When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
IN A NUTSHELL: Stick with the 2.0L, and save some money.
At the recent D.C. Auto Show, I signed up for both the Ford and Lincoln Mastercard Test-Drive offers. Sometimes, the system doesn't let you sign up for both at once (you can chose one or the other, good at either a Ford or Lincoln, and get one pre-paid card......Ford typically pays $50, Lincoln $75). This year, though, as also happened a few years back, the system let me sign up for both, and receive an E-Mail verification for both. I did the Ford test-drive, of course, on the new Fusion 2.0L gas version....some of you may have saw that (I was tempted to drive the latest Mustang GT, but felt that the Fusion would make more sense from a forum standpoint, as it both sells and rents in large numbers to many drivers, especially more mature and less-aggresssive drivers).
Well, for the Lincoln test-drive, I was a little more self-centered this time, and thought more of myself, as I am in fact interested in the relatively new Lincoln MKC as a possible purchase or lease. I liked the MKC from the moment I first saw it on the turntable at the D.C. show a couple of years ago....and did a full review/test-drive on a 2.0L turbo version it in July of that year, when it first debuted (I couldn't use the Lincoln Mastercard offer on the MKC that year, as the test-drive limits typically end in March). It was a nice size (based on the Ford Escape platform), relatively easy to maneuver and park nicely-trimmed inside, offered a gorgeous medium/dark purple Tahitian Pearl paint job (which, unfortunately, has been dropped this year). But, like any vehicle, it had some flaws. I wasn't impressed with the somewhat tinny-sounding doors, the rather cheap Ford-parts-bin plastic interior hardware, so-so seat comfort (the seats, though reasonably comfortable, can't compare to the big, cushy, over-stuffed seats in my Verano) and in the complexity of some of the video and graphic functions. But, overall, I liked the 2.0L turbo MKC enough to consider a purchase.
Not so, however, with the more expensive and more complex 2.3L turbo version which I test-drove today (AWD is standard on the 2.3L, optional on the 2.0L). First of all, 2.3L versions are considerably more more costly than base 2.0L versions. The 2.3L I drove today started at almost 43K, and, with options, listed for over 50K). A Black Label version with the same drivetrain parked right next to it, would empty your wallet even more...it listed for 55K (Black Label is Lincoln-speak for their highest-upmarket versions, and have special policies for their customers). And the standard, non-Black-Label versions, with their nice matte-wood trim, IMO, even had better-looking interiors....the Black Label trim on the MKC looked like odd black-and-white zebra-stripes; something an NFL referee would wear.
On paper, the larger 2.3L Ecoboost turbo in-line four produces 45 more HP (285 vs. 240) and 35 more ft-lbs. of torque (305 ft-lbs., vs 270), at slightly lower RPMs. On the road, though, I couldn't notice much difference in overall response, even with similar final-drive ratios, The 2.3L, to my ears at least, seemed to be less-refined and noisier than the 2.0L, though it did have a reasonably smooth and quiet idle. Perhaps the similarity in response is why the larger 2.3L comes very close to the 2.0L's gas mileage numbers....within 1 MPG on the EPA test.
The 2.3L I drove today had larger 19" wheels to the standard 18" ones on the 2.0L that I had sampled earlier (Black Label versions have 20" wheels). Of course, the lower-profile tires on the larger wheels rode a little stiffer over some bumps, but still reasonably smooth......Lincoln generally did a good job on the suspension even with big wheels. The 6-speed automatic transmission, with manual shift-paddles, shifted smoothly...Ford has made a lot of progress in this area recently from its former clunky, bump-shift automatics. Steering response was quite good by car-based crossover SUV standards, and body roll (again, by SUV standards), was well-controlled. The larger, wider wheels/tires did make some audible road noise on coarse road surfaces, though wind-noise was generally well-controlled. The brakes were effective and responded immediately, without any noticeable mush or play in the brake pedal. Inside, the video and scrolling/menu displays on the dash and gauge cluster showed good image-contrast and legibility, but were simply endless in their complexity and scrolling to fine and make even simple changes and adjustments, though voice commands work for some functions. I can understand why Ford has gotten so many customer-complaints on these systems. The speedometer itself was fairly easy to read (though I didn't care for its floating-type needle), but the adjoining tach had a complexity to its face-pattern that made it a little less-easy to read at a glance. The leather front seats were reasonably comfortable, but, as I mentioned above, not quite cushy or padded enough for my tastes (and my rear end LOL). The front head-rests, even adjusted all the way back and up, also tilted forward a little too far for my tastes....but that is probably done for maximum whiplash protection in a rear-end-crash.
So, in a nutshell, after having driven both the 2.0L and the 2.3L, my opinion is that, for most driving functions, the 2.3L is not worth the extra money it costs, is not quite as refined, isn't much quicker, doesn't ride quite as smoothly as the 2.0L with standard wheels, makes more road noise over coarse surfaces, and (with certain options) has controls.screens inside that are more difficult and complex to use. I'd like to see a small non-turbo V6 in this vehicle, but, thanks to our government and its upcoming CAFE rules, V6s seem to be on the road to extinction (or semi-extinction) in compact-to-mid-sized vehicles, except for special high performance lines.
My recommendation, if you are interested in an MKC: Do what I will probably do IF I decide to actually get one (which is a possibility, but not likely).......get the 2.0L with either FWD or AWD depending on your traction needs, keep the options-list down, save the extra money in your bank account, and enjoy.
Okay that is just a ridiculous price spread for this car. Why on earth would you pay $55,000 for a Ford Escape??? $35 to 40k for something with a bit of flash and nicer interior, I can see, as that's what Lexus charges you for the smaller NX.
Also, for $55,000, it better have something hotter than a .3 liter bump in displacment over the base 4 cylinder. You said you couldn't tell a difference in power. If you spend $55,000 on a BMW X3, you get a turbocharged 6 instead of the turbo 4, you better bet that six cylinder runs circles around their base engine. Its like night/day difference how much more power you have.
Okay that is just a ridiculous price spread for this car. Why on earth would you pay $55,000 for a Ford Escape??? $35 to 40k for something with a bit of flash and nicer interior, I can see, as that's what Lexus charges you for the smaller NX. I mean with BMW, if you spend $55,000 on an X3, it does have the their awesome turbocharged 6, Lincoln you get a bump in displacement for $55,000. LAME!!
Base FWD 2.0L MKC's actually start in the low-to-mid 30s (Lincoln quotes $33,260). 55K is for the top-level Black Label version. I agree it is too much. However, the Black Label moniker doesn't just include the vehicle itself....there's a lot of customer perks that go along with it. I'm not necessarily trying to justify the price.....just pointing out what goes with it.
To me, though, a 2.0L version with AWD, listing in the mid-high 30s (maybe 40K) without a lot of options, would make the most sense.
Also, for $55,000, it better have something hotter than a .3 liter bump in displacment over the base 4 cylinder. You said you couldn't tell a difference in power.
Certainly, IMO, not enough of a power difference to justify even a non-Black-Label 2.3L...that engine is also available without the Black Label package. I was also not impressed with the 2.3L's refinement.....even compared to the base 2.0L. What this vehicle really needs, though, IMO, is what a number of automakers, because of CAFE regs, are now omitting from small-to-medium-sized vehicles....a N/A small-displacement V6.
The 2.3L's shortcomings aren't the only thing that needs improvement. IMO, some better interior hardware is needed, and the doors could be made less-tinny. But every vehicle has some flaws.....I haven't found a perfect one yet.
(and I know that Ford is capable of making more solid-feeling doors...the ones on the current Fusion are like bank vaults)
What are the sales numbers for this model? I think we are in the second year of calendar sales. The sales numbers usually don't lie.
13,077 in 2014 (it was on sale only for the second half of the year) and 24,590 for 2015. So far in 2016 (January), 1436....but these, of course, don't break the figures down by trim-level or drivetrains. I suspect the majority of them have been AWD models. The new MKX, of course (which debuted last fall), can be expected to take some MKC sales on the top end.
Well, that's why I said I "suspect" instead of predict. Still, the majority of places in the country, outside of most of Florida, the Deep South near the Gulf Coast, coastal California, and near the Mexican border do face the prospect of slippery roads at times. Although many car-based crossover SUVs do have FWD versions, most buyers (or at least a clear majority) can be expected, most of the time, to prefer the AWD versions. After all, that is one of the reasons (among several) why they buy an SUV in the first place.
Of course, where you live in Florida, slippery roads are usually not an issue (though the heavy Florida rains and thunderstorms can also impact roads), so, yes, FWD models will probably be a little more popular down there.
Well, that's why I said I "suspect" instead of predict.
i didn't say why do you predict.
Still, the majority of places in the country, outside of most of Florida, the Deep South near the Gulf Coast, coastal California, and near the Mexican border do face the prospect of slippery roads at times.
respecfully, i believe this is your projected opinion that people in those areas should have awd. i believe it is not even close to reflecting reality. even in snowy and cold cities (like toronto for example) you'll see the vast majority of vehicles are fwd and rwd. maybe if awd were a 'free' upgrade with no fuel economy penalty, then yes, more people would get it for its benefits, but if it's 1+ thousands of dollars more with a fuel economy penalty, most will pass and it's no big deal at all.
Although many car-based crossover SUVs do have FWD versions, most buyers (or at least a clear majority) can be expected, most of the time, to prefer the AWD versions. After all, that is one of the reasons (among several) why they buy an SUV in the first place.
they may prefer it, but the majority don't buy it, unless you're talking places that get lots and lots of snow.
respecfully, i believe this is your projected opinion that people in those areas should have awd. i believe it is not even close to reflecting reality. even in snowy and cold cities (like toronto for example) you'll see the vast majority of vehicles are fwd and rwd. maybe if awd were a 'free' upgrade with no fuel economy penalty, then yes, more people would get it for its benefits, but if it's 1+ thousands of dollars more with a fuel economy penalty, most will pass and it's no big deal at all.
they may prefer it, but the majority don't buy it, unless you're talking places that get lots and lots of snow.
You mentioned lots of FWD and RWD drive vehicles which is true. But, in Canada, once you get to a certain price point, AWD/4WD becomes the only option for a majority of vechicles.
LS460, GS, NX, 4Runner, Sequoia, RX, all have no 2WD option.
Same goes for all the other manufacturers such as Ford, GM etc etc. The higher in price you go, AWD then becomes the only solution.
On dealer lots around here most vehicles that offer both AWD and FWD or RWD are available in AWD only. If you want the RWD or FWD version it's a special order or maybe a dealer swap from another market. Most sales off of dealer lots will be AWD based on availability.
respecfully, i believe this is your projected opinion that people in those areas should have awd. i believe it is not even close to reflecting reality. even in snowy and cold cities (like toronto for example) you'll see the vast majority of vehicles are fwd and rwd. maybe if awd were a 'free' upgrade with no fuel economy penalty, then yes, more people would get it for its benefits, but if it's 1+ thousands of dollars more with a fuel economy penalty, most will pass and it's no big deal at all.
You and I agree. I live and work in the Greater Toronto Area and have mostly driven FWD cars; FWD cars have been fine. Being the largest metropolitan area in Canada and being in southern Canada, there is seldom much snow to worry about and our roads are quickly plowed after a snow. When there is a lot of snow, there is no need to go out (gotta shovel the driveway) until the roads have been cleared.
Originally Posted by bitkahuna
they may prefer it, but the majority don't buy it, unless you're talking places that get lots and lots of snow.
If there is a lot of snow and you MUST routinely travel before the roads are plowed, AWD alone may not help; extra ground clearance is needed. Very few people see the need for this dedication.
As they say, AWD / 4WD only gets you deeper into the ditch.
Virtually none of the vehicles in stock here in southern Arizona have AWD when it is optional. The additional weight, cost, and maintenance are not worth it for the few times we might need it. The fact that it usually comes at the cost of poorer gas mileage doesn't help.
Audi seems to sell lots of Quattros in the higher power lines, but even some A6's are FWD. There are models that have AWD standard such as the 2.3 liter MKC and now Mercedes AMG is AWD only.
Personally I would prefer not having AWD particularly on RWD vehicles. On some vehicles, like the new 400 hp Continental, AWD is needed to control torque steer and get the high power to the ground.
Steve
I'm not sure about other regions, but historically in CA, Lexus sells more FWD SUVs in Socal, and more AWD in Norcal. That said, for the MY16 NX and RX Hybrids being built for Norcal, are only being released in AWD configurations right now. So Lexus doesn't have to build the FWD versions they are adding an All-Weather Drive Performance Credit on the Monroney labels for $1,590 (NX) and $1,400 (RX).
...
respecfully, i believe this is your projected opinion that people in those areas should have awd. i believe it is not even close to reflecting reality. even in snowy and cold cities (like toronto for example) you'll see the vast majority of vehicles are fwd and rwd. maybe if awd were a 'free' upgrade with no fuel economy penalty, then yes, more people would get it for its benefits, but if it's 1+ thousands of dollars more with a fuel economy penalty, most will pass and it's no big deal at all.
they may prefer it, but the majority don't buy it, unless you're talking places that get lots and lots of snow.
For all of Canada, including Toronto area, the 3IS is available in RWD,but only on the 200t version. It is still outsold by the AWD version by 10:1 margin. Same goes for the RC, it can be bought as a RWD version, but AWD trumps.
As Jill said, above a certain price point, there is no option other than AWD.
respecfully, i believe this is your projected opinion that people in those areas should have awd.
I said that people in these areas sometimes face slippery roads. It is up to them, of course, whether they actually get AWD or not. Obviously, the more often roads deteriorate in the winter, the more likely people will be to choose AWD.
they may prefer it, but the majority don't buy it, unless you're talking places that get lots and lots of snow.
Opinions differ also over what is considered "lots and lots" of snow. For example, I live in a border area between northern and southern climates where winters (and even weeks and months) can vary enormously from one to the next, in both temperatures and precipitation. Also, how quickly roads are plowed and treated makes a difference.
02-11-16, 06:21 PM
MM Test-Drive: 2016 Lincoln MKC 2.3L Turbo
The front head-rests, even adjusted all the way back and up, also tilted forward a little too far for my tastes....but that is probably done for maximum whiplash protection in a rear-end-crash.
