Rob Steal

I'm seriously considering purchasing a GLK and have learned a lot about the car (reading through the majority of the threads in this forum as well on Benzworld.com), however, my main concern is the gas mileage. 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. But what peaks my interest is that this new aptly named "Blue Efficient" V6 (already in the 2012 refreshed C-Class) has much better fuel efficiency than the outgoing model.

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.

Do you think I should still go for the current GLK with the refresh looming? I'm assuming it should arrive sometime probably in late September of this year or a little later like most new models. But I'm somewhat in a rush to buy a car, and with a new refreshed GLK around the corner, I don't want to be in a situation of having buyer's remorse after the fact. And since I can't wait that long, I'll probably have to go with a different car.

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!

venchka

Seach this forum and the web in general for "direct injection." Decide for yourself. BlueTec might be the way to go.
My dealer had 2012s in late August. Model switch is usually late June-early July. Get one of your dealer's earliest allocations. New car for Labor Day.

Wayne

MBNA109

If your main concern is mpg, you shouldn't be getting an SUV - plain & simple.

Rob Steal

I don't think you read that right or maybe I wasn't very clear. I meant to say that after reading all the threads/posts about the GLK from this forum and some others, what I surmised is that the GLK's poor fuel efficiency is what stood out the most (negatively). That and the brake travel issue, light steering, door squeaks, etc. and some others. Those issues seemed to be the most prevalent/commonplace complaints from GLK owners.

I am NOT looking primarily for MPG's in a SUV. But when the GLK does 16/21, and competitors in this class like Q5, X3, and RDX are much better on gas, you just can't ignore that. And I mean MUCH better. The X3 has 300 hp, does low 14's, and 19/26 MPG. The Q5 2.0t does 20/27. I do understand that these are compact SUV's and not sports cars. I'm just comparing with the competition.

However, if MPG was "my main concern," there are certainly SUV's out there that would satisfy this notion. Simple & Plain.

But don't get me wrong. I really like the GLK more than any of the aforementioned cars. It's a winner in my book. But I just can't ignore 16/21. Especially when potentially 19/24 will be here in 4-6 months.

CJBROWN

You're looking at a $40K-plus Mercedes Benz and your main concern is gas mileage? Hmmm...I agree, wrong car.

Engines will continue to improve. Each generation will perform a little better, increase power and torque per liter of displacement.

I average 18.1 with mostly city driving, over 10K miles. Out on the freeway it will get 24 if you keep the speed under 75.

There should be plenty of lease returns showing up. Might be a good time to pick up a CPO. Depreciation should be more of a concern than fuel economy, IMHO.

It's a great car. I wouldn't trade mine for any of them, suits just fine. If I had the money I would get a Bluetec ML, but that's just me.

Just doing some quick math...
If you drive 12k a year and get 18mpg, @$3.85 per gallon verses 21mpg, the difference is $47 per month. I've had lunch that costs more than that.

BTW, the diesel coming out is a smaller four cylinder. You're not gonna find the ML diesel in the GLK. Shame really. The good news with the current model is that it is the same as the gas ML 6cyl, and it's quite athletic.

dgiturbo

The 2011 loaner I drove for a month gave 23MPG highway. My diesel ML gives 27MPG normally. Fuel used compared to the ML was about 4 gallons more a week for the same highway/city combined 500 mile a week drive.
I ordered the 2012 for my wife as she only drives 10 miles one way to work, and the fuel savings versus the GLK diesel wasn't worth the wait till November. Also, I know the 250 Bluetec engine is already being used worldwide, but I need to see and drive it here in the US before I buy one.
Remember the GLK uses premium fuel, something to consider when prices climb again. Also direct injection still has a few design issues to be resolved.
Plus, I like the current look. Who knows how i will feel when I actually see the new style in public.
Hope this helps.

Rob Steal

I don't know, $600 a year times 3 (how long I plan to keep the car) is around $2K. But couple with the fact that gas prices are projected to hit $4.00 gal by this spring/summer (msn.com article from today) AND if war breaks out in the Middle East, prices could realistically hit up to $5-6 gal, that 3-year figure could jump to $3-4K. Pretty significant if you ask me.

http://money.msn.com/saving-money-ti...a-fd6e29c50988

I understand it's all speculation at this point, but who knows. I think waiting 4-6 months for a vehicle that is significantly better on gas is prudent thing to do.




Thanks. Your post was helpful.

venchka

There are brand new 2011 models around. I saw one this afternoon while Baby Benz was getting a new rubber hose, tires balanced and rotated, and a bath. The savings could pay for ALL of your fuel for 3 years.
Who keeps a car for 3 years? Interesting.

