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.
Saw MKC Today
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 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
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
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.
Big Deal?
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!
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 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!
how many people do you need to seat on the regular and how tall are they?
Thanks for the specs. I will have to check the others one right after the other but the Volvo for one seems to have a lot more space for rear legroom & storage behind the 2nd row seats.
I carry back seat passengers when we go out with another couple & maybe once or twice a month for business meetings or lunches. It's not that frequent but not sure I want to deal with that. I would probably prefer a mid-size CUV such as MKX but can't get excited about what is now an "old" style compared to the MKC.
I carry back seat passengers when we go out with another couple & maybe once or twice a month for business meetings or lunches. It's not that frequent but not sure I want to deal with that. I would probably prefer a mid-size CUV such as MKX but can't get excited about what is now an "old" style compared to the MKC.
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 found it made a difference/improvement in rear seat comfort/fit when reclining the rear seat seat backs, but that of course can limit the space for some objects behind the rear seats.
The next size up may well make sense for those that really need better legroom in the rear seat area. But as mentioned throughout this forum, for the money, I can't seem to find a better option, even one size up. Considering all the features and amenities the MKC has.
The next size up may well make sense for those that really need better legroom in the rear seat area. But as mentioned throughout this forum, for the money, I can't seem to find a better option, even one size up. Considering all the features and amenities the MKC has.
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.
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.
If any car's rear leg room is not enough for you, it's not the fault of the car. It's just not your car...
I'm 6'0" and during the test drive of the MKC set the driver's seat just right for me. Then after the drive, I got into the back seat behind the driver's position and had 2 inches of knee room. However, if someone drives with the back rest of the driver's seat fully reclined, then I think there is probably "zero" back seat legroom. Not likely the normal driving position for 90% of the MKC-interested drivers.
Somewhere on this forum is a photo of the 6'6" sales person in the back seat on the passenger side, with legs well accommodated.
Somewhere on this forum is a photo of the 6'6" sales person in the back seat on the passenger side, with legs well accommodated.
It's a compact car. When more rooms are needed in the back, it's common sense to adjust the seats in the front for better accommodation.
If you fully recline the front seats in a compact car, you will get most of the time no leg room in the back (unless you want a van of some sort).
If you fully recline the front seats in a compact car, you will get most of the time no leg room in the back (unless you want a van of some sort).
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.
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.
Did you see that in your visit?
Nothing was scientific. I simply sat in the driver's seat & put the seat as far back as it would go (that is where it is comfortable). That's why I said it is possible that there is a bit less front legroom. I did not notice any intrusion from the center console. I really do like the MKC & will test drive it & try to be objective about the importance of the space issue.
Interesting dilemma. To be brutally honest - if I was...
a) 6'3" or taller (which I'm not), and...
b) to always drive with the seat positioned ALL the way back (which I never do), and...
c) very concerned about rear seat leg room for my occasional rear seat passengers (which is not an issue for me)...
... I wouldn't be looking to buy a small/compact luxury SUV of any brand, but rather a "mid-sized" (or larger) luxury SUV.
Apologies njlime - just sayin'. Good luck in your search for the right vehicle that suits your needs.
Cheers
Richard
a) 6'3" or taller (which I'm not), and...
b) to always drive with the seat positioned ALL the way back (which I never do), and...
c) very concerned about rear seat leg room for my occasional rear seat passengers (which is not an issue for me)...
... I wouldn't be looking to buy a small/compact luxury SUV of any brand, but rather a "mid-sized" (or larger) luxury SUV.
Apologies njlime - just sayin'. Good luck in your search for the right vehicle that suits your needs.
Cheers
Richard
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.
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.
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Lincoln MKC Forum
A forum community dedicated to Lincoln MKC owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, modifications, classifieds, troubleshooting, maintenance, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
