tenordrum

My wife loves her GLC300, which replaced a 15+ year old ML320. While I like her GLC300, the cost of trading in my 2012 Caddy CTS for the GLC is not in the cards, as the GLC is about $15K higher than the new GLC. I tried a 2014 GLK 250 at my dealer on Sunday, and while the GLC is much quicker, the GLK does have a solid feel, and the mileage of the 250 ought to be far better than my CTS. That said, given that MB and other manufacturers are exiting the diesel business in the US, I wonder if I should just wait to upgrade to a GLC in a year or two. There is nothing wrong with the CTS, I just want to get back to driving a crossover or SUV. My 70+ mile daily commute around the DC beltway would be much nicer in a GLK or the GLC.

It is hard to find a GLK 250 with the blind spot assistance though. I enjoy that feature in her car.

If I buy a CPO 250, I would probably add on to the warranty.

Fortunately my closest gas station is a few blocks away, and sells diesel.

Any 250 owners out there like their GLKs?

bop11

A 2016 GLC300 has a 0 to 60 time of about 6 seconds, A GLC 2050d about 7.5. A 2014 GLK350 has a 0 to 60 time of about 5.7 seconds, and a GLK250D about 7.4 Why would you worry about quickness with a diesel?

andreigbs

We love our GLK250. We've put about 13k miles on it in roughly four months, including a 7k mile road trip out west through 8 national parks. Not one hiccup. The only issue I experienced early on was user-error induced (you can read about the RacingBox issue separately) and quickly fixed by my trusted indy shop.

It consistently gets 34 MPGs in mostly city driving, with about 38 MPGs on the open road. It's not the fastest off the line but rolling starts are a blast.

I sometimes dislike the Blind Spot Assist, especially when I'm changing lanes to one that has a guardrail closeby and the sensor goes off...

I love the adaptive headlights and auto high-beam with xenon, best light output hands down.

The ride on these run-flat (but not really run-flat...) could be better, will probably ditch them once they're all used up and go to normal tires.

Brake rotor warping seems to be an issue on some, mine included. Perhaps just bad parts or more user-error. Indy shop quotes me $400 for all new pars+labor.

Stay away from any diesel fuel containing higher than 5% bio; MB will not cover any issues that they determine were caused by it or if they find it in the tank.

Between the Audi Q5, the VW Touareg and the new Mazda CX-5 we were also considering, the GLK250 ticked all the right boxes. And we like its boxy shape too.

All the best in your search, hope this helps.

tenordrum

Thanks much for the feedback. Very helpful. Now have to decide whether replacing a car that runs just fine is in the cards. I really miss the height and overall feel of a crossover.

Your trip west to the National Parks sounds like a dream come true. We love visiting the national parks, but normally fly/rent a car and sample just one or two parks at a time, depending on distance.

Hugo L.

I've had my 2014 GLK250 for a little over a year now.

I love the thing. It is not without its quirks, but overall, I'm very satisfied with it.

I love its unique looks. I love the updated (2013-up) interior/exterior and the panoramic roof. I love the diesel fuel mileage and the creature comforts that come with a decent MB. I love its understated class. I love its solid thud when you shut the door.

On the minus side, the RWD platform it's based on means it has a long hood (maneuvering and pakrking it can be deceptively tough), but somewhat limited rear AND cargo space. My daughter test drove a 2011 CR-V and I was shocked at how roomy the cargo area was - and the rear seats even recline and slide back and forth. I suspect that the CR-V engine location allows the whole cab to be pushed forward, freeing up leg and cargo space.

Also, the GLK is, by today's standards (where a V6 Camry has 301 hp), slow as *****. Ok, it can exhibit some guts when floored in S mode, but from a dig, you can floor it and it's almost as if the engine says «Really? You want to accelerate hard? REALLY? Are you sure? Alright then, gimme a sec...» and off you go. Slowly. Then it picks up after 30 mph or so. Seriously, you never feel either 200hp or 369lbs of torque, nor the two turbos where one is supposed to spool faster to prevent the very situation I just described. The good thing is, you don't want to go crazy with it and would rather concentrate on good mileage than speeding.

It has been very reliable, save for the time my battery that died the same day that the diesel gelled hard on a very cold morning. Towing, a new battery, a new fuel filter, and the assorted fees when the shop couldn't figure out why my gauge cluster then went crazy, the clock wouldn't adjust, etc... (which meant a trip to another shop to simply empty the electronic condensers by shorting the battery cables) set me back roughly 900$. Other than the odd emissions-related check engine when it got super cold (which I quickly cleared with a normal OBD-II reader and it only reappeared once), I've never had to worry.

tenordrum

I have been accused of driving like a grandpa (which I am) so rapid acceleration is not something that is a primary need, yet I want to be able to get around someone on a two lane road if I start to pass them. I will just have to adjust if that is the case.

Today was a good example of why I want to return to a crossover, a long, dark, rainy commute home with some difficulty seeing the road due to the conditions.

bop11

Talking about rain, one of my peeves on my 2014 GLK vs my old 2010 GLK is the lack of fog lights. The LED things in the front don't illuminate the road in the rain where the actual FOG lights did. It was much easier to drive in the rain and see the lane markers in the old GLK. I will install a set of real fog lights to cure this problem. I don't know why the engineers did away with something that actually worked. Yes, I do, they gave into the styling and the LED thing.
The other lighting issue is the replacement of the projector beam head lights on the 2010 with what ever they call the head lights in the 2014. The projectors were much better. My wife's C class, with HID and the HID on the Range Rover are so much better, anything else, including LED head lights, should be illegal.

andreigbs

Agree with you on the need for fog lights.

Ours has auto-adjusting projector HIDs. I believe it was an optional package one could add on. Brand-new this truck cost a whopping $52K (original invoice found in glovebox).

tenordrum

Good to know about the fog lamps. I added driving lights at the dealer at time of purchase for my CPO CTS as I have that problem at times especially with glare in rainy conditions.

Alex Bel

Yes.

Cwdawson

Love our GLK 250 fantastic mileage and trouble free. I couldn't pry it away from my wife. It's a great car for a couple or a couple with small kids but iff you pack around 4 adults you may want something a little larger.

Amir_AMG

I love my 15 350 4MATIC...I average 24mpg with a speed of 32mph average. Great comfortable ride...might be interested in selling it if the price is right or for the right car, I miss driving fast

tenordrum

Thanks. We don't typically have to have 4 adults in the car, but often have 2 adults and 2 grandkids in my wife's GLC.

tenordrum

Thanks for the feedback on the mileage of the gas version. I am considering one of those, but would like to hold out for a well equipped diesel GLK, or even a ML at this point.
My youngest son pointed out having upgraded lights (like the Bi-xenon) may be worth it, given my basic reason to get better overall visibility.