I thought I would post another car review, which probably no one is interested in.

My 1997 Tahoe is having more 'quality' issues. Yesterday I discovered a large puddle under it. I was suspicious that it was the power steering since it has had numerous leaks. After checking, it looks like it is probably the coolant system since the recovery tank was dry. It also has had numerous leaks. I was planning to drive back from Wisconsin to Indiana today (240 miles), so that posed a problem.

My mom let me take her GLK, so I drove it back. The Tahoe is still sitting in Milwaukee.

So where to start...

Cargo room: much less than the Tahoe. I was able to get all my stuff in it, although with my Tahoe everything fits in the cargo area behind the back seat. I had to use the GLK back seats to get all my stuff in. The GLK doesn't have a trailer hitch for attaching my bike rack, so the bike was left behind.

Interior: Simply no comparison. The GLK is far higher quality, both in materials and build. It is like comparing prime rib to cat food. The Tahoe 'leather' seats is really just a very thin leather veneer on top of cheap vynal. The GLK uses Mercedes 'MBTEC', which is some kind of synthetic material. Very good material. I can't see any reason to step up to leather.

The front seat is a little less roomy than my Tahoe. I don't have it adjusted to where it is as comfortable as my Tahoe. The seats are MUCH more firm than my Tahoe. If you normally keep your wallet in your rear pocket. you will want to move it. You won't want to sit on it.

The back seats are the low point. It has high door sills and a narrow door opening, which makes getting in/out (especially out) somewhat difficult if you have big feet. Leg room in the back isn't great and the seats maybe a little narrow. A person smaller than me might be all right back there, but I don't think I would want to do a long road trip.

Fuel consumption: I didn't check. The trip used about 1/2 a tank. I'm guessing the tank is around 18 gal.

Visibilty: excellent. The vehicle is boxy with large windows. No blind spots. The back seat has head rests (including center), which don't block the view out the back.

Toys:many that I didn't use. It has a built in navigation system which worked well. When it got dark it switched to a night time mode using dark colors, so that it didn't mess with my night vision. The maps were accurate, and gave me plenty of notice before turns. It has a backup camera and blind spot monitoring. The blind spot monitoring is nice, especially when driving I-294 around Chicago.

Cruise control: unlike with the Corolla I drove last year, I wasn't too stupid to figure out how to get it to work.

Driving: The GLK has a 3.5 liter V6, compared to the 5.7 liter V8 in my Tahoe. However, the GLK is approx 300 hp, compared with 255 in my Tahoe. On the other hand, GLK torque is only 270-ish, compared to 330 in my Tahoe. That said, the GLK is very peppy, it is obviously faster than my Tahoe. No trouble cruising at 75, and it felt like it had plenty more available for passing. I think it has a 7 speed transmission, compared to the 4 speed in my Tahoe. I still think the V8 in my Tahoe is smoother running and sounds better than the V6. When sitting inside the GLK, the V6 sounds very quiet and smooth. Outside though, the V6 doesn't sound so great. It has that tappity-tappity sound, which is apparently common to direct injection engines.

It has an eco stop/start system which can be turned off. Note: the dealer says that in cars produced after 2019, the start/stop system can't be turned off.

Handling: No comparison there. The GLK is far more nimble, as you would expect since it is a much smaller and lower vehicle. I was pleasantly surprised by the power steering system. It has electric instead of hydraulic assit, but it is a much better system than used by BMW. It feels almost 'normal', not dead and numb like the BMW. It's still no Corvette though.

Overall, I like the GLK. It is a contender for a replacement if my Tahoe finally succumbs to its 'quality' issues.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

John, That's a pretty good review. The seat material is actually called MB Tex. The GLK is one of my favorite of the Benz SUV's. I got an ML the year before Mercedes introduced the GLK. I wish sometime I had waited for the GLK When first introduced it was all wheel drive only. Now you can get 2 or 4 wheel. You are correct about the visibility, it's great. the hitch is an option depending which package you order with the car. You can also get diesel in it now. It is a great vehicle. Of course I'm biased having worked with MB since 1980!

__________________
Dan
Ps 96 SWCA 2930 SWHF 524

Excellent review!
Sitting on my wallet wouldn't be a problem, as buying a MB GLK would require not only emptying my wallet, but also selling it (along with everything else, including the reasons I'm on this forum)

__________________
Halfway and one more step

The GLK is a unibody design IIRC. It probably has power/weight ratio that will whip the Tahoe badly and the torque/weight ratio is likely very good, too. Mind you, nothing pulls at minimal revs like one of those truck tuned LT1 motors.

As for the size comparison, no shocks there, the Tahoe is way bigger.

Your description of the GLK seats reminds me of an incident in the 90s with a former girlfriend. One day she flopped down into the passenger seat of my BMW 3-series and promptly grimaced, "Ooof, I forgot how German this car is".

As for the Tahoe seats, I owned 2001 5.3 and they were not the most supple leather I have sat in by a long way.

__________________
Release the Kraken

The 2015 GLK250 Bluetec is awesome. Definitely less cargo room than full size SUV's, but you can't beat 35 mpg on the highway. I hear the 4Matic is pretty great in the snow. It drives like a car with better mileage than a lot of cars but with the perks of an SUV.

Also, the cost isn't all that bad when looking at other comparable new SUV's. I figured if a new 4Runner with options was going for 38k why not but a Benz for 40k. There is a size difference obviously, but the mileage improvement makes up for that.

Nice review. If you don't need the room the GLK sure is a nice alternative. If you need more room the ML might be a better choice.

__________________
Jorge

I just filled up the GLK. I didn't set the trip odometer before the trip, so this is just an approximation for the mileage.

I looked up the gas tank capacity online, it is 17.4 gallons. I put 10.8 gallons in. I estimate I drove approximately 30 miles since I got back, for a total of 270 miles. This works out to 25 mpg, which is exactly what the claimed highway miles should be.

In comparison, my Tahoe uses a little under 1/2 a tank for the same trip. So the Tahoe gets better mileage, right? Well, no. The Tahoe tank is 30 gallons, I usually get about 16.5 mpg for the trip. I once got over 18, I must have had a really good tail wind.

So even though the GLK gets better mileage, the Tahoe has better range due to the much larger gas tank.

Side note: for same trip, my 98 Corvette wins the mpg contest at 28. It has a bigger tank than the GLK, so it should also have a longer range.

I forgot about braking: I had no panic stops to really test it, but the brakes work much better than the Tahoe. The GLK has 18" wheels, which allows for bigger brake rotors. The Tahoe only has 16" wheels, and drums in the back. The Tahoe brakes are very spongy and pressing the brake pedal should be considered a suggestion rather than a command.

Weight: the GLK is about 4100#, the Tahoe 5100#. The GLK has a much better power and torque to weight ratio, as I expected. The 7 speed gearbox also gives it an advantage, which adds up to a much peppier vehicle.

On the downside, the GLK uses a fly by wire accelerator, compared to the mechanical linkage in the Tahoe. The GLK is harder to drive smoothly, especially from stop. Press the pedal, nothing happens. A little more, still nothing. Keep pressing a little harder, not much happens. Then suddenly it takes off. Response from the Tahoe is much more linear.

As LVSteve noted, the Tahoe shines at low RPM. Its massive torque comes very early. It goes up steep hills effortlessly without downshifting. I simply haven't driven any modern vehicle that has comparable low rpm response. That would be hard to give up.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

Loved my old 98 Tahoe but after replacing injectors TWICE, when they needed it the 3rd time I sold it. Bought a 2012 Honda Pilot. One of the first things I noticed was it was MUCH easier to stop from speed or maneuver around a deer or rock in the road at speed. The Honda handled and braked much better.

I'd suggest taking a new Pilot for a test drive. I think even compared to the Benz, the Pilot will surprise You.

FN in MT

I just bought a used 2013 MB E-550 Cabriolet and all I can say is I don't care if it has a radio, all I want to listen to is that wonderful V-8 growl!I am really thrilled with everything on this splendid motor-car.I can't believe how much improved it is over my old 2000 CLK -439 Cab!I recon I`ll be keeping it awhile.

Attached Images

_2602.jpg (131.1 KB, 26 views)

I checked the specs, not for me:
* It's front wheel drive
* It has mandatory 3rd row seats which can't be removed, which is one of my gripes about the new Tahoe.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

Nice!

I've driven just about every German made auto in the last 10 years (work related) and I have a family member who won't drive anything but a BMW or a Porsche. After being around Germans for 10 years I'll take the 30 year old rusty Corolla any day of the week.

Germans have design and they have performance and handling. What they can't ever seem to get right is all the accompanying electronics and those are a HUGE P I T A

Unless it can tow a 5000 pound boat I have no use for it. Pretty much eliminates all SUV's except the Tahoe/Yukon

__________________
Forum consigliere

Hey Caje, go test drive one of those big, fat Caddy's. Yeah, its the same GM sheet metal, but they don't rattle nearly as much. But on the upside, they use an old fashioned big block motor, rating it at 403 the last time I looked. If you wanna tow, get a tow vehicle.

Interesting thread. Comparing a worn out old Suburban with a piece of luxury metal. The GM cars started with QC issues. As the thing aged over the decades lots of parts fell off. Fluid leaks, its how life works. The OP needs to become familiar with discount stores. You buy the cheapest stuff you can find, and in volume. Pour some in and watch where it comes back out. Then try to plug the hole.

I once had smoke coming out of one of my older jeeps. Turns out the transfer case was belching ATF from its over flow. Right on the exhaust manifold. I always wondered who put that right above a heat source. So I moved it so it would drip on the road. I was only 1300 miles west of home. But then I was in a parts store for something else wrong and noticed a guy with a plastic thing that allowed two hoses to be put together. So I bought one and a couple of feet of hose. Used duct tape (Caje would use duck tape) to hold a clean coke bottle (plastic) to the battery support, then ran the hose into it. As the Tcase continued its nausea, I accumulated about 2" of fluid. Getting ready to drive home, I crawled under the old jeep and pulled out the fill plug, then poured the captured fluid back in. Not easy, I had to make a funnel out of another coke bottle. Who sez coke isn't good for something.

These days I'm kinda smarter. I just try to figure out how much I'm losing. Then do a cost comparison to see how much more will cost. If its not too much, I drive home with some to refill the leaking thing. Puddles of petroleum based things are good on a rusty old clunker. It stops rust, stops squeeks and rattles. Kills bugs, all kinds of good stuff.

__________________
Dick Burg

Yeah, it is showing a little wear. I still need to fix the drivers seat. But it only has 150,000 miles on it.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

The third row seat thing is a problem with many SUVs these days.

__________________
Release the Kraken

Hard to beat a Benz!

I just traded in my 2002 Sequoia last week. It had 172K miles and a component on the ABS traction control failed which was a new master brake cylinder about $2200 repairs. Because of lack of dealerships here I settled for a new RAV4. I had spent a lot of time looking at other options but did not want a dealer 360 miles away in Anchorage. I did like the MB products, the Audi also. To me the most enjoyable to drive was the BMW X1 and X3. Problem is you can't fit a pole dancers wardrobe in the cargo space. The issues like mandatory eco mode non removable 3rd row seats just shows with enough help from the regulators we won't want any of them soon.

My 3rd row seats have NEVER been UP. I need the cargo space.

Why is front wheel drive an issue? I live in rural MT, for winter I mount Blizzak's and get around just fine in snow, ice and mud.

The seats still take up space, up or not.

I've driven and owned front wheel drive vehicles - none of them performed as well as my rear wheel drive vehicles. I don't like the way they drive.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.