oneone10

Hi everyone

I am new to the forum but have thoroughly enjoyed my time so far. So I am in a puzzling position. I am looking to make a purchase around June for a new vehicle and have managed to narrow my decision down to '09 LR2 and the GLK 350. I know this is a MB site so there will be some bias but I am hoping to get some insight from the board. I have ran comparatives on the two but cannot still make up my mind on which one is:

A) Economical
B) Fuel efficient
C) Aesthetic (sp?)
D) Instant gut reaction

Hope this post makes sense

webada

makes perfect sense if you also posted in LR fan sites like this one.

I can tell you that amongst JD powers associates on vehicle dependability, LR runs last or second to last. Not that MB is on top rank either but its somewhere in the middle of the pack (50). and from a friend that owns a discovery... I totally believe JD Powers.

I love the look of LR2, its modern and yet retains the classical shape.

I would def. get a LR if the reliability isn't a concern.

NYCGLK

Welcome to MBworld!

There is no doubt whatsoever. I hope I will make this easy.
A) Economical? Not sure what you mean as next point is fuel efficiency. As far as I know land rovers have pretty bad resale values, I might be wrong. I think webada answered question of reliability, and it's consitent from what I read/heard.
B) Fuel Efficient...who cares it's an SUV. If you want to be economical get a sedan or prius. If GLK and LR2 are 1mpg apart does it really matter? On a serious note, Range Rover was never an economical car so can't see it being any better than GLK.
C) I hate the look of LR2. LR3 yes, Range Rovers hell yea. LR2 looks like ford escape to me. Not really, but it has as much appeal as escape. Personal preference.
D) Instand gut reaction? Not sure what that means. When I see GLK I see something very different from everything on the road in a good way. It's not screaming hey look at me, it's pretty plain car, yet sohpisticated. I hope that's becaue it's plain it won't need a redesign in 2 years.

Bottom line GLK vs. LR2...def GLK. If you asked GLK vs. LR3, GLK vs. Q5 GLK vs. Ex35 it's more arguable.

Also not sure if you test drove both. I bet LR2 feels like an SUV while GLK feels like a tall car.

webada

don't think LR3 is fair comparsion, its starting is 10k more than GLK

NYCGLK

I know...I know...but on the other hand it also has a lot more standard features. So if you compare similarly optioned cars the differences is not as much between them you would think. I agree that they are in different leagues. And even still I'd take GLK. It's more agile, faster, more economical, and it's a new model.

oneone10

Thanks for the response everyone. I stayed up last night and ran a few more comparatives from different sites and the final score is really marginal (so a toss-up). I think the best assessment will be operating both vehicles within relatively the same time period. So...the next few wknds will be dedicated to test driving. As for webada's point about the unfair comparison btw the GLK and the LR3...I will have to agree with you. They are two completely different auto categories. Also the standard and options on the LR2 vs the GLK is actually more competitive and less costly.

I love to hear more of the board's opinion.

NYCGLK

Sorry not direct comapro but here you go:

LR2 vs. BMW X3
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=120623

GLK Full Test Drive
http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=139606

Decide for yourself.

EDIT: I think consensus is that GLK is better thant X3.

emesap43

if it's really close for you, I suggest you also look at other factors beside the vehicle itself. For example, do you know anyone who has obtained a vehicle from the dealership on your short list? How are they treated when little and big things go wrong? How about courtesy cars (or shuttle service) when the vehicle is in for maintenance? How comfortable is the dealership if you have to spend a couple of hours there and maybe do some work - free Internet access... not available at my wife's VW dealership.

Are the sales people on a revolving door or have been there for a long time? In other words, what are the chances that they will be around the next time you need a vehicle. Do you need to work on a longer term relationship with the sales persson?

All of these factors affect brand loyalty. If that is important to you... How well I was treated as a first time MB driver over the last three years deeply affected my decision to go back for a second time just a month ago.

NYCGLK

^^^Agree. MB's service was the best out of two bimmer, infiniti, and audi dealerships. Lexus seemed nice, but I didn't spend enough time there. At MB I didn't feel like I was pressured into anything. The guy did the best he could (or maybe not the best but good enough for me). Also MB picks up your car if it needs repairs or service and brings loaner, so no need to spend any time driving to the dealer or sitting there. This is a big thing for me as my time is very valuable to me.

MtnMachine

Wife just traded in a 2005 Range Rover, at 96k miles, for a new BMW X5 4.8. She loved the Range in many ways, but hated the costly and constant repairs. Long before warantee expired, she was driving loaners every other month. Three radiators, 3 of four suspension air bags replaced, both headlight assemblies replaced, power steering, etc, etc, etc. It seems everything that goes wrong is a $2,500 minimum. Decided to bail before trans had major problem.

Extended warantee was a very costly joke for very few extra miles covered and we turned it down. BMW extended warantee has cost justification built into program.

My GLK is on order for late May, early June delivery. Lots of nice choices out there. Good luck.

webada

that's funny, its the exact same story as my coworker's discovery/LR3. one time they even gave him a toyota as a loaner... in fact that dealership operates a car rental right next too it. very ironic.

bobhammer

actually before buying the GLK, I also was thinking of getting the ranger rover sport...such a sexy car!!! But my dad told me about the reliability problem..so I bought the GLK instead!! Which I kinda regret becos of the loooooooong waiting time!!!

webada

here is another one doing GLK vs LR2, its nationalpost, not automobile mag, so take it with grain of salt. (but i do like what i read)

http://www.nationalpost.com/scripts/...tml?id=1278739

oneone10

I appreciate all the responses. Webada..I agree on the article's readability. I know few of you talked about LR2 reliability but a few articles I also read on the GLK pointed to the same problem (that being it's a first year model) with no rel track record. I like Emesap43's suggestions so I will concentrate on the "other" variables. Thanks again

NYCGLK

But GLK is made of old parts. It's basically C-Class with different body and suspension. Just test drive the two, and I'm sure you'll make up your mind.