MB_Owner

According to Google's translator:

2.833 (U.S. dollars / US gallon) = 0.50444825 Euros / liter

scottybdiving

That pretty much sums it up for me. There's nothing like setting the cruise control and watching my GL pull the steep hills without even downshifting. Love that torque, not to mention nearly 600 miles between fill-ups.

ftttubrgcm

Hey Scotty, do you know Annette or Everett Maze there in Spicewood?

Duke_on

I don't know if I would have gone for the diesel or not. I guess if you are a highway driver who wants to get lots of milegage then yeah Diesel would be a good option.

I owned my GLK for over 2 months now and I have only driven it for 1600kms I don't mind the gas.

On the other hand I agree that Diesel cars can have awesome performance. My father owns a E 270 CDI AMG packet and let me tell you that thing can fly.

TNblkc230wz

My ML 320 CDI will hold its own with most 1/2 ton pickups. Not bad for a 3.0 ltr engine that gets no less than 21 MPG in town and 26 - 28 on the highway. I rented a FWD Rav 4 and nicknamed it "My anemic, gas guzzling 4 cylinder. It got about 1.5 mgp better than my ML and it couldn't get out of its own way, couldn't stop and couldn't turn.

I only wished they'd bring in a GLK 320 CDI.

TNblkc230wz

I'd bet the 10 - 60 and 50 - 80 times would be very close. There is turbo lag, but once it spools up, it takes off.

MarkC

Here are the specs from Mercedes German market website.

GLK350 4Matic & 7sp Auto: 272ps (268hp), 0-62 = 6.7 sec, top speed 230km (143mph).
city: 14,2-14,6 l/100 km = 16.5~16 MPG (US gallon)
Highway: 8,3-8,5 l/100 km = 28.3~27.7 MPG (US gallon)

GLK350CDI 4Matic & 7sp auto: 224ps (221hp), 0-62 = 7.5 sec., top speed 220km (137mph) .
city: 10,3-10,7 l/100 km = 22.8~22 MPG (US gallon)
Highway: 6,5-7,0 l/100 km = 36.2~33.6 MPG (US gallon)

GLK250CDI 4Matic & 7sp auto: 204ps (201hp), 0-62 = 7.9 sec., top speed 210km (130mph) .
city: 8,4-8,7 l/100 km = 28~27 MPG (US gallon)
Highway: 5,7-6,0 l/100 km = 41.2~39.2 MPG (US gallon)


The performance difference between the two diesels doesn't appear to be as significant as the fuel economy difference. For me, the main reason (among others) for choosing a diesel is about using less fuel. For those who care more about performance, they already have the 3.5 gasoline version.

Though the GLK350 gasoline model is more expensive than the GLK250CDI in Germany, I'd be happy to pay the same price for a US specs GLK250CDI as the US GLK350, so long as they throw in the off-road package with 17" wheels

MB_Owner

Thanks for that post, MarkC. Very informative. Now we'll have to see if M-B brings a GLK diesel to the US for the 2011 model year, and if so, which engine.

I had always figured it would be the same 3 L BlueTEC V-6 (210 hp in US configuration with urea injection) as used in the GL but who knows? Maybe it will indeed be the smaller four cylinder engine.

fragil

In Europe we have also the GLK 220CDI 4Matic as well as 2wd , both wit 175 bhp.

thebishman

Thanks for this Mark; very informative. Did you happen to see the torque figure for the 250CDI engine reported?

Could you imagine averaging about 35 mpg in mixed city/highway driving in the 250CDI? What a great engine for the GLK.

Bish

thebishman

I thought that this article might be informative given we're talking about a diesel option for the GLK:

http://www.autoweek.com/article/2009...NEWS/911239995

If BMW offer a strong TDI engine in the X3, surely MB can't be far behind with the 250CDI for the USA. One hopes.

Bish

MarkC

Thanks for the link As per your earlier question about torque figures; I got the numbers from http://www.mercedes-benz.de. I didn't find any information relating to torque (or Nm) figures.

MarkC

2 years later looks like MB is finally offering the GLK250 BlueTEC in the US. .


http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2...auto-show.html