2013 GLK Refresh w/ NEW BLUE EFFICIENT V6 (20/29 mpg in 2012 C-Class)-Worth the Wait?
03-14-2012, 03:38 PM
#51
Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So CA
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 GLK 350--AMG Package 20" Chromed Wheels, Loaded
Thanks for correcting me B16RacerN2NR! I knew that it was "turbo-charged" but continue to say "Super-Charged"! My bad! Shows you how old I am I guess!
It is amazing the speed and get-up-and-go that her C-250 has--and to get that kind of mpg is great! Really nice improvements over all for the new C-Class. Still love my GLK way more--lower mpg or not--actually more than the previous E-classes! It's my toy!
It is amazing the speed and get-up-and-go that her C-250 has--and to get that kind of mpg is great! Really nice improvements over all for the new C-Class. Still love my GLK way more--lower mpg or not--actually more than the previous E-classes! It's my toy!
03-15-2012, 06:45 PM
#52
Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So CA
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 GLK 350--AMG Package 20" Chromed Wheels, Loaded
PS: Not exactly on this thread but does anyone know what the (x204) stands for? Is it the model number over seas or manufactures number? Alway wondered. Thanks!
03-16-2012, 02:32 PM
#53
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Philly area
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 37 Likes
on
34 Posts
350 GLK, C280
Quick Question for you guys with a BLu-tech. A guy I rode with in a limo said his 2012 ML diesel has a $1100 charge every 10,000 miles for liquid service. Is he getting taken for a ride by his dealer? He also said that if he got a low oil light, after the 11th start the vehicle would need to be towed in for service as it could not be stated. I thought if he didn't top off his oil after the first start he was nuts.
03-16-2012, 05:22 PM
#54
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Texas
Posts: 1,522
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
2004 Volvo XC70; 2012 GLK 350 4matic
He's probably talking about AdBlue-DEF. Yes, if you ignore the warnings the truck shuts down. Sam's Club sells the stuff. Yes, I think he is getting hosed.
Wayne
Wayne
03-17-2012, 08:05 AM
#55
Super Member
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Philly area
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 37 Likes
on
34 Posts
350 GLK, C280
Thanks. That is what I thought. But, I did not know and he was unhappy. He also had a Lexus hi-bred which he said he got 80000 miles from his brakes but only 40000 miles from his tires. Could regen braking be that good?
03-17-2012, 08:36 PM
#56
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Central coast California
Posts: 257
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes
on
6 Posts
2012 GLK 350 4matic, 2014 BMW M235i
Hi Rob,
I am skeptical of any quantum leap in efficiency for the GLK (or any car, for that matter) when basically the same engine is rumored to be newly tweaked for approximately a 10% increase in HP and ~5% torque while simultaneously increasing MPG about 16%. Could the improvements to the V-6 gasoline engine really be that big? Maybe so, I don't know.
If the numbers really turn out to be true your decision may boil down to the purchase price of the 2012 vs the 2013. If the '13 only stickers for no more than a grand more then perhaps it's worth the wait.
Meanwhile, I absolutely love my '12 GLK 350 4matic. I traded in a 4.0L Ford Exploder 2wd that weighed virtually the same and got almost identically the same MPG. So for me, I'm driving a supremely better vehicle that handles better, goes quicker, is quieter, is much more comfortable... and gets the same MPG. At this point in my life, 2 or 3 MPG either way just doesn't bug me. The GLK is so darned much fun to drive I just don't think about a couple of MPG either way.
-3.5L
I am skeptical of any quantum leap in efficiency for the GLK (or any car, for that matter) when basically the same engine is rumored to be newly tweaked for approximately a 10% increase in HP and ~5% torque while simultaneously increasing MPG about 16%. Could the improvements to the V-6 gasoline engine really be that big? Maybe so, I don't know.
If the numbers really turn out to be true your decision may boil down to the purchase price of the 2012 vs the 2013. If the '13 only stickers for no more than a grand more then perhaps it's worth the wait.
