mmarshall

True, because of higher list prices on upmarket vehicles, the AWD addition does impact the total cost as much.

What many also forget is that AWD, while consuming more fuel and requiring more service, is useful for more than just snow and ice. It helps in rain, mud, sand, gravel, and other slick or uneven surfaces It often helps make for better front/rear weight-distribution in the vehicle for handling. It can also help stability and tracking without having to make small steering corrections to stay in one's lane.

However, AWD is NOT a license to drive carelessly on slick roads. It will often help you get moving from a stop easier without getting stuck, but it doesn't necessarily shorten stopping distances (except by balancing vehicle weight over the tires a little between front and rear wheels). Nor does it necessarily help prevent spinouts.......as the number of carelessly-driven SUVs stuck in snowbanks constantly illustrates.

oldcajun

Mike,
I'm surprised at your original point on this thread that the 2.3 was not significantly better than the 2.0
EcoBoost. When I did an extended test drive of the MKC, I really enjoyed the extra power and torque. The 2.0 I drove was FWD so it was pretty light but the 2.3 was much faster and had no torque steer. At least part of the additional cost of the 2.3 is for the AWD which is standard with this engine. Compared to a 2.0 AWD, my totally unscientific seat of the pants measurement is that the 2.3 is about 2 seconds faster 0-60 with a lot more torque in mid-range. As they say in the ads, "your results may vary".
Steve

mmarshall

The standard AWD on the 2.3L does add some extra weight and drag, which burdens it down some despite the extra power. Also, when I test-drive a car for a review, it is usually (but not aways) a brand-new one, fresh out of the factory, with an engine not fully broken-in. So, I usually don't take the engine over 4000 RPM or so, or try for drag-strip performance....I try and get a good sample of what the engine is like in everyday driving suburban driving....which is what most people buy their vehicles for, and (presumably) why they are reading my reviews. If one wants actual stopwatch 0-60 times, or full-throttle performance figures, there are plenty of other publications (and enthusiast magazines) which provide those times. My reviews are done mostly for everyday feel and driving experience. Under the conditions I test-drove it, (which I believe, was a good example of how it will be typically driven by most buyers), the 2.3L, with its standard AWD, to the seat of my pants, did not seem much more responsive than the 2.0L FWD (the 2.0L also offers AWD)...and it made a fair amount of noise to boot.

But...your question was well-taken, and is a good one.

FrankReynoldsCPA

I love Ford and Lincoln...but I'd probably pass on this vehicle.

LexBob2

C&D has tested the 2.0t FWD and the AWD 2.3t. Here are a few of the results:

0-60 7.3/6.6, 30-50 3.7/3.5, curb weight 3847/4066, observed mpg 21/19.

They seem to like both models OK, but said both lagged behind the leaders in the segment.

mmarshall

As a Fusion owner, you might not want to pass later on when Ford brings out the Fusion Sport with the twin-turbo V6.

Toys4RJill

I am not at all surprised.