When I was younger, I would spend my weekends hopping from dealership to dealership test-driving cars. I looked older, and dressed the part, which made my lies to salesmen more believable. As I have gotten older, I have gained increasingly more access to test vehicles, and my dealership experience has faded.
But in this series, I go back to my roots and begin to test-drive cars straight off dealership lots, because, well, I gotta get cars somehow. Besides, when you limit yourself to driving only very good sports cars, your perceptions of reality can get a little warped. That’s why, in this series, I’m going to try to stay away from sports cars.
This week, I drove three small, German SUV’s, the Mercedes GLK350, BMW X3 3.0 Xdrive, and Audi Q5 3.2. I hate this class of vehicle, especially since these vehicles offer less sport, and barely more utility than a station wagon, yet cost thousands more.
The Evidence (base price shown)
Audi Q5: $37,200
Audi A4 Avant: $34,500
Mercedes GLK350: $35,475
Mercedes C300 (sedan quoted, wagon available 2011): $33,600
BMW X3 3.0 XDrive: $39,575
BMW 328i Wagon: $35,400
Granted, the SUV’s offer more base power than their wagon counterparts, but with more mass to move, it’s easy to understand why the power is needed. Despite my hatred of the small SUV, we press on with the comparison:
Third Place: Mercedes GLK350
May as well come out and say it: the GLK is impossibly ugly. The exterior styling, while making an effort to be futuristic and edgy, comes off as neither. It looks like someone raised the roof, literally, on a C-class, then hacked off the trunk. Mercedes says that the GLK’s “design language” is based on the G-class, a 30-year old design that, for some reason, continues to sell to overindulgent morons in Hollywood like Megan Fox and Hilary Duff. I don’t see the styling connection, as it looks much more like the GL-class than the original G. Besides, even if it is any good off road, no one will ever know, because no one who knows they will be off-roading when thinking of buying a new car would ever consider the GLK, especially one fitted with the optional 20″ wheels.
My test car’s window sticker read $40,600, the cheapest as-tested price of this group. It included the Premium Package ($3,150), Sport Package ($900), and iPod integration ($375). The car did not have the COMMAND navigation system, which comes with a backup camera and costs another $3,000.
The interior is about what you’d expect: good fit and finish, great visibility out of the car, which makes sense given the upright seating position and generous amount of glass, and comfortable front seats, if lacking bolstering. I was pleasantly surprised to see real brushed aluminum used in the dash and trim, and then that surprise was offset by my shock at how much hard plastic is used in the interior. The dash, door panels, center console, and rear cargo area are all trimmed out in plastic. I was also disappointed in the lack of a better leather option, if you could even call it that. The salesman assured me that it’s real leather, I didn’t believe him for a second, and I have since learned that there will be a better “Upholstery Package” offered in 2010. It couldn’t come soon enough. The front, power operated driver’s seat has plenty of legroom and headroom for my large frame, and rear seat room was a close second in this test, slightly roomier than the Audi and tigher than the BMW. The front passenger seat had full, manual controls, and though it was just as roomy, a car at this price point really should have full power seats. I don’t understand why Mercedes would install a power steering wheel and not a power front seat, when its clear which would be more useful. The rear seats fold flat, a standard in this class, providing plenty of storage space.
Driving the GLK350 could best be described as “bland,” which is probably what the kind of aspirational appliance-seeker who would buy it wants. Its 268hp 3.5L V6 makes more than enough power to get the GLK from A to B, and not nearly enough power to have fun along the way. Its 258 lb/ft of torque are highest in this test, though, and it does scoot off the line with very little pedal effort. The salesman assured me that by putting the 7-speed SelectShift transmission in “sport” and shifting myself, that it would be more fun. It wasn’t. Upshifts took a full “one, Mississippi” count, and throttle-blips on downshifts would be way too much to ask. The GLK is one of those “throw it in D” kind of cars. The brakes work adequately for around-town commuting, though the pedal suffers from a serious case of the squishies. Expected fuel economy is about 18mpg overall, or 22/16 on the EPA scale. Unsurprisingly, Mercedes recommends 91 octane or higher.
Despite the $7,000 as-tested advantage over the other two vehicles in this test, the GLK was a clear dead last. It felt least attached to its luxury heritage, least equipped, and, in my opinion, the worst styling.
Good: You can tell your friends you drive a Mercedes, even if just barely.
Bad: An attempt at an aggressive, sporty SUV resulted in a tall wagon that’s anything but aggressive or sporty.
The Smoking Tire: A Mercury Mariner is more comfortable, just as functional, and better looking, for $10,000 less.
