268 hp @ 6,800 rpm...
Thread Starter
Newbie
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
ML
268 hp @ 6,800 rpm...
So I'm deciding whether to get the RX350 or the GLK350. Both are great cars, and the GLK looks much much better. According to MB Canada's website, it's got a V6 that pumps out 268 hp @ 6,800 rpm-- but wait! 6800 rpm? But the engine red lines at 6000rpm! Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that mean we don't actually get to use all 268 horses?
Super Member
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 507
Likes: 1
From: Vancouver, (BC) Best City on Planet Earth
GLK 350X :0
Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
From: Far West Texas
GLK 4Matic
KY, we have had 2 RX's over the years and loved them. We were very close on getting a 2010 during the week of their release but decided at the last minute to test drive the GLK. We went with the GLK. Like other vehicles, newer model years continue to grow until they are barely what they were when originally designed. I loved my CR-V's but my last one's windshield would be fine in any minivan. That's how we felt about the new RX. The windshield and overall extra width over the older versions make it too large for us. As for the extra ponies, I will rarely ever go up to 5k, let alone 6.8k.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,780
Likes: 115
From: Northern NJ
GLK 350 / Porsche 993
In this pic seems like 6800 is readline. Haven't redlined much, will pay attention next time how far rpms go.
And tourqe curve is really nice compared to RX. GLK gets max torque at 2k, RX doesn't get it till 4k. And GLK has 7 speed to make up for any deficit in power. Which one is quicker 0-60 (GLK)?
And tourqe curve is really nice compared to RX. GLK gets max torque at 2k, RX doesn't get it till 4k. And GLK has 7 speed to make up for any deficit in power. Which one is quicker 0-60 (GLK)?
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,728
Likes: 3
From: San Diego
G63 AMG, SL65 AMG, CLS550, S550, Tesla Model S Performance, Challenger SRT8
Redline is 6500 according to edmunds.com, and they also say it's 268 @ 6,000... I would think MB's site would be more accurate though..
Thread Starter
Newbie
Joined: Jun 2009
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
ML
As for 0-60, I think the GLK is faster by 0.1 seconds. Still going with the RX though because I have a family of 5, so we'll appreciate the extra room at the back. Also, the RX has better gas mileage, and it's genuine leather is much more comfortable than MB-Tex.
Trending Topics
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
BMW 325iX Sport Wagon, Range Rover
I use three tests for how efficient an engine is and how well it is designed for application in a luxary car.
1. Closer the HP and torque numbers are the better. A sign of good engineering.
2. The lower the RPM level that produces 80+% of torque for the broadest RPM range, the more fun, quick and responsive the car.
3. Gas mileage comparisons.
GLK is outstanding for 1. and 2. and less than great in #3.
1. Closer the HP and torque numbers are the better. A sign of good engineering.
2. The lower the RPM level that produces 80+% of torque for the broadest RPM range, the more fun, quick and responsive the car.
3. Gas mileage comparisons.
GLK is outstanding for 1. and 2. and less than great in #3.
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
Yeah it's true that RX doesn't feel as fast as the GLK. The GLK pulls a LOT at low rpms while the RX takes a while to get the same sort of power. Guess that's the difference between a Lexus and Merc--Merc has power up front while the Lexus's power comes gradually.
As for 0-60, I think the GLK is faster by 0.1 seconds. Still going with the RX though because I have a family of 5, so we'll appreciate the extra room at the back. Also, the RX has better gas mileage, and it's genuine leather is much more comfortable than MB-Tex.
As for 0-60, I think the GLK is faster by 0.1 seconds. Still going with the RX though because I have a family of 5, so we'll appreciate the extra room at the back. Also, the RX has better gas mileage, and it's genuine leather is much more comfortable than MB-Tex.
To each his own, I think lexus is great, but new look of RX kept me away from even considering to test drive it. Also my friend's 3 year RX rattles as bad as our old 5 year matrix, but leather was nice indeed.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,780
Likes: 115
From: Northern NJ
GLK 350 / Porsche 993
I use three tests for how efficient an engine is and how well it is designed for application in a luxary car.
1. Closer the HP and torque numbers are the better. A sign of good engineering.
2. The lower the RPM level that produces 80+% of torque for the broadest RPM range, the more fun, quick and responsive the car.
3. Gas mileage comparisons.
GLK is outstanding for 1. and 2. and less than great in #3.
