Joined
·
8 Posts
Has anyone seen the MPG on the MKC?
Mpg
1 - 20 of 25 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.
Joined
·
324 Posts
a good place to start is looking at the Escape, 2012's and '13's are averaging out 22-23 mpg. 2013 Ford Escape MPG Reports | Fuelly
Joined
·
324 Posts
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.
Joined
·
8 Posts
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.
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.
Joined
·
8 Posts
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.
but where is the fun in that 
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.
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.but where is the fun in that
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.
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.
Joined
·
324 Posts
but the mustang is tuned for over 300 ponies vs MKC's 275. Plus the mustang is a tad more performance oriented
Joined
·
8 Posts
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.
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.
Joined
·
8 Posts
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]
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]
id imagine it isnt too hard to tune the mustang to 300hp from 275but the mustang is tuned for over 300 ponies vs MKC's 275. Plus the mustang is a tad more performance oriented
1 - 20 of 25 Posts
Join the discussion
