 and a 2004 Harrier 3.0. Do you have any advice on this decision? Titus

Hello Titus, the 2004 Toyota Harrier 3.0 litre looks better and drives faster than the 2000 Mercedes ML 3.2 litre (163).
The second generation Harrier has sharper and bolder looks with aero dynamic curves. The ML 163 is loftier but regal and noticeably imposing without shouting for attention.
Harrier’s 3.0 litre V6 1MZFE is faster, more punchy and yet better fuel efficient (168 KW@5,400rpm) than the ML 3.2L (160KW@5,600).
Harrier has a higher torque of 304NM@4,400rpm. Engine power is what your engine can do and torque is how fast it does it.
Both Harrier and ML are reasonably stable on the highway thanks to their independent multi-link suspension.
The ML feels firmer on the ground because of its heavier and wider wheel base profile.
Harrier seems more manoeuvrable because of its aerodynamic and less lofty profile. The ML has stronger off road credentials because it has a four wheel drive system with electronic low range system.
On the other hand the Harrier is just an all-wheel drive without low range. Both cars are easy to maintain and the Harrier body parts are more expensive to buy.
The Harrier engine is prone to sludge build up and valve train and timing chain damage. Use of multi grade lubricants blended with detergency is highly recommended.
Both cars are safe with all-round airbags. The ML’s ABS with Electronic Stability Programme and Traction control tips the passive safety scales over Harrier’s ABS with only Traction control.