[Bamm1]

Per C&D - Lincoln admits the MKC is the heaviest vehicle on the C1 platform by “a fair amount" -

Several intro articles for the MKC list the X3, RDX, Q3, GLK350, etc. as competitors.

With the 2.3L Ecoboost is coming in at 285 HP / 305 TQ it would appear it is set to go head to head with the V6 versions of the above cars. Let's look at some acceleration numbers for the V6 and turbo 4 offerings from the Germans and Japanese:

BMW X3 i35xDrive 300/300; 0-60 5.5; 1/4 mile [email protected]
Audi Q5 3.0T 272/295; 0-60 5.5; 1/4 mile [email protected]
MB GLK350 302/273; 0-60 5.8; 1/4 mile [email protected]
Acura RDX 273/251; 0-60 6.2; 1/4 mile [email protected]
Subaru Forester XT 250/258; 0-60 6.0; 1/4 mile [email protected]
Ford Escape 2.0T 240/270; 0-60 6.8; 1/4 mile [email protected]

Where do we see the 2.3 MKC clocking in?

Will the 45 HP / 35 Ft-lb bump, along with a broader, flatter torque curve from the twin-scroll turbo, see a major improvement in the Escape's performance times? Can we see a second knocked off? 0-60 in 5.8 and the 1/4 mile in 14.2 ? Or will the "heaviest car on the C1 platform" negate the power increases and keep the times in the same ballpark, mid/high-6's and high14's/low 15's?

Any thoughts?

 

[golfball]

The Ecoboost? Hard to say.. Its heavier but its also more powerful

It could just even out to be just as quick as an Escape

Neither of those cars you've listed are that quick anyways.

 

[humpty dumpty]

its a compact family SUV, not built for speed stars but for style. I think if you want a better look into potential performance we need to compare power to weight ratios. and Q5 is too big for this.

MKC doesnt have published specifications yet and I dont know what "fair amount" translates too numerically, so instead I used the delta between MKZ and Fusion and added that to the escapes weight. Its crude but the best I could do for you at this point. I used Fusion 2.0L FWD and MKZ FWD 2.0L and tacked the difference onto Escape FWD 2.0L which gave a curb weight of 3,779 lbs

MKC: 13.25 lbs/HP

X3: 14.07 lbs/HP
Q3: 19.07 lbs/HP (base 2.0T)
GLK: 13.04 lbs/HP
RDX: 13.6 lbs/HP (no AWD or Tech)
Scub: 13.14 lbs/HP
Escape: 14.96 lbs/HP

 

[DeMarco]

I don't know anything about it's platform but you never know what they have planned for it.
Maybe they built the platform to one day support a high performance model.

 

[Bamm1]

The Ecoboost?

Both engines slated to be offered on the MKC are in the Ecoboost family (2.0 & 2.3).

Hard to say.. Its heavier but its also more powerful

Yea, that is why I started the thread. With those two notions how will it perform.

It could just even out to be just as quick as an Escape

If the 2.3L MKC posts similar performance numbers to the 2.0L Escape it will be missing half of the "V6 power with 4 cylinder fuel economy" marketing push.

Neither of those cars you've listed are that quick anyways.

Compared to what? Something not in the compact SUV category? Other than the BMW X1 no other SUV's at the MKC's price point produce better performance numbers than those I posted.....

 

[Bamm1]

its a compact family SUV, not built for speed stars but for style. I think if you want a better look into potential performance we need to compare power to weight ratios. and Q5 is too big for this.

MKC doesnt have published specifications yet and I dont know what "fair amount" translates too numerically, so instead I used the delta between MKZ and Fusion and added that to the escapes weight. Its crude but the best I could do for you at this point. I used Fusion 2.0L FWD and MKZ FWD 2.0L and tacked the difference onto Escape FWD 2.0L which gave a curb weight of 3,779 lbs

MKC: 13.25 lbs/HP

X3: 14.07 lbs/HP
Q3: 19.07 lbs/HP (base 2.0T)
GLK: 13.04 lbs/HP
RDX: 13.6 lbs/HP (no AWD or Tech)
Scub: 13.14 lbs/HP
Escape: 14.96 lbs/HP

I would think you would have to post similar performance numbers (acceleration, handling, fuel economy, etc.) to be competitive. If the MKC is slower but with a big bump in fuel economy that might make help it edge out its competition. If fuel economy is within a couple of MPG's and it is substantially slower I don't see stealing people away from other brands just based on how it looks. Cost savings maybe but the luxury SUV buyer usually isn't a bargain shopper.

