Landrover2001

Two 'unwrapped' pictures in thread of all new 2016 (2015 launch) GLK. The styling is MUCH more rounded, especially at the rear. Take a look......

http://www.caranddriver.com/photos-1...g-photo-530239

*edited to add the pictures may include 'artist rendering.'

chkmte

Too bad, looks like MB is moving toward the same "doodle bug" styling as the rest of the x-overs. Current shape is distinctive.

MBNA109

Man I was afraid of this...the Audi-tifying of the GLK.

Eeesh, baby ML or Q5 would lead me away from the brand.

emtskibum

Ugh, Not a Fan but to each their own i guess. Very happy I will be taking delivery of my 2014 in the coming weeks.

Rascally Wabbit

Looks like a Tiguan from the **** end. Glad to know it will not be marketed until 2016. This gives me another year of driving what we have before moving to a newer one. It certainly will not be a 2016 but a left over 2015 or a pre-owned 2014. MB is making a big mistake in this imo.

bha1980

I also thought the new gen was coming out for MY 2015 which typically means it will be release around mid-year the previous year. So I'm glad that I got another year before the model changes.

Actually it already did change with the refresh but the changes weren't drastic. I was attracted to the GLK for it's boxy, aggressive (IMO at least); the new gen looks far too curvy. Honestly, the front end looks decent but the back end reminds me of the Renault Samsung QM5 (not available in North America but take a look at the pic).

JohnMichael

Wow I have to say I hate this new look almost as ugly as the AMC Pacer from the 70's. I think 2010-12 is classic pure design, edgy, unique and as the designer said in a recently posted You tube video - a sharp pebble in a river bed of rounded pebbles so you notice it and it stands out. I looked at my 2012 GLK tonight and smiled.

icool007

Yeah, that 2016 look is totally a disaster. The only reason I bought 2011 GLK and another 2013 GLK was the distinctive shape from the rest.

Gt. Dane

For what it is worth. I was speaking to my MB sales manager about this and other images I saw. He said these are concept cars and will likely change multiple times before production. He also said car companies throw these images out for different reasons - to guage response, to throw other companies off, etc. MB will closely guard the real style as long as they possibly can.

bop11

I hope they don't forget the usage of this vehicle. It is a container in which to put Stuff. Dropping the top of the rear means less Stuff. It is already small in the cargo area. I don't need the room of an ML or I would have kept my RR Sport, well maybe not when I think of the many times I had it into the dealer. But, if I wanted a trunk, I would have bought a C class. Actually, I have one of those and it's trunk, although good sized, will not carry my spinnaker, other equipment and a 3 day race worth of food for a 5 man crew.
Someone still needs to make a small, well appointed, dependable truck!
The alternative, the new small Ford truck only sold in Europe and Australia with a cap. I don't need a cross-over.

Scadobe

Looks like a GLA maybe?

chkmte

MB stay with the boxy aggressive shape-"Look at me, I'm kick butt different"

Showa

It looks like a baby ML mix with...Q5/X3. It think it needs some diet!

DavidGaddy

The draw for me in the first place was that the sharp edges of the GLK made it stand apart from all the egg shaped X-overs on the market. If this is the finished product, you can almost close your eyes and just pick one. Guess i'll stick with what I have.

Landrover2001

The Car & Driver story on the 2016 GLK found its way to the home page of MBWorld.

https://mbworld.org/articles/crystal...enz-glk-class/

MBNA109

I don't know how to take the commentator's statement:
"Renderings these days are like crystal ***** via Photoshop."

Ominous?

ps - I am part of the MBAdvisor owners forum run by MBUSA. I hope to forward some of our comments to them.

chkmte

Everyone I know who purchased a GLK (including myself) was drawn to its square edges and aggressive look.
Maybe MB should buy the Murano jigs and put a star on it.

bugelrex

unfortunately the majority of people who *didn't* buy it was probably because of the square edges
Everytime I see a Q5, I really admire how nice it looks, its certainly cannot be called ugly

MBNA109

My original shopping comparison back in 2011 was the X3 vs. GLK.

Now when I look at the X3, I see a toy.
Same with the Q5.
& they both must be related to the Lexus RX.

On the other hand, the GLK style is one of Mercedes' best in it's portfolio.
It has some styling cue from it's big daddy the GL & thankfully none of it's Mom's bulbous ML looks.

So here's hoping Merc continue the evolution not take the easy way & miniaturize one of their other vehicle.

When they do something original - they can make it work like this:
http://www.autoguide.com/gallery/gal...gla-8.jpg.html

OrionGLK

If that’s the new shape, no thank you (But will wait and see).

It’s lost its masculine wheel arches and upright look that screamed I will not conform to the bubble like almost every other SUV out there.

I am on my second GLK in the last 5 years (2009 GLK 350 thenand now 2013 GLK 250 Bluetec ) and fell in love with the unique look inspiredfrom the G mixed with a little GL back then. I also crossed shopped land rover, Audi and BMW.