Second Place: BMW X3 3.0 XDrive
The aging X3 is the oldest design of this segment, first appearing on the market in 2004 with the anemic 2.5L engine and lack of performance to match. The good news is that, since then, BMW has decided to paint the trim body color and add the 3.0L 260hp engine to the X3, an improvement of 76hp from the original model. Unfortunately, not much else has changed. The X3 is still hideous, but now with front and rear fascias which attempt to mimic its big brother the X5. Sadly, the exterior proportions are still very awkward: it’s squat, yet upright, it looks more like a misshapen 3-series than a member of the X family.
Things get better inside, as the Bimmer’s leather is best-of-the group. The doors are sculpted and stitched with high quality, soft leather, and the door handles are works of metallic art. In typical BMW fashion, the steering wheel is thick and has just the right amount of padding, and is also fully adjustable, albeit manually. The dash, like the current-generation 3 and 5 series, doesn’t angle towards the driver, as it does in the Audi, it bulges in the center and gets narrower towards either door, a somewhat awkward proportion. Climate controls are standard BMW fare, except I still don’t understand why there’s a hot/cold selector knob in between the two center vents. Every BMW I have driven since I turned 16 has had this feature, and I don’t know any more about it now than I did then. If the climate system is indeed fully automatic, as it appears to be, then why the second control knob? The salesman, nice as he was, couldn’t explain its presence either, and once my questions about it fully confused him, I stopped asking. Immediately noticeable on my $48,000 test vehicle was the strange lack of iDrive. Instead, the X3 has a pop-up screen with the average-at-best Navigation system most commonly used in the E46 3-series and E39 5-series. Don’t get me wrong; it worked great, in 2002. Next year, the X3 is due in for a redesign, no doubt including iDrive. The X3 does get points, however, for the roomiest and best upholstered rear seat.
The X3’s strong suit is the slickr’n greased owl shit 3-liter straight six. Though it’s the least powerful of the three, it’s only just, and it pulls the car without a single vibration felt through the chassis or steering wheel. This is an engine that is so refined at this point, I doubt it could get any better, except, maybe, by strapping on a couple turbos. Oh, wait, they already did that. In fact, why isn’t that engine offered? Nevertheless, the X3 is the lightest of the bunch, so it’s slight power deficiency isn’t too detrimental. BMW hasn’t gotten around to updating the X3 with their “Flight Simulator” shifter offered in the 5-series and X5/6 yet, but at least the shift lever has the right orientation for performance driving, with upshifts requiring a pull, and downshifts a push. The brakes are effective, yet almost too immediate with their response, and they require a gentle foot, unless you don’t mind your passengers’ beverages all over the windshield. Steering feel has always been BMW’s strong suit, and that’s one area where the X3 doesn’t disappoint. The weighted feel and perfect amount of road/driver communication really do remind you that you’re driving a BMW. And EPA figures of 16/23 put the X3 ahead of the Benz and just behind the Q5. Of course, that’s premium fuel.
The biggest problem the BMW faces is its price. The base price of $39,995 is over $2,700 more than the Audi, and over $5,000 more than the Benz, and both of those cars come with way more standard features. Fully optioned out, the Bimmer will cross the big five-oh. My test car stickered at $48,650, the highest in this test. Considering the BMW is an aging design with the least amount of tech goodies, value is out the window. Not surprisingly, it seems that even in the world of small SUV’s, the BMW-tax applies.
Good: Sportiest of the bunch, most rear seat room
Bad: The most desirable options make the X3 very expensive quickly.
The Smoking Tire: Just as ugly as ever, but hey, it steers like a BMW.
First Place: Audi Q5 3.2 Quattro
Like the GLK, the Audi Q5 is new for this year. Following in the footsteps of the ugly-but-successful Q7 SUV, the Q5 downsizes a bit, in keeping with the societal themes of the last couple of years. I was surprised that the Q5 actually looks better than the Q7; Ingolstadt’s finest smoothed and lowered the bulbous waistline of the Q7 into a flowing, more compact design with the Q5. The Q5 also loses the Q7’s monster air dam, a vast improvement. Where the X3 fails to “shrink” the X5, the Q5 succeeds in shrinking the Q7. Audi’s trademark big-mouth bass grille and LED running lights seem a bit much for the Q5; I’d preferred if Audi had reserved the LED’s for only its high-performance models.
