German Car Zone

You don't need to be a dyed-in-the-wool granola eater donning a hand-knitted sweater, burlap trousers, and Birkenstock sandals to qualify as a professional SUV hater. After all, the dreaded two-plus-tonners guzzle gasoline, and more and more people feel that they threaten our loved ones with their potentially lethal mix of high mass and low maneuverability. That's why the automotive world is - at least in so-called civilized countries - giving the antiquated body-on-frame off-roader a collective thumbs-down. But in a closely related and thus mildly schizophrenic move, the crossover population is mushrooming.

Most crossovers look as if they could drive up the north face of Mount Washington with the gear selector stuck in D, yet they often struggle for traction on muddy farm tracks because of their Nürburgring-biased tires. Perhaps nothing but a giant marketing ploy, soft-roaders combine Indiana Jones appearances with city-slicker undercarriages borrowed from related sedans and wagons. Although it's hard to predict how long the zeitgeist will tolerate these worst-of-both-worlds half-breeds, we wasted no time checking out the latest high-roof premium-brand entries. Predictably, the trio of small crossovers we tested from Audi, Mercedes-Benz, and Volvo is much more environmentally friendly and less dysfunctional than full-size SUVs. While fuel economy almost matches identically equipped versions of the sedans upon which these vehicles are based, handling and roadholding are surprisingly unfazed by the higher centers of gravity and added belly fat. Welcome to the strange world of all-providing, genetically engineered automobiles.

Four-wheel drive should be taken for granted in these pricey high-tech circles, but Mercedes offers a rear-wheel-drive, price-leader version of the GLK for $34,775. Our particular vehicles, however, each feature four driven wheels. Although in most cases a set of decent winter tires would do just fine, only four-wheel drive offers the confidence, control, convenience, and traction that these vehicles are all about. We understand why crossovers are so popular in Bavaria and Colorado. But what is the attraction when you live in London, Redondo Beach, or Abu Dhabi, where lack of traction is rarely an issue? Frequently asked question, disarming answer: the overriding appeal of our three musketeers is, of course, the mix of easy entry and exit, a commanding driving position, and relative invulnerability. You sit above the madding crowd, are surrounded by a few extra square inches of sheetmetal, and can see things earlier and more clearly. It's not just a girlie thing. It's a tangible asset and on aggregate almost certainly the main buying motive.


Full Test: Automobile Magazine - Audi Q5 3.2FSI vs 2009 Mercedes GLK350 vs 2009 Volvo XC60 T6



Don't ask me why, but the Volvo is my favorite here, inside and out.


M

Really? The Ford or Mazda?? Traitor!

More like turncoat.....lol.

M

I won't lie, I do like the look of the Volvo, but I'll never buy a Volvo. One of my best mates works for a dealer and he says that they're such badly made and cost SO much money to fix...and he is in the service dept.

I'll take the Q5 without a doubt. It is quite good looking from the outside, but the inside downright ebarasses the GLK, at least in the pictures above. Too much black inside the GLK.

All European cars cost too much to fix and both Audi and Mercedes have surely made their share of clunkers too. There is no such thing as a cheap to fix European car, at least not in the U.S.


M

Yeah, but the stories that my friend has given me, it's downright embarrassing. My friend's parents have always bought Volvo cars. After he worked in service for a while he has straight up told his parent to never buy volvo again.

The same stories can be found with any brand of car on the market, only difference is the emphasis put behind them by the person telling them. Even Lexus has to buy back cars that they can't fix and so do the Europeans.

Volvos are no different. Land Rover, BMW, Audi, VW, Mercedes, Lexus, and Jaguar all have had horror stories told about them. Sure a Mercedes or BMW may have been more reliable than a Jaguar or Volvo or Saab or Audi back when very true, but none of them were Toyota or Honda-like.

M

I never said that Volvo is worse than the others. All I'm saying is that the evidence that my friend has provided points me away from Volvo. I know there are horror stories about all brands, but you usually tend to listen to a good friend or a loved one when there isn't a good argument on the opposite side.

I agree with you on this one. No questions needed, just look at this picture. The GLK is good too, I get vibes from a Geländewagen my father used to have in the 80's...

definitely the GLK for me,the Q5 is too soft looking and i just don't like volvo