Noted in an article on the new C class for 2015 that it will be available with a 3.0 petrol engine with turbocharger. Horsepower increase (never enough HP!) over current 3.5 with improved fuel economy to boot. Wonder if the GLK will get this engine in 2015 or 2016.

 

Nothing has been announced but the GLK will most likely get the same engine. What they call it and where it places in the lineup are, to me, the bigger questions. The 350 was an upgrade in the C class but it has been the base in the GLK (in North America) so I'm sure there are marketing concerns regarding the GLK overstepping the ML.

The C350 is replaced with the C400. If they replace the base GLK350 with a GLK400, that would put the base GLK at a higher designation than the base ML (GLK400 vs ML350). An upgrade can exceed a base but a base exceeding a more expensive base is not good. So would they adjust the ML upwards at the same time? Or would they adjust the GLK lineup so that the diesel 250 is the base--assuming the same diesel engine continues and, given the demand for it, it almost certainly will--and the gas 400 is the upgrade? Or introduce a smaller gas engine to be the base GLK? The X3 and Q5 lines start with four-cylinder gas turbo engines, something the GLK has not had in North America. Will they use the four-cylinder gas turbo engine from the upcoming C300 and make a GLK300 as the base?

We'll need to wait and see.

 

Thank you for the post. Perhaps MB will follow the engine displacement & call it a GLK300 instead of a GLK350. That way there would be a GLK250 (diesel) & a GLK300 with the new 3.0 liter engine. BMW follows that game in their model designations as I recall. Possible too that MB would offer the current 4 cylinder turbo of the C Class in the GLK. As you say wait & see. Already disappointed to learn that the 2015 GLK will have a longer wheelbase, overall length & width than earlier models.

 

I don't think they'll follow the actual displacement and call the 3.0L engine a GLK300. The new engine is more powerful than the current 350 but badging it as a 300 makes it seem less powerful, and thus less desirable to people who don't know a lick about cars (the vast majority of car buyers!) but who do understand that 300 is numerically less than 350. If there is a GLK300, I would expect it to have the 2.0L engine from the upcoming C300 and to be a new option placed below the GLK350's replacement (GLK400?).

They used to screw with badging to increase the spread between engine options on the same car so that buyers could justify spending more. Base engines were frequently rounded down. The C240 had a 2.6L engine, for example. In the present day, the downsizing of engines and addition of turbos have been great for power and fuel efficiency but it presents a challenge for the Marketing department. They don't want to replace outgoing models with smaller numbered cars. So that's why we're now seeing badges higher than displacement. Yes, BMW is playing the same game. Currently, their 2.0L X3 is badged as a 28i and the 3.0L X3 is badged as a 35i.

Anyone remember Intel's problem years ago? They used to make processors better by cranking up the clock speed. When shopping for a computer, everyone "knew" that a 200MHz processor was twice as good a 100MHz processor. Eventually Intel couldn't sustain ever-faster clock speeds. They found other ways to make processors more powerful at lower clock speeds, while also using less energy and generating less heat. The problem was that when Joe ComputerUser went to Best Buy and saw 1.8GHz computers on display while he already had an aging ~3.0GHz computer at home, he wasn't convinced to buy a new computer because the new ones, in his mind, were clearly slower than the one he already had.

Car manufacturers do not want a similar problem and their way of avoiding it is to screw with the badging. In enough years, Mercedes will have to add digits to the models to accommodate a C1000 just so that it's more appealing than last year's C980, despite the fact that it has a 0.05L engine pounding out a million horsepower. Of course at that point, the S Class will be up to S45000. Maybe they'll write it out like the Ford Five Hundred: Introducing the all-new Mercedes-Benz S Forty-five Thousand!

As far as the dimensions of the upcoming GLK (most likely 2016 GLK), they need to make it a little bigger to differentiate it from the GLA (and justify what will no doubt be an increased MSRP), just as the upcoming C had to grow bigger than the CLA. I'm more disappointed in the apparent "jelly-beaning" of the shape and that navigation screen that looks like an ugly afterthought and is spreading like a virus through the Mercedes lineup.

 

For quite some time there have been 'spy' pictures of the next GLK. It may be on the general info on this site! A bit longer wheel base and slightly wider track, supposedly to provide a bit more room for rear seat passengers. Couldn't tell what the body will look like as the camouflage pretty well hides that. They've been running Sweden I seem to recall. Not news nor speculation!

 

Is the extra width for more interior room or is it so they can get new I-beams and air bags for crash protection. It seems to me as cars get wider the interior space gets smaller! Riding behind some of the newer "cross-overs" it seems that the wheel base is wide and the body up to the windows are wide but there is a big shelf at the lower window ledge and the passengers seem very close together. Make a funny looking car from the rear like the cartoon cars in the Michelin ads.

 

If they update the GLK350 with the new 3.0TT V6 then they will likely update the ML350 with the same 3.0TT V6 as well. so both will get new model names. (Maybe GLK400 and ML400).
Same goes for E350, SLK350 etc. All will likely get the new engine.

If they are willing to spend the money to recertify a platform with 1 year life left to work with a new engine, then they will likely spend the money to recertify all their platforms that use the same old engine and replace with the same new engine.

 

I agree. My '94 Saab 900 was quite a bit narrower (7 inches) but had more interior space.

 

Recently the additional width & overall growth in size of vehicles is due to the expanding size of Americans or at least that is what VW gave as their reason when the Golf/Rabbit went larger a couple of years ago. Sorry state of affairs imo. If the new style, whether in '15 or '16, goes the jelly bean or even toward the current BMW style on their SUV's, I think MB will lose a few customers, myself included. Our Saab C900's or pre '94 models once owned were narrower in the foot wells than the GLK & overall the GLK is roomier.

 

I believe the current speculation is that a ML400-badged ML is coming, but as a downsized replacement for the ML550 rather than a replacement for the ML350.

There is no indication that the new engine is coming later this year for the last model year of the X204. I wouldn't expect the new engine until the X205, which will likely arrive Fall 2015 for the 2016 model year.

I'll just say that I'm glad I plan to keep my 2014 for a while.

 

2016 GLK is bigger all around because of the intro of the GLA. Bigger GLK will be more distinctive as a step-up model when compared to the GLA.


Newsflash guys: The GLK will be rebadged as the GLC model. 2.1L diesel and 3.0L turbo V-6 are planned. We could all trip over to Alabama to see it made along with GLA
Cheers, AutoAnsGuy

 

I read the same online that they will reposition the G series into G, GLA, GLC, GLM opposed to the current G, GLA, GLK, ML to better flow the naming conventions as in their C and E and S classes. With a new "ML" ready for 2016 MY their SUV lineup will be their strongest and widest for most price points. Here in Canada the 2.1 diesel is flying off the shelves with est. 10 week delay on custom orders which may be why the 2015 MY was so little changed and the new GLK/GLC will not appear until late 2015 as a 2106 model. The GLK started of OK in sales but has progressively grown in number each following year. Putting on serious pressure to BMW and Audi.

 

Small correction: the ML becomes the GLE, not GLM, to align it with the E Class. Also, the GL will become the GLS to align it with the S Class.

The X205 GLC (née GLK) was always planned to be a 2016 model, one year after the 2015 W205 C Class, just as the facelift was a year later than the C (2013 vs 2012) and the original GLK was a year later than the C (2009 vs 2008). You rarely see significant changes after a facelift due to lower return on investment, so the 2014 and 2015 were both little changed on purpose.

The GLA isn't made in Alabama. We know there will be a fifth model built in Alabama and the likely suspect is the X205 since they are building the W205, but is it actually confirmed?