Topic: First Drive: 2016 Mercedes-Benz GLC 300 4MATIC

[Autos_Editor]

GLK replacement arrives with one glaring omission from the lineup.
Read More...

[Benhaze]

Its base price is actually lower than that of the outgoing GLK with a starting price of just $44,950.

Let's not forget that M.B. forced their customer to buy a bundle of options for the last MY of the GLK which increase the starting price. $44,900 actually happens to be the starting price of the GLK350 2 years ago.

[SKYMTL]

Is that a fabric trunk liner? 

[Weels]

"Remove the badging, put these vehicles side-by-side and pick a hundred luxury car shoppers at random and it would be anybody’s guess at which vehicle is the Mercedes-Benz and which is the Audi"
Indeed.
That is pretty "me-too forgettable" styling.  I liked the old GLK.
Pretty swank interior though.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

"Remove the badging, put these vehicles side-by-side and pick a hundred luxury car shoppers at random and it would be anybody’s guess at which vehicle is the Mercedes-Benz and which is the Audi"
Indeed.
That is pretty "me-too forgettable" styling.  I liked the old GLK.
Pretty swank interior though.

 

Still hate the iPAD dash. That alone would kill it for me.

[carcrazed]

While I agree that the exterior styling is less edgy now, I don't think it looks like a Q5.  Maybe it will to more common buyers in the segment.

The increased cargo space is the only thing I like about the new model.

I'm sure we'll tons of these on the road very soon, though.. pricing for the base trim looks pretty attractive if you don't need all the safety bits.

[wing]

How are they not the same?

[OliverD]

How are they not the same?

 

The window, lights, hatch opening, and exhaust are all different shapes.

[Noto]

Side profile is very similar to the RDX, too.

I don't have any issues with this vehicle, except (as per usual) in terms of pricing.  However, the reason for my angst this time around is, as pointed out by Benhaze:

$44,900 actually happens to be the starting price of the GLK350 2 years ago.

^^ this.  I recall at some point being able to get this thing around $40k base, which was plenty of vehicle.  Now it's nearly $10k higher OTR and with a 'lesser' engine.

Still, I don't care if my car is more distinctive than the others...I think that buying the same car that everyone else owns just supports that you bought a good car on SOME level.

Q5 vs GLC vs RDX vs X3...does it really matter?  They're all great.  Want diesel?  Narrowed to 3.  Want V6 diesel?  Narrowed to one.  Want value?  RDX.  Want a Bimmer?  Get the X3.  Want a beautiful interior?  Used to be all Q5, but now the GLC really steps up to the plate.  It's a great update by MB.

[wing]

How are they not the same?

 

The window, lights, hatch opening, and exhaust are all different shapes.

Well slightly but the overall design is nearly identical.  A mid-cycle refresh could make them the same.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

How are they not the same?

 

The window, lights, hatch opening, and exhaust are all different shapes.

The magnitude of the differences is akin to the differences between these two.

The GLK was truly distinctive. This is me-too styling at its worst.

[wing]

LOL

[redman]

Like the colour.

I never believe posted fuel economy rates especially gasoline turbo vs diesel turbo. The diesel tend to do better in real world driving while the gas turbo variants are the opposite.

The lack of diesel options considering it's higher uptake is concerning. Is this a fallout of VW dieselgate ? The demise of diesel in North America seems to be happening even before it really took off.
Electric or hybrid vehicles may also be part of this demise.

[OliverD]

Side profile is very similar to the RDX, too.

I don't have any issues with this vehicle, except (as per usual) in terms of pricing.  However, the reason for my angst this time around is, as pointed out by Benhaze:

$44,900 actually happens to be the starting price of the GLK350 2 years ago.

^^ this.  I recall at some point being able to get this thing around $40k base, which was plenty of vehicle.  Now it's nearly $10k higher OTR and with a 'lesser' engine.

The 2010 was $41,800 and the 2013 diesel was $43,500. The new one probably has more standard equipment too. So it's definitely not $10k higher. Not even close.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Like the colour.

I never believe posted fuel economy rates especially gasoline turbo vs diesel turbo. The diesel tend to do better in real world driving while the gas turbo variants are the opposite.

The lack of diesel options considering it's higher uptake is concerning. Is this a fallout of VW dieselgate ? The demise of diesel in North America seems to be happening even before it really took off.
Electric or hybrid vehicles may also be part of this demise.

Anecdotal. I'm consistently beating the fuel economy ratings in my car. My last tank was 8.1 in almost all city driving. The EPA combined is 8.4 with roughly half highway driving.

[wing]

The diesel will come next year.  It's a marketing plan.  Release product and then next year get all the excitement again for the new engine.

[redman]

Like the colour.

I never believe posted fuel economy rates especially gasoline turbo vs diesel turbo. The diesel tend to do better in real world driving while the gas turbo variants are the opposite.

The lack of diesel options considering it's higher uptake is concerning. Is this a fallout of VW dieselgate ? The demise of diesel in North America seems to be happening even before it really took off.
Electric or hybrid vehicles may also be part of this demise.

Anecdotal. I'm consistently beating the fuel economy ratings in my car. My last tank was 8.1 in almost all city driving. The EPA combined is 8.4 with roughly half highway driving.

Interesting use of anecdotal, then providing a one off example.
"In addition, consumers typically pay at least $1,000 more for a turbocharged engine. So, buyers not only pay more but are likely to get lower fuel economy than with a regular engine, the magazine concluded.

Moreover, in some cases nonturbo engines can get higher fuel economy than turbocharged engines.

http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/mpg-or-performance-its-trade-turbos

Honda quietly dropped the 2.4-liter four-cylinder turbo engine in the 2013 Acura RDX and replaced it with a bigger nonturbo engine that gets better fuel economy. The turbo engine, EPA rated at 19 mpg city/24 highway/21 combined, was replaced by a 3.5-liter V6 that is EPA rated at 20 mpg city/28 highway/23 combined."

[Weels]

How are they not the same?

 

The window, lights, hatch opening, and exhaust are all different shapes.

If you removed the badges, would you be able to tell what it is?  You could tell me that GLC was a Audi or an Acura and I'd say "OK".  The GLK at least was distinctive.
Doesn't really matter though, they can all be styled the same - the main selling point is the badge on it

[aquadorhj]

I want one.  FGC reliability be damned. 

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Like the colour.

I never believe posted fuel economy rates especially gasoline turbo vs diesel turbo. The diesel tend to do better in real world driving while the gas turbo variants are the opposite.

The lack of diesel options considering it's higher uptake is concerning. Is this a fallout of VW dieselgate ? The demise of diesel in North America seems to be happening even before it really took off.
Electric or hybrid vehicles may also be part of this demise.

Anecdotal. I'm consistently beating the fuel economy ratings in my car. My last tank was 8.1 in almost all city driving. The EPA combined is 8.4 with roughly half highway driving.

Interesting use of anecdotal, then providing a one off example.
"In addition, consumers typically pay at least $1,000 more for a turbocharged engine. So, buyers not only pay more but are likely to get lower fuel economy than with a regular engine, the magazine concluded.

Moreover, in some cases nonturbo engines can get higher fuel economy than turbocharged engines.

http://autoweek.com/article/car-news/mpg-or-performance-its-trade-turbos

Honda quietly dropped the 2.4-liter four-cylinder turbo engine in the 2013 Acura RDX and replaced it with a bigger nonturbo engine that gets better fuel economy. The turbo engine, EPA rated at 19 mpg city/24 highway/21 combined, was replaced by a 3.5-liter V6 that is EPA rated at 20 mpg city/28 highway/23 combined."

That was kind of the point.

And the lead off to the story is:

Some automakers say turbochargers offer high fuel economy and quick acceleration, the best of both worlds.

Well, yes and no.

There's no free lunch, but a smaller turbo engine will deliver better fuel consumption in steady state on the highway than a larger engine with more cylinders just because of reduced pumping and other mechanical losses.

But it won't if driving around town with the foot down so a person can hear the turbos spool up.