Paradiso

My wife and I have been shopping for a new ride for a while, expecting to be ordering a 2011 model. We currently have a 2005 Subaru Outback and a 2006 Subaru Outback. They have both been excellent, reliable cars, great in our snowy winters.

With the youngest daughter leaving the nest in September, we are planning on doing quite a bit of touring soon, hence looking for a smoother, quieter ride. I work on the cell phone and computer in the passenger seat as we travel for much of the road time.

I was pretty sold on the Audi Q5 until last Saturday when I stopped in to a Mercedes dealer and checked out the GLK. I had an excellent sales rep that impressed me with the safety and other features of the GLK. The reason I haven't pulled the trigger on the Q5 was that I had nagging doubts about the reliability. The negatives that we had on the Q5 were reliability, very firm seats and humongous mirrors that get in the way for city cornering.

So, that's our life story and our quandary. As I read through the threads in this forum I do not find very many complaints about the GLK, other than entry into the back seat, which I noticed too on my test drive.

I am looking for help and opinions, features you like about the GLK, features you don't like and anything else!

thank you!

Frank Zappa

My theory on Audi, lease never own and buy extended warranty if you drive lots (no question, your gonna need it). I speak from experience.

The only issues I have with my GLK are 1) ****ty gas mileage 2) front passenger leg room and 3) mediocre horse-power (keep in mind that prior to my GLK I had a G35). The GLK is a nice riding, nicely appointed vehicle that so far seems to be well built. The most sure footed vehicle I've ever driven in winter. by far, and that with the 20" pirelli all seasons.

Best of luck in your quest.

PS - Don't buy the tint or the clear bra from the dealer. Aftermarket is half the price and equally good quality.

GLKKa2H

My wife and I went through a shopping like yours a year ago as we no longer do the 2500+ miles trips, some times twice a year, and moved to a an area with winter conditions on the roads 6 months at the time. So we decided to go from our really "mileeating" sedan to a 4WD SUV, to meet the new environment.

We went testdriving BMW X3, Volvo XC60, Audi Q5 - and the GLK, sometimes more than one time, always during winter conditions, over a period of two months.

Our quandary was that all of them have their positives and negatives, and our assessment was based like yours: Reliability, smoothness (whatever that means comparing the very comfortable sedan we had with a SUV ) and its capabilities during winter driving. The dealership and its handling of the aftermarket was as well a concern.

Our decision turned out to be a 2010 GLK 220 CDI BlueEfficiency 4Matic, received late July, after we cancelled a (non-signed) negotiated contract on a Q5. The item which did it was our feeling of the higher smoothness driving the GLK, which I believe is caused by the Agility Control Suspension with controlled chockabsorbers. However is the smoothness far away from our sedan (of course).

"Doing quite a bit of touring" raises requirement for cargo capacity, and the GLK in that respect is approx. 20% down from the Q5 (and your Outbacks), and due to (very) limited length is it difficult to store bigger suitcases in the trunk.

Dash illumination might be a minor detail, however when going on long rides in the dark it really means a lot to me. The Q5 is red, the GLK is “white” and the sedan was green, which to me felt correct. The red, as I feel it, is very disturbing, however will I not be surprised if pilots will object to that.

"Reliability" with regard to Mercedes-Benz is nowadays at least questionable; In my opinion was that lost 15 years ago. MB's lack of will (or ability?) to sort out problems is clearly seen in Europe in the way they are handling the "BlueEfficience Injector issue". We have had five different problems with our GLK, so far, and the local dealer and country MB hasn't exactly been very supportive. Be that different in your case.

Our current feelings: Of the four tested SUVs, would the GLK be OK, in case the mfg. and dealer was Volvo

We wish you two good luck and that you will be happy with your choise, whatever outcome.

BTW: Did you check the XC60. It's a good one, with a lot of standard safety measures?

Regards

PT Barnum

One more of my theories, German cars are built from the ground up, the rest the sky down, The handling is proof.

Volvos are Fords and drive like Fords.

s4avt

I have to agree and disagree with few responses here,

first, I have owned 3 audis so far, B6 A4, B5 S4 and Q7, and I never had problem with reliable. some please said they did but I never visited dealer until warranty expired.

and I don't have any complain with power of GLK, it is pretty solid for a small SUV, and I had CLK55 when I bought GLK, but I though GLK was better than I thought,

the fact I really love GLK is that first, it is pretty solid car.. never had an issue and second it is so quite and smooth... my wife drives GLK and it is so much smoother than my Range Rover sport.

I liked the styling of GLK over anyother competitors..

I think you will really love GLK...

montreal-uk

My 5 cents.

Q5 - Looked at it, but did not drive. Trunks better, rear seating better. Looks terrible in my opinion, but I felt the need to compare the GLK to others.

BMW X3 - Too small and too many of them. "Want the air inside sir?, that will be extra please". Drives well though.

XC60 - What a got to park. You have to have the camera and sensors, and even then - rear visability was woeful.

GLK - I had a 2004 Forester XT, and like the GLK, its a love it or hate it design. Persoanlly I love it. Seats in the back too tight to get into, but the kids site there not me. Drives fantatstic. Does not check all the needs of the family, but got more than the others did.