What’s next, the G bubble edition? if that happened then why even bother

Mercedes is known for leading with unique designs instead of following the crowd so I am not sure why they would do this (beyond a need to merge all designs into the style guide) especially if the GLK is selling really well.

PS: I Love my GLK 250 Bluetec torque monster especially with the lower than regular gas diesel prices up here in Canada

Landrover2001

I agree w/ SCADOBE (above). More so after viewing the link posted by MBNA109. Look at the body creases and rear window detail on the GL"A" in MBNA's link then look at the Car & Driver pictures, again. I wonder if C&D's spy photos are of the GL"A" rather than GLK. The similarities are striking. That said, the folks at C&D don't typically get this stuff wrong. But the more I look at the 'spy shots,' the more I see GLA; from the front, to the body seams, the overall height, rear window and quarter panel treatment, etc. The spy photos look like the GLA. One can dream....

MBNA109

More views of GLA in higher resolution:

http://www.driving.ca/research-car/n...573/story.html

bop11

What gives the GLA "off road " capability? The astounding ground clearance? The long nose ahead of the front wheels to give it that great approach angle? The small sidewall tires to absorb the rock and hole punishment of the wilderness? A lo-hi transmission range for rock climbing? Enclosed drive shafts and long travel suspension? Manual lockers on the tranny and dif's? Oh, I know, that stupid "POP-UP" map with off road way-point implementation. I thought they gave up on pop-ups with the last series of C class.
The only thing this will cross over is, like almost all the other 'cross-overs' a bridge.
I'm not saying it is a bad car, probably very nice, but it is a Station Wagon of the Ford Pinto, Chevy Vega size. Oops, I used the SW word!

cfugle

I have been actively image search for the new GLK now officially to be called the GLC (G-series, L-connector only, C-C Classe platform) in the MY2016.

http://www.autoevolution.com/news/20...ils-88434.html




Compare that t the shrouded and wrapped test mule from the spy shots and it kinda makes sense. The front nose appears to now fall into the corporate fold better, and the new side "swoopy-ness" appears here as well. Mercedes is trying very hard to recreate itself as the new BMW and trying to capture a more sort minded customer. Once you win over a customer to a brand, it is hard to leave. It's a relationship the car makers want to keep for a generation or two if possible.
I am a few months away from ordering my 2015 GLK 250 Bluetec and although I hate to think the current masculine shape is gone forever, I worry more about holding off and buying an all new shape and model that is untested. Having driven a 2007 BMW X3 (grip and more grip), 2004 Honda Element (fun , bouncy and great for the dogs) and then pleasantly surprised by my 2012 Kia Sportage AWD, I personally value practical space and some fun driving abilities yet most brands miss the mark.

My Element was a pure movers delight with those removable back seats, and almost perfectly square storage area but handling was udder crap as was the MPG. The X3 drove hard and its sweet six hummed when pushed but was not a great hauler with an awkward access shape in the back door and a fussy netting and hold down system that got in the way opposing to helping. The Sportage decision was based on having a dealership near my remotely located home. It has surprisingly good storage (although the roofline is low), handles better than I remember for a Kia and it's automatic AWD works fairly transparently (opposed to Honda's jerk and kick in effect when the rears fire up in the snow).

I want the existing GLK because:
1) it's my downsized Element-like shape holds almost as much as the Kia Sportage due to its boxy shape out back
2) seats fold perfectly flat (none of my others did and that is restrictive on more than one occasion)
3) the Bluetec gets about 30-40% better mileage with a gently foot than anything else I have owned.
4) the test drive left me wanting to enjoy more time with all that marvellous torque on my mountain roads.
5) in todays world of radically aggressive drivers, tools like radar based cruise control, blind spot monitoring (racing cars on one side passing illegally) and excellent braking systems and security are now things that were once considered fluff but now seems almost necessary to protect myself, my family members and my dogs.

Bottom line is that the shape of the incoming GLC may affect the reason so many purchase a cargo hauler/crossover in the first place. When the exterior lines become more important than the purpose of the shape of the car, then so much become lost after that. A Crossover/SUV that has little storage or practicality just becomes a oversized sportback raised a bit higher (Nissan Murano anyone). We will have to wait til Aug 2015 by the looks of it as most blogs feel MB does not want to mess this one up as it is the second highest selling model after the C Class series.

Rascally Wabbit

@cfugle, I hear what your are saying, especially in regards to the various vehicles in your stable presently or previously. Kia is available with vented & warmed seats but the GLK is not?? The boxy shape of the GLK along with the RWD only option is what sold us on the purchase, living here in the Southwest at least for another year, best of the bunch after having driven various Saabs (RIP) for the last 20 years. I am simply glad that the 2015 is unchanged which will give us, when the time arrives, to search for a pre-owned GLK250 with three years production to choose. Until that time, I am on the cusp of purchasing a low mileage Jeep Cherokee XJ 4WD & then sell the GLK350. A little extreme as to the change but gotta do what you gotta do!