Here are the specs for these 4 vehicles:
MKC Legroom F/R: 42.8"/36.8"
BMW X3 39.9"/36.8"
Audi Q5 41.0"/37.4"
Volvo XC60 41.2"/36.4"
Adding the F+R, the MKC offers the most total legroom...per the manufacturers' published specs.
Here are the specs for these 4 vehicles:I saw the MKC in person for the first time today. Local dealer had a dark blue w/black interior/reserve group/FWD 2.0 (Not for Sale).
I sat in & eyeballed it but did not drive it as I am interested in the 2.3 AWD. I am not a big fan of blue cars but the shape looks fantastic & seats feel comfortable.
I will drive the 2.3 AWD ASAP but the small back seat may be a deal killer.
I am 6'3" & drive with the seat all the way back. Space in back does not seem much bigger than my Mustang. But the Mustang is a weekend toy. The CUV will be my everyday driver & the back is clearly inadequate for friends or business associates.I am comparing to BMW X3, Audi Q5 & Volvo XC60. The Lincoln is 3"-5" shorter overall & it looks like the entire difference is in the back seat legroom.
Dave
i doubt it can be as bad as a mustang, mustangs are 2+2's, this thing was made intending to seat 4 within it's proportionsOf the many reviews of the MKC I've read, the back seat seems to be the biggest negative. However the competitors specs are as bad ( or worse) and this seems not to be an issue for them. As I ordered sight unseen and without a test drive, I can decide not to buy when mine arrives. I real hope it's not as bad as the Mustang!
I have a Mustang and have both driven the MKC and rode in the back....definitely much more space than the Mustang. It all depends on expectations. I want more than my Mustang and less than an Explorer, for example. This works.Of the many reviews of the MKC I've read, the back seat seems to be the biggest negative. However the competitors specs are as bad ( or worse) and this seems not to be an issue for them. As I ordered sight unseen and without a test drive, I can decide not to buy when mine arrives. I real hope it's not as bad as the Mustang!
I understand that the rear leg room can be cramped if there are tall driver and occupant in the front seats. But "zero" legroom, that's a joke! You have yet to show me any car with "ZERO" leg room with the front seats all the way back!Who cares what the published specs are? I have an F25 X3 and human beings can sit behind me with my seat back. There is zero legroom behind me in a MKC. ZERO. Tall buyers need not apply.
how did you compare the three, was there a standard used across all three?Stopped at the Volvo & BMW dealers today. I know that the specs say the MKC has more legroom but the reality seems to be the opposite. I don't know how they measure but there definitely is more space in the XC60 & X3, behind the front seats as well as in the back storage area. I guess it's possible that the XC60 & X3 have a little less front legroom allowing for more rear space. In any event, they are all tight but the MKC seems tightest of all.
What kept me from the Volvo XC60 was a comment on the XC60 Forum about the center console intruding upon the driver's right leg resting space. So I went to check it out and found that to be the case.Stopped at the Volvo & BMW dealers today. I know that the specs say the MKC has more legroom but the reality seems to be the opposite. I don't know how they measure but there definitely is more space in the XC60 & X3, behind the front seats as well as in the back storage area. I guess it's possible that the XC60 & X3 have a little less front legroom allowing for more rear space. In any event, they are all tight but the MKC seems tightest of all.
I owned a Grand Cherokee and loved the vehicle. I did not love the maintenance cost. ( always having to change this or replace fluids for warranty) I do like Lincoln's 4 year, 80k no cost included maintenance plan.I agree rbreeze. That's why one of my posts said I may be better off with the MKX, except I'm not sold on the styling & features. May resort to looking at a Grand Cherokee as it solves one of my other concerns, a small gas tank. It gets annoying having to fill up almost every other day based on the number of miles I drive.
For the U.S., it's 2 years, 24k miles included maintenance (fluids, filters, tire rotation), per the brochure.I owned a Grand Cherokee and loved the vehicle. I did not love the maintenance cost. ( always having to change this or replace fluids for warranty) I do like Lincoln's 4 year, 80k no cost included maintenance plan.
Which equates to a couple of oil changes. Not much value.For the U.S., it's 2 years, 24k miles included maintenance (fluids, filters, tire rotation), per the brochure.