|
Why is GLK so cheap?
Seems the 2010 GLK350 is about the same price as 2009 C300, if not cheaper. Shouldn't it cost more to build than C class do?
And M class is a lot cheaper than E? I know M is made in US and they use different platforms, but I thought SUVs are usuallymore expensive than similar size sedans? |
Originally Posted by raceway
(Post 3310874)
Seems the 2010 GLK350 is about the same price as 2009 C300, if not cheaper. Shouldn't it cost more to build than C class do?
And M class is a lot cheaper than E? I know M is made in US and they use different platforms, but I thought SUVs are usuallymore expensive than similar size sedans? |
Lets throw some numbers around, these cars are set up for comparison, each equipped with the same options.
C300 Luxury, P1, Pano Roof, Metallic Paint - $39,445 C350 Pano Roof, Metallic Paint - $41,645 GLK350 P1, Heated Seats, Metallic Paint - $39,385 C300 Luxury, 4matic, Pano Roof, Metallic Paint - $41,225 GLK350, 4matic, Heated Seats, Metallic Paint - $41,385 I find it really hard to justify buying a C class now. The GLK seemingly has it beat in every category, price, horsepower, cargo/seating room. At $41,385 its only $200 bucks more than a C300 with the same options, which leaves me to wonder how much the GLK will cut into the C class sales. Something tells me that either the C class will get a price cut for 10, or most likely the GLK will increase its base price for 2010. They have to be very careful though, as any more of a price increase would cut into ML sales, because its not all that hard to come away with an ML in the $40k-$45k range. *of note is that C classes aren't selling for sticker price and you can in most cases do better than the m.s.r.p. numbers stated here off their website. |
great post! It makes me wonder what Mercedes' strategy is. They just raised MSRP of c class last Oct...then GLK came out with such low price.
Originally Posted by chilledbenz
(Post 3310904)
Lets throw some numbers around, these cars are set up for comparison, each equipped with the same options.
C300 Luxury, P1, Pano Roof, Metallic Paint - $39,445 C350 Pano Roof, Metallic Paint - $41,645 GLK350 P1, Heated Seats, Metallic Paint - $39,385 C300 Luxury, 4matic, Pano Roof, Metallic Paint - $41,225 GLK350, 4matic, Heated Seats, Metallic Paint - $41,385 I find it really hard to justify buying a C class now. The GLK seemingly has it beat in every category, price, horsepower, cargo/seating room. At $41,385 its only $200 bucks more than a C300 with the same options, which leaves me to wonder how much the GLK will cut into the C class sales. Something tells me that either the C class will get a price cut for 10, or most likely the GLK will increase its base price for 2010. They have to be very careful though, as any more of a price increase would cut into ML sales, because its not all that hard to come away with an ML in the $40k-$45k range. *of note is that C classes aren't selling for sticker price and you can in most cases do better than the m.s.r.p. numbers stated here off their website. |
lets not the forget tho the the C class is a beautiful looking car and the GLK is awkward and hideous looking jus like its direct competition the X3
|
Or perhaps as a new product it is easier to set the price to reflect the current global conditions.
Lowering the price of the C considerably will greatly affect the residual of our cars, remember most of the C are on lease contracts which may come back to haunt MB. But, I may be wrong:nix: |
C350 - 3615lbs, 6.1sec 0-60mph
GLK350 - 3926lbs, 6.5sec 0-60mph The choice is pretty simple... utility or sportiness? I'm a fan of the GLK, but if I really wanted a UTILITY vehicle, I wouldn't be looking at MB (or BMW for that matter). |
Must be tough for manufacturers like MB, whatever they price a new model at they run into the price points of another of their (myriad range of) models. Can't put it too low because then it's cheaper than C, can't put it too high because then you might as well get an ML...
|
Originally Posted by raceway
(Post 3310874)
Seems the 2010 GLK350 is about the same price as 2009 C300, if not cheaper. Shouldn't it cost more to build than C class do?
And M class is a lot cheaper than E? I know M is made in US and they use different platforms, but I thought SUVs are usuallymore expensive than similar size sedans? Over here. ( Europe. Nederlands ) GLK 280 4MATIC Base without any option (Manual ) add 3000 aprox for auto 62.892,28 Euros C280 4MATIC Base without any option ( automatic ) 53.038,53 Euros ( with options I pad the same amount for my C180 RWD) Not only that you pay High road TAX on SUV's |
I think personally I would purchase a C300 4matic over a GLK 4matic even if they were the same price. i am not very fond of suv's in general and just find the MB sedans to be much more appealing than their suv's.
|
Come on now???
