Vs BMW X3 vs MB GLK

[coolraoul]

Well I don't know, but producing and selling enough are 2 different things. I'll have to find the article.

M

Sure they want to sell more.

But 1) the cost to engineer a solution to the problem, plus 2) the cost to produce a new dash/wipers/headlights..., and 3) the euro vs pound (don't know if the rate is favorable), 4) the hate against all-terrain (cf Ken Livingstone's "tractors of Chelsea")....too much incertitudes, better to wait to see how it sells before beginning with that.

Don't know, maybe the ML/X3/X5 arten't selling so good in the UK/Australia/Japan?

 

[vedjo01]

I will say only this one little thing and I´m out of this thread for good..Both are hideous,both do not deserve to wear neither BMW or MB badge IMO..I respect technology and all that whats behind those two but that just doesn´t make me feel any better when looking upon them..Bye!!

 

[CorpusCallosum]

Sure they want to sell more.

But 1) the cost to engineer a solution to the problem, plus 2) the cost to produce a new dash/wipers/headlights..., and 3) the euro vs pound (don't know if the rate is favorable), 4) the hate against all-terrain (cf Ken Livingstone's "tractors of Chelsea")....too much incertitudes, better to wait to see how it sells before beginning with that.

Don't know, maybe the ML/X3/X5 arten't selling so good in the UK/Australia/Japan?

The X5 nearly outsells the 3 Series in Australia... very very popular... easily most popular in the class aswell for sales... X3 is solid at around 1/2 of the average X5 sales... If i remember reading the last copy of racq magazine correctly... That sound correct monster? Power?

 

[coolraoul]

So the X3 sells less than the X5? Strange.
Anyway, what does it mean in number? Maybe MB is not sure about the GLK, or they want to sell the ML instead..

IMO they just want to see how it goes before spending money developping a RHD.

 

[Merc1]

IMO they just want to see how it goes before spending money developping a RHD.

I agree, my thoughts exactly.

M

 

[bmer]

What is up with this "too boxy" idea? An SUV is not suppose to be full of curves, thats what a Mini van/ Crossover is for. Why do you think they keep the G-class on the market for so long. The male population especially in America love that rugged look. It's what makes the SUV what it is today.

You are mixing SUVs and real off-road vehicles. Calling G-Class an SUV would be a serious defamation of character. G-Class is a real off-road vehicle and the form is boxy for a purpose. SUVs on the other hand are very rarely driven seriously off-road and even in these cases there isn't need for more than a high ground clearance and perhaps lower gearing. It doesn't have to affect the exterior design too much because these vehicles are basically stationwagons with a high ground clearance.

If you want something with curves and soft metal go for the R-class or ML-class. It's not like Benz doesn't give you a choice. I believe this will get some big numbers for Mercedes-Benz.

You are forgetting that the GLK will most likely be in a much lower price category. All GLK customers probably can't afford an ML.

Boxy is in (Ask Rolls-Royce, Bentley, Hummer, Range Rover)! Time to get with the program. Want something with curves in this segment get the Infiniti EX.

I don't think Rolls-Royce and Bentley as makes that start trends. Hummer and Land Rover both have military connection and that's why they are "boxy".

Not having the GLK in RHD will affect the sales no doubt but what i wanted to know is how much? which are the major RHD markets? UK,Australia and....

...Japan, perhaps.

Hey guys, I think Audi has a big chance here with the forthcoming Q5. It lookes promising on the spypics, and let's face it; the X3 and the GLK aren't really the best designed cars from Audis two opponents...

I agree. Now it's really Audi's chance.

 

[Merc1]

Well there was a time in which an SUV really was the off road vehicle and very people had one. The G-Class, Land Crusier, various Land Rovers, full-size Ford Broncos, Jeep Cherokees and Grand Wagoneers, those were the real SUVs. The defintion has been watered down and made into something else IMO. At least this was the case in the U.S.

M

 

[coolraoul]

Interesting post bmer
I want to say something: of course the G, Hummer and Land-Rover are boxy for all-terrain purposes. Of course a SUV is basically, technially a SW with higher groundclearance:

BUT a SUV is also here to give you a sense of occasion, and of adventure, that you don't find in a SW.

