Vs Luxury cross-over war: Q5 vs Rx-350 vs Glk-350 vs Xc-60


What will you take to roll daily?


  • Total voters
    82
FOURTH PLACE: MERCEDES-BENZ GLK350
A compact, comfortable four-seater with excellent chassis dynamics, which is completely betrayed by indifferent steering. Shame the striking looks don't match the handling.



Engineering in a Tasteful Wrapper
First of all, this is a Mercedes-Benz, and that has come to mean solid engineering and tasteful luxury wrapped in a package that's often more conservative than it is beautiful. (Anybody else besides us who thinks the GLK looks like an old Subaru Forester?)
Built from a C-Class sedan, the GLK's wheelbase is nearly identical to that of the sedan, yet its overall length measures shorter by a whopping 8 inches. The GLK feels as solid and sure-footed as the highly regarded C-Class, but with more suspension travel and even more compliance on rough pavement and worn freeway concrete. Mercedes credits what it calls Agility Control, which is a fancy name for ordinary hydraulic dampers (no electronics are involved) with blow-by valves that offer good response to sharp impacts.
Until recently, Mercedes-Benz steering has been criticized as lifeless, but just as with the C-Class, the GLK's rack-and-pinion setup transmits just enough road feel to offer information but not so much as to be burdensome. When you're vectoring down the highway, the steering feels a little numb, but just off-center, the GLK's steering responds smartly and the chassis' yaw response is very good, especially considering our test vehicle's 4,200-pound weight.
The distance between the GLK's rear wheels has been increased by 3 inches compared to a C350 to improve cargo capacity and enhance rear seat comfort, and the wider track that results actually helps the GLK get around corners at the kind of sporty clip you might expect from a BMW X3, though without the BMW's choppy ride.
For a utility package, the 2010 Mercedes GLK is surprisingly well balanced, with 52 percent of its weight poised above the front tires and 48 balanced on the rears. It circles the skid pad largely unencumbered by a non-defeat stability control system, although its performance of 0.77g isn't remarkable. Through the slalom, the GLK is athletic, although its 61.3-mph effort again isn't outstanding.
If you were expecting a soft, squishy chassis calibration, you'd be wrong. Mercedes has done a superb job of balancing the GLK between soft and firm, doughy and sporty. If you want a busier ride, you might replace the standard 19-inch wheels with the $970 optional 20s, but we wouldn't recommend it except for cosmetic reasons.


2010 Mercedes-Benz GLK350 4Matic Full Test on Inside Line

:t-cheers:


Though I`m not a huge fan of the styling Id go with the GLK350 first followed by the rather dull looking Audi. The rest can stay at the dealerships where thay belong getting service repairs, oh that includes the X3;)
 
I've seen both IRL and actually think the Q5 looks better. The GLK looks a little awkward and disproportionate from certain angles. The Q5 doesn't look as boring in real life.

I love the way two humans can perceive the same thing in such different ways.
 
I've seen both IRL and actually think the Q5 looks better. The GLK looks a little awkward and disproportionate from certain angles. The Q5 doesn't look as boring in real life.

I'll second this! :t-cheers:
 
I'm not as blinded by the star as you may think. Mercedes' suvs aren't at the top of my list when it comes to suvs.


M
 
People should take a good look at the XC60, I think many will follow the thaughts expressed in this car.
 
I don't understand why the GLK didn't do better. The fact that MT said that the car had terrible steering is odd...the GLK is based on the C and MT said that the C had great steering...anyway...I don't believe that just because a car isnt' a BMW in performance doesn't mean that it should be last....especially behind that lexus (which probabbly handles like a boat.) The GLK has amazing looks and, when coupled with the burl walnut, the interior isn't too bad either. MT never fails to confuse me sometimes...I thought that it was going to be between the audi and merc...
 
I'm not as blinded by the star as you may think. Mercedes' suvs aren't at the top of my list when it comes to suvs.


M


I can understand that. in some cases I prefer a Lincoln Navigator or Range Rover, but I thought you were a strong support of the GL and G as well.
 
The GLK seems to be a hit.. I`m starting to see them pop up all over in my local my local area. It looks good IRL but I`m still trying to figure out why the hell it weighs over 4,200lbs!!!:t-crazy2:
 
The GLK seems to be a hit.. I`m starting to see them pop up all over in my local my local area. It looks good IRL but I`m still trying to figure out why the hell it weighs over 4,200lbs!!!:t-crazy2:

One word = Steel

But you know what, for a truck it should be heavy. I notice a lot of people complain time and time again about weight. Yes, the heavier a car is the slower it will be, but sometime it's needed especially if there is an accident.

People act like a car should only weight 1,000 lbs. So what let it weight something. I rather stay alive then get hit and go airborne and die.

Matter of fact not to long ago I was interested in buying -

9c6fecf1e2db71e1262b19c26040218a.webp



10,000 lbs of fun. They said on the news if someone hits you from the back (lol) their car would go under. Then of course the price of gas changed that Idea. But basically nothing is wrong with weight.

I'll take a (heavy) S65 AMG over a (light) small sports car anyday.
 
One word = Steel

But you know what, for a truck it should be heavy. I notice a lot of people complain time and time again about weight. Yes, the heavier a car is the slower it will be, but sometime it's needed especially if there is an accident.

People act like a car should only weight 1,000 lbs. So what let it weight something. I rather stay alive then get hit and go airborne and die.

Matter of fact not to long ago I was interested in buying -

9c6fecf1e2db71e1262b19c26040218a.webp



10,000 lbs of fun. They said on the news if someone hits you from the back (lol) their car would go under. Then of course the price of gas changed that Idea. But basically nothing is wrong with weight.

I'll take a (heavy) S65 AMG over a (light) small sports car anyday.

That's probably the best vehicle there is to grow your ass wider. Best of all you won't even notice when you've run over a group of schoolchildren on a field trip...
 
God I hate cars like this one. They should not be allowed on public roads, imagine what would happen if that truck hit something smaller than a semi...

Very happy that they are extremely rare here. The few we have are owned by very suspicious people living in their mothers basement or they are the leaders of motorcycle gangs.

I am surprised their are any over there. Didn't know Ford sold some (Excursions) outside of the US. Actually I know a guy who owns the V10 model and a cool person so made those are in certain cases.

Either way it's a Beast on the road.

That's probably the best vehicle there is to grow your ass wider. Best of all you won't even notice when you've run over a group of schoolchildren on a field trip...

Or little M3s! :D
 
Will go for the Volvo, Lexus isn't for me, the Merc i need to see it IRL while the Audi is boring as **** with probably the weakest front audi has designed in years.
 
Back
Top