Quote, originally posted by Autoweek »

Mercedes-Benz has adjusted option packages on its new GLK-class premium SUV to help cope with an oversupply of high-priced versions. Ernst Lieb, CEO of Mercedes-Benz USA, said the company exported too many high-end models for the January U.S. launch. "We planned production in June and July of last year, and we didn't know where we would be in January," he said. "We had models coming at $40,000-plus." Dealers say U.S. customers came into showrooms expecting to find more GLKs at the highly advertised price of $34,775 for the two-wheel-drive version. The all-wheel-drive starts at $36,775. Both prices include shipping. Instead, dealership stock consisted largely of vehicles loaded with options. To lure buyers, Mercedes-Benz placed an interest rate of 1.9 percent for up to 66 months on the GLK class in February. This month, Mercedes changed its option package. The sunroof, a feature many buyers wanted, had been lumped into a $3,150 option package. Mercedes now offers it as a stand-alone option for $1,450. A multimedia package, including a navigation system, was priced at $3,350. It can now be ordered separately for $1,800. Those who purchased a GLK equipped with either package in February or March received a $2,000 refund. Mercedes wouldn't say how many buyers got the refund.

but whateeeeeever. build it and they will come

42DD/APR/Neuspeed/AEM/OEM+

Now, only selling loaded versions? That's pointless. But the basic concept of an all-rounder that can do most things well is not actually pointless.

Modified by Turbiodiesel! at 4:05 PM 4-13-2009

Quote, originally posted by felixthecat, on why his genitalia are important to him »

Good god, I do have a wang and I just couldn't trade it in for a Prius.

Quote, originally posted by Vee-Dubber-GLI »

I don't see why everything has to be lumped together in one large package for $3-5k... I like certain 'convenience' and 'technology' packages where it combines two or three like items and cuts down on individual costs of the said items, but $3k+ just so you can have a sunroof an a bunch of options/items you may not want/need?

Quote, originally posted by Turbiodiesel! »

^ I know you think that sort of statement makes you cool, but small crossovers do have their uses - and depending on location and lifestyle, are more useful than both conventional cars and traditional SUVs. Or am I missing a vehicle type that can get you over a crappy dirt road to a trailhead full of camping gear while still returning 25-30mpg?

Yeah, my Audi A4 Avant. Actually I do it all the time when I go mountain biking.

Modified by chucchinchilla at 4:15 PM 4-13-2009

but seriously, the thing is pointless and it's not a real "crossover" Go buy an audi allroad if that's what you want

Quote, originally posted by felixthecat, on why his genitalia are important to him »

Good god, I do have a wang and I just couldn't trade it in for a Prius.

the people buying this car though are doing it because they can't afford an ML, GL, or G, though, not because they need to get over a small puddle between the highway and their rural driveway

However, the consumer push back should put Audi on alert that the Q5 is too costly as configured.

For people who want an upmarket Forester, this car is perfect.

And what's this about "form factor?" It's a small SUV-type vehicle built on the platform of a car, but with a raised suspension. How else is a crossover defined?

Quote, originally posted by HoyaDub »

I think myself and others would disagree with you, but

Oh. Ok.

Quote, originally posted by HoyaDub »

the people buying this car though are doing it because they can't afford an ML, GL, or G, though, not because they need to get over a small puddle between the highway and their rural driveway

First GLK I ever saw was parked at the end of a 10-mile fire road at a local mountain-biking hangout. Anytime I read statements like "the people buying this car" or "SUV buyers" or whatever, I tend to start rolling my eyes, because sweeping generalizations suck.

Modified by Turbiodiesel! at 4:15 PM 4-13-2009

Quote, originally posted by felixthecat, on why his genitalia are important to him »

Good god, I do have a wang and I just couldn't trade it in for a Prius.

Quote »

First GLK I ever saw was parked at the end of a 10-mile fire road at a local mountain-biking hangout.

again, no big deal. it's A FIRE ROAD

Thanks for mentioning the Forester, though, that's a perfect example of what these people would buy if they weren't brand whoring.

A4 Avant Ground Clearance: 191mm
GLK Ground Clearance: 201mm

Wow, so the GLK has a whopping .4" over my Avant. I'm sure it has better approach and departure angles, but my car can do most everything the GLK can w/o the hype and with better mpg. Point is, the GLK is hype and marketing. No thanks.

you have excellent timing because i assumed the same thing in the post right below yours. thanks for the proof!

Oh, but it is the point, you just can't concede it. The GLK is actually incredibly capable offroad, and it was designed to be that way. It's not sackriding to point out that your assertion is flatly wrong. It's capable offroad. Full stop, end of story, stop waffling. I don't particularly like the GLK, but I'm love poking holes in lazy car-dweeb superiority complexes.

Oh, and a Taurus? Get real.

More evidence. Again, think whatever you like of the car, just don't try to tell me it doesn't have offroad chops.

Quote, originally posted by HoyaDub »

again, no big deal. it's A FIRE ROAD

Do you....wait....nope, you've never driven a fire road. Ok.

Again, you're claiming that the "people who buy this" would never drive on anything challenging. This was a road my Element barely made it up; your mythical Taurus would have left its oil pan behind. I'm demonstrating that your sweeping generalizations don't hold up. Stop making them. There are plenty of cogent criticisms of the GLK you could make, like, "you could buy a Forester for ten grand less" or "it's overpriced for what it is" or "the interior design sucks" or "it's got a snout like a platypus", but "pointless" and "not capable" are not gonna hold up.

Quote, originally posted by felixthecat, on why his genitalia are important to him »

Good god, I do have a wang and I just couldn't trade it in for a Prius.

Where?

Quote, originally posted by felixthecat, on why his genitalia are important to him »

Good god, I do have a wang and I just couldn't trade it in for a Prius.

There you go. That's a reasonable criticism - though the Subaru lacks some amenities, it's a better value and far less expensive.

Quote, originally posted by felixthecat, on why his genitalia are important to him »

Good god, I do have a wang and I just couldn't trade it in for a Prius.

No, from what point on the structure to the ground. I could measure from the rocker panel and say my Vibe has 7.5 inches of ground clearance, but that doesn't really change the fact that the lowest point is a good inch and a half south of that.

Quote, originally posted by felixthecat, on why his genitalia are important to him »

Good god, I do have a wang and I just couldn't trade it in for a Prius.

i'll admit i was exaggerating a little, but compared to the former allroad/quattro and any mildly competent suv the GLK falls flat. and, like we've agreed, there's just no good reason to buy it besides brand whoring.

One man's pointless rock is another man's diamond ring.

People by what they want. I agree. In basic functionality, the car offers nothing over a Forester, and I would probably buy the forester given the choice. But if money were no object, I'd take the Mercedes--wouldn't you?

Luxury goods, by definition, consist of attributes that you don't need. Hell, any car with more than 140hp or power windows has stuff you don't need.

For some people, the extra $10k isn't a big deal, and they like the mercedes more.

I do think the Forester and Mercedes offer the basic "snow road" competence that you would want if you lived, in say, Boston, and made the occassional ski run up to Vermont. I've driven those roads in a rear wheel drive Volvo wagon with nothing but good snow tires, which is all you need. But if I still lived there, a small 4wd SUV would work well for a combination of city dwelling and the occasional outing to snowed over roads, and the occasionally nasty muddy dirt road, this car would work well. It's not a Jeep, but I don't think the people buying it would fool themselves into thinking it is.

Modified by Moodyblues at 4:36 PM 4-13-2009

Modified by Moodyblues at 4:36 PM 4-13-2009

Quote, originally posted by HoyaDub »

everything you said was rational until that sentence. I promise at least half of people buying that car are convinced they could weather a blizzard, floods, or sand dunes etc etc

If you are going to troll TCL, at least do yourself a favor and read the basic brochure on a GLK. You'll be eating less crow that way.