Meanwhile, I absolutely love my '12 GLK 350 4matic. I traded in a 4.0L Ford Exploder 2wd that weighed virtually the same and got almost identically the same MPG. So for me, I'm driving a supremely better vehicle that handles better, goes quicker, is quieter, is much more comfortable... and gets the same MPG. At this point in my life, 2 or 3 MPG either way just doesn't bug me. The GLK is so darned much fun to drive I just don't think about a couple of MPG either way.
-3.5L
I know the 4Matic does 16/21 mpg, which is pretty discouraging low. and it seems that basically every car in this class has better gas mileage than the GLK. But I really do love the styling of the car. It's just very original and unique in my opinion.
However, I've read the GLK is due for a refresh for the 2013 MY to include a diesel version as well as an updated V6 with nearly 300hp and 273 lb-ft of torque.
I understand that the GLK is a different, much heavier car, however it's conceivable that the refreshed GLK should see similar, pretty drastic gas mileage improvements. The gains on the C-Class are roughly 3-4 MPG's improvement across the board. So that would roughly translate to around 19/24-25 ish MPG for GLK! Obviously this is speculation at this point but I would think somewhat feasible.
What do you think? Would you still buy the current GLK knowing the new model will have more power and more importantly, MUCH better fuel efficiency? Sorry for the rant and I know I've probably answered my own question, but I would like to hear what the people in this forum think.
Thanks!
However, I've read the GLK is due for a refresh for the 2013 MY to include a diesel version as well as an updated V6 with nearly 300hp and 273 lb-ft of torque.
I understand that the GLK is a different, much heavier car, however it's conceivable that the refreshed GLK should see similar, pretty drastic gas mileage improvements. The gains on the C-Class are roughly 3-4 MPG's improvement across the board. So that would roughly translate to around 19/24-25 ish MPG for GLK! Obviously this is speculation at this point but I would think somewhat feasible.
What do you think? Would you still buy the current GLK knowing the new model will have more power and more importantly, MUCH better fuel efficiency? Sorry for the rant and I know I've probably answered my own question, but I would like to hear what the people in this forum think.
Thanks!
Last edited by 3.5L; 03-17-2012 at 08:38 PM.
03-19-2012, 02:38 PM
#57
Member
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: So CA
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 GLK 350--AMG Package 20" Chromed Wheels, Loaded
I'd like to 2nd 3.5L's remarks! My 2012 GLK is so much fun to drive and you never know that you are in an SUV/Truck! It feels like, and drives like a very safe handling luxury car! I just drove to Laguna Beach for a weekend get-away, from Ventura, CA which is about 110 miles each way and, in an absolute downpour of rain and it flew through the water like it wasn't even raining, never drifting or slipping/sliding in the water (thank you 4matic!),with a totally grounded feeling! When we arrived at the resort with many luxury cars there, we got several compliments on the car and how good looking it was, and a lot of stares! Not in the same company as the Bentley's or Rolls that were there LOL--but a stand-out none the less. That said, like 3.5L, at this point in my life what's a couple of miles per gallon one way or the other---btw, I averaged 22.4 MPG on the way down in the rain (but light traffic) and 21.7 MPG back in much heavier traffic and lot of stop and go. So I'm not complaining. Love it!
03-20-2012, 10:03 AM
#58
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Texas
Posts: 1,522
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
2004 Volvo XC70; 2012 GLK 350 4matic
Careful what you wish for. Has anyone speculated on where the fertilizer tank goes in a BlueTec GLK? Does it replace the spare tire? Necessitating the dreaded run flat tires? Or does it encroach on the already paltry cargo space? Just wondering. something to look at if/when they hit the USA market.
Wayne
Wayne
03-20-2012, 01:37 PM
#59
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BMW 330cic
Worth the wait? Depends how long you want to wait. I would be hesitant to buy a Euro car with a new, untested powertrain. The new direct injection V-6 should be nice, but give it a year or two for MB to work out any kinks.
