LILRAJA

anybody cross shop these?
Just curious to know.

MtnMachine

It is OK to tow a Cayenne with a GLK, but do not try towing a GLK wiht a Cayenne.

As soon as I found out the GLK would not fit in the back of the Cayenne, I took it off my shopping list.

To get a Cayenne faster than a GLK, you must go to the V8. Bigger engine and much more weight means less mpg for Cayenne. $30k+ more for Cayenne and more expensive to operate/maintain.

GLK dimensions are smaller, it weighs much less. Not sure about actual interior space.

webada

er. no, its out of range of GLK pricing. specs might be comparable but not price. I guess if $ isn't the issue, i would choose Cayenne than again if that were the case, I would probably buy a G500 AMG....

MtnMachine

Cayenne S has an MSRP of $60k, V8, 384 HP, 6 speed manul std or 6 auto option, 13/19 mpg and 0-60 in 6.4 sec and curb weight of 4,949 lb. "Oink" If you know Porsche, absolutely everything you want on the car is extra. You are looking at $75k, if you get a good discount. The S is not one of the best looking Cayennes. See GTS, Turbo and Turbo S all much more expensive.

GLK loaded will be about $46k with 20" wheels etc. Close interior dimensions, curb weight 913 lbs less, 0-60 in 6.5 (tenth sec slower), 16/21 mpg and a 7 speed, Stronic automatic std.

So the Cayenne provides tenth of a second better 0-60 performance for all the extra $$$ and with all the Cayenne weight, expect to go through tires and breaks every 10 months. I know because my wifes Range Rover is about the same weight as the Cayenne. Again, the better looking Cayennes have $70k and $80k MSRPs, before all the techno adds, appearance adds, etc.

Not sure what would make me want the Cayenne S.

NYCGLK

You can apply this logic to anything. GLK vs RAV4 (or Highlander), why would you want GLK? Most likely for the same reason one would take Cayenne over GLK.

Also Porsches are know to be rather conservative with their 0-60 numbers, I would not be surprised if Cayenne S does 0-60 in 6 flat.


I think the question of this forum should be used cayenne vs new glk to bring price difference down and still 2 are very different cars. If I could buy cayenne I would not be looking at GLK.

MtnMachine

I agree and disagree with you NYCGLK.

GLK is not an A to B practical transportation buy decision. You spend more for the brand and added cache over RAV4 etc. That is also the most basic reason to buy Cayenne S over GLK. Other reasons could be you like Cayenne looks and bigger size, even if not more interior room. We agree on personal preferrence for style, size and panache as decision drivers.

Where I disagree is the analogy that a RAV4 or Volvo XC60 or Acura RDX is as similar in engineering/featues/Brand to the GLK as the GLK is to the Cayenne.

MB/Porsche, especially in SUV segment, are much closer in brand cache/panache than RAV4, Acura RDX are to GLK. IMO Also, you cannot buy a RAV4/Acura RDX that comes close in engineering features/sophistication to GLK. GLK can go engineering feature for feature with Cayenne S and better it in some. All wheel drive tech, trans, chassis/suspension control systems, safety tech, etc are all toe to toe.

So, we are back to what I agree with you on. If price is not the issue, it is a personal preferrence choice for size, design, brand cache.

NYCGLK

Agree on the brand point for US...mercedes and porsche are almost in the same prestige league. However, GLK is not really a typical MB car in US either. It reflects more of what MB is in europe, where MB is much closer to Toyota than to porsche. Taxi cabs, police and rentals are MB's over there.

Also, I would not say that not much engineering goes into rav 4. It's just different kind or engineering. It's made not to break for next 200k and require minimum maintance. I agree that GLK is surely more sophisticated than RAV 4, but that's subjective. I think Acura is very close to GLK, it has better AWD system, more fuel efficient engine and runs the same numbers on the track (it need new trasmission tho in place of 5 speed). So I think RDX is closer to GLK than GLK is to Cayenne S from engineering perspectve. And from luxury perspective i think acura is on par if not better than GLK, and Cayenne S is also better than GLK.