Wayne

MBNA109

1) Once again, if you are spending north of $40k, gas prices shouldn't be in the equation.

2) I didn't think getting the new est. combined 20 mpg was something worth nickel & dining for esp. when you just dropped $40K on something so impractical vs the comp (X3, Q5, XC60).

3) I mean if you are going to raise certain fundamental issues but leave others out - where is the line of demarcation or for that matter line for personal cheap out?

4) The OP raised certain driveabililty issues which may contribute to lower gas mileage esp. if one is compensating for the brakes & later turn-ins. ie In racing parlance - you don't know how to maximize the potential of the car in.

5) From all projections I've seen, the new efficient DI gas will only bring @ most 10% mpg improvement or about 20 mpg combined - so whatever gas you save in those 3 years - you end up paying at the dealership in MSRP markup and then some.

6) So your $2k gets you a face lift, new engine, & new interior & 1.5 mpg more.

Congratulations - you paid for that new face lift & interior tuck.
However, you shouldn't hide behind the gas eco mask cause you want newer & believe the bigger number (model year & hp) must mean better.
The logic doesn't add up.

venchka

The GLK's worst features are a coin toss between fuel economy and cargo space.
Best features are myriad. I discovered two new ones today: I hit the freeway this afternoon on my way to Star Motors for a bit of warranty work. I'm in the fast lane. Everything smooth and quiet. I look at the spedo. Eightyfriggenfive. Most unusual for me. No indication at all that I was going that fast. I grinned. Held the speed until traffic got in the way.
Second one: Driving home after 6:30. Roof opened. Stereo cranked up. More sedate speed. No wind noise. Just music. Love it.
Hey, it gets better gas mileage than my 1989 Trooper II. I drove it 15 years before giving it to my daughter.
Drive it 3 years? You don't need to worry about direct injection and crud on the valves.
Just do it. Order early. Be the first kid on the block...........

Wayne

Rob Steal

1) I disagree. Maybe $100k+, but if money was no object, I wouldn't be buying GLK, the second cheapest Mercedes.

2) Again disagree. It is not nickel & diming from my perspective, especially with gas prices on their way to $4 this spring/summer and possibly $5-6 and beyond if conflict erupts in the Middle East. A very real possibility.

3, 4, 5, 6 & the rest) Exactly what I wanted to avoid. Having to make statements with underlying sentiments of buyer's remorse for a new, better model looming on the horizon after recently just purchasing an outgoing model. That really sucks.


This and many other reasons is why I am a big fan of the GLK. After test-driving the car, I was convinced.

Also a big fan of the old school Isuzu Troopers! Love the tall and boxy styling.

venchka

Thanks. You would probably get a kick out of the in between Stealth SUV AWD Turbo Race Wagon also.
Bring on high oil prices. It is great for our business.

Wayne

CJBROWN

No buyers remorse here. This is number 5, working class benzos for me. Just love them.

I wouldn't own an audi- will never forget the 100ls and 5000. Worst cars ever built.

I've had three volvos, that's enough for a lifetime.

The beemer? Well, kind of a toss-up. The benz is more conservative. I'd rather have their 3-series 'vert.

I think your question was 'should you wait'. Yes definitely, you've already talked yourself into that. You'll never be sorry if you want the lastest offering and have the time and money to do it.

I still don't believe it's really about the gas mileage.

MBNA109

I don't see many people prancing around saying they spent $40k to get 20mpg. A Prius @ 1/2 that price or even a 6 cylinder Camry will get you around with your head held high for smarts.

So you are here to argue if you should wait to spend an extra $2K+ whether in gas or new model markup instead of going not luxury or even public transport...hmmm if there is WWIII in th middle east, I'd be incline to sink it in the latter if real logic were in play.

What sucks is the hemming & hawing over perceived problems that don't exist.

What also sucks for most SUV esp. foreign luxury SUV is mpg.
there is no 25+ mpg SUV anywhere.
So saying you paid an extra $2k for 20mpg comes off as extravagant not pennywise.

Waiting for a new model that you say you want to save $ on gas on but basically just want for looks & the bigger number engine while blowing the savings & more$ is well - illogical & just fooling no one but yourself.

But hey - it's your $; you can't just can't fool every1.

MBNA109

Yeah - any1 can wait...wait for the flying GLK with zero emission & the transwarp drive costing $1zillion.
We'll just be riding around on the ground with a big grin.

Rob Steal

Not so much of having to have the absolute latest offering, but being only 4-6 months removed from a improved product (where it needs it most) is what irks me, especially when I basically need to buy a car now.

But I think you're pretty much on point with your post.

Rob Steal

"There is no 25+ mpg luxury SUV anywhere??" Are you daft? WTF? And not reading? As I stated in post #4, the Audi Q5 2.0t does 20/27 mpg.

Let me ask, do your fingers shake? Indecisive? Having to make edits after edits to your posts will do that to you.

Nervous much? Cool out son before you blow a gasket... Haha.

GLKKa2H

I believe the cargo compartment of a BlueTEC GLK (whenever it will be launced) could be reduced by 20 – to 50 liter (5.3 – to 13.2 US gallons) due to the fertilizer tank. The cargo compartment of the ML 350 BlueTEC 4Matic is 500 l, wheras it is 551 l for ML 350.

A GLK 250 CDI BlueEFFICIENCY is by rumors to be sold in US, which I question as it meets (only) the EURO 5 emissions standards, compliant with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which are less stringent than the California Air Resources Board (CARB). The 250 CDI BlueTEC (available for the MLs) emisson requirements meets the EURO 6, and are compliant with the CARB. So for a 250 CDI GLK to be sold in US I think you have to wait for a BlueTEC.

Orders for the MY 2013 can be placed from March 19 (in Europe), deliveries will start late June and the GLK to be introduced on the 2012 Geneva Motor Show, 8.th – thru 18.th March. http://www.salon-auto.ch/en/presse/


ML 250 BlueTEC 4MATIC city: 30.9 – 33.6 -, highway (außerorts) 40.6 – 43.6 - and mixed 36.2 – 39.2 MPG.

MBNA109

Ooops, I should've qualify & say gas not diesel - per the OP.

That being said, I would find it difficult for the OP to recoup any savings when he will paying for diesel @ or higher than premium gas prices plus the purchase premium on the sticker in only 3 years.

MBNA109

Yes, I make edits - so I don't speak out of my @ss without any logic like you.

But I hear that about you folks with the premature shooting off....
Put it in context ole timer - the rest of that statement was:
"What also sucks for most SUV esp. foreign luxury SUV is mpg. there is no 25+ mpg SUV anywhere."
If you are really a serious penny pinching eco booster - do the math (20+27)/2 = 23.5 mpg.

& Here's the list more fitted for what you really can do with those pennies:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars...ient-2011-suvs

Speaking of indecision - aren't you the one with the problem & needed to come here to get help with the big league decision making. waaaaaaaa....

venchka

GLKKa2H,

Much sooner than I would have thought.

Rob Steal,

While you wait, find a Volvo XC70 with the T6 engine. You might be surprised. As someone who has enjoyed a Volvo turbo for almost 9 years I can tell you that the turbo's full time all the time torque from 1,500 RPM to 4,500+ RPM is addictive. In the real world, where 50 mph to 100 mph is used far more often than the silly 0-60 specification, having all of the torque an engine can produce available all the time will put a grin on your face. I would wager that the current 3 liter T6 engine just might embarrass the current direct injected M-B 350 engine. AND you can tote a LOT more stuff while suffering no penalties at the pump.

There are alternatives.

Wayne

Rob Steal

Haha, you're an idiot. Have you even read your post? Are you screaming or whining?"

"Ole timer?" Uh... no son. Prolly got less miles than you. Hehe.

Post 8:12am. Edit 8:30am. Too funny player. You just go way too far with the comedy man. Haha.

Rob Steal

I actually did take a look at the XC70, however, it just looks more like wagon than a CUV to me. My father did have a S70 T5 turbo that he loved. It was a great car. Good lookin out though.

CJM Online

If the average mileage were say 30 versus 20 mpg (my wife gets about 22 with a mix so 20 may be conservative), and you drive 12,000 miles per year....

12,000/30 = 400 gallons x $4.00 = $1,600 per year/12 = $133.33 per month

12,000/20 = 600 gallons x $4.00 = $2,400 per year/12 = $200.00 per month

Or in your worst case scenario:

12,000/30 = 400 gallons x $6.00 = $2,400 per year/12 = $200.00 per month


12,000/20 = 600 gallons x $6.00 = $3,600 per year/12 = $300.00 per month

So if the say $67, or maybe (let's all hope not) $100, more per month is a negative for you then maybe the GLK isn't your best choice. But for us we will gladly spend it to have a car that excites us every time we walk into the garage, and (less important but still...) turns heads (in a good way!) everytime we drive it!

Otherwise our only real complaint is it's a little light on 'trunk' space (easily solved by driving my 14 mpg full-size SUV)...

MBNA109

"nuff said - too retarded to make an adult decision.
I think laughing @ your own material is called loneliness.

Keep your hands moisturize you chimp.