 

[humpty dumpty]

And the luxury SUV shopper also isn't a performance junky either. The most important factors in this segment are style, technology and exclusivity (in no order)

I would think you would have to post similar performance numbers (acceleration, handling, fuel economy, etc.) to be competitive

Not completely true, thats based on the assumption that all shoppers are evaluating on the same metrics, they don't..

If the MKC is slower but with a big bump in fuel economy that might make help it edge out its competition

disagree with this especially as you closed by asserting the luxury SUV shopper is not a bargain shopper, I view this statement as an extension of that. If they are not bargain shoppers why would lesser input costs even register for them?

If fuel economy is within a couple of MPG's and it is substantially slower I don't see stealing people away from other brands just based on how it looks.

Again, all dependent on what each shoppers metrics are. If they buy based heavily on styling then I don't see why MKC wont steal based on its face alone. If they buy based on BRAND I can see where you're coming from...

 

[DeMarco]

I have a feeling a lot of people that buy Lincoln buy for it's style and the fact that it's affordable enough, not like German cars.

 

[Bamm1]

And the luxury SUV shopper also isn't a performance junky either. The most important factors in this segment are style, technology and exclusivity (in no order)

Not completely true, thats based on the assumption that all shoppers are evaluating on the same metrics, they don't..

disagree with this especially as you closed by asserting the luxury SUV shopper is not a bargain shopper, I view this statement as an extension of that. If they are not bargain shoppers why would lesser input costs even register for them?

Again, all dependent on what each shoppers metrics are. If they buy based heavily on styling then I don't see why MKC wont steal based on its face alone. If they buy based on BRAND I can see where you're coming from...

The compact luxury SUV market that Lincoln is jumping into has a very interesting customer base. Lincoln is trying to go much younger than it has in the past.


Here you will find a lot of “label” shoppers. It is not so much that the brand has a great reputation. I believe it is more so the perception that comes with said brand is appealing to them. Inside that demographic I think style, tech and exclusivity may come into the play once you check the “label” box. But I think Lincoln is going to struggle to draw the label buyers in to get them to look at those factors.



Fuel economy will be a factor in this category as it is in other segments were up front cost seems to not be a factor. People pay a substantial up-charge for hybrids (expect for Lincoln) to gain little in regards to cost savings from improved mileage (unless they own the car for 15 years). People like the “good for the environment”, “not a gas guzzler”, etc. perceptions that come with vehicles that get “better” fuel economy, particularly younger buyers.


So I think to get these new shoppers to seriously consider Lincoln, a couple of things can be done. I will concede some may think it looks “great” and move to make a purchase. Not sure how big a piece of the compact lux pie this snares Lincoln. I think similar or better performance (not just acceleration, but driving dynamics, fuel economy, ride comfort, etc.) on paper in comparison to current segment leaders will be a big selling point, especially for those new to the brand. The ads will say better fuel economy than X, accelerates faster than Y, Motortrend calls it the best handling compact SUV, more space than a Z, etc. This could bring them to the Lincoln website or dealership where they will see the better tech, better styling, etc.


I like what Lincoln is doing here and I will admit I fall more into the enthusiast category than anything else. And you are correct; trying to sell to my demographic by boasting about ¼ mile times, shalom speeds, etc. is a bad idea as an overall strategy. I started this thread to discuss performance as that is an important factor to me (and maybe some others). But I never confused the MKC for an Audi S car. The thread has evolved into a general discussion of what makes the MKC appealing, which is also interesting. The MKC is a big departure for the brand and could be a huge success.

 

[humpty dumpty]

The compact luxury SUV market that Lincoln is jumping into has a very interesting customer base. Lincoln is trying to go much younger than it has in the past.


Here you will find a lot of “label” shoppers. It is not so much that the brand has a great reputation. I believe it is more so the perception that comes with said brand is appealing to them. Inside that demographic I think style, tech and exclusivity may come into the play once you check the “label” box. But I think Lincoln is going to struggle to draw the label buyers in to get them to look at those factors.

quite agreed!

However I view the struggle as not so much the perception of the Lincoln brand appealing to them, but the perception of how Lincoln will show them to others. Thats where I think the MKC's biggest hurdle lies...

I hear you on the performance reasoning perhaps I was a little too stone faced at the idea of discussing performance, Its just I've seen it in other forums where folks will get all uppity about performance numbers from a non performance car. MKC is definitely competitive in segment. Theres also rumors of a Lincoln Red Label performance brand, so we could see MKC get an S or RS type treatment...