When Mercedes-Benz launched the second-generation GLC crossover, it made a bold decision: Every U.S.-market model from the GLC 300 to the range-topping AMG GLC 63 S would feature some sort of four-cylinder engine. On the base model, this was business as usual. On the range-topping GLC 63 S, replacing the outgoing car’s V8 with a plug-in hybrid four-cylinder powertrain offering a mere one mile of electric range was like replacing the New York Philharmonic orchestra with a copy of FL Studio. It just wasn’t what shoppers were looking for. Thankfully, a partial course correction is happening. This is the new Mercedes-AMG GLC 53, and it swaps a two-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engine for something with an extra two cylinders.
While technically replacing all AMG GLC models, this latest variant really serves as a successor to the GLC 43. Think of it as the scrappy middle child of the lineup, the equivalent of doing a kegstand in an Armani suit. That highly turbocharged inline-four loved to party, but it came with a few real downsides.
On paper, it should’ve been brilliant. Not only did the baby AMG finally get a true handbuilt engine, but its 416 horsepower, and 369 lb.-ft. of torque was nothing to sneeze at. In practice, one big asterisk applied: That peak torque figure didn’t arrive until 5,000 RPM, which meant that this mid-range luxury crossover had the power delivery of a ’90s JDM tuner car. Fun, but probably not what most buyers want, which is likely part of the reason why the new AMG GLC 53 is adding some serious displacement.
We’re talking about a three-liter turbocharged mild-hybrid straight six pumping out 443 horsepower, and crucially, 443 lb.-ft. of torque from a reasonably low 2,200 RPM. It’s the same sort of engine seen in the CLE 53 coupe, which means it should make Mercedes-Benz’s compact crossover feel pretty much effortless. Straight-line punch doesn’t sound bad either, with launch control briefly boosting peak torque to 473 lb.-ft. to achieve a claimed zero-to-60 mph time of 4.1 seconds. That’s considerably quicker than the outgoing AMG GLC 43, but it’s not my main source of excitement.
See, the high-strung, old-school-feeling turbocharged four-cylinder engine wasn’t my biggest annoyance with the car. Nope, that would be the nine-speed automatic transmission with a multi-plate clutch pack instead of a torque converter. In theory, a setup like this allows for more aggressive launches, but the real-world tradeoff was extremely unusual cold-weather behavior. If the gearbox was cold, it would slip the clutches pulling away from a stop like someone learning to drive a manual. Trying to power through this delay resulted in an incredible lag-and-lurch situation that notably detracted from the GLC 43’s mission: being a luxury crossover.
Thankfully, the new GLC 53 comes with a regular torque converter, and if it behaves anything like the torque converter in Mercedes-Benz’s regular nine-speed automatic, it should be transformative. Smooth, expected low-speed cold manners could be back on the menu, and if that manifests while combining with the new lower torque peak, Mercedes-AMG could’ve made a brilliant decision. Oh, and if you want the GLC 53 to stop being all-wheel-drive for some reason, you can spec it with a drift mode that sends 100 percent of torque to the available rear limited-slip differential. Does a reasonably hefty combustion-powered crossover need a drift mode? No, that’s like giving a moose a big chunk of sodium metal, but it’s a fun toy to have.
Other changes? Well, the Mercedes-AMG GLC 53 gets bigger 15.4-inch front discs, an optional Race drive mode, and … that’s about it. Same adaptive damper tech as the old GLC 43, same rear-wheel-steering, same interior, and pretty much the same styling. You’ll still be able to get it as a normal crossover if you’re a normal person or one of those coupe-style crossovers if you’re the sort of person who pays to be verified on Twitter.
While pricing hasn’t been released for the new Mercedes-AMG GLC 53, don’t be surprised if it winds up being a bit more expensive than the old GLC 43 and a bit less expensive than the old GLC 63 S E Performance. Somewhere between $68,000 and $86,000, essentially. That’s a big potential range, the BMW X3 M50 stickers for $67,850 before any options, and that’s as good a target as any. Will the straight-six and torque converter auto ‘box translate to more refinement? We’ll just have to put tire to road and find out, won’t we?
Top graphic image: Mercedes-AMG
I still want to see this drivetrain in the SL. Crazy that you can get a turbo 4 or turbo 8 in an SL but not a turbo 6.
Over here in the Netherlands, we have a car sales tax that is dependent with emissions. The outgoing GLC AMG 43 was on sale here starting from €151.000 or $179.000. So, an extra hundred grant compared to the prices in the US. You don’t see many of these over here …
I’m clearly not the target audience for this.