4 Attachment(s)
lets not the forget tho the the C class is a beautiful looking car and the GLK is awkward and hideous looking jus like its direct competition the X3
Seriously, GLK look good if done up right!! Thinking about trading my C in for one, especially for the Price they aoffering in Germany for Military right now. |
^ meh - not catching my eye or getting me too excited. the lines do look pretty awkward to me, and if i really was going to get an SUV i would want it to actually be useful off road which this doesnt look like it is. its like you are removing from it what a SUV was made for and making it a small little city car in its shell.
i am not one of those soccer moms that just "wants to sit higher" and have plenty of available cup holders. personally i very much prefer the lines and overall appeal of fully loaded C300 much more. just my 2 cents, everyone is different. |
Well... the GLK won't have enough cupholders to satisfy any soccermom, nor the utility to scale anything outside the city limits. That being said, I'd still take the GLK over an X3 in a heartbeat. It may not be a beauty queen, but I think it's fugly beautiful and a lot more appealing than an X3.
|
you have to consider the market they're after. It's targeted for the urban upper-middle class family that wanted something roomier than a C, with a decent amount of zip and maneuverability. It's not for everyone and definitely not a replacement for a full sized SUV, but there is a niche market out there. At least that's the vibe I got from Steve Cannon (VP MB Marketing) at his last chat session.
|
So the GLK is not gona be very useful off road, :confused: Have any of you done your research? Im not saying this this is ment to take you in the deep bush, but seriously.... do some research! This thing is for the family that needs the space and and utility for loading, the feel of a car in city, and if required.. the ability to get you through some very rough terraine. It has far more ability off road than most peoples ability to drive off road. Everyone has a personal taste or style so its not for everyone. My wife is not as interested in it as I am. But she a city girl.
|
not saying it can't be taken offroad, just saying that's now how they're marketing it...straight from MB executives. There's what the car is capable of, and what the larger target audience really is through market research. MB saw a hole in their lineup when it came to smaller sized SUV types and filled it with the GLK. It's not for everyone, but there was a sizable audience out there for them to justify putting it into production.
|
Originally Posted by Azn_C300
(Post 3313463)
not saying it can't be taken offroad,
|
all I am saying is if it has nice 20" rims on it and its not a 4matic the effectiveness off-road and in any inclement weather isn't going to be what I would be after if I ever got a SUV. But then again many people nowadays have SUVs that never leave the pavement.
|
Originally Posted by sleewell
(Post 3313574)
all I am saying is if it has nice 20" rims on it and its not a 4matic the effectiveness off-road and in any inclement weather isn't going to be what I would be after if I ever got a SUV. But then again many people nowadays have SUVs that never leave the pavement.
|
i dont understand your last post. are you implying that do i not understand what 4matic is/does? or that i am not getting it on a GLK or what??
i fully understand what 4matic is/does, my post was just saying that a GLK w/o 4matic and that has big, nice, shiny rims wouldn't exactly be the best in off-road situations - am i wrong about that? |
Originally Posted by sleewell
(Post 3313640)
i dont understand your last post. are you implying that do i not understand what 4matic is/does? or that i am not getting it on a GLK or what??
i fully understand what 4matic is/does, my post was just saying that a GLK w/o 4matic and that has big, nice, shiny rims wouldn't exactly be the best in off-road situations - am i wrong about that? Anyway the GLK has an optional offroad package - with that installed it's apparantly quite good off-road (much better than an X3 at least). |
Originally Posted by Azn_C300
(Post 3313463)
not saying it can't be taken offroad, just saying that's now how they're marketing it...straight from MB executives. There's what the car is capable of, and what the larger target audience really is through market research. MB saw a hole in their lineup when it came to smaller sized SUV types and filled it with the GLK. It's not for everyone, but there was a sizable audience out there for them to justify putting it into production.
|
Originally Posted by chilledbenz
(Post 3310904)
Lets throw some numbers around, these cars are set up for comparison, each equipped with the same options.
C300 Luxury, P1, Pano Roof, Metallic Paint - $39,445 C350 Pano Roof, Metallic Paint - $41,645 GLK350 P1, Heated Seats, Metallic Paint - $39,385 C300 Luxury, 4matic, Pano Roof, Metallic Paint - $41,225 GLK350, 4matic, Heated Seats, Metallic Paint - $41,385 I find it really hard to justify buying a C class now. The GLK seemingly has it beat in every category, price, horsepower, cargo/seating room. At $41,385 its only $200 bucks more than a C300 with the same options, which leaves me to wonder how much the GLK will cut into the C class sales. Something tells me that either the C class will get a price cut for 10, or most likely the GLK will increase its base price for 2010. They have to be very careful though, as any more of a price increase would cut into ML sales, because its not all that hard to come away with an ML in the $40k-$45k range. *of note is that C classes aren't selling for sticker price and you can in most cases do better than the m.s.r.p. numbers stated here off their website. maybe i am wrong, it has happened in the past once or twice. but by looking at this post and what i have highlighted in bold i was assuming you could get a GLK w/o 4matic. doesnt make sense to me either, maybe its a just a US thing where people buy SUV's and trucks and they never use them for their intended design. |
Originally Posted by RabbitDad
(Post 3313908)
Wow - they really needed 'market research' to figure out that there are people in the market for a premium smallish SUV? There's this thing called the X3 out there, I hear they've been selling quite a few of them (despite it riding like the shocks are made out of reinforced concrete).
|
Not for nothing but i actually like the look of the new GLK :) if i hadnt gotten my C last year and was in the market for a new ride then the GLK would be it :y certainly the extra space would be great for all the shopping bags i seem to end up with every weekend after a day at the mall :rolleyes:
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:44 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands