Oldengineer

I was on a trip last weekend, and, my GLK really surprised me. I was trying to get off an interstate ramp into heavy traffic. I saw a window of opportunity and gave her the gas, and, she chirped all 4 tires and took off. I was amazed she had that much low end grunt. I had to get off the gas quickly because the GLK was really spooling up the speedo.

Regards:
Oldengineer

3.5L

I drive mine pretty easy most of the time, but every now and then I have to really punch it to mix into traffic like you did, or pass a line of semi-trucks. The GLK always gets its shinola in a group and takes off surprisingly quick. I'm never disappointed.

Now that I think about it, I have yet to make a max-effort launch from 0 MPH while in the "S" mode. I"ll bet it's impressive!

3.5L

Oldengineer

3.5L:
Funny thing was - I was going about 20 MPH when I punched it, and, it wasn't in S mode either.

Regards:
Oldengineer

N91K

I used to put it in S mode all the time but then realized that E is enough for me also. It's a lot of fun to drive and everything in this car manages to surprise me!

3.5L

This thread brings up a strong point of the GLK, and that is of continuing satisfaction. Why do I say that? Well, let me try to give an example.

Back in late 1970 (I'm dating myself, again), we bought a new, 1971 Mercury Capri, a neat looking little sport sedan with the English Cortina 1600cc engine.

Unfortunately, the once-nice 1600 Cortina engine was pretty well neutered by the new Federal smog regulations. It stumbled and twitched and was pretty anemic.

Then along came the 2000cc Capri, followed by the 2600c V-6 and 2800cc V-6 Capri. Man, I wanted one of those V-6 numbers so bad!

So here we are with our GLK's, and of course, the next version sports 302 HP. You know what? I don't care this time! My 268 HP GLK goes so quickly, in such a refined way, shifts smooth and is a delight to drive. I'm happy.

3.5L

Oldengineer

3.5L
I agree with you. I traded a Jaguar S-Type 4.2 in for the GLK. I thought I'd be giving up a lot of get up and go, but, the GLK is almost as quick, and, handles very well to boot. I'm well satisfied with it, and, wife likes it a lot better than she did the Jag.

Regards:
Oldengineer
2011 GLK 3504 Matic
2010 Honda CRV LX
1948 Chevrolet Fleetmaster Town Sedan

JALLEN4

People just don't realize how far the modern vehicle has progressed. My first new car was a 1965 GTO that has become legendary as a muscle car. A 1965 Tri-power with a four speed trans would do 0-60 in 5.8 seconds and turn a 14.5 quarter mile. In the muscle car era it was considered to be one of the "hot" ones and ran as well as most anything built at the time.

Motor Trend just published a road test on the 2013 GLK350. Heavily equipped with luxury items and 4Matic, it turned 0-60 in 5.8 seconds and a 14.4 quarter. It handles better, gets far better fuel economy, and you ride down the road with A/C and great luxury. This is "The good old days"!

3.5L

I well remember my first ride in a muscle car. The older brother of one of my best friends borrowed a '63 Dodge that had a 426 wedge under the hood. It had an awesome lope to the idle. So, he took us for a quick trip, limited to one romp in 1st gear. Next thing I know, we're doing 60 MPH! Jeepers! A couple of years later, another friend gave me a quick ride in his new-to-him 427 Ford Galaxi 500. 1st, 2nd - wham, neck-snapping 80 MPH just like that! Heh! What a beast!

I well remember the '65 goat as well. One lucky guy in our senior high class had the same model - tri-power and all that. It was so cool (until his girlfriend started out from a traffic light in reverse when she thought she had it in 1st gear, heh!)

Interesting thing, my Mazda RX-8 is listed as 0 to 60 in 5.8 seconds and 1/4 mile in 14.5 seconds. All that from a diminutive 1.3L (80 cu. in.) Wankel engine.

3.5L

Oldengineer

In 69, I had a new Olds 442 with the 325 HP 400 CID engine in it. Fast forward to the present - I think my GLK is quicker than the Olds was as well. I've ridden in a 4 speed GTO back in the day - believe it was a 68 or 69, and, it was a strong performer. The quickest car I ever rode in was a 67 Corvette - 427/435 HP that a buddy owned. Its funny - I took my 48 Chevy to a cruise in today, and, we were parked next to a beautiful 66 427 'Vette.

Regards:
Oldengineer

JALLEN4

1969 Olds 442 0-60 5.8 sec. 1/4 mile 13.7

3.5L

I neglected to mention that our family car at the time I got those first muscle car rides was a '58 Volkswagen micro bus with 36 raging HP. Talk about one extreme to another!

3.5L

Oldengineer

Nah - the one I had, with a 3:08 rear end, and an automatic wasn't even close to that - especially with the base engine. My guess - low 7's to 60. As a road car - it was great, decent gas mileage, and spirited performace - but no drag car with that axle ratio.