What an ugly beast! Like most SUVs it is neither sporty nor utilitarian. When can we go back to station wagons and minivans for family haulers?
Ask any quality engineer. Hand built is bad.
Unless it’s not.
Weren’t we complaining about this engine going into the AMG C Class last week?
Thomas, the discussion of the I6 and torque converter as keys to a Luxury Experience is spot on, but you got some confusing idioms here that seem kinda LLM-ish in their detachment from normie embodied reality:
Whazzup with that?
Agreed. Not only is “sodium metal” redundant, but not many people commonly talk about excitement in the context of giving an animal a salt lick outside of the farming community, so it just seemed odd.
But I will admit the verified on Twitter one landed pretty well for me, since the coupe crossovers are paying for showy style above all else. I pray for a day when the coupe crossovers cease to exist…
I mean, this has been the rationale for coupes for decades, whether the base vehicle is a sedan or a CUV.
Yes, but the whole raison d’être for an SUV for most buyers is space.
For passengers and cargo.
Hence all the doors everywhere.
So a 4 door coupe SUV is oxymoronic.
That was probably the rationale for buying a full size sedan in 1970 and yet full size coupes existed.
In the 70’s, coupes were cheaper than the 4 doors and wagons.
They were the bargains of the lineup.
Do you want a radio and automatic or do you want 2 more doors?
Just fold the seat forward and keep shoving kids in the back, Ma’am.
Now coupes and “coupes” are more expensive.
Pay more, get less.
There’s a big difference between sodium (explodes in your mouth, not in your hand) and sodium chloride, a grain of which with which to take this analogy. The Twitter one was pretty funny.
I had to read that one twice too….Wouldn’t giving a moose a chunk of sodium explode in its mouth? Is that a thing people do? What does that have to do with drift mode in an SUV? Does the engine blow up?
I thought it was a funny line. Maybe because it was so unexpected. But, yes it certainly falls apart under scientific scrutiny.
Hundal just writes wild stuff. Go back and read his review of the GR Corolla if you want some peak Hundal-isms.
I’m just too literal I guess. Though I did always like Raphael Orlove’s loopy style.
Ah, so they didn’t fix the worst part of it yet.
I am overly online but I didn’t get it.
I’m not interesting in the verified Twitter part. I’m just interested in not having to see “”coupe”” SUVs that are just so, so ugly.
But I’ll try to make the Twitter explanation brief: before Musk’s takeover, being ‘verified’ on Twitter meant literally that: the company verified that you were who you said you were. It was good for celebrities/businesses so you knew who the account was official. There was some bitching about who was considered good enough for verification but whatever, it mostly worked.
Musk decided to make it so that being verified became simple a paid feature, so anyone could do it. And so we make fun of nobodies who pay the world’s richest man for the luxury of a blue mark next to their name; but since the original reason for it’s existence is now moot, it just makes people look silly.
Thanks! Yeah, I just couldn’t get the link between the two, I guess it’s “vain tryhards with bad taste”?
Glad they’re going to a 6 cylinder, but I’m still not interested.
Had a realization last night that I’m just not interested in any cars lately. Not a complete old man yelling at clouds, I hope, because modern cars are much more advanced than the old ones. But nothing interests me. Went on car configurators and anything that might be interesting is way too expensive. Hell, even a Miata isn’t great these days for price, but in comparison to some other stuff it’s not that bad?
I used to go to the Mercedes/BMW/Audi configurators all the time and build something that I’d like, but after about an hour going to multiple manufacturers I got fed up. Even something like a GTI, I couldn’t change wheels. Don’t like the standard ones, but too bad. And god forbid you want to do certain color combinations of exterior and interior. Eventually I threw price out the window and built a Grenadier. At least for that price I’d have something that interests me. Couldn’t get a basic, conservative BMW with a 6 cylinder, or a Mercedes that didn’t look like the equivalent of a pair of sweatpants with Juicy on the butt.
I am an old man yelling at clouds, I guess.
Well, the porshe one is still entertaining. I once specced a 911 cabriolet in yellow with a red interior, green wheels, and blue top and was tickled pink thinking how I had a true 1 of 1 car on screen. Didn’t look at the price though. No way I wanted to buy that monster
I had a GLC43 as a loaner when I had my old CLK in for service this past fall.
For a space-deprived grocery-getter on stilts in boy-racer drag – it was fine, I guess.
The whole thing completely pointless to me tho.
I read about this one The Drive yesterday. They said you have to spec the GLC with the ‘Dynamic Plus’ package, which sounds silly.
But with so many vehicles going to AWD, I can get behind these drift modes.