danykane

Hey All,

I'm brand new to the forum and extremely exited with the possibility of owning a new 2013 GLK350. Never thought I would own one but.....Yippie!

However, I'm considering a couple of cars and I need some experts on this forum to push me over the top on the GLK.

I will be driving approx. 60,000-70,000kms (not miles) every year and I don't know how reliable this car will be? I also have a hard time believing the 20,000kms interval for maintenance?? (which would still put me a three times a year). Heard it's pretty expensive to maintain but I'm guessing it averages out with the 20,000kms service intervals.

I travel (up here in Canada) to some pretty remote areas so safety, comfort and reliability are tops on my list. Can't afford breaking down in the middle of nowhere and no Mercedes dealership around for miles. etc.

Any insight would be so greatly appreciated...and would make my first official post as an MB Owner so much sweeter!

Thanks!
Dan

JALLEN4

I think there are very few cars built today that won't last a couple hundred thousand miles if properly maintained and offer good reliability. The GLK is no exception and is built to a higher engineering standard than most.

The trade-off for the comfort of the car and the luxury features will be the cost of maintenance and replacement parts. This cost will naturally be more expensive than a less expensive vehicle where the initial cost of the sum of parts is less.

I think if you find a good and reliable independent service shop after the warranty period, avoid the more exotic electronic options available, and follow the recommended service suggestions religiously...the cost is manageable.

phil17

I honestly would NOT recommend the GLK or any German make with the miles you are doing. These cars are great but also very complex.

Based on my experience with my 2010 and so far the 2013, it's almost expected something will go wrong (and the dealers often approaches with the same attiude of "you didn't buy this for reliability"). I only put around 15,000kms a year on my car BTW.

It's almost more of a city car. Those 20's will not do well in remote pothole areas. In this price range, you'll be much better served by an RX (boring i know), MDX (much more useful), or the FX (looks kind of cool).

Ultimately it's your money, Reliability does not equal quality. Where the MB uses quality materials to achieve it's refinement and safety, it gives up on simplicity that usually = reliability. Good luck!

JALLEN4

I would respectfully disagree. Mercedes product is sold world-wide and used in some of the most demanding environments known. The 350 6cyl. is well proved as is the 7spd. transmission as long as regularly serviced.

I would agree that the others mentioned are also well built and long lasting but there is nothing inherent in the Mercedes build that foreshadows problems. Put both the Mercedes and its competition on a rack and compare the underside components for design and obvious strength and you will find a very solid car.

The most of the reported problems with the current generation car is in the areas of the ancillary systems that are sometimes reaching to be on the cutting edge of technology. Radar cruise control, self parking systems, and some of the advanced electronics are areas of possible problems. Putting 20' wheels on a hard driven vehicle is a problem but the standard wheels and tires are no more problematic than those of the competition.

It all goes back to the theory that there are few bad choices with today's automobile and you need to own what you are comfortable driving. There are thousands of users in remote locations that would disagree that a GLK is designed as a "city car" for limited use.

bop11

Any new car can/may have problems. Some are more prone than others. With that kind of mileage, in probably sparsely populated areas, I'd look more for dealers with inventory than brands. With all the new electronics, independent shops are getting scarce. A bad pot hole could tear up a shock, strut or axle on any vehicle. A slide in the snow might mean a replaced quarter panel.
I've had 5 MB's two 300 SD diesels, I put over 250,000 miles on each with not a lot of maintenance. The newer ones have so much electronics, I doubt I will drive them that far. I owned 9 VW's but I would not recommend them. The cars are good but the dealers had turned to crap. Maybe just the 7 I've dealt with. I would never recommend for your use any Range Rover. They are beautiful machines but definitely high maintenance. Owned 5.
You may also want to consider that any car you drive that much will have little residual value after 3 years. So pick a car that is fun comfortable but cheap to buy and maintain. Most of all get a good dealer network in your travel area.
The rest of us will enjoy driving our GLK's knowing that should something go wrong, help is close at hand.

venchka

How well has your Subaru performed in your high mileage/back woods travels?

A few thoughts:
You can easily recoup the cost of an engine oil extraction machine and perform oil/filter changes yourself. You can NOT service the transmission yourself. A COMPLETE transmission fluid replacement (~9 liters of fluid) is indicated approximately every 60,000 kilometers. Budget accordingly.
Equip your GLK with 4matic, BI-XENON headlights (critical-you will see the deer & moose sooner) and 17" wheels. Run summer and winter tires according to the season.


