Lincoln MKC Forum banner

41 - 55 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
SRX is FWD and the 3.6 is 308 HP but the torque is only 265 lbs-ft. The MKC 2.3 is 305..
Hey I'm on your side and was pointing out the same thing as you, lol. My point was to pcrisp being just because Ford doesn't throw a Coyote 5.0l in every Lincoln doesn't mean they don't care about them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6 Posts
Haha. I only meant that maybe Ford was trying to keep the Mustang a hotrod and the Lincoln a luxury vehicle. I'm totally fine with that, and I love the Lincoln which is something I never dreamed I would say over the years. In some ways the engine feels more powerful or responsive than my BMW turbo 6 drove. It may be that the BMW just had a lot more lag time, but it definitely wasn't as smooth either. And without a doubt, the MKC seats are the most comfortable I've ever had in an SUV.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
733 Posts
The first time I took the MKC on the highway you could feel the torque right away. Reminded me a bit of the Chrysler 300C I had with the 5.7 Hemi. They both feel like you are driving a locomotive. With all the comments about poor shifting, I was expecting worse. The 2.3 and the transmission feel fluid smooth. The 2.3 really holds the gear when you want to increase speed just like the 300C. And yes I too always look for excuses to take the MKC somewhere. Even offered to drive it up to my mother in laws tomorrow via the highway :).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
Haha. I only meant that maybe Ford was trying to keep the Mustang a hotrod and the Lincoln a luxury vehicle. I'm totally fine with that, and I love the Lincoln which is something I never dreamed I would say over the years. In some ways the engine feels more powerful or responsive than my BMW turbo 6 drove. It may be that the BMW just had a lot more lag time, but it definitely wasn't as smooth either. And without a doubt, the MKC seats are the most comfortable I've ever had in an SUV.
I had a couple of turbo SAABs and I defintely love the advances made over the last ten years in turbo tech that Ford and GM have made. The instant torque of the EcoBoost is great compared to my Mustang GT's more peaky DOHC V-8.

If any of you get a chance to drive the MKT or MKS EcoBoost 3.5l (or even Navigator), you'll see the engine we ALL need, lol.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
We test drove the new 2.7 MKX -- amazing feel to that engine. We were so impressed that if the new MKX had Sync 3, we may very well have ended up ordering that instead of the MKC. If you haven't seen 360º camera views, you really should. We miss that feature so much from the Infinity EX we had a number of years back.

I can't compare it to the MKT/MKS since I haven't driven those.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
239 Posts
MKS with the 3.5, CCD and AWD is a surprisingly fun and nimble ride. Car doesn't feel as big as it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
107 Posts
My mother-in-law's 3.5l Ecoboost MKT is much of the reason I bought my MKC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
881 Posts
Yeah, just be REAL careful you don't create a lean condition.... easiest way to blow up a good motor.
I've read some company is milking out 400+ hp in the new Mustang's eco boost 4...At those levels, Ill be changing to stouter rods, pistons,rings, and bearings + a few other things.....but yeah, if fuel is no concern I'm sure this can be done.
Up the throttle body diameter, match the right air/fuel ratio ( a lil rich is a good thing to keep piston tops cooled).
I'll try and find the link and post it....I was like H_O_L_Y!!!!! that rocks! lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
881 Posts
Do I love the 2.3 L in my MKC? **** yeah...and for what I am looking for, it's more than ample!
If I want to dig new trenches down any street, I'd drive my 5.0 mustang,now that ride has serious attitude, a few bolt ons and the jump in both HP and torque is very much in your face.

Parts nowadays are "power matched" to fit into a development envelope of any particular engine....upping any part will over stress other connecting parts to breaking points.

Chipping ANY engine without due diligence to other prone parts is a sure recipe for issues, better known as "BOOM".... a good tune starts with upgrading the bottom end, rotating mass and then,fuel maps....also a lot of other elements such as final drives, clutches,U joints, and driveshafts, brakes also come into this equation...

Way before I decided to bolt on a super charger, I had long discussions with De Silva racing as to the best reliable build I could get: We'll start with a built bottom end" was the first chapter, and went from there,when all was said and done,I was well into another 20 grand on top of my supercharger,complete change to suspension, transmission,final drive etc....everything is beefed up.

They went with a stand alone when I run C16 fuel, with it's different fuel maps and timing curves being different than 91/93 octane fuel fills. all I'm saying is, steer clear of canned tunes/chips,leave well alone and bask in the warranty Lincoln offers us!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
733 Posts
We took our neighbors out for dinner Saturday night and used the MKC.. The guy and his wife are die-hard Honda fan but they both sensed the power/torque of the 2.3 as soon as we hit the road. He thought for sure the MKC had a 6 under the hood. I told him its a 2.3 turbo with more torque than some of the Corvettes (and my previous Cadiillac CTS) that I owned. I showed him how the ride control works and a bit of Sync 3. Then his wife chimed in about some of the options she wished her Honda had that the MKC has like heated rear seats and heated steering wheel. They also asked about the interior lighting and lit exterior door handles. Overall I think they were impressed what the Lincoln has to offer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
153 Posts
regular, just like the Mustang. By detuned I mean that in the mustang the 2.3 EcoBoost will crack out 305 bhp while in MKC it will make 275...
I would check the fine print. I just traded my '14 Escape 2.0 for a new '17 2.3 MKC. The Escape 2.0 was rated at 240 HP. The fine print stated this was with 93 octane fuel. Actually with 87 octane, the 2.0 produces 231 HP. I'm sure the 285 HP rating for the 2.3 is probably with 93 octane fuel, and will be less with 87 octane. These engines have some type of variable timing, and will run fine on either. If you want maximum horsepower, you have to use premium fuel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
I would check the fine print. I just traded my '14 Escape 2.0 for a new '17 2.3 MKC. The Escape 2.0 was rated at 240 HP. The fine print stated this was with 93 octane fuel. Actually with 87 octane, the 2.0 produces 231 HP. I'm sure the 285 HP rating for the 2.3 is probably with 93 octane fuel, and will be less with 87 octane. These engines have some type of variable timing, and will run fine on either. If you want maximum horsepower, you have to use premium fuel.
Between 231, 240 or 285hp....where are we going so fast???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Have you guys seen the MKC's 2.3L in the new mustang? its been cranked all thw way up to 305 HP, which means for you ricky racers out there the MKC is hiding 20 ponies from you ;)

Anybody thinking of trying to unleash them, or is 275 enough?

I am. Trying to figure out how to do it
 
41 - 55 of 55 Posts
Top