iconoclast

Anyone here cross-shopped the two before buying?

Curious to know what drove you to one or the other and if you have any regrets about your choice.

Thanks.

GLKKa2H

Search the forum by key "GLK vs. Q5" and you'll get 13 threads related to your request.

Good luck.

iconoclast

my apologies.

GLKKa2H

No trouble at all!

venchka

Our decision was limited by dealer availability in Tyler, TX. While we probably would have bought a second Volvo XC 70, there are only two European dealers in Tyler: Mercedes-Benz & BMW. Choosing between a GLK 350 and an X-3 was a no brainer for us. Audi is not represented locally. Even if it were, I think we would have still bought the GLK 350 4matic.

Wayne

iconoclast

i prefer the styling of the glk over the q5, however the q5 has much better interior. on top of it all the q5 3.2 has a great deal of issues w/ carbon build-up while the mb engine is not prone to this since it is not direct injection...

venchka

I may be thankful that we bought early for this reason. I don't wish anyone trouble, but direct injection may not be the great leap forward the folks who always want the latest & greatest thing are calling it. I'm content with things that have been around since forever and work.

Wayne

iconoclast

tell me about it... i have an fsi engine currently and had a few others in the past and while it isnt a real problem it is a nuisance and annoying issue to deal with. the dealer will cover it but you have to do about five or so visits before they even remove the intake manifold for a physical inspection... before that it is all fuel additives and injection system cleaning with detergents etc. pointless attempts at trying to fix something which needs to be done manually by scrubbing the vanes and valves. now with the q5 it is a worse situation because not only is on the intake side but it is on the exhaust side as well... several people have had to have their engine removed to do a carbon cleaning both on the valves on the exhaust manifold end.

MBNA109

Thought process that ruled out the Q5 for us was:

1) Lack exclusivity - too many Q5's on road
2) Essentially a midget wannabe Q7
3) Bad fuel quality in US affecting DI engine

Did I mention we didn't want to look like any other Dick or Jane?

iconoclast

here there is no shortage of GLK or Q5s on the road so it is not an issue... you're going to find either one at any given time, along with x3 and lexus rx. had a q7 it was more than we possibly could ever use, although it was a great suv it was just too much that is why we are now looking for one size smaller.

venchka

Grinning. I happened to park our GLK next to a Q5 in Blowing Rock, NC. I spent quite a bit of time walking around both while the family was shopping. I admit I was looking through biased eyes. But. The GLK did look better to me. The thing I appreciate about the GLK: It doesn't look Asian. It doesn't look Audi or BMW. I like that. No doubt that is also why I like the XC 70. Distinctive, refined appearance that isn't a wannabe copy of something else.

Wayne

MBNA109

You remind me of something I was saying to my wife during our search:
Looking @ the Hyundai cute ute from certain angles I see the X3.

iconoclast

x3 isnt an option... over the last decade having owned a few BMWs and watching the brand cut corners i will not own another... the quality of BMW interior has gone down dramatically... some of them with only 20-30k miles on them look like they have been driven for 10yrs w/ over 100k on them... it is insane... also the e83 did not appeal to me at all aesthetically but the revised f25 is definitely a step in the right direction. looks better but still not for me/us.

ferrariyellow44

I actually bought the Q5 2.0T.
Reasons I liked it more than the GLK:
1.) QUATTRO! I prefer MB in every way to Audi, but Quattro is truly a brillant system.
2.) Fuel Economy: I get about 30mpg highway in my Q5
3.) Interior: The interior on the GLK is pretty dreadful compared to the Q5. Hopefully they'll update it soon to make it feel as the new C class

Things I dont like:
1.) 8 speed gearbox. Its just TOO MANY GEARS! Its always shifting to another gear, unbelievably annoying.
2.) The ride quality isnt particularly my favorite, it way stiffer and bouncier than my ML. But the Q5 feels much more planted in the corners, far less body roll than my ML. Its a tradeoff.
3.) The 2.0T burns an enormous amount of oil. Every 2 weeks the car needs about a quart of oil

Upon a test drive, the Q5 seems like the better choice. But after owning one, it has alot of issues that need to be addressed. However, if I was buying again, I would probably still choose it! (mainly because of the Quattro)

Hope this helps??

iconoclast

i wouldnt do a 2.0t since they only came out 2011+... we are looking at 2010. although with a flash and a fmic it boasts some great numbers it basically adds 12k to the purchase price before modifications.

ferrariyellow44

Yes, I have a B7 A4 with the 2.0T and I recently had it flashed by REVO. It makes some serious power now! If I recall about 260 ft-lbs, Almost S4 power

So your saying the 2.0T would be out of your price range?

iconoclast

Depends on the year of your A4 there were seven different versions of the 2.0T for A4/A3/GTI etc.