My vehicle experience going back a few decades:
1989 Isuzu Trooper II. 135,000+ miles. Cylinder head rebuilt twice. A known problem of the 4 cylinder engine. Otherwise, trouble free.
1999 Volvo S70. 155,500 miles. Engine, transmission & suspension all original when I sold it November, 2012. The alternator failed at 150,000 miles.
2004 Volvo XC70. 125,000+ miles. My daily driver. Engine, transmission & suspension all original. I replaced the starter in November, 2012.
2012 GLK 350 4matic. 15,000 miles. Fingers crossed that it will be as reliable as the Volvos.

Good luck!

Wayne

danykane

Thanks for the replies so far!

Maybe I should clarify. It's not as remote as I probably made it sound...by looking at the territory I cover there are just as many MB dealers as my current Subaru...which the service is garbage where I live. Also have had tons of problems so getting the GLK seemed to be a better fit.

I agree that I put on more than average kms but I only bring my cars into the dealership where I bought the car for service...and follow the maintenance schedule religiously. I don't mind the extra costs for the regular maintenance (The dealer told me and oil change costs $300?) as the intervals of 20,000kms are great.

Are you saying that no matter the case, don't buy this car? I also test drove the Audi Q5, which was great, but even more expensive... I imagine you would say the same about this.

Reading hundreds of posts on this forum (and others) my thought was most MB owners believed this car to be extremely reliable but not a lot mentioned on higher mileage.

Maybe the new questions are:

"Are there any owners out there doing lots of HWY driving with higher mileage?"

"What if I purchased the extended warranty that at least covered me to 160,000kms/ 100,000miles?" (I buy new cars every 2.5 to 3 years so the wife would get this car at around 140,000kms/ 86,000miles...and she puts on very little kms) <-- does this change anything?

I always have a separate AMA (AAA) membership for roadside assistance on top of anything included from a new car purchase so towing from anywhere I would travel is not a problem.

Thanks again everyone!

venchka

I didn't say "Don't buy it."
I did say to buy it with the extra cost headlights, 4matic and 17" wheels for your comfort and safety up there in the Great Frozen Northland.

Wayne

shotgun_banjo

You better buy something else. I'll say go for a japanese car and I wont even consider the lux brands. If suvs are your liking and v6 is must then the rav4 is a good buy (if you can still get it on with a v6 engine) look at subarus as well. In terms for creature comfort the regular brands wont be as close but are descent enough and you wont worry to much of its components failing in the middle of nowhere without a dealer near you.

bop11

If you have a good dealer network, and the vehicle meets your other requirements, space, driver size etc., I would not hesitate to buy GLK. Mine is quite comfortable on my weekend trips from PA to CT of over 150 miles each way. Sound level is low, seats is comfortable, engine cruises at 80 mph not feeling pushed, good space for stuff, no problem through a couple of snow storms. With 40,000 miles on it in 2 years, I would buy another should they be available when I need a new one.
I agree with venchka about the lights and 4 matic. Probably want sat radio for those long hauls between cities.

Gt. Dane

I wouldn't be afraid to buy a German car. In a recent study on total cost of ownership German cars won for more vehicle classes than Japanese cars. www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/new-cars/auto-news/total-cost-of-ownership-more-important-than-a-cars-sticker-price/article5621646/

venchka

Epic FAIL! Add the CR-V and anything from Hundai, Kia, etc. too.
The most fun you can have on the road is driving a Northern European vehicle and sucking the doors off of little Asian Cute Utes on two lane roads.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Wayne

BarrettF77

I concur on the VW. Quality is so so and the dealership experience has become a joke. I feel like I'm being left in the dark with VW service every time and all 3 dealers around me have usually damaged the car each time it's in. Why pay good money when the very company that supports your car damages it and shrugs it off as not a big deal. I like German cars and I think MB has tried to make big strides in reliability. Nothing is perfect, but Audi is incredibly overpriced and as they are owned by VW, you get a very similar service experience.

danykane

I bought the Subaru based on reliability and reputation. But I got better servicing (WAY BETTER) from my Hyundai Elantra dealership. My Subaru now has 140,000kms on it and its a 2010 Forester XT Turbo AT.

