Notices
GLK-Class (X204) Discuss the upcoming GLK-Class. Models include GLK 350.

GLC vs GLK cargo dimensions

 
Old 11-05-2018, 02:27 PM
  #1  
Super Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 640
Received 19 Likes on 18 Posts
GLK250 2014
GLC vs GLK cargo dimensions

Some MB advertising claims a larger cargo capacity for the newer GLC. This may be marginally true depending on how you look at it.

Some dimensions:
Floor from tailgate to back of front seats GLK 65.9" ; GLC 61.3" ; Outback 77.7"
Floor from tailgate to back of pass. seats GLK 35" ; GLC 36.6" ; Outback 41.8"
Width at wheel wells GLK 37.4" GLC 43.3"; Outback 42.5"
Height of cargo area GLK 33.7" GLC 31.8" ; Outback 32.4"
Volume of cargo area GLK 54.7 cu.ft. GLC 56.5 cu.ft ; Outback 73.3 cu.ft.

Based on above published figures, GLC cargo volume is slightly larger. This despite the length to back seat being 4.6" shorter and the height being 1.9" less. Presumablt volume is higher because width at wheel wells is greater on the GLC. A calculation shows cargo floor area is 19.83 sq.ft on GLK vs 21.3 sq,ft on GLC.

GLK is barely big enough for us when we pack it to head South for winter. We were hoping the GLC would be a bit bigger, but isn't by much.

ADDED later: We are also considering an Outback, so added it's dimensions. It isn't a Benz, but does win hands down on almost all fronts including much lower price, Reg fuel, lower mpg, Lower depreciation. Almost decided we will go this way. We will still have our three older Benzes. This would truly be our "utility" vehicle.

Last edited by 107123210; 11-06-2018 at 05:12 PM.
107123210 is offline  
Old 11-06-2018, 01:21 AM
  #2  
Super Member
 
JohnnyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Los Angeles & Taipei
Posts: 804
Received 116 Likes on 102 Posts
2013 GLK350
GLC is way more spacious. The way the suspension is set up is not as intrusive as the GLK. The GLK has really oddly shaped hump for the rear shock.

Also don't forget the rear seat split ratio. That ski hatch is something I wished the GLK had.
JohnnyC is offline  
Old 11-06-2018, 09:10 AM
  #3  
Super Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 640
Received 19 Likes on 18 Posts
GLK250 2014
Originally Posted by JohnnyC View Post
GLC is way more spacious. The way the suspension is set up is not as intrusive as the GLK. The GLK has really oddly shaped hump for the rear shock.

Also don't forget the rear seat split ratio. That ski hatch is something I wished the GLK had.
Thanks for input. We travel with rear seats down, so area behind front seats is key. Doesn't seem much different from numbers. I will try and get a loaner from dealer and compare the cars side by side. Our other choice is an Outback. They do have more space and would save me about $10k! ADDED dimensions above. Even with leather , Nav & several other options MB charge the earth for, it will cost about $10k less than a bare bones GLC. None of these SUVs excites me anyway. (But I have grown to like our GLK250 - hard to let it go)

Last edited by 107123210; 11-06-2018 at 05:15 PM.
107123210 is offline  
Old 11-06-2018, 04:31 PM
  #4  
Super Member
 
JohnnyC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Los Angeles & Taipei
Posts: 804
Received 116 Likes on 102 Posts
2013 GLK350
if you really want to maximize space on the GLK unbolt the rear bench, remove the cover for the adblue tank, buy a roof rack, and use the space in the left taillight. There is not much more you can do beside jumping ship and going to a GLE, GLC, or other makes.
JohnnyC is offline  
Old 11-07-2018, 10:31 AM
  #5  
Super Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Philly area
Posts: 842
Likes: 0
Received 25 Likes on 24 Posts
350 GLK, C280
If you lease, take a look at the Land Rover Discovery in this price range. Lots more room and more plush than the GLC. However, after owning a Defender, three Range Rovers and one Range Rover Sport, I would never buy one, only lease and turn in before 50,000 miles, as they are not the most dependable or cheap to repair after the warranty.
bop11 is offline  
Old 11-17-2018, 01:30 PM
  #6  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 33
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
2014 Mercedes GLK250, 2007 Mazda 3 GT, 2004 Honda XR400R
If you do an Outback, get the 3.6R engine, DO NOT DO NOT DO NOT get the 2.5L 4-cylinder. The CVT is terrible and the FB25 engine is an oil-consuming turd. I know, I had one for 4 years before I got my GLK. The back end is definitely smaller in the GLK, but we don't have kids or dogs so the sacrifice was worth it for the better experience.
Bill0004 is offline  
Old 11-17-2018, 02:33 PM
  #7  
Super Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 640
Received 19 Likes on 18 Posts
GLK250 2014
Well, we are likely getting the 2.5 Limited with eyesight. This based on two friends who have their second Outbacks. One had 3.6 engine initially and recommended not getting it. Other reviews are almost all positive and depreciation and resale better than most. But with cars, you can always find differing views.

