Hello and Help!

We bought the 2.3 because that was what was available with the colour and options that we liked. We would have gone for the 2.0 if it had been available with the same options. We don't need the power or the increased gas consumption. We are pretty shocked at how much gas we are going through with the 2.3, but we did come from the Ford C-Max Hybrid and we only had to fill that up once a month LOL.

I had the same dilemma when I was ready to order my MKC. My previous car was a 2010 escape with the 6 cyl. rated around 240 hp I think. It was adequate for that vehicle and gave me about 25mpg. I knew the MKC was going to be a slightly heavier vehicle. Having had a couple of cars in the past that were under powered, I knew I would never forgive myself if I ended up with another one. A few miles more per gallon difference between the engines was not a big deal as long as it wasn't a guzzler.
I opted for the 2.3 and have not been sorry. Mpg is better than the old 6 cyl. It's a snappy car, the power is there when I want it and it is an absolute pleasure to drive. I love this car.

I forgot to say that my husband loves his new MKC even if it guzzles gas.

Hey Grouch .... I actually have about 1,800 miles on a 2.0. I had never driven anything other than a 6 cylinder ... and was surprised at how well the 2.0 moved and with how solid the ride has been.
I have been averaging just over 24 MPG combined - and so far very pleased with my purchase!

Best of luck .... you should love this little SUV.

I have driven the 2.0 and the 2.3 back to back multiple times (I work at a Ford/Lincoln store). The 2.0 is better on fuel and makes a cooler noise (IMO) but the 2.3 has more well-rounded smoothness, refinement and MUCH less turbo lag. One of my reasons for getting the 2.3 was because of my dislike for the wheels on the 2.0 Reserve package. The 2.3L motor is an awesome little engine.

My wife has a 2013 Escape Titanium with the 2.0. I bough the 2.3 MKC, I of course have had lots of seat time in her Escape... I am very happy I got the 2.3... sure it's not as good on gas but still beats my 2012 AWD Edge Limited with V6.

I love the 2.3s high spirited responsiveness. Frankly it just pulls, it does start to fall flat near the red line... but near a 6.5s 0-60.. yeah... its worth it!!!

Rayo

2.3 no turbp lag like in my 2013 bmw x3 that I traded in for the MKC

Groucho said:

Pretty close to a purchase of an MKC. Can't decide if it is worth the extra $$ for the 2.3 vs. the 2.0.


Thoughts??


Anyone sorry they chose either one??


Thanks!

Click to expand...

If they had offered the 2.3 as FWD, I might have considered it. In GA we don't really need AWD so I was not willing to take the AWD MPG hit you would get with the 2.3. As it turns out, the 2.0 FWD is more than adequate. Frankly, it is quite peppy. Much happier to have the extra MPG that the 2.0 FWD gets.

Wow....Thank you all for your input. I guess I'll drive both and see. I have test driven the 2.0...(The salesman went with me). I'll try the 2.3 today.

I special ordered my MKC, and the 2.0 versus 2.3 engine choice was one that I considered very carefully. I test drove both, although I had the 2.0 for a "date night" weekend, so had more experience with it. Found it to have very adequate merging and passing power with 4 adults onboard.

I always have a bias towards the larger engine in cars (Vette and CTS-V owner), but I just found myself liking the 2.0 better. Plenty of power for my intended use, seems very well matched to the 6 speed, and a little less "turbo whoosh" sound than I heard in the 2.3.

Motor Trend testing indicates 0-60 times of 6.5 seconds for the 2.3 and 7.6 seconds for the 2.0.

I know that the 2.3 is uptuned in the new Mustang and is getting some generally positive reviews. All things considered, can't go wrong with either engine. I am pleased with the choice I made to get the 2.0

I actually backed into the 2.0 since I wanted the 3000 lb towing capacity it has. Does not really lack for power. Somehow they mapped the throttle and gear ranges so it is 'snappy' around town. Note it is the FWD so I don't lug around 400 extra pounds of running gear either.
I think too many modern cars torturously lug in high gears to beg big EPA numbers. Probably about 26 mpg average or better for my driving.
If you put a stopwatch on the 2.0, it is supposedly lowdown in the CUV Lux group, but c'mon who cares that a Macan that costs another $15k does what it is supposed to?

After a few go rounds with the engines, this was our conclusion. The 2.0 is fine, but we like having the extra power of the 2.3 and it is a Gen 2 engine. One other thought for all to consider regardless of your area and engine choice. This Intelligent AWD is also sweet to have in the rain or on still wet roads! Plus not having to deal with any off the line slippage and engine bog down of just FWD's traction control.

After my date night I'm going with the 2.0. Seems to have enough power...It's for my wife, and she loved it.
I drive an Avalanche which does most of the heavy work anyways. Seems like a nice solid comfy vehicle.


Thanks so much for the input and I look forward to doing the pay it forward thing in here.