1. Closer the HP and torque numbers are the better. A sign of good engineering.
2. The lower the RPM level that produces 80+% of torque for the broadest RPM range, the more fun, quick and responsive the car.
3. Gas mileage comparisons.
GLK is outstanding for 1. and 2. and less than great in #3.
Diesels have way more tq than hp. Bad engineering?
It's all about what you prefer, low torque or high revs.
Member
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
From: Far West Texas
GLK 4Matic
Ky, if you have that large of a family, you most definately don't want a GLK. My wife still complains about the rear seat and cargo room of her GLK after having those 2 RX's. I think the GLK is the perfect size vehicle for her now since one of our daughters will be leaving for university next year. That daughter is almost always in her vehicle so we only have to tote around the other one pretty much for now.
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
BMW 325iX Sport Wagon, Range Rover
NYCGLK,
Not sure I understand your supporting facts. Are you saying M3 has 293 tq and 420 HP, thus that is a good profile or was that a typo? Shouldn't a 420 HP engine produce 350-395 tq? Yes, diesels have a high tq vs HP ratio and that supports my point about efficient engines.
Talking diesel or rotary changes equation. I was talking about gasoline, piston engines. I think a tq and HP number that is close is a good sign for a gasoline engine.
Hey, I may be missing an important point and forum readers, me, can learn from you point.
Not sure I understand your supporting facts. Are you saying M3 has 293 tq and 420 HP, thus that is a good profile or was that a typo? Shouldn't a 420 HP engine produce 350-395 tq? Yes, diesels have a high tq vs HP ratio and that supports my point about efficient engines.
Talking diesel or rotary changes equation. I was talking about gasoline, piston engines. I think a tq and HP number that is close is a good sign for a gasoline engine.
Hey, I may be missing an important point and forum readers, me, can learn from you point.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,780
Likes: 115
From: Northern NJ
GLK 350 / Porsche 993
HP is function of torque and RPM, so while for everyday driving you would be correct to say that when RPM and torque are close and torque is available at low rpm you don't have to do as much shifting.
However, if V8 that can be reved to 8000 RMP it is quite an engineering achievement, which is why with only 295 lb ft. of torque M3 can produce 420 hp. All that means that you have to shift more to get more out of the engine. While 335 has 300 of both lb ft and hp, and torque comes in at very low rpm (1500 i believe), it's still slower than M3, because in M3 you car hold gears longer, so shorter gearing and higher rpms can make up for lower engine torque. Other examples would be honda S2000, Civic SI, Audi RS4, i'm sure there are others I'm forgetting that have similar engine profies, that those excellent engines out there. This type is more suitable for racing, it's easier to push car with less torque and more linear power than car with lots of torque. But for everyday driving, it's a different story.
EDIT: I think some Porsches (GT3 RS, ultimate Porsche for track one of them) also have relatively low torque/high rpm/high hp engines, which supports my point well.
However, if V8 that can be reved to 8000 RMP it is quite an engineering achievement, which is why with only 295 lb ft. of torque M3 can produce 420 hp. All that means that you have to shift more to get more out of the engine. While 335 has 300 of both lb ft and hp, and torque comes in at very low rpm (1500 i believe), it's still slower than M3, because in M3 you car hold gears longer, so shorter gearing and higher rpms can make up for lower engine torque. Other examples would be honda S2000, Civic SI, Audi RS4, i'm sure there are others I'm forgetting that have similar engine profies, that those excellent engines out there. This type is more suitable for racing, it's easier to push car with less torque and more linear power than car with lots of torque. But for everyday driving, it's a different story.
EDIT: I think some Porsches (GT3 RS, ultimate Porsche for track one of them) also have relatively low torque/high rpm/high hp engines, which supports my point well.
Last edited by NYCGLK; Jun 6, 2009 at 06:54 AM.
Member
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
BMW 325iX Sport Wagon, Range Rover
NYCGLK,
Great explanation. I understand your point completely and agree. I overstated or did not confine my statement enough. I did say "engines for luxury car application", but that would include some of the great high performance cars you mentioned.
Great explanation. I understand your point completely and agree. I overstated or did not confine my statement enough. I did say "engines for luxury car application", but that would include some of the great high performance cars you mentioned.
MBWorld Fanatic!
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,780
Likes: 115
From: Northern NJ
GLK 350 / Porsche 993
Spent countless time trying to understand the whole concept of torque vs power back in the days. There are so many other variables that go into equation (rpms, gearing, weight etc.) And I agree in luxury car you want balance and refinement.
