GLK VS. Porche Cayenne ?
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
BMW 325iX Sport Wagon, Range Rover
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.
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.
Super Member
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 808
Likes: 0
From: nyc
528i, GLK
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....
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
BMW 325iX Sport Wagon, Range Rover
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 $$$ and with all the Cayenne weight, expect to go through tires and breaks every 10 months. I know because my wifes Range Rover is about the same weight as the Cayenne. Again, the better looking Cayennes have $70k and $80k MSRPs, before all the techno adds, appearance adds, etc.
Not sure what would make me want the Cayenne S.
GLK loaded will be about $46k with 20" wheels etc. Close interior dimensions, curb weight 913 lbs less, 0-60 in 6.5 (tenth sec slower), 16/21 mpg and a 7 speed, Stronic automatic std.
So the Cayenne provides tenth of a second better 0-60 performance for all the extra $$$ 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.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,780
Likes: 115
From: Northern NJ
GLK 350 / Porsche 993
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.
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.
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
BMW 325iX Sport Wagon, Range Rover
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.
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.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,780
Likes: 115
From: Northern NJ
GLK 350 / Porsche 993
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
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
Trending Topics
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 9
From: Vancouver, BC
2015 E250 BT 4M
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.
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.
MB World Stories
The Best of Mercedes & AMG
Manual Mercedes? 6 Times Sindelfingen Let Drivers Have All The Fun
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes SLR McLaren 722 S Is Extremely Rare Example Modified by McLaren
Verdad Gallardo
8 Classic Boxy Mercedes Designs That Have Aged Like Fine Wine
Verdad Gallardo
Flawlessly Restored Mercedes 190E Evo II Heads to Auction
Verdad Gallardo
Electric Mercedes C-Class Unveiled: 11 Things You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes EQS Gets A Major Update: Everything You Need to Know
Verdad Gallardo
5 Underrated Mercedes-Benz Models That Don't Get the Love They Deserve
Verdad Gallardo
Mercedes 300D Has Pushed Well Past 1 Million Miles and It Ain't Stopping
Verdad Gallardo
10 Most Reliable Mercedes-Benz Models You Can Buy Used
Verdad Gallardo
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,780
Likes: 115
From: Northern NJ
GLK 350 / Porsche 993
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.
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.
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.).
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 9
From: Vancouver, BC
2015 E250 BT 4M
For a more detailed explanation of 4Matic, check out this link:
http://www.emercedesbenz.com/Dec08/0...In_Detail.html
Last edited by DerekACS; Mar 4, 2009 at 01:07 AM.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,780
Likes: 115
From: Northern NJ
GLK 350 / Porsche 993
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.
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.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 2,524
Likes: 1,007
From: Overland Park, KS
‘24 BMW iX M60
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.
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.
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
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,780
Likes: 115
From: Northern NJ
GLK 350 / Porsche 993
^^^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.
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.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,146
Likes: 9
From: Vancouver, BC
2015 E250 BT 4M
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
http://www.canadiandriver.com/2008/0...s-benz-glk.htm
http://autos.canada.com/news/story.h...8-213649c18286
Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
From: Far West Texas
GLK 4Matic
^^^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.
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.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,828
Likes: 1
From: United States
2008 R350 & 2008 C300
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.
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.
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 378
Likes: 15
From: Boston and SWFlorida
2025 GLC300 white, 2023 Taycan RWD black
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.
Super Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 757
Likes: 1
From: LI, NY, U.S.A.
2013 GLK 350 4M (Iridium Silver), 2010 E350 Coupe (Iridium Silver)
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.
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.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 1,097
Likes: 68
From: San Francisco, CA / Middlebury, CT
600 SWB
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).
Member
Joined: Jan 2013
Posts: 145
Likes: 5
From: Milwaukee, WI
Mercedes Benz
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.
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.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 1,136
Likes: 7
From: Los Angeles
2013 Infiniti G37 Coupe; 2011 GLK 350 w/ Premium 1, Multimedia & Sport Appearance; I LOVE IT!
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.
He drove my GLK and said it was much better, especially for the price.
Super Member
Joined: Feb 2010
Posts: 757
Likes: 1
From: LI, NY, U.S.A.
2013 GLK 350 4M (Iridium Silver), 2010 E350 Coupe (Iridium Silver)
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).
"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.