Regards:
Oldengineer

MBNA109

My only complaint about my beloved GLK is that it is very slow to get its 2+ tons stopped or change direction.\
Compared to an X3 or Q5, the GLK isn't as nimble.

The GLK's steering is quick but hauling the rest of its carcass after the steering changes is ponderous at best.

Any car can be made to go straight fast or red light to red light.
There is more to driving than that tho.
& in real world driving, the directional changes such as merging onto hwys or navigating tight urban corners deftly are what is making the GLK fall short of its competitor.
The GLK is too chiseled & not flexible enough an athlete like its 2 rivals.
Stiff is the word.

Hopefully the next gen GLK will solve these issues.
On the flip side, I wouldn't take the 2 other German comps off-road like I can with the GLK.

JALLEN4

I have a fair amount of track time behind me and I would agree the GLK does not handle like those cars did. On the other hand, they didn't weigh two tons plus nor could they haul four people in air conditioned comfort.

In any kind of normal street driving I have done, the GLK has not been an embarrassment. It does produce a better and quieter ride than the run flat BMW's I have experienced. I truly think the car will far surpass the abilities of most of the owners.

Kevin R

After driving Subaru STI's for many years the GLK seems like a bit of a wallowing slug in every way Love it though, so much quieter, comfier and has way more toys If I wanted a performance car I would have bought a performance car, not a GLK.

Oldengineer

I'd laugh, but, the micro bus was probably quicker than my 48 Chevy is - even though I've got 90 screaming HP on tap.

Regards:
Oldengineer

3.5L

Dad did eventually hop up the engine in the micro bus. Stock, I believe it displaced about 1200cc. Not sure what influenced his decision making process, but he put a stroker-crankshaft in, which also required new cylinders and pistons. The bore, as I remember, stayed the same. (I always believed he missed an easy opportunity to go a bit bigger with the bore, but perhaps there was some underlying reason that couldn't be accomplished). Anyway, the engine ended up at about 1300cc (whew!) and also sported a new Empi header and exhaust system. Supposedly, the engine made (drum roll) 40 HP after those mods. The vehicle was noticeably quicker, heh!

3.5L

Oldengineer

Sometimes you get surprising results. I bought a 1980 Ford Fiesta (German) new. After it ran out of warranty, I put a 4 tube header on it, a Pacesetter low restriction exhaust system, and rejetted the Weber carb. It really woke the car up. The first thing that died was the stock clutch, and, I replaced it with heavy duty stuff. The worst thing was, after I hotted the car up, its torque steer was ferocious. But - what a sleeper!


Regards:
Oldengineer

3.5L

I never got the V-6 Capri, but I did eventually hop up the 1600cc engine in our Capri. A cylinder went flat somewhere around 95k miles, so I pulled the engine and took it to an engine specialty shop, owned by a friend. When I got the engine back I installed a new intake manifold that would accommodate my new Weber 2-barrel carburetor. Also installed tubing headers. The overhauler installed the true Cortina camshaft, plus the engine got the typical 10 over bore job and a little higher compression pistons. Net result, 88 HP. Not much by today's standards, but a pretty big jump of the stock 69.5 HP.
I was really thrilled.

3.5L

rmfnla

I dunno, I like flinging my GLK around.

I usually take our G37 Coupe (with the Sport suspension, steering & wheels) during the week so I have a fairly high bar to compare the GLK to, and I still think it handles OK for an SUV.

Maybe it's just a matter of keeping your expectations realistic...

3.5L

I think the GLK handles well for an SUV (CUV?), but then, I came from a 2002 Ford Exploder. I view our GLK as an SUV with good road manners and luxury, too. When I really want to dice I take my RX-8...

3.5L

Oldengineer

I think the GLK handles just fine. I had a couple of Jaguar X-Types with AWD in the past, and, they handled great. I took the GLK on a trip on some really curvy, hilly, backwoods WV roads - going to Cass Scenic Railroad. She handled the the back roads with no drama. The GLK reminds me a lot of the 3.0 X Type I had, except the GLK has more suds.

Regards:
Oldengineer

3.5L

Here's another little thing that really pleases me about the GLK. A few blocks from our house, there's a pretty hefty dip in the street, immediately followed by a hill. So, I have to slow way down for the dip, then feed in some throttle for the hill. Unlike our '02 4.0L Exploder, the GLK only shifts down one gear (E mode) and solidly pulls away, accelerating with much dignity up the hill. The strong, flat torque curve is really evident in situations like this. The 4.0L Exploder fell flat on its face unless I aggressively pushed the throttle down far enough to force the transmission to shift down 2 gears or more. Then it made a butt-load of noise.

Enjoying our GLK everyday!

3.5L

rmfnla

Nothing worse than a butt-load of noise!

Oldengineer

I own a Honda CRV. A butt-load of noise is standard equipment on this vehicle.

Regards:
Oldengineer