levale

I drive a 2010 c300 4 matic and the wife drives a GLK 350 4 matic.
The msrp on these 2 vehicles are within $120.00 of each other.
With the Glk she gets a larger engine, larger wheels, more steel,
Panaramic roof, and better interior. What am I not seeing with
the C300??

Sportstick

Much as it pains me to respond to someone who describes their spouse as a thing.....here's the answer. You are not missing anything looking at the C. You are just looking in the wrong place. The pricing for the C and the GLK are primarily based on positioning against their competitors and not against each other...C versus other upscale C segment sedans, and GLK against other small premium SUVs. The analysis is done with both base and typical content for each segment, so content variations between segments (car vs. SUV) are not determinative. Some consideration may be given to the showroom step, but the primary metrics for each brand manager will be his volume and share of his segment, therefore, the pricing target is more heavily weighted by what the direct competition is doing. A long history of data suggests that most buyers will cross consider comparable models (C vs. 3 vs. A4) and compare those prices, versus a minority who only cross shop within the MB showroom. But, even if that happens, the corporation is fine regardless of which model you find the better deal.

MBnewby

handling may be better in the sedan but if i could have either for similar pricing i'd take glk any day...

levale

I didn"t nor would I ever refer to my Wife as a thing,
and I love my C300. I am just trying to justify the price.
As far as pure value, the GLK blows it away.

Arjy

they're different cars that serve different purposes. The c takes away some of what you see as pluses for other pluses you are disregarding.

levale

What are the pluses I am disregarding. I am not trying to be a wise guy here,
I just believe Mercedes is making a whole lot more profit on the C's than on the GLK's.
Case in point, a base C350 starts $4500.00 higher than a Glk 350 4 matic. It's not
making sense to me.

Arjy

you're paying for the research that went into making such a performance sound sedan, you're paying for the much higher demand. there has always been a higher premium to pay on luxury sedans, and generally suvs always seem more practical and better value because they are much mer versatile. But i wouldnt go so far as to say mb is ripping you off, especially compared to an suv that is practically based off the same platform

levale

I'm not saying there ripping me off, just that they are making more profit on the C-class
A C-350 is built on the same platform. w/o 4 matic and smaller wheels, less steel.
$4500.00 more.I would think they put the same amount of research into building the GLK
class. After all is said and done however, I like both vehicles.

Arjy

I dont think they charge the same for r&d with the glk as oposed to the c class, with the w204 they are proud of the fact that they poured 7 years of work into it, whereas they dont mention it at all when marketing the x204, and as i said before in every market they sell many more c classes. Theres more to the cost of the car than steel and wheel sizes. the c350 is a compact executive "performance" sedan (i use the term performance lightly in this case) wheras the glk is a compact luxury crossover, which in general there is much less of a premium for. I think that extra 4 grand is going towards mostly the idea (and ability) of it being a sporty sedan whereas the glk is much more exclusively a family/utility car. thats my thought anyway. they are both great cars, i've reccomended my mother a glk for her next car.

jctevere

The main reason why C-class price is higher is because of much greater demand, that is exactly why. Also, because they can, so why not?

However, I will say that between the incentives MB Corporate gives dealers, and dealers incentives to sell the car. I have found that comparably equipped C-class and GLK turn out to be the same price -- if not advantage to the C-class. At least for leases, maybe not so much for flat out purchases. My sister was looking to lease a c300 4matic with the same options as a GLK besides for motor, and C-class was 1,000 more, but the payment was nearly $100/month less, go figure...

Sportstick

Most of the comments still miss the point. Price and cost are separate issues. And, base and typical content are determined by segment. Price is determined by the Pricing managers within the Finance group, based on a competitive analysis of comparable products, not how much research, steel, or other cost generators were used in the program. It is a completely different discipline than Program Management and Engineering's task to manage cost. If Audi, BMW, etc. raise their prices, and volumes hold, that means the market will bear more pricing, and the facing MB models will also move....watch.

And, perhaps, the original poster did not mean the implications of writing "the wife", but that's what I read.

jctevere

Yeah, what sportstick said too applies. Also, because the GLK is so cut and dry, meaning only 1 engine choice, and 1 drivetrain, it is much cheaper to build. Once you add the option for a 3 liter 300 or a 6.3 c63, that adds to the cost of building the car. I am not sure if the glk comes in any other drivetrain besides automatic (but the c-class can get manual) and 4matic is an option on c-class and (i could be wrong on this) I believe 4matic is standard on glk?

All these choices and variances greatly increase the production cost. So that, associated with the fact that the demand is not nearly as high in that segment leads to a much lower apples to apples price figure.
I don't think he meant "the wife" as a bad thing, simply just an nickname or internet lingo. I guess it would have been more proper or courteous to instead just say my wife though...

Carzzz

I was planned to get a GLK, instead pick the C despite the GLK has better "value" (Price like a C250 but with 3.5L engine)

Major turn-off
1) too boxy
2) 20" wheels is standard in Canada (too much metal/not enough rubber)

Iggier

Ditto ^^

Coming from a 2005 C and ready for a new Benz, I so wanted the GLK, but after multiple test drives and a good 40-mile run on back roads, highways and in the city, I couldn't stand it. Too boxy and clumsy. I wanted to feel the car hug the road. Bought a new C instead.

mr inkredibul

The boxiness is sexy and grew on me. At first I didn't like it. But modded it would look good!

MBnewby

Sometimes when I see a GLK I love it and other times it just seems blah to me. I'd like to drive one someday since at some point I plan to get back into a crossover as my kids grow up and are into more activities, thus we'll need more room. I also like the all weather capability of a small crossover like the GLK. I've sat in several at my dealership and it's solid much like my C but nothing really excites me about it... It is less "sexy" than my C350, ha ha, maybe that is why they are cheaper...nothing really grabs your attention. I'd love to drive one since they're built on the C's platform, it must handle well for a crossover, right?

boylston

The sticker price is only one indicator of value. On a lease, the GLK is about $100 more per month. Mercedes seems to be offering much better lease incentives on the C300 sedan.

balticgreen

One thing that I don't think anyone has mentioned is that the GLK350 is the base model whereas the C350 is not. Base models usually have a narrower profit margin because it's part of their marketing to advertise the "Starting at just $xx,xxx" price. Normally few people actually want a stripped down base model so the manufacturer makes more money on the options than the base car.

With these specific models, the C350 includes the Premium 1 package as standard while it is optional on the C300 and a not-the-same-but-sort-of-similar premium package is optional on the GLK350 as well. When you add the Premium package to the GLK350, that $4500 difference shrinks quickly.

In the US (not sure about other countries), the GLK is only available with an automatic but 4Matic is optional. That said, 100% of the GLKs that I have personally seen have been equipped with 4Matic.

Men are damned either way. Either you say "the wife" and you get scolded because women aren't objects, or you say "my wife" and you get scolded because women aren't possessions. The only way to not get scolded is to use her name except that people who don't know you will have to assume from context that the named woman is your wife. So maybe it's best to say "the woman to whom I am married."

levale

I've read everything said, and I still think Mercedes pricing is out of
whack here. Leasing prices make sense, with C 300 about 100.00
per month less than Glk, however, not everyone leases. To further
illustrate my point, check out BMW. The base 328 i with X drive
is $38,600 and the X3 with the larger 6 cylinder engine is $41,050.
They are also built on the same platform. I understand they are
different vehicles, taking suppply and demand into account. But
the bottom line is the Glk with the larger engine, larger wheels,
manufactured and shipped from the same place and is 500 lbs heavier
should have a higher MSRP than the c300, so either the c300 is too
high or the Glk 350 is too low or a combination of both.
Thank you all for you comments

Wadess

It's all about the market. Pricing is based on market, not cost to produce the product. If the market will pay higher costs while allowing a company to still meet their sales goals, that's how the prices will be set. The GLK is in a stiff market compared to the C300. When we bought my wife's Q5, just about everyone was killing the GLK on price\value. The base prices were close, but when you optioned the GLK out to match the Audi, Volvo, or Lexus, the Mercedes was at least 5k more.

whiteongrey

GLK weighs 500lb more so clearly it is the better buy LOL!

MB is trying to break into this entry level lux SUV segment so pricing is aggressive.

MrMeth90

I have a story....
While waiting for my 2011 C300 4matic, the dealership gave a me a brand new GLK350.
This thing started to grow on me and I almost changed my order. UNTIL...
It snowed in tahoe. This GLK got stuck in the driveway with no incline or decline and barely any snow. I was almost ready to go back to AUDI, until the lent me a fairly new C300 4matic, similar to the one I was buying...This thing killed it and never got stuck.
They could not explain why the 4matic was so pathetic, but I laugh everytime I pass one on the road in tahoe.

Sportstick

The GLK is based on the C Class. In the same situation with the same TIRES, the two would behave similarly, except the weight advantage for the GLK might be of help for traction. If you are laughing, it would be at the particular TIRES on the vehicle and the drivers who did not know enough to change them for winter. Original equipment tires are generally designed to do only one thing very well....fuel economy, by being made of a hard low rolling resistance rubber. Some are worse than others and if your Audi has original equipment tires that did better, that was your good fortune at that time. Most OE tires result in very poor winter performance, particularly in freezing temperatures, as the rubber becomes hard as stone. A simple swap for winter tires on either the C or GLK would result in generally similar, and excellent performance. And, the OE GLK tires would also handicap the Audi.

encoder

Personally I plan on buying my wife a GLK next year. (Shh! It's a surprise!)

Mostly I care about her being in a safe car, and no question, the GLK is priced VERY VERY competitively. She has always remarked that she likes the GLK and I like the option of a LITTLE room to move bigger things -- more than i get in my w204.

I do agree that it seems obvious that MB is making more profit on the C350. Meh, so be it. Sportstick nailed it. I don't feel ripped-off because those 2 cars are not in competition w/ one another. Now, if the 335i was $4k cheaper than the C350 (and somehow I noticed that after i bought), then I'd feel ripped-off.