So the GLK is strongly linked to the G and its boxy shape to sugger strength, all-terrain ability, adventure and Camel Trophy. It will appeal to persons more interested in adventure than in speed. It looks like it could go everywhere, from Sahara to Amazonia, whereas the ML looks more like a sporty, modern SUV, better onroad than offroad:
Sure it isn't a real all-terrain, but it looks like it was, and it is what some people want. It looks "genuine all-terrain".

I think it is brilliant to offer both sporty and all-terrain look.
Now MB has:

-A genuine offraoder, fabulous and cool, and arguably the most capable offraoder in the world: His Majesty the G

-An Escalade-fighter, American-looking giant, 7-seater: GL

-A sporty looking SUV: the ML

-A manly, "genuine looking", edgy and adventurer SUV: the GLK

-A van for all-comfort travel with luggage (but a smallish 5er seat...): the R

The most complete and coherent SUV/allterrain line-up ever.

And there are a lot of person interested in either C or E, 3 or 5...so people who prefer the GLK will buy it instead of the ML, and people who prefer the ML will buy it, because I guess the price difference won't be monstruous.

 

[bmer]

Well there was a time in which an SUV really was the off road vehicle and very people had one. The G-Class, Land Crusier, various Land Rovers, full-size Ford Broncos, Jeep Cherokees and Grand Wagoneers, those were the real SUVs. The defintion has been watered down and made into something else IMO. At least this was the case in the U.S.

M

I agree with you, Marcus (not Luw ) although I think those vehicles were still quite close to being real off-roaders. Sport Utility Vehicle in itself is an oxymoron. Most of them have absolutely nothing to do with sportiness. They should have been named IOVs (Incompetent Off-road Vehicle).

BUT a SUV is also here to give you a sense of occasion, and of adventure, that you don't find in a SW.

And the sense of safety. That's one reason why they are also popular among female customers.

So the GLK is strongly linked to the G and its boxy shape to sugger strength, all-terrain ability, adventure and Camel Trophy. It will appeal to persons more interested in adventure than in speed. It looks like it could go everywhere, from Sahara to Amazonia, whereas the ML looks more like a sporty, modern SUV, better onroad than offroad:
Sure it isn't a real all-terrain, but it looks like it was, and it is what some people want. It looks "genuine all-terrain".

I have doubts about its off-road capability compared to the ML-Class unless they will offer a similar off-road package for it. Nevertheless I think a more neutral look could be more succesful. But that's just my opinion.

I think it is brilliant to offer both sporty and all-terrain look.
Now MB has:

-A genuine offraoder, fabulous and cool, and arguably the most capable offraoder in the world: His Majesty the G

-An Escalade-fighter, American-looking giant, 7-seater: GL

-A sporty looking SUV: the ML

-A manly, "genuine looking", edgy and adventurer SUV: the GLK

-A van for all-comfort travel with luggage (but a smallish 5er seat...): the R

The most complete and coherent SUV/allterrain line-up ever.

That does indeed makes sense.

And there are a lot of person interested in either C or E, 3 or 5...so people who prefer the GLK will buy it instead of the ML, and people who prefer the ML will buy it, because I guess the price difference won't be monstruous.

I think the price difference will be still quite significant. The X3's price varies from about 35.000 euros to about 50.000 euros in Germany. Both X5 and ML start from 50.000 euros and go up to 70.000 euros (ML 63 naturally not included). As you can see the prices between X3 and X5/ML aren't very close to each other. This is why I think many GLK customers won't be able to afford an ML.

 

[klier]

LMAO.....

Your signature makes me laugh even harder HOH

I will say only this one little thing and I´m out of this thread for good..Both are hideous,both do not deserve to wear neither BMW or MB badge IMO..I respect technology and all that whats behind those two but that just doesn´t make me feel any better when looking upon them..Bye!!

Yeah.....

...too bad for Benz this car is not even out yet, and we will have to see it for the coming 8 years.
BMW will have a brand new X3 2.0 in a year, made in BMW's own factory next to it's brothers X5 and X6 in the good old USA

Major difference imo. Right now BMW is laughing at the crazy good X3 sales with no competition at all.

 

[Guibo]

So the X3 sells less than the X5? Strange.

Not really. Same is true for US sales. Year-to-date through November sales for X3 was 25,864 units compared to X5 at 30,261. However, X5 sales are on a surge. In Novermber alone, X5 outsold the X3 by 1.62:1 ratio. Likely due to the facelift. Earlier this year, Q7 outsold the X5 by 3:1, but in October X5 sales were ahead almost 2:1.