Bottom line is this in this order of luxury/sophistication (of course in my opinion which will differ from everybody else's:
Rav4---Cx7---RDX/EX35--GLK/Q5---Cayenne S

DerekACS

Really ???

You should remember that the Acura is essentially a FWD vehicle with slip and grip AWD. It is not nearly as sophisticated engineering wise as the MB 4Matic system which is full time 4 wheel drive.
As far as fuel consumption is concerned for the Acura RDX, remember it has a turbo charged engine. Every report that I have read on this vehicle mentions the disappointing fuel consumption, especially for city use.

NYCGLK

If rdx uses the same AWD as MDX I think you are wrong. Their AWD is closer to Audi's quatro and BMW's xdrive, where torque is channeled where it needs to be under different conditions. GLK just sends 55 back 45 front. Read reviews on Acura's AWD system, magazines claim it's top AWD system.

As far as fuel consumptions it's all about what you expect. They expect high mpg's because it's 4 cyl. I'm just saying it's not worse if not better then GLK's with same perfromance.

I like GLK better that RDX. Is GLK better that RDX? Not sure if it's possible to answer that question after taking into consideration every relevant aspect (features, options, performance, price, realibility etc. etc.).

DerekACS

If you unable to answer this question at this time, then I would respectfully suggest that you have not yet had the opportunity to fully appreciate the vast amount of engineering that has gone into the GLK and MB's previous 4Matic models. MB has been building 4 wheel drive vehicles for more than 100 years; I don't think that MB needs to take any lessons from Honda/Acura when it comes to 4 wheel drive engineering.

For a more detailed explanation of 4Matic, check out this link:

http://www.emercedesbenz.com/Dec08/0...In_Detail.html

NYCGLK

You are right, I never owned one. I based my opinion on various test drives by somewhat independed and unbiased magazines that get to drive pretty much every single car there is under controled conditions.

As far as your link goes of course MB will describe it in such detail that you would think it's the best there is. I think it's a fact from all reviews that MB's AWD is not perfromance oriented, off-road capability -yes, on-road stability -yes, spirited driving - no. Every magazine says GLK's hadling does not feel as sporty as RDX or EX35 and it's partly due to the differences in how their AWD systems work.

And as far as 100 years go, that does not mean anything Ford and GM have been building cars for very long time....

Lastly, my original point was that even tho GLK is more sophisticated it's also more expensive (optioned in the same way as RDX), so for somebody money will be more important, for others engineering/sophistication of GLK is. Also some ppl think GLK is ugly, I'd guess you and I like it better than any other small SUV. That's why I said you can't say GLK is better than RDX, it's matter of personal preference.

Not trying to be a hater of MB, as I'm looking into buying one, just trying to be objective.

thebishman

The RDX does have extremely poor fuel economy in real world driving conditions. Also, it's AWD system is not full-time AWD like the GLK; the computer sends drive rearwards when necessary.

Lastly, while the RDX may perform somewhat better during certain driving situations, (not real world I would say), it does so at the expense of a punishing ride versus the GLK, and just about everything else within the segment. If a person is cross shopping these vehicles, they had best spend plenty of time driving the RDX on poorly conditioned roads to have a feel for the ride it offers. The GLK however, even on the optional 20" wheels/tyres, has an excellent ride re: confort, AND handles very well. I have been most impressed at the driving dynamics of mine.

IMHO, the GLK is well worth any premium over a comparable equipped RDX.

Bish

NYCGLK

^^^agreed

How is GLK's ride on rough roads? I read in magazines that GLK's suspension results in headtoss. We have terrible roads in NJ, which is one of the reasons I'd like an SUV that can just plow through the potholes and whatever is in the way as well as can be decent on good roads in terms of handling. My understading it's not Lexus smooth.