By this point, everyone already knows Audi puts together stellar interiors, so I won’t beat a dead horse. The interior design language first seen on the A6 has tricled to the A/S5, the A/S4, and now the Q5, and in each of these models, it works flawlessly. The center console features the largest and brightest LCD screen of the three, and though it takes a few days to get used to Audi’s MMI system, navigating between menus using the large buttons is very easy. But, why does the scroll wheel go the wrong way? To scroll down, you turn counter-clockwise, which is the exact opposite of every scrolling wheel, ever. The steering wheel, while not as thick as the BMW’s, has multifunction controls as standard, and is wrapped in very soft leather. Front seats are full power standard, and the rear seat can remotely fold down using a button in the cargo area. They must be lifted back up manually with a lever on either side of the rear bench, a very simple process. Most disappointing about the Q5 is the lack of rear seat legroom; anyone with over a 32 inch inseam would get out of the car with bruised knees. Headroom is exceptional in both the front and back seats. Strangely, Edmunds.com’s car comparing website shows the Q5 with more rear legroom than both the GLK and X3, contrary to my experience.
The Q5’s 3.2 Liter, direct injection V6 makes 270hp, the most of the three, but by only 2hp over the GLK. There is only a 10 horsepower spread from least to most in this test, and the weight spread is only 150lbs, so acceleration, braking, and handling numbers are all going to be very similar. More importantly, the Q5’s transmission is noticeably quicker than both the X3 and GLK, especially in manual mode. On the other hand, the transmission in question actually hiccupped, hard, after flooring it and jumping off the gas quickly in “Sport Auto” mode. At least all three come with identical 4year/50k mile warranties. And if you keep your foot out of it, the Q5 will manage 18/23 MPG with the longest range of the group, 455 miles.
The good news is that the Q5 has a relatively low base price of $37,500. The bad news is that the premium package, which includes all the goodies you’d expect from a luxury car, is $4,000, meaning the odds of actually getting one for less than $40,000 are just about zero. Want navigation and a backup camera? That’ll be another $3,000 please. My test car stickered at $47,915, which is just about where I say the Q5, like the X3, isn’t worth the money. I’d say skip the navigation and get a TomTom. You still get the LCD screen and MMI interface, even without it. And if you really think you need a backup camera, save your money and get some driving lessons.
The best thing I can say about the Q5 though, is that it really is very similar to the A4 Avant both in interior feel and driving dynamics. And that’s the biggest compliment offered in this test.
Good: All the stuff you like about other Audis applies here
Bad: No 2.0T or TDI engine available, options get expensive quickly.
The Smoking Tire: Best of the three, but still a car you’d buy for your mom.
I wouldn’t buy any of these cars. Not because there is anything inherently wrong with them, or because they don’t perform as advertised, but because I see them all as pointless vehicles. I would never buy an SUV that doesn’t do anything that a station wagon wouldn’t. I spent a week with an A4 Avant, during which time it snowed nearly a foot, and I had to help a friend move a bunch of boxes. I even drove the Avant on a snow-covered Monticello Motor Club’s road course at very high speed, drifting the whole way. And none of it was even remotely a problem for the wagon. It looked better, went faster, cost less, and got better fuel economy than the Q5 as well. The A4 is just an example, BMW and Mercedes also make equally capable, and proportionately cheaper station wagons. And lets be honest with ourselves here: no one, and I mean less than 1% of owners, will ever drive any of these pseudo-SUV’s off road. Both the BMW and Audi come with hill-descent control standard, and if that button ever gets pressed it’s because the driveway is a bit icy, not because they need to get down safely from Everest Base Camp.
There was always a possibility that one of the three cars in this weeks Dealership Experience would change my mind about small SUV’s, even though ultimately that wasn’t the case. These three cars all function in a very similar way and offer similar equipment at a similar price. It really makes me feel like car companies today are simply imagining holes in the market that really don’t need to be there. I know there’s nothing in between the E-class wagon and the ML or R class SUV’s, but do we really need a tiny little box running around pretending to be an SUV? Not really. Does raising the roof and putting big tires on a 3-series make it do anything the 328xi Wagon won’t do? Not really. Are Audi customers really finding their Avants too mommy-like that they need a small SUV? Grow up, wagons drive exactly like sedans, they just hold more stuff.
Alternatively, I’d like to encourage everyone to try everything out for themselves, maybe you’ll see something I missed. If you’re looking at a small SUV, try a wagon, and if you’re looking at a wagon, try a small SUV. The sales don’t lie.
[...] Farah of The Smoking Tire, has decided to go car shopping at his local Audi, BMW and Mercedes-Benz dealers. Instead of going [...]
great information you write it very clean.
a thank for nice information about all cars different models…….
A very nice comparison of the 3 premium SUV brands but I am clear with my views I will go with the BMW. Its my favorite.