Question is, does anyone see this as a fundamental engineering oversight by MB? Some may see right through the "wait and see" argument (at the end of which time the novelty of the GLK may have completely worn off, with sales already lost to the aging X3 or other competitors) and contend that MB's AWD platform should have been readily adaptable for both markets from the beginning.
In any case, Infiniti's FX35/45 has shown you can have strong sales without AWD, as most vehicles in these classes are more likely to be used like we see this GLK: cruising the boulevards like Rodeo Drive, rather than serious off-roading.

 

[EnI]

-A manly, "genuine looking", edgy and adventurer SUV: the GLK

You gotta be kidding me.

Even MB does not share opinion with you ... Look how their marketing department handled the product placment (GLK) in the SATC movie ... And it's a marketing move ... very rational & thought out ... not a coincidence.



Kim Cattrall - aka Samantha Jones drives it.



Hardly manly. The most slutty character drives the product.

What do you think MB's message is? "GLK is manly"? I don't think so. Otherwise some man character would drive it (Mr. Big, perhaps ). I guess they would use eg. AMG version of C, S, GLK, or CL to promoe manly products.

But GLK is a boxy little SUV for the ladies. If there is something manly in MB's SUV portfolio that's definitely GL & ML AMG.

 

[SDNR]

I don't like either much but I voted for the X3 because at least BMW had a sense of humour when they did it (ha ha those guys just kill me) -- it is a joke right?


Sadly, I think Mercedes actually believes the GLK is good looking which is more pathetic than funny.

 

[EnI]

So the X3 sells less than the X5? Strange.

In many markets X3 outsells X5.

But in total sales X5 leads.

Mind also that X3 is not sold in all the markets X5 is sold. In some markets X3 is not present - BMW more forcing high-end products to gain luxury image.

Also the production in Magna Steyr in Graz, Austria is limited - BMW have no intention to increase the production, since the Mk2 X3 production is moving to BMW's US plan where already X5 & X6 are produced (Z4 production coming to Germany!).

The point: currently the X3 sales are limited by its limited production capacity, and limited market presence.




I'm sure that's will change once X3 production is moved to US, and Mk2 models comes out more refined & prestigious than the current one - which was a first attempt.

 

[Zafiro]

I think its hilarious that MB fans are loving the GLK and hating the X3. When in fact GLK look as strange as the X3.

fanboyism war

 

[coolraoul]

This is not fanboysm at all. I try to be objective, despite my obvious MB bias:

I like the X6 and say it. I like the CS and say it.
I hate the A and B-Class and say it.

But the X3 is butt ugly, desperately awful to my eyes.
The GLK, though I never saw it in the flesh, looks very good. I like that kind of boxy, typically MB design. This is my honest opinion. The only thing is that, in pics, the rear wheel arch looks a bit busy. Wait to see it IRL to make a definitive judgment, but anyway it is much much better than the X3. It is for me a very very good looking SUV, original and distinctive.

For it to be manly or not...It at least have a masculine design, powerful lines, that is why I said it was manly. The fact that a lot of women will buy it can't be denied, but its design is everything but feminine.

 

[castagna]

I think both cars are c**p, but the GLK looks even worse than the X3.

 

[Centurion]

But GLK is a boxy little SUV for the ladies. If there is something manly in MB's SUV portfolio that's definitely GL & ML AMG.

"The most slutty character drives the product."

How do you know that, you watch sex and the city? Maybe the GLK is for you then. hihihih =D

Like I said in a post in the GLK thread the car is targeted towards the fashion and image conscious crowd, hence the product placement in the up coming sex and the city flick and the very trendy white colour. The exact demographic that desire the CLS and G-wagon, young, hip and successful.

 

[Mr Robert]

For it to be manly or not...It at least have a masculine design, powerful lines, that is why I said it was manly. The fact that a lot of women will buy it can't be denied, but its design is everything but feminine.

Isn't it a fact that most SUV costomers/drivers are female? Now, what does that tell us about the X3/GLK market?

It's for little women....

 

[coolraoul]

Yes I know that. But the design of the GLK is manly to my eyes, suggering power, adventure. Edgy, boxy, it is not a female design. Not at all. Even if it will be bought by many women, it does not make its design feminine.