B7 A4 = BPG Engine up until 2007/2008 and replaced with BWT Engine. (There was a BUL/BWE as well but not sure where or how they fell into place.)
B8 A4 = 2.0T CAEB
8R Q5 = 3.2 CALB / 2.OT CAEB

yes, it would be 10-12k more than a 2010 equipped the same way.

toraniji

Me too, I like the styling of GLK but the interior of Q5.
Also, Q5 2.0T P+ has better MPG.
However, I could get 8k off MSRP on GLK but only 3k on Q5.

ferrariyellow44

my A4 is a 2006, the Q5 and the A4 most definitley have different versions of the 2.0T, the Q5's is muchhhh smoother and has far less Turbo lag.

02Drunkenup

my mom owns the 3.2 that I very often get to drive.. to contribute to what you said

1. Quattro is a great AWD system from my (limited) recent snow experiences (that vs. a C300 4matic loaner), its extremely intelligent and I don't recall spinning once in the recent 2 incher. That plus this car is just far more agile than my S-Class, it sits relatively lower than the GLK from a visual standpoint and I can hurl this thing far harder than I can my MB. The steering is pretty direct and relatively more responsive than my Benz, it might have a faster ratio but I'm not entirely sure.
2. Ours sees town driving quite often vs highway and we average a healthy 19 mpg, I'm pretty sure we can push 25 on the highway
3. The interior is probably the biggest point over the the GLK, as you mentioned, while I never got the opportunity to sit nor drive one, it just seemed unattractive and uninviting from the photos. The quality of the materials in the Q5 are quite high quality and are somewhat better than that of the materials in my S-Class. Finer soft-plastics, very well bolstered seats, very comfortable driving position, etc.

1. The 3.2 gets the 6-speed vs the eight in the 2.0T and its never really searching for gears, it'll hold one and stick with it.
2. The ride is pretty firm, but not stiff. It isn't exactly ideal for what I wanted in a compact SUV, but the tradeoff for the sporty-ness and agility seemed reasonable. Could be worse though, my Q5 has the smaller of the rim variety.
3. Can't speak for how much oil it drinks.. shes at 27-ish thousand miles and I don't arrange any maintenance, but I've never seen any related messages show up in the instrument cluster while driving it or riding.

On the D.I. carbon build-up issue, for the most part, I've haven't noticed any of the FSI-carbon build-up symptoms (HP loss, MPG loss, misfires), but were only barely hitting 28k so theres no telling whats in the future.

ferrariyellow44

The 3.2's apparently dont burn as much oil as the 2.0T's. But whats even stranger is that my A4 2.0T burns zero oil, yet the Q5 burns a inasane amount. I would think that the newer versions of the 2.0T would burn less oil, go figure!

So I guess if you need strong fuel economy and live in a snowy enviroment, the Q5 is definitley the better choice....I do like the styling of the GLK better, IMO

iconoclast

thanks guys, i appreciate the insight and info.

jonnyrt

What is it with all these people disliking the GLK interior??? It is gorgeous, especially with the Dark Ash Trim....classy and functional. I really do not understand how the Audi interior is superior, I have owned VW products before, they are bland and uninspired, personal taste I guess....

My 2009 GTI TSI 2.0T used to go through oil too, even with only 33,000 km on the motor. The exhaust pipes always had black soot on them from burning so rich with the direct injection....awesome motor though for power and fuel efficiency.

iconoclast

the quality of the glk interior does not match the price point...

vw interior is not audi interior especially when comparing to a gti.

venchka

How much time have you spent in either vehicle? In the absence of material and labor costs for both vehicles, such pronouncements have little basis in fact.
The question I asked a new Lexus owner once, "Where does it stop being a Toyota and start being a Lexus?" Substitute VW & Audi, Honda & Acura, or Nissan and Infiniti.
Her answer, "HUH? It's a Lexus not a Toyota."
The interior of our GLK satisfies the Minister of Transportation & Interior Decoration & Finance. That works for me.

Wayne