[IndyBob]

I am looking at ordering a 2016 MKC Reserve AWD. I currently have a 2014 Ford Escape FWD with the 2.0 Eco-Boost engine. The Escape has plenty of power and pickup for me.

With the 2016 MKC AWD will the 2.0 be fine or will I need to to go with the 2.3? Looking at the specs it appears that the MKC AWD will weigh about 400 pounds more in curb weight then the FWD Escape.

Thanks

 

[KenZ]

I am looking at ordering a 2016 MKC Reserve AWD. I currently have a 2014 Ford Escape FWD with the 2.0 Eco-Boost engine. The Escape has plenty of power and pickup for me.

With the 2016 MKC AWD will the 2.0 be fine or will I need to to go with the 2.3? Looking at the specs it appears that the MKC AWD will weigh about 400 pounds more in curb weight then the FWD Escape.

Thanks

Hopefully your dealer will have both to test drive - or at least the 2.3 AWD since you are somewhat familiar with the 2.0.

I made the decision to go with the 2.0 FWD, primarily for the gas mileage. My prior car had been an AWD and I saw no real advantage to it. The pickup is adequate to get going on the on-ramps, the passing is more than adequate. I feel like I have enough power to get out of bad situations on the interstate highways. I drove it on a 3,000+ mile trip this summer and could not have been happier. I never got the impression it was straining to do what I asked.

One consideration is the severity of your winter and whether you would feel more comfortable with AWD in snow situations. In my area of GA, we rarely have snow and are more likely to have ice - where you wouldn't be out driving anyway. Since my county has no snow or ice removal equipment, we just wait for it to warm up!

 

[TxTom]

I am looking at ordering a 2016 MKC Reserve AWD. I currently have a 2014 Ford Escape FWD with the 2.0 Eco-Boost engine. The Escape has plenty of power and pickup for me.

With the 2016 MKC AWD will the 2.0 be fine or will I need to to go with the 2.3? Looking at the specs it appears that the MKC AWD will weigh about 400 pounds more in curb weight then the FWD Escape.

Thanks

I have a '15 MKC 2.3 Reserve AWD and a '15 Escape 2.0 Titanium FWD. The MKC does 0-60 in 6.5 secs and the Escape probably 7.2 secs. The Escape feels "lighter" on its "feet" but maybe more due to FWD vs AWD. I do notice a greater power difference at the higher speeds, over 55 mph. Haven't driven an Escape 2.0 AWD or MKC 2.0 AWD. Guess a MKC 2.0 AWD does maybe 7.6 secs? I do know the 2.3 AWD MKC really does hook-up. I understand there is a revised/improved 2.0 that the '15 Edge has, but not yet in the '16 Escape/MKC.

 

[midnite cruiser]

I definitely agree that the FWD 2.0L is not lacking for zip. Having driven AWD vehicles a fair amount, they always-to me- have a heavy feel -beyond the drive train weight addition. No doubt though that AWD is great when you face alot of steep grades in the winter . I was driving Saabs in the '70's and remember well having my ski buddies sit on the hood to make the last 200yards of a gap road grade.
On paper, the new twin scroll 2.0L is 5 more horsepower (245) and no more torque (270). No doubt it would feel somewhat peppier than the existing 2.0L, but still leave quite a gap to the 2.3L.
Since you have that Escape to work with, why don't you load up a full complement of passengers and see how 400 more lbs. feels to you? The center of gravity would be lower with AWD, making the handling more nimble, but you might get a good idea about the acceleration component.
You are asking one of the more difficult questions about the MKC. A 2.0 FWD feels almost like a wholly different car than the 2.3 AWD.

 

[PeterSilecchio]

Hi
I have a 2015 MKC with AWD and 2.0 Motor. I like and power it has. the 2.0 is a Good Choice.
Can't really tell you about the 2.3. Try and test Drive both.
Pete

 

[Ryan Kather]

I have the 2015 MKC AWD 2.0, and we did test drive both the 2.3 and the 2.0. The 2.3 was quite spirited, but the 2.0 was definitely fine. The MKC is slightly heavier than the Escape, I would say it seems like 7.8 sec 0-60.

However, beyond the raw performance there were two reasons we chose the 2.0. The 2.0 has a higher towing capacity by 500 lbs. It's kind of odd, but yes, the less powerful engine can tow more. The second reason was to gain the benefit of the marginally better fuel economy, when we deemed the performance was just fine for our purposes. I feel like the 2.0 does have bit more turbo lag then the 2.3, being that it's not a twin scroll turbo, if that sort of thing bothers you.

 

[mmoretti]

I've driven both too and personally wanted the 2.3. I think the gas mileage gain is pretty negligible. I want a car that can take off with minimal lag when I hit the pedal. Where I live (and the skill of other drivers) it necessitates being able to quickly get out of someone's way if you have to. Curious about the new 2.7 for the MKX. Anyone test drive that engine yet?

 

[vetteaddict]

Tough call. I drove both. Car is my wife's so we went with the 2.0L AWD because I don't think she cares too much. If it was my car I would probably go with the 2.3L. That being said, I am really impressed with the driving dynamics of the 2.0L in such a heavy car. I think it's a well sorted out engine and it has sufficient power/torque for zipping around town . I believe the 2.3L is an all new design and the MKC was the first FoMoCo product to use it. It's a noticeable difference between the two, so you need to drive both, and see if you want the extra pop of the 2.3L.

mmoretti - I drove the 2.7 in an Edge Sport. That is an impressive engine. Twin turbo, 315Hp/350lbs torque. For a heavy SUV it does 0-60 in 5.5 seconds. The MKX variant would be a nice ride for sure.

 

[IndyBob]

Thank you all for your reviews. This helps a lot. I mainly want AWD in the MKC because the last two winters the Escape FWD just didn't feel secure. I am used to 4WD vehicles as the Escape was my first FWD vehicle in years.

I will find a 2.0 AWD MKC at one of the deals here and try it out. The real world reports from you help a lot.

 

[mmoretti]

Sounds nice about the 2.7 engine vetteadfict, the new mkx offers a few different engines. That would have to be my pick after having the 2.3.

 

[TxTom]

Sounds nice about the 2.7 engine vetteadfict, the new mkx offers a few different engines. That would have to be my pick after having the 2.3.

I bought the 2.3 AWD MKC, not that I really need AWD here in North TX (little good for our once-a-year day or so of ice). Rather, like a 3.0 Audi Q5, put that HP effectively on the road, wanting no "torque steer" effect. It does hook-up extremely well, in our usual weather.

That said, I drove a '15 Edge 2.7 V-6 FWD while at the dealer the other day. Even quicker than my 2.3 MKC AWD...however, I did note some torque steer while accelerating from stand still...with only half throttle. Would guess it would be worse with any more throttle. Again, an AWD choice (optional) would likely mitigate that effect. Likewise in a MKX I would suspect.

 

[FRITZ]

My wife has a 2014 2.0 MKZ sedan (AWD) and it seems to have plenty of power. I have a 2015 MKC 2.3L AWD which also has plenty of power - and in Sport is has even more power than needed. Strangely enough the 2015 2.3L MKC is averaging 26 MPG and the 2014 2.0L MKZ is averaging 24 MPG (by the computer calculation), so there goes the theory on better fuel mileage on the 2.0L vs. the 2.3L. I told my wife she has a "heavy foot" but she says not.

If I were buying the same cars today, would have made the same choice, as both are more than satisfactory and both have plenty of power. The difference in power (if any) is negligible. Coming from driving Infinitis for about 10 years, we know all about power and the new Eco-Boost 4 cylinder engines are very close in power to the Infinitis with their powerful V6 engines. More features: Infinitis with a V-6 get around 20 MPG and require premium gas. Our Lincolns with 4 cylinder Eco-Boost engines get between 24-26 MPG on regular gas. The fuel savings over a year are huge, with Lincoln having a superior advantage. Don't get me wrong - my wife and I both loved our Infinitis, but the Lincolns have a better and quieter ride, similar handling and nicer interior, some extra features, and at about $10,000 lower MSRP. Thanks Lincoln!

Fred

P.S. While others on this forum have reported some minor issues, our two Lincolns have been trouble free so far (other than the push button switch on the MKC, which was done quickly at no cost by our dealer.

 

[HCFX]

I went for the 2.3 because I wanted the larger wheels and such, but I tend to prefer the 2.0. It feels a little more refined but I love the power and lack of turbo lag with the 2.3.

 

[HCFX]

P.S. While others on this forum have reported some minor issues, our two Lincolns have been trouble free so far (other than the push button switch on the MKC, which was done quickly at no cost by our dealer.

Mine hasn't given me any trouble either. Had the heated seat TSB and a faulty ambient lighting connector fixed at first service (4500mi) but other than that it's been routine maintenance for the last 16,000 miles. :smile

 

[R Mendonca]

An interesting discussion going on here. It is interesting to note that almost everyone agrees the 2.0 is just fine. However ask yourself this question do you want just fine or do you want those extra ponies for the situations that call for them? I have a fully loaded 2.3 AWD minus trailer package, I test drove all variants and for me hands down it was the 2.3 plus I have a Canadian winter to deal with so AWD also deemed necessary. Now the 2.3 won't throw you back into your seat with the accelerator to the floor but its got lots of guts and of course the 2.0 is just fine too.

 

[blankster]

An interesting discussion going on here. It is interesting to note that almost everyone agrees the 2.0 is just fine. However ask yourself this question do you want just fine or do you want those extra ponies for the situations that call for them? I have a fully loaded 2.3 AWD minus trailer package, I test drove all variants and for me hands down it was the 2.3 plus I have a Canadian winter to deal with so AWD also deemed necessary. Now the 2.3 won't throw you back into your seat with the accelerator to the floor but its got lots of guts and of course the 2.0 is just fine too.

Americans drive torque and I liked the pull you felt when you accelerated with the 2.3. The AWD really dug-in. 305 ft lbs in a vehicle that size is a nice to have especially on the highway.

 

[mmoretti]

Drove them both too. Like mentioned most anyone would probably be fine with the 2.0 but where I live and the way people drive around here I absolutely want to have that get up and go when I need it. The quicker the better(when trying to get out of an idiots way who's looking down at their phone or whatever they're doing). I just actually feel safer knowing if I HAVE to move quickly I can, and it has no doubt saved me from someone hitting me as I was able to punch it to get out of the way - those few seconds can mean life or death if you are facing an accident. It's all defensive driving here it seems, I'm constantly looking out for those people. I've never seen so many lane drifters in my life. It should be standard on every car to have all the tech we pay for to make everyone safer (ie lane departure, hands free, etc).