The car is nimble with great AWD and power ... but lots of problems so I'm never buying Subaru again. This also shows that even with a great reputation any car can be problematic. The difference is getting a very good cross section of GLK owner opinions so I can see if the GLK is a worthy choice.

Everybody's info is really making a difference and I am grateful.

Thanks.

lyonkster

Just goes to show you how everyone's experience may be different even for the same car. Our 2004 Forester (granted, not turbo) has just clocked 170,000 miles (not km). I have done all the maintenance on it since new, and the only non-maintenance related item that it ever needed has been a pair of new axles. $100 and 2 hours later it was good as new again.

Loved that car, hope our new (2011) GLK can come close to its reliability.

venchka

Had there been a Volvo dealer less than 100+ miles away, our 2012 GLK 350 would have been either a Volvo XC70 or XC90. That said, I do like the GLK 350 more than our 3 previous Volvos. Except when it comes to cargo capacity. Volvo wins that contest every time!

Wayne

lyonkster

We seriously considered the XC70 and XC60 before settling on the GLK. We just couldn't understand the Volvo pricing - they were more $$ than the GLK, and you had to beg borrow or steal to try to get the right combo of options, such as Nav, turbo, etc. And we could not find a CPO XC60 anywhere, so we went with the GLK. I can't figure out why the Volvos are so expensive, is it all the safety features?

venchka

Our GLK 350 came out more than either an XC70 or XC90 with similar equipment. Go figure. In a perfect world, we would have ordered the Volvo exactly the way we wanted it and picked it at the factory.

Wayne

lyonkster

Maybe it's a matter of location. Our local dealer could not show us a vehicle that was equipped as we wanted (i.e. a turbo with nav and premium plus or whatever the package was), so we threw in the towel and went with the GLK. Of course we had to get our GLK on the other side of the country, but that's a separate story .

venchka

We built our GLK and waited 3 months. Worth it to get what we wanted. Way worth it to add the lighting package at the last minute before the build was locked in. Most, maybe all, vehicles on the lot are semi-stripped. The GLK that we drove the day we ordered ours was semi-loaded with P-1, Keyless Go, Sport & Multimedia. Glad it was because we definitely wanted all of those packages.

Wayne

danykane

You are absolutely right with your post. Which is why I know there are risks with driving ANY new car with this amount of mileage.

I also test drove the XC60 and thought it was nice too but I was hoping to hear more owners of GLK's to tell me that they bought their GLK because they are built to last and should have no worries with higher mileage and proper maintenance.

This thread seems to be split right down the middle and I'm not sure what to do?

I also test drove the Hyunai SantaFe, GMC Terrain, Volvo XC60, Audi Q5 (2.0 & 3.0), Lincoln MKX, Ford Edge and others. All have strengths and weaknesses.

Tough.

If anyone can make specific claims to why I shouldn't get the GLK (based on personal experience) that would also help.

lyonkster

I can't really help you regarding GLKs since I haven't even received mine yet. I sure hope that it proves to be reliable.

I'm glad I'm not alone, we did the same thing. It was funny that in the end, we were torn between the 2011 GLK and the 2012 Santa Fe... It seemed funny to say to our friends "yeah, can't decide, Mercedes or Hyundai?"...

GLKKa2H

As the mileage of our 2010 GLK is too low to support you with its experience, I'll just draw your attention to:

● the number of reports regarding the transfer case/transmission failures of GLKs reported on this - and a German GLK forum, yet to be proven if resolved by the 2013s;

● the 350 GLK has now the new DI engine, reliability to be proven in due course;

● the TrueDelta Mercedes-Benz GLK-Class Reliability Comparisons: http://truedelta.com/Mercedes-Benz-G...eliability-829.

With the high mileage in question here, we, in the Arctic go for diesels, with Volvo XC 70, Toyota Land Cruiser and Mitsubishi Pajero being the most popular (and reliable?) ones. And MB C- and E-class (diesel!) taxies.

danykane

Thanks for the info.

I looked around for issues with transfer case/transmission failures but didn't come up with much. I have spent much time on this forum and it's encouraging to see that most owners of late model GLK are quite satisfied with their purchase. If I end up getting the GLK I'll probably be a very good guinea pig test subject for reliability & servicing.

I just hate crossing over into the "unknown"...which is sort of what all this feels like.

BarrettF77

That's what I'm doing with a '13 GLK on order right now. But after my experience with VW, not much else could be worse than where I am.