DerekACS

Here's a link to two different reviews of the GLK that might help answer your question :

http://www.canadiandriver.com/2008/0...s-benz-glk.htm

http://autos.canada.com/news/story.h...8-213649c18286

ftttubrgcm

As I have said, the 2007 RX we traded in for the GLK had a nicer ride than the 2010 RX we test drove but the 2010, with its new suspension, handled better than the older RX. I only rode in the backseat but I could feel the details in the roadway, unlike our 2007. Also, I could hear the rear hatch rattling due to roadway imperfections. The GLK, I believe, is just a smooth or smoother than our 2007 RX but handles as good or better than the 2010 RX. We put out an order to our Lexus dealer to find an AWD in the right color but after driving the GLK later that day, the RX no longer interested us.

chilledbenz

1. Porsche Cayenne (v6) starts at $45k and isn't entirely out of the GLK range. Although I would employ anyone to try and find a base model Cayenne on the lot, it just doesn't happen and option's are pricey.

2. RDX engine is a dog. Yes on paper it looks like a beast and it would be if it where in a Civic..oh my in a Civic..drools. The problem is the RDX is too heavy for that engine and it spends too much time spooling up trying to catch up with that weight.

3. I cross shopped the Cayenne when I bought my last ML. It just didn't feel right, almost an after thought in their lineup. Inside and out the look and feel just wasn't right and I ended up going with the ML. The Cayenne has since been refreshed and I think there is a new one the way. Either way I'd rather have the ML and if I needed more boost..a ML63.

boylston

I had a Porsche Cayenne diesel for the afternoon yesterday. It is a nice vehicle with a bit more interior space than the GLK, but a totally different feel. The car I was driving stickered at almost double the GLK. I was happy to get back to my sportier GLK last night.

dcjwlee

OP - No.

I didn't even know Cayenne was available with a V6 and a base MSRP of ~$49,000. IMO, I find it more attractive than the current-gen ML.

My GLK is only optioned with the Becker wiring, heated seats, iPod integration, and maybe another small option that I am forgetting. OTD ~$38,000 IIRC. The Porsche starts at $49,000 and like other have said, "Good lucky finding a base model."

I don't know if they really couldn't find one or were just pushing this particular car onto me but I had originally wanted a base RWD with no options. I was told this type of car was not typically stocked in the NE and given the alternative of a 4Matic w/ heated seats.

ashwats

Waiting to see how Macan would compare with GLK.

dbtk

I am considering a 2013 GLK250 BTC when it comes out. I currently drive a 2011 Cayenne Turbo but would welcome the opportunity to have a smaller (exterior dimensions) SUV that is significantly more fuel efficient. I like the styling of the GLK (especially the redesigned front end).

JasonMayes

Comparing the GLK with the Cayenne......

MAYBE the Macan when it comes out, but we're not going to see that at the dealership here in a while.

MUCH different feel, MUCH different drive, Space..everything...

HUGE difference, please drive both. The V6 in the GLK is huge for a small SUV in the GLK, and the Cayenne is great in the V6, but really screams with the GTS engine.

$49k for a Cayenne, not happening. I think the cheapest I've ever seen was in the 63-65 range. Most expensive GLK I've personally seen was in the $52k range.

rmfnla

My brother has a Cayenne with the V6 and he says it's a dog; too slow and not good gas mileage.

He drove my GLK and said it was much better, especially for the price.

dcjwlee

With the '13 GLK I can get 28-30 mpg on my daily commute if I travel below ~60 mph (a bit slower on flats and up hills, a bit faster going down hill). I won't lie that it is a delicate dance trying not to dangerously impede traffic but I was pretty surprised.

"Normal" driving with moderate overtaking will still net me around 25 mpg on my particular commute which is ~95% highway.

Coming from a C300, the added utility is nice and the mpg change isn't really drastic enough to notice.

Rixard