Lincoln MKC Forum banner

1 - 20 of 25 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
Nothing official but rumor has it that the MKC should come in somewhere in the low-twenties for a combined fuel economy rating. That is for the MKC's base 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder. There isn't much to go off of for the 2.3-liter turbocharged in-line four.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
low 20's for an SUV like this isn't too bad. It will still help to see real world numbers to get some real numbers from a range of people in different parts of the U.S.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
Its not bad but its also not amazing. I was expecting a bit more from the EcoBoost engine to be honest. Is the hybrid more impressive?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
324 Posts
Its not bad but its also not amazing. I was expecting a bit more from the EcoBoost engine to be honest. Is the hybrid more impressive?
there is no Escape Hybrid... you do have to be careful when looking at Escape numbers however as the 2.0L Ecoboost is top of the range engine, and mized in with the 1.6 Eco and the 2.5 natural.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
I have a 2011 MKX, 3.7L 2WD. Have not touched the MPG average since it was purchased. The average for highway and city is 24.2. therefore, i would expect the MKC, smaller and lighter and assumable more efficient engine, to be more that 24.2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
yep just look at 2013 Ford Escape mileage for the 2.0L.

The 2.3L is unknown at this point. I'm sure Mustang buyers want to know as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
yep just look at 2013 Ford Escape mileage for the 2.0L.

The 2.3L is unknown at this point. I'm sure Mustang buyers want to know as well.
that will be a must. i wonder how much better MPG's will be in the mustang than in the Escape, since the Mustang should be lighter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
careful driving -- yes. An egg between my foot and the accelerator. But MKC should do better -- that is the advantage of the eco boost. Small displacement, better mileage but more power if needed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
190 Posts
but where is the fun in that :D

thats why i believe in real world mileage claims like on fuelly.com over the estimated ones. estimated mileage is in ideal perfect conditions with the most ideal type of driving.

none of those criteria fit the bill for me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
but where is the fun in that :D

thats why i believe in real world mileage claims like on fuelly.com over the estimated ones. estimated mileage is in ideal perfect conditions with the most ideal type of driving.

none of those criteria fit the bill for me.
that is very true.
no fun in trying to get the best MPG's.
at least even driving heavy footed for even random moments, your mileage wont sink as bad as it would with older cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
524 Posts
thats true, but that extra power and likely torque also helps even more for MPG's since the stang is lighter. Don't have to go as high up in the RPM range as you would need to with a lower output setup
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
Clamshell

Can anyone explain the advantages of the clamshell liftgate vs a conventional design. I can't any aesthetic benefit unless it retains the continuity of the rear light design. It is obviously heavier and may be taking up some storage space.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
clam shell

Can anyone explain the advantages of the clamshell liftgate vs a conventional design. I can't any aesthetic benefit unless it retains the continuity of the rear light design. It is obviously heavier and may be taking up some storage space.[/QUOTE]
 
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Top