JonathonK

Here it is. What do you think of the new Mercedes-Benz GLC-Class? Is it better than the GLK in appearance? Is it worth trading your GLK for this?

Read the rest on the MBWorld homepage. >>

VentoGT

Awful wheels on the grey one. Looks like a Touareg/Hyundai/etc etc.

I think Mercedes is pulling a 'whoopsie' a la BMW from the Chris Bangle years and making all of their cars look like **** during this new "design language" stint. The new C class looks god awful and drives even worse than it looks [at least in C300 trim--we had one for a month as a loaner]. The new GLC looks ok I suppose but why screw with something that made your vehicle different from the rest in the first place? They still sell the Gelandewagen in basically unchanged form from the 70s, and they are all over $100K---make an iteration or derivation that is ~$50K and a lot more people would buy it I think.

Who knows, I'm not a car designer but whoever in another thread mentioned "nope, looks just like another suppository" was spot on.

oscaar12

It looks like a cheap Rav 4, but what can you expect from a company that sells you a $60.000 Diesel Suv with no spare or runflat tires .Just an air pump and a can of tire sealing crap.What happens if the tire is junk at 4 am in the middle of no where and the tow truck driver comes.I travel a lot at night so I bought a blow up spare from a 350 GLK.

Tate

Weak. 241 horsepower 2.0L turbocharged 4-banger? No thanks. I will keep my 302-hp 3.5L DOHC V6

Alex Bel

As I've already posted on the other tread read 7 articles at the link below before you continue to say "No thanks".
http://media.daimler.com/dcmedia/0-9...=1434589658321

oscaar12

I have had both. The V6 is no neck snapper either. The cost of driving the 4 banger is twice as good as the V6. If I want to drive a hot rod I would buy another Vette or drive my 430 CLK.My diesel will be worth a lot more and have had cost less to drive as your V6.

VentoGT

The 4 banger is noisy and primitive feeling, especially with the garbage 7 speed manumatic clutch transmission. It's going to haunt MB that all of their baseline cars have gone from naturally aspirated V6 motors to noisy gritty 4 bangers that sound like a Hyundai.

BlankProc

+100

I've driven both engines and one does not stand out far from the other in terms of acceleration. The advantage to the 6 is the smoother powerband and a notch quicker acceleration with less lag and jerk. Once you get the turbo-4 off the line it is a little rocket.

Watching people not used to driving the turbo-4 is pretty funny, it's like they're driving manual for the first time, jerking the car all over the place. I actually like the turbo-4 for its mix of practicality and peppiness - but my next car will be less practical - and I'll be feeling the need to get into over 300hp territory.

BlankProc

Overall, the design language seems to me to be no straight lines whatsoever, and I'm not totally sold on it. Good reference example is this 7 series/A8/S-class comparison - http://www.bmwblog.com/2015/06/15/ph...s-and-audi-a8/

I have a feeling they may have bit off more than they can chew with this design strategy, kind of like they did with the striking departure from straight lines in the W210 E, moving to those big bubble lights - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merced...-11-17)_01.jpg

VentoGT

Good references. That bubble light first gen E class looked ungainly unless you got the AMG version. Clean lines from the previous body style still look good today. I cross shopped the E500 when I got my 1991 M5 but wanted a 3 pedal manual [far from new, this was in 2005 when I bought it ]

The lozenge type shape isn't distasteful on the big S class but that doesn't mean it should be forced down the line of every other car [and truck] in the lineup--the style doesn't translate as well to many of the other vehicles, especially the C class in my opinion.

Alex Bel

See picture from the link http://media.daimler.com/dcmedia/0-9...=1434633569228

JoeMa

Big improvement over the outgoing GLK!

bop11

Must have added some weight or became more conservative. 2010 0-60 was suppose to be 6.3 sec. and the 2014 0-60 6 sec (as fast as consumer's report WRX) and the GLC is 6.5 sec. Still not a slouch.

