Jump to content

2015 Lincoln MKC - EPA Fuel Economy Ratings


Recommended Posts

Hm, well, I'm kinda a bit dissapointed by that though, I thought it would have been just a touch better. I looked at the weight and saw the loaded 2.3L AWD is tipping the scales in at almost 4000lbs so yeah I can see why. Good news though, is final numbers for the 2.3L is 285/305, 10 and 5 more than first stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hm, well, I'm kinda a bit dissapointed by that though, I thought it would have been just a touch better. I looked at the weight and saw the loaded 2.3L AWD is tipping the scales in at almost 4000lbs so yeah I can see why. Good news though, is final numbers for the 2.3L is 285/305, 10 and 5 more than first stated.

 

Woah those are some kick-ass #'s. I'm really getting stoked about this thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 2.0eb Explorer gets 20/28/23. It is surpising that this only gains 1mpg hwy and is rated the same combined.

 

It is promising that the 2.3 only loses 1mpg though over the 2.0 considering in gains 45hp and 35lb/ft. The 2.3 sounds like a realistic V6 replacement in the Explorer. It should perform as well as, or better than the V6.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this the same engine that is going in the Mustang and if so I thought that the HP would be North of 305. I am hoping that in a rear wheel drive vehicle the exhaust piping may allow for better horse power. The current mustang V6 does 305 HP, 280 Ft/lbs at 4250 rpm, I like the increased torque and hopefully we will see a bump in both in the Mustang engine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After looking at those numbers, it makes it even worse that they didn't offer a hybrid version. I'm am impressed with the 2.3L, it is going to be fast but its missing two gears, which wont be out for 2/3 years. If Lincoln wants to play it has to lead to beat everyone else (Like how Ford did when the Ford brand was reinvented) I really really really want to like the MKC, I love the style - but for close to 50K there's are other vehicles I would own before it. On the lower end I think it has some value, but once you get AWD, the 2.3L, Navigation etc. it gets expensive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 MPG combined seems a bit low to me for the 2.3 as well. My heavier, more powerful Edge is averaging right around 21 in mixed driving and I don't particularly soft-foot it.

 

Did Ford's C-Max shenanigans produce a change in policy similar to the Cobra HP shenanigans 15 years ago?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pictor, I'm thinking the Mustang may come with more power in the 2.3L, just like the truck 5.0 vs. Mustang. The tranny in the Mustang will be more stout and will handle anything the 2.3L tries to throw at it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 MPG combined seems a bit low to me for the 2.3 as well. My heavier, more powerful Edge is averaging right around 21 in mixed driving and I don't particularly soft-foot it.

Could they be sand bagging numbers so that what people end up achieving real world ends up being better than sticker (opposite of C-Max situation)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could they be sand bagging numbers so that what people end up achieving real world ends up being better than sticker (opposite of C-Max situation)?

 

Possible but doubtful. Those numbers are used primarily for CAFE so they couldn't afford to sandbag much. And I don't think they're allowed to arbitrarily report lower numbers to the EPA since the EPA audits them and they must be within a very small threshold of error between the mfr and EPA results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 combined MPG on the 2.3 looks about right. My Audi Q5 3.0T is also 21 MPG combined. But MKC 2.3 has more power.

 

22 combined MPG on the 2.0 AWD is also about right. It is identical to BMW X3 28i xDrive which is combined 22 MPG. Audi Q5 2.0T AWD gets 23 MPG with 8 speed auto... so I think MKC can probably do slightly better if Ford had more gears in its transmission. But it's right in the ball park vs. competitors.

 

23 combined MPG on the 2.0 FWD is a little on the low side. Volvo XC60 with the same 240hp 2.0 Ecoboost engine is getting 27 combined MPG (again, with aid of same ZF 8 speed auto that everyone is using).

Edited by bzcat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 combined MPG on the 2.3 looks about right. My Audi Q5 3.0T is also 21 MPG combined. But MKC 2.3 has more power.

 

22 combined MPG on the 2.0 AWD is also about right. It is identical to BMW X3 28i xDrive which is combined 22 MPG. Audi Q5 2.0T AWD gets 23 MPG with 8 speed auto... so I think MKC can probably do slightly better if Ford had more gears in its transmission. But it's right in the ball park vs. competitors.

 

23 combined MPG on the 2.0 FWD is a little on the low side. Volvo XC60 with the same 240hp 2.0 Ecoboost engine is getting 27 combined MPG (again, with aid of same ZF 8 speed auto that everyone is using).

Well the Volvo also has the E-tron unit, also when you look at Diesels you're at 24/27/31 for the Q5, 24/28/33 for the GLK and 27/30/34 for the X3. All of which soundly beat the MKC. Gas Mileage is semi-competitive at best with the MKC for a new vehicle. Lincoln is going to need a high mileage version of this car to be competitive in the market.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...