Like I said - my quick opinion.

MBRedux

We own both... the Audi is far superior IMO

W210

I think it depends on your dealership support as well. My experience with MB in general had been far more pleasant than Audi.

I find the chain of factory stores in Canada offering far better support than independent Audi dealerships.

mac911

The GLK is on a platform that has proven to not have many problems, the C Class W204 platform.

Hey, I love Mercedes, the way everything is designed, and the layout in the cabin. I'm sure you'd absolutely love a shiny GLK 350.

Mercedes keeps car models around 6-7 years too, and at least say about 5years of that is left on the GLK, so it won't look outdated anytime soon either.

However, you should really get what you want, so try to figure that out.

I am not even into SUVs, but GLKs and Gs are the only two I like.

knnite

I was interested in the Q5 until I found out the Q5 was built (I may have these countries reversed, but the notion remains) in Hungary with parts manufactured in Slovakia.

GLKKa2H

So what's wrong with that? The cars are made in accordance with VAG specifications, and given the VAG QA works well does it really not matter where they are made.

On the contrary: Over the last months have a thousand GLK's been "limping home", many of them more than one time, due to a component made by a US manufacturer, in accordance with the Daimler specifications, and failing Daimler QA.

GDawgC220

The Q5 is actually built in Ingolstadt Germany, at least the ones sold in the N.A. market. For other markets, they may be produced in other countries.

Even MB produces cars outside of Germany (U.S., South America, etc) and use non-German made/manufactured parts.

knnite

Easy GLKKa2H.....ad hominem comments do little to enlighten or advance the discussion. I directly and clearly asked the salesman at my local Audi dealer ship where the Q5 was built; he claimed the information in my original post. It was simply one piece of the puzzle that prompted "me" to buy a Mercedes. It does not mean anything more or less to anyone else. It mattered to me. Upon GDawgC220's assertation, I double checked and again was given the same info by the Audi authorized dealership. If the salesman is wrong that is another matter and again does not reflect on the car. In fact the salesman at my local MB dealership was not to my liking and I found a great person (to me) and gave, what I condsidered, a fair deal at Thornhill MB. The Audi makes great cars and lousy ones as do most other manufacturers. So chill and understand derogatory comments like having your yeast infection checked do little to add to the discussions. They are only cars and facts are meant to be challenged and verified. If the information I received (twice) is incorrect that only served to cost said salesperson a sale.
And I do care that my Ferrari was built in Maranello, to you it may not matter.

montreal-uk

Knnite - re your comments to GLKKa2H.

I personally do not see where he mentions a yeast infection, or any other frankly offensive comment concering your, or anyone elses personal hygene. Unless it was in a PM? All I see is a valid question as to what is wrong with a car built in Slovakia.

Personally I would not buy another VW built in Mexico, but it is perfectly ok for someone who does not know my reasons, to ask.

Like you said, things should be challenged and verified...you have valid points in your post. Shame you ruined it.

knnite

Take another look; it was simply a barb at the pointless verb 'limping". Obviously a derogatory comment along with the anecdotal "a thousand" that remains irrelevant. I did not and have not made any derogatory comments about Audi, in fact implied in my response was that I was seriously considering the Q5, which is entirely correct. Furthermore, my significant other purchased the A4 a couple of months ago. If we all thought the same we all would have been chasing your grandma as the cliche goes. I like white, you like green etc etc etc blah blah blah.... smile, it's all harmless.

montreal-uk

I don't mind the comments about Audi, I had an A4 myself. That is not the issue.
But quoting someone in public about things they have not said in public. If it were me, I would be offended.
Not my battle, so this is my last on the subject. All I ask is that you please be careful in future. Parts of your post were good. You don't need to dip that low.

I will be the first to apologise if the mods think
I am wrong?

knnite

no apology needed, no battle raging, I believe your intellect is sufficient to discern boundaries, not a matter of right or wrong, some get it, some don't. All the best.

montreal-uk

Er....I don't think it's me that needs to apologise....
I think GLKKa2H deserves that from yourself.

W210

Back to topic. I find the GLK being built in Germany certainly an attractive feature. Somehow, I feel it will be more like the C/E and less like the ML/GL.

Again, the dealer experience goes back to my original point, that MB dealers are superior to Audi in most cases, at least in Canada.

GLKKa2H

knnite: This tread was started “GLK or Q5?”, which makes it very difficult to respond on most of your comments to my post, as this (as well) will be off topic.

What triggered you, is hard for me to understand, however did yourself point at the verb 'limping" substantiating the accusations. Emergency operation (limp-home mode), note your GLK Operator’s Manual, is what a thousand GLK and other MB (diesel) owners have been through, some of them more than once. That’s a fact.

So we agree on: Car makers “- make great cars and lousy ones as do most other manufacturers”.

We as well certainly agree on: Argumentum ad hominem: “- do little to enlighten or advance the discussion”.

Which brings me back to the essence in my reply to your initial post: What matters is that cars are made in accordance with mfg. specifications - and that QA is well working.

And then, as W210 wrote: Back to topic.