Alex Bel

They are saying the current GLK 350 4MATIC is 0-100 km/h for 6.5 sec, but new GLC 350 e 4MATIC will go for 5.9 sec.

(Boosting: The electric motor kicks in to boost the output of the combustion engine by up to 85 kW, turning the GLC 350 e 4MATIC into a sports car. Acceleration from 0 to 100 km/h takes only 5.9 seconds.)

Despite markedly increased exterior dimensions, a longer wheelbase and a broader scope of equipment, the vehicle's weight has dropped by 80 kilograms.

klipprand

Very happy to see the increase in size and loss of weight over the GLK. Also, happy to see the updated interior, minus the tacked on display. However, not happy to see it starting out with only a T4. All the crossovers we test drove prior to our '13 GLK 350 purchase were down on power with the added weight. That's one of the key drivers behind our purchase was the power. Guess we'll have to wait another year for them to release a 350 or 400 in the US.

Streamliner

To me, it will be the way WE are allowed to configure this ne GLC. With the outgoing GLK, if you wanted the frigging garage door opener, they SHOVED that hideous Panorama Roof down your throat. How ridiculous was that? Luxury is giving the customer choices as to how they want their vehicle built. For the past several years, MB has been taking these choices away. I would buy a new GLK right now, but I hate that Pano Roof and I refuse to let them manipulate me like that on a vehicle that I don't really need, but would buy just for fun. Something as huge, expensive and of such personal preference as the Pano Roof should have been kept as a stand alone option, not as part of a package that includes such mundane and somewhat necessary things like the garage door opener. Sheesh! A frigging garage door opener should be standard equipment on any vehicle sporting the 3-pointed star.

Sivanevets

I like it... very refined and well rounded SUV... but completely different from current GLK..
GLK is making a much bolder statement in style.. better interior goes to GLC

MBKLUE

I'll certainly agree with you on the "well-rounded" part (except for the "well" part).
.
.

MBNA109

Looks is in the eyes of the beholder.

I see some Toareg, Cayenne, GL, GLA, Q5. A hodge podge of all their competitors.

Nothing the sharp edges that stands out & call its own like the X204.

Not making my eyes flutter initially here.

MBNA109

Tell me when you use those 302 Horses?
Here in the US TQ will get you 90% of the fun.
The other 10% helps you pass on the left lane at 55-75 mph.

In a lighter GLC, it adds to a quicker & better handling car.

Cwdawson

It doesn't look too bad, my wife says it looks a lot like her sisters Honda CRV. It should sell good I'm thinking, the shape is nowhere near as polarizing as the GLK was....

Rascally Wabbit

US drivers want torque & the 4 banger turbo will match that of the current 3.5 gas engine. Another change is a new 9 speed automatic transmission. Do not care for the exterior overall but I do prefer the no roof rail look. Interior certainly is upgraded & makes our 2010 look cheap by comparison. Then again ours does not have leather which is really nice even on the earliest models. Still imo the best deal is a '14 GLK250 (diesel). It will be interesting to read what sales are with the new style during the first year.

VentoGT

I'll second this as with the backup camera you had to sign on to some huge freaking premium package with all sorts of other stuff I didn't want to the tune of $3500+. So no backup camera for the wife, who is kinda pissed about it but will live with it.

VentoGT

If it's the same 4 banger Turbo in the GLA, it is unrefined, noisy and I don't care for it. I had a GTI with a 2.0T and 3 pedals and loved it, but a 4 cylinder in a Mercedes costing $40K plus is laughable in my opinion.

The C-class with that motor is a piece. Transmission wise that 9 speed you speak of may be a difference maker.

Alex Bel

I am not sure about GLA, but according to MBUSA the "The 2015 GLA250 SUV" has "2.0L turbo-4with 208 hp".

The new GLC 250 4Matic will have 211hp. Where did you get that this is the same engine?