[Luxocarnut]

Contemplating an MKC either 2.0 or 2.3.

Curious for those of you that may have one already how you're doing on gas mileage. I was slightly disappointed by the mileage figures of 19/26 and 18/26 for 2.0 and 2.3 with AWD for turbo 4 cal engines. I was hoping maybe Lincoln would have had an 8 speed auto ready for release that may have helped bump that up a bit but I do love the rest of the car.

Anybody beat the EPA estimates at all? Anyway way under them?

 

[todd92]

I have been waiting for any reports of actual MPG. The general Ford Ecoboost experience had been MPG grossly under the EPA ratings. Now the MKC numbers seem low to begin with, so maybe they are realistic, but I sure want to see some real world reports.

We can coax our BMW X3 3.5i to get 29 MPG at 75 MPH...handily beating the EPA rating.

 

[AU MKC]

I have been waiting for any reports of actual MPG. The general Ford Ecoboost experience had been MPG grossly under the EPA ratings. Now the MKC numbers seem low to begin with, so maybe they are realistic, but I sure want to see some real world reports.

We can coax our BMW X3 3.5i to get 29 MPG at 75 MPH...handily beating the EPA rating.

You may have been asked but what is the incentive to possibly trade the BMW? old model year or just adding the MKC to the fold? what do you not like about the BMW?
Thanks

 

[todd92]

I already said we are keeping the BMW no matter if we get an MKC. The MKC will replace a 2007 Mazda CX-9 that has 90K miles. It's still like new, but time to replace it.

There is nothing we don't like about the BMW. It's the 7th BMW I have owned. I have never owned a Lincoln and the MKC is there 1st Lincoln that has even interested us. We have driven one 3 times now and really like it.

 

[Luxocarnut]

Thanks Todd.

I've had a similar experience with my 2012 A4 Quattro. The EPA is only about 31 on the highway but I can usually get about 33. I had two Acura TL's in the past too and I usually could get a mpg or two higher than rated on those as well.

Hoping the MKC isn't a guzzler on gas. They also rate it as using regular gas yet on their hp figures they footnote that they used 93 octane to achieve them.

Curious if the economy drops with regular too.

 

[2Geeky4U]

I just got mine and I have averaged 20.6 mpg with the 2.3. Only have 400 miles on it so the engine has not broken in yet.

 

[todd92]

I have yet to own a car that gets different mileage depending on age. FWIW, modern vehicles are don't have a 'break-in' and haven't for a long time.

What type of driving for 20.6 MPG (which is awful unless mostly stop and go city).

 

[Luxocarnut]

I have yet to own a car that gets different mileage depending on age. FWIW, modern vehicles are don't have a 'break-in' and haven't for a long time.

What type of driving for 20.6 MPG (which is awful unless mostly stop and go city).

Not getting optimal fuel economy in a new engine is actually very common though each motor can be a little different. I've seen it in quite a few cars though. Fueleconomy.gov which performs EPA testing also mentions engine break-in as a factor stating about 3 to 5k miles as a break-in period.

 

[ez117]

I am getting 22-23 MPG average according to the fuel economy gauge on the MKC. This is with the 2.0 engine. My mother on the other hand is getting 17-18 MPG as she drives a bit more aggresively than me. This is mainly local driving almost no highway so far. On the 30 mile highway drive back home from the dealership with me at the wheel, the computer indicated 26 MPG.

 

[AU MKC]

without pics I don't believe any poster really has one

 

[kdawg]

I just got mine and I have averaged 20.6 mpg with the 2.3. Only have 400 miles on it so the engine has not broken in yet.

I'm curious what octane are you using? Also, what type of driving (flat highway on cruise control or spirited driving around a hilly city with sport engaged)? The 2.0 I test drove showed 18MPG, but I imagine it was parked with the engine running a lot and had < 200 miles on it, so that's not going to be a good indicator at all.

I agree that with modern cars you will not see major differences in MPG for break in periods due to tighter tolerances in manufacturing processes. Maybe you'll see a small difference after 1500 miles just due to less friction in the engine parts, but I don't think it will be all that apparent. Most dealer service departments love using that excuse because it gets you off their back for awhile until you eventually learn to accept it, or change your driving style to coax a few more MPG out of it.

The MKC manual states either blend / full synthetic oil should be used. I wonder what has been put in at the factory? Assuming the blend was used since it's cheaper, but going forward I'll be using a full synthetic which may also help a little.

 

[humpty dumpty]

without pics I don't believe any poster really has one

thats a bit cynical mate, quite the long con if indeed true

 

[Rbiowa]

I'm getting 24 mpg using 87 Octane with 10% Ethanol. 2.0 AWD

 

[Rbiowa]

For those non-believers...

 

[Luxocarnut]

Nice Rbiowa. I really like the gauges and digital cluster.

 

[dmace0908]

I'm getting 24-25 on my 2.0. I've got almost 800 miles on it.

 

[2Geeky4U]

I have yet to own a car that gets different mileage depending on age. FWIW, modern vehicles are don't have a 'break-in' and haven't for a long time.

What type of driving for 20.6 MPG (which is awful unless mostly stop and go city).

It is a 70 suburb 30 highway mix. Right now I am mostly city and it looks like 17/18.

 

[2Geeky4U]

I am AWD 2.3 L setup. I was getting 28 with my Mazda 3 2.3 L with a roof bike rack. I am driving the same way I always have. Did not like sport mode. I keep it in normal mode. I was using a android driving program called DASH it uses a plug in sensor via Bluetooth and it said I was getting 95/96 ratings out of 100 as to overall driving efficiency. I run 87 octane. The vehicle was transferred (driven) from Columbus to Detroit and the mileage read 20 average when I got it. After a few miles I reset it.

 

[humpty dumpty]

I am AWD 2.3 L setup. I was getting 28 with my Mazda 3 2.3 L with a roof bike rack. I am driving the same way I always have. Did not like sport mode. I keep it in normal mode. I was using a android driving program called DASH it uses a plug in sensor via Bluetooth and it said I was getting 95/96 ratings out of 100 as to overall driving efficiency. I run 87 octane. The vehicle was transferred (driven) from Columbus to Detroit and the mileage read 20 average when I got it. After a few miles I reset it.

Keep in mind however that there are several key differences between the MKC and the MAzda. For one the Mazda 3 is a sub 3,000 lb car vs your MKC's 3,963 lbs. were talking a difference of 1,000 lbs from the same size engine, there is going to be a significant increase in stress and work required from the engine to get you moving. Coupled with the parasitic loss from the AWD system and that's how you get 17 MPG....

 

[TxTom]

The Product Trainer's "pre-production" 2.3 AWD MKC with 11,500 miles on it shows lifetime MPG of 23.6. Lots of highway miles but also fair amount of "city" driving. (Don't know, but guess he uses regular gas)