The 2.1 diesel has been proven in other countries, but you are looking at a huge drop in performance, with 0-60 in the 8.5 second range. Of course, mileage is much improved. I wish they would have brought the bigger 3.0 diesel that I think they have in Europe. The 2.1 diesel is all about efficiency.
The 2.1 diesel has been proven in other countries, but you are looking at a huge drop in performance, with 0-60 in the 8.5 second range. Of course, mileage is much improved. I wish they would have brought the bigger 3.0 diesel that I think they have in Europe. The 2.1 diesel is all about efficiency.
03-20-2012, 04:56 PM
#60
Super Member
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tromsø, 69° 41' N
Posts: 520
Likes: 0
Received 5 Likes
on
2 Posts
2010 GLK 220CDI 4M BlueEFFICIENCY
"- with 0-60 in the 8.5 second range": GLK 250 CDI 4MATIC BlueEFFICIENCY 0-100 km/h (0-62 mph): 7.9 s.
"The 2.1 diesel is all about efficiency" - exception made for the fun driving with a torque of 369 lbs/ft vs 258 - of the 350.
"The 2.1 diesel is all about efficiency" - exception made for the fun driving with a torque of 369 lbs/ft vs 258 - of the 350.
03-21-2012, 12:11 AM
#61
Junior Member
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BMW 330cic
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)
03-23-2012, 09:41 PM
#66
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: East Texas
Posts: 1,522
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
2004 Volvo XC70; 2012 GLK 350 4matic
On the road. Driving away. Everything paid. Taxes. License. Title. Less than invoice. How much less? That is up to your negotiating skills. Are you a member of, or eligiable for USAA membership? Own a vehicle on the Conquest list? either one of those is worth additional money off.
Look what I found:
Any more help and you're gonna owe me something.
Wayne
Look what I found:
This month, March 2012, the Competitor Conquest Program has been opened up to just about every manufacturer you can think of…. Acura, Aston Martin, Audi, Bentley, BMW, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Chrysler, Dodge, Ferrari, GM, Honda, Hyundai, Infiniti, Isuzu (do they even still make Isuzus?), Jaguar, Jeep, KIA, Lamborghini, Lexus, Lincoln, Lotus, Maserati, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Porsche, Range Rover and on and on. If you’ve got a car that isn’t a Fiat, Citroen or Peugeot, you’ll probably be eligible for the rebates below.
Wayne
Last edited by venchka; 03-23-2012 at 10:33 PM.
04-28-2012, 06:56 AM
#67
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Boston
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2013 GLK350
Conquest cash
hi,
i'm new to this forum. can anyone tell me if conquest cash applies if i order a new 2013 GLK?
thanks
i'm new to this forum. can anyone tell me if conquest cash applies if i order a new 2013 GLK?
thanks
Last edited by NausetLight; 04-28-2012 at 09:28 AM.
04-30-2012, 02:46 AM
#69
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 288
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2012 c63 sedan
I think I was quoting the 220 CDI numbers by accident. In any case, I'm a big diesel fan. I just wish they were bringing the 350 CDI instead.
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)
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)
Example:the jetta wagen diesel EPA is 30(city)/42(highway), but real world is like 48-50 Highway.
Supposedly 2013 Q5 will come out with a V6 TDI.. Looking forward to that car!
Why can't we get diesel wagons!?!?!?! Sometimes I wish gas was like $10/g and then we will get all the European models..
05-07-2012, 11:26 PM
#70
Newbie
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GSX-R750
[QUOTE=ewc;5111678]I think I was quoting the 220 CDI numbers by accident. In any case, I'm a big diesel fan. I just wish they were bringing the 350 CDI instead.
+100! Thanks for posting this. I just got a 2012 350 4matic. I wasn't sure if they were going to have the diesel in 4matic and then wasn't sure I'd like the body style. I prefer the more boxy.
+100! Thanks for posting this. I just got a 2012 350 4matic. I wasn't sure if they were going to have the diesel in 4matic and then wasn't sure I'd like the body style. I prefer the more boxy.
