Advertisement

2013 Mercedes-Benz GLK 250 BlueTEC: Fuel Efficiency Drive Report

Follow John

Launched for 2009 and notably refreshed for the 2013 model year, the Mercedes-Benz GLK-Class luxury compact crossover has never been particularly green.

But with the mid-year addition of a new diesel version, its fuel efficiency goes up by a third--which isn't bad for a pricey, heavy crossover.

Two weeks ago, we drove the 2013 Mercedes-Benz GLK 250 BlueTEC 4Matic, to give it its full Teutonic nomenclature.

Along the scenic routes Mercedes-Benz laid out into the tony parts of Westchester County and Connecticut horse country, we found the smallest Benz crossover to be smooth, comfortable, and torquey, if not particularly quick.

The EPA ratings for the 2013 GLK 250 BlueTEC 4Matic are expected to come in at 28 mpg combined (24 mpg city, 33 mpg highway).

That gives it a nominal range of 515 miles, or likely far longer than a wealthy middle-aged driver's bladder is likely to hold out.

By comparison, the 2013 GLK 350 model with the 3.5-liter V-6 gasoline engine is rated at 21 mpg combined (on premium gasoline) with either rear-wheel drive or 4Matic all-wheel drive.

On the 44-mile first leg, our GLK 250 BlueTEC diesel crossover showed us an indicated fuel efficiency of 33.1 mpg. On the longer 64-mile return leg, it registered 34.9 mpg.

Which reinforces the common wisdom that diesel cars do better than their EPA ratings in real-world use (while the same cannot be said of certain hybrids).

The same 2.1-liter twin-turbocharged diesel engine that's used in the GLK 250 BlueTEC--which produces 200 horsepower and 369 lb-ft of torque--will be launched this fall  in the E 250 BlueTEC 4Matic mid-size luxury sedan as well.

It replaces a larger V-6 diesel used in earlier models of the E-Series sedan, and should return even higher fuel efficiency ratings than the GLK 250's.

2013 Mercedes-Benz GLK Class

2013 Mercedes-Benz GLK Class

Enlarge Photo

We look forward to a longer test drive to compare the GLK 250 BlueTEC's efficiency and capabilities to other compact crossovers we've driven.

Those might include our surprisingly expensive 2013 Ford Escape Platinum with 2.0-liter EcoBoost engine, which exactly hit its EPA combined rating of 24 mpg.

Some other impressions from our brief drive:

  • The diesel engine noise can best be described as a sort of sewing-machine whir: different, but not unpleasant
  • While it may only be a compact crossover, the GLK is a comfortable and confident car behind the wheel
  • But it's also heavy--at 4,246 pounds--and the driver is always aware that there's a lot of mass moving around, meaning it's far from lithe and "tossable"
  • It has one of the most upright windshields of any new car we've driven, which we like
  • But the rear three-quarter vision isn't particularly good, making the backup camera a necessity

The 2013 Mercedes-Benz GLK 250 BlueTEC 4Matic carries a base price of $38,590.

That's $1,500 pricier than the rear-wheel drive gasoline version--but $500 cheaper than the 4Matic all-wheel-drive gasoline model that's a more direct comparison.

2013 Mercedes-Benz GLK 250 BlueTEC, upstate New York, April 2013

2013 Mercedes-Benz GLK 250 BlueTEC, upstate New York, April 2013

Enlarge Photo

Still, our car carried a bottom line of more than $50,000.

As well as a package deemed Premium 1 (panoramic sunroof, power liftgate, rain-sensing wipers, SiriusXM satellite radio, auto-dimming rear-view mirrors, and more), at $3,450, the multimedia option (COMAND interface to infotainment system with 7-inch dash display) added $2,790 and the AMG styling package cost a further $1,990.

The lighting package added $1,290, the heated front seats $750, and the steel gray metallic paint and black MB-Tex seats $720 more.

Finally, the special-order Black Ash interior wood trim cost a further $250, and the inevitable and mandatory deliver fee was $905.

That all adds up to a sticker price for our test car of $50,735.

+++++++++++

Follow GreenCarReports on Facebook and Twitter.

Advertisement
 
Follow Us

 

Have an opinion?

  • Posting indicates you have read this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use
  • Notify me when there are more comments
Comments (9)
  1. Why did they have to make it so darn ugly?
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  2. In my opinion, using the onboard trip computer is a poor way to get fuel mileage numbers. Optimally, you'd have to run through several tanks of fuel and divide miles driven per tank by how many gallons you used to fill'er up to get a real number. Generalizing efficiency from 108 miles just isn't good enough.
     
    Post Reply
    +1
    Bad stuff?

     
  3. @Jim: I don't entirely disagree. Regrettably, High Gear Meida isn't set up like Consumer Reports, with enough staff to spend weeks or months with each car.

    We generally do 2 articles per car: One on our first drive, when we spend a day or less on a manufacturer-specified drive route. That's what the story above is: It's basically first impressions + a quick snapshot of the mileage displayed by the car's trip computer.

    Then we'll do a longer test, usually 4 to 7 days, over 300 or more miles. That's split between highway + around-town travel, with elevation changes, a variety of traffic, and so forth. Again, we use readings from the computer; anything less than 5 full tanks isn't worth it.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  4. The trip computer on my Golf is accurate to one tenth mpg of manually calculating the mpg. Unless the trip odometer and odometer are lying also, the computer should be right on.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

     
  5. Well, how accuracy is the gas measurement portion?
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  6. 33 mpg is really not bad, but I would stick with my Passat TDI 6M which is getting almost twice as good.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

     
  7. Or 40 mpg from people more inclined to actual data.
    http://www.fuelly.com/car/volkswagen/passat/diesel%20l4
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

     
  8. I do not care what those people got. My own actual data is the only thing means a lot to me. I do not even want to know how they achieved such poor mpg(40?) I am not paying for their fuel.

    Just finished another nearly 100 miles round trip. Got 62.7 mpg mixed including 80% highway mostly cruising. It is MFI, maybe slightly higher than actual, but I am happy enough.
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

  9. Anybody have any idea when the ML 250 BluTEC will hit North America?
     
    Post Reply
    Vote
    Bad stuff?

 

Have an opinion? Join the conversation!

Advertisement
Advertisement

Get FREE Dealer Quotes

From dealers near you
Go!

Find Green Cars

Go!

Advertisement

 
© 2014 Green Car Reports. All Rights Reserved. Green Car Reports is published by High Gear Media. Send us feedback. Stock photography by izmo, Inc.
Advertisement