I realize we are not getting a Benz. But at least we are not getting all that very high maintenance cost emission stuff that GLK250 has. The SUV is, for us, just a utility vehicle to get us down South and back with all our gear. The GLK needed a roofbox and so would a GLC. We still will have our 3 old Benzes. Maybe after 3 or 4 years with Outback we may think differently, but for now happy with way we are going. (Deal still not quite done)
107123210 is offline  
Old 11-17-2018, 02:40 PM
  #8  
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 33
Received 8 Likes on 3 Posts
2014 Mercedes GLK250, 2007 Mazda 3 GT, 2004 Honda XR400R
Originally Posted by 107123210 View Post
Well, we are likely getting the 2.5 Limited with eyesight. This based on two friends who have their second Outbacks. One had 3.6 engine initially and recommended not getting it. Other reviews are almost all positive and depreciation and resale better than most. But with cars, you can always find differing views.

I realize we are not getting a Benz. But at least we are not getting all that very high maintenance cost emission stuff that GLK250 has. The SUV is, for us, just a utility vehicle to get us down South and back with all our gear. The GLK needed a roofbox and so would a GLC. We still will have our 3 old Benzes. Maybe after 3 or 4 years with Outback we may think differently, but for now happy with way we are going. (Deal still not quite done)

The 2018 Outbacks have a heavily-revised 3.6R with far better fuel economy. A neighbor has one and she gets 1mpg less with her 3.6R than I got in my 2.5i. It's up to you, but man I wouldn't go near the 2.5i with a gun to my head. It was a gutless turd. The car is too heavy for that engine/transmission to be a good experience. Drive them both before you make your choice, and make sure you get on the freeway with both. I loved the car other than the engine and CVT being just awful, and it became a deal-breaker with the oil issue they have yet to resolve.
Bill0004 is offline  
Old 11-17-2018, 04:55 PM
  #9  
Super Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 640
Received 19 Likes on 18 Posts
GLK250 2014
Originally Posted by Bill0004 View Post
The 2018 Outbacks have a heavily-revised 3.6R with far better fuel economy. A neighbor has one and she gets 1mpg less with her 3.6R than I got in my 2.5i. It's up to you, but man I wouldn't go near the 2.5i with a gun to my head. It was a gutless turd. The car is too heavy for that engine/transmission to be a good experience. Drive them both before you make your choice, and make sure you get on the freeway with both. I loved the car other than the engine and CVT being just awful, and it became a deal-breaker with the oil issue they have yet to resolve.
I see they are discontinuing the 3.6 as of the 2020 MY.

I have driven the 2.5i - Once on highway at just above speed limit, it just sits there and should get us to destination comfortably. It will be our long distance transportation. I do like the sportiness of the GLK250, but then I hardly drive it. We have a few other cars. My wide drives the E320, but I usually choose the 85 300D. I suspect it is less sporty than an Outback

I have read up on the Subaru oil issues. It is a concern but it does seem that consumption should be lower on the newer cars. They say 1L/10k km is target.

The CVT is a bit odd. Seemed a bit jerky when maneuvering at low speed. Mind you GLK250 diesel is also jerky at low speeds (unless in S instead of E.)
107123210 is offline  
Old 11-18-2018, 06:04 PM
  #10  
Newbie
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Raleigh, NC
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
GLK350
Outback

I had a 2001 Subaru Forester I put 533,410 miles on before I sold it and got the 2015 GLK350 4MATIC in August of this year. My wife has a 2015 Outback with the 2.5 engine, CVT and Eyesight (she had a 2003 Outback before). It's been quite impressive and you should have no issues with it. Reliability has rarely been an issue with Subies.

I bought my GLK with 22K miles and now have 34K on it. I'll let everyone know about its reliability after I hit 250K. ;-)
NCDMZ is offline  
Old 11-18-2018, 07:08 PM
  #11  
Super Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 640
Received 19 Likes on 18 Posts
GLK250 2014
Originally Posted by NCDMZ View Post
My wife has a 2015 Outback with the 2.5 engine, CVT and Eyesight (she had a 2003 Outback before). It's been quite impressive and you should have no issues with it. Reliability has rarely been an issue with Subies.
Thanks. That makes me feel better ..

Actually, today I spoke to a friend who first has an earlier Outback with 3.6 engine and now has a 2014 with the 2.5 engine. No problems. He said he had the low oil light come on once on the 3.6, but the 2.5 goes between 10,000km oil changes with out need to top up oil. He also said that he had been told by dealer that they had found that some of the maintenance requirements in handbook, were not really needed and as a result dealer maintenance was more reasonable.

Looks like only stumbling block would have to be if our tentative GLK trade deal was not honored. Find out this week. Alternative is to keep GLK and put money aside to cover costs of diesel emission system maintenance!
107123210 is offline  
 

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:
You have already rated this thread Rating: Thread Rating: 0 votes,  average.

Quick Reply: GLC vs GLK cargo dimensions


Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: