rcf8000

Consumer reports measured 8.9 seconds 0-60 for the Edge EB 2.0, so I wouldn't expect less than 8 seconds for the Escape FWD under the same conditions.

What is known about an Escape-based Lincoln?

Probably because that's where the Kuga has it. I don't know about other carmakers, but Mercedes puts the gas filler on the passenger side. Maybe all European makes are that way, I don't know. As an aside, you'll notice that I've been a member of this forum for 8 years and posted 19 times. This is because the new Escape is the only Ford product that came out in that period that I would seriously consider buying. It looks really good to me, in appearance and in features.

Ford's web site says they are included in the Titanium Technology Package.

If you compare the C-Max and the Kuga on the ford uk web site, you find that even though the C-Max is shorter in length and height than the Kuga, it has much greater maximum cargo capacity (1684 vs 1355 liters). This seems odd. The C-Max also weighs a lot less than the Kuga. So I guess I'm going to answer my own question by saying that even though they are built off of the same platform, there must be some significant differences between the Kuga and the C-Max.

I think it's a sharp looking vehicle. Question: is the C-Max essentially the same vehicle but with a different drive train?

The console is removable, isn't it? Is it easy to remove? Is there carpet in the space where the console was removed? I can find nothing in the Owner's Guide on this subject.

The specs in fordvehicles.com say that the fuel tank is 22.5 gallons. Wonder which is right. The specs in media.ford.com say that the front suspension is short/long arm, whereas in fordvehicles.com it says MacPherson strut. I'd like to know why it makes sense for the Flex to get the 3.5EB but not the Explorer.

Those 22 inch wheels are a bit much. I guess 24s will be next.

I was surprised that the MKX didn't get the EB engine. And I'm going to be really surprised if the Explorer doesn't get the 3.5 EB. That would make no sense at all.

What does she like better about the Edge?

The most surprising spec is rear seat legroom, which is down by 3.1 inches. With the wheelbase and overall length unchanged, and the trunk smaller, this is very puzzling.

I'd certainly expect the MKT to have less third row headroom than the Flex. However, if it's 5.2 inches less, as their specs say, then what we have here is a very large vehicle with a nearly useless third row seat.

The only place I've seen dimensions for the MKT is in media.ford.com. If we are to believe the numbers stated, the MKT has much less cargo volume than the Flex, behind the first, second, and third rows. Also, the MKT has less 2nd row legroom and much less third row headroom. The MKT is apparently about 6 inches longer than the Flex, but has the same wheelbase, according to the figures given. I think a lot of the MKT data is in error, including the wheelbase. Can anyone confirm this?

I guess I'm in the minority here, but I like it. As I see it, the MKT will be successful because it has no direct competition. I suppose the closest would be the Mercedes R350, but it's ugly, underpowered, and expensive.