Lincoln MKC Forum banner

1 - 20 of 22 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Silver Sand, ebony interior, base model
Beautiful in person, fit and finish excellent, seats outstanding. Very quite, the 2.0 was acceptable especially sport mode. Visibility out was good.
At this price level power fold down seats would be great.
Second row seating room is poor, cargo space for my use is adequate but it's not great. The grain pattern on the plastic seems a bit coarse. The feel of the radio and control knobs is cheap. Hood has a single gas strut, which is enough but looks cheap. No cover for the trailer hitch that this vehicle had.
A Tahitian Purple with Reserve group is due in next week that will help in a final decision to purchase with only the color to decide on. If I had to decide at this point from what I have seen, I would buy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
BMW and Cadillac
The BMW is better, the Caddy about the same.
I wish the MKC had carried the luxury level all the way through the interior.
The cargo area is straight up Ford, not bad mind you just with Lincoln I was expecting more.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
It's interesting that you've seen the little flaws like me. At first, I was a bit disappointed by the lack of a power folding rear seat option, but I can live with that. The keyless entry access on the driver side and the kick in to open the rear hatch features are more of a life saver than the power folding seat.

I too saw the single gas strut in the hood. It does look funny, but at least it's there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
Todays vehicles have raised the bar considerably and it takes special touches to stand out. Lincoln has raised their bar but is it enough. The new Ford Explorer Sport may be a better option for this kind of money.
I love the exterior of the Lincoln, very well done. The interior is so close.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
True, but the Explorer is a much bigger car. And when it comes to luxury, the brand is important. If feels different when let's say a valet attendant say: "Sir, your Ford is ready."

In term of the rear space, I really don't know what the fuss is about. Here are the rear specs of 3 hatchbacks from Edmunds:

2015 VW Golf
---------
Hip Room: N/A
Leg Room: 35.6"
Head Room: 38.1"
Shoulder Room: 53.9"
Cargo: 22.8 cubic feet
Car Length: 167.5"
Tank: 13.2 gal.

2014 Focus Hatchback
---------
Hip Room: 52.7"
Leg Room: 33.2"
Head Room: 37.9"
Shoulder Room: 53.7"
Cargo: 23.8 cu.ft.
Car Length: 171.6"
Tank: 12.4 gal.

2014 Mazda3 Hatchback
---------
Hip Room: 53.8"
Leg Room: 35.8"
Head Room: 37.4"
Shoulder Room: 54.4"
Cargo: 20.2 cu.ft.
Car Length: 175.6"
Tank: 13.2 gal.

The MKC falls within the realm of compact with a slightly bigger tank, cargo, 4WD, and CCD suspensions.

2015 Lincoln MKC
-----------------
Hip Room: 52.8"
Leg Room: 36.8"
Head Room: 38.7"
Shoulder Room: 55.3"
Cargo: 25.2 cu.ft.
Car Length: 179.9"
Tank: 15.5 gal.

So, I really don't know what the fuss is about. There's either too much expectations, or people just don't know what "Compact" Luxury Crossover means. :(
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
Interesting that you think the proper comparison for the MKC is a group of 20K hatchbacks. Then the only issue with the MKC is it costs 100% too much.

Lincoln believes the benchmarks are the Q5, X3, GLK, RX and RDX. In this group it falls short on space, in some cases woefully short.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
I gave examples of compact sizes, not direct competitors. If someone is buying a Mini and feels that the back is too tight, well I just feel sorry for that person.
Benchmarking cars is one thing, but does the MKC really belongs to the X3, Q5, and RDX category because all of them are about 3 inches longer. The GLK is another story as the shape of the vehicle is more boxy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
At 179.2 inches in length the MKC sits at the lower end of the small/compact size luxury SUV segment in terms of size. I personally define this particular size segment as vehicles having an overall length of between 178 and 184 inches.

Here are vehicle length numbers for all current relevant competitor models in the segment:
MKC: 179.2"
Q5: 182.6"
X3: 183.0"
GLK: 178.3"
RDX: 183.5"
XC60: 182.8"

Note: While the Lexus RX (at 187.8" in length) and Cadillac SRX (190.3" in length) are sometimes cross-shopped by folks looking for a small/compact luxury 2-row SUV.. these two vehicles, by virtue of their length, actually reside in the "midsize" luxury SUV category.

The size categories smaller than the small/compact luxury SUV segment are "sub-compact" luxury SUV (think Audi Q3, BMW X1, M-B GLA) and "mini" luxury SUV (think Buick Encore and ??).

/RB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
ok compare the MKC to the Ford Escape
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
160 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
It's interesting that you've seen the little flaws like me. At first, I was a bit disappointed by the lack of a power folding rear seat option, but I can live with that. The keyless entry access on the driver side and the kick in to open the rear hatch features are more of a life saver than the power folding seat.

I too saw the single gas strut in the hood. It does look funny, but at least it's there.
It's things like this that make me question the commitment to this luxury segment. Other vehicles may do this I don't know but for appearance and quality put another strut on the hood even if it doesn't really need it. Another thing in the cargo is a single feeble light that really doesn't help. Why not have a well lit area especially since Lincoln is crowing so much about the special lighting as you approach the car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
At 179.2 inches in length the MKC sits at the lower end of the small/compact size luxury SUV segment in terms of size. I personally define this particular size segment as vehicles having an overall length of between 178 and 184 inches.

Here are vehicle length numbers for all current relevant competitor models in the segment:
MKC: 179.2"
Q5: 182.6"
X3: 183.0"
GLK: 178.3"
RDX: 183.5"
XC60: 182.8"

Note: While the Lexus RX (at 187.8" in length) and Cadillac SRX (190.3" in length) are sometimes cross-shopped by folks looking for a small/compact luxury 2-row SUV.. these two vehicles, by virtue of their length, actually reside in the "midsize" luxury SUV category.

The size categories smaller than the small/compact luxury SUV segment are "sub-compact" luxury SUV (think Audi Q3, BMW X1, M-B GLA) and "mini" luxury SUV (think Buick Encore and ??).

/RB
To this list I would add the Porsche Macan, however its overall length (184.29 in.) is slightly longer than RB's definition of this "small/compact luxury SUV" segment.

Can anyone add another vehicle to this group, staying within this definition?

I have compared all these luxury vehicles. The MKC offers all the advanced driver assistance features I'm looking for (Adaptive Cruise Control, Lane Departure Warning, Park Assists, Blind Spot Detection, and Rear Cross-traffic Alert) AND has the largest dimensions for Rear Seat Legroom and Shoulder Room. The Volvo XC60's Rear Seat Legroom and Shoulder Room is less (slightly), and the Porsche doesn't offer Rear Cross-traffic Alert.

Please add another vehicle to this luxury category for me to consider so I can be absolutely certain the MKC is the best choice. Staying in this overall length size definition is the goal.

Thank you in advance...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
According to Wikipedia, a compact SUV is between 167 to 181".

Source: Compact sport utility vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

P.S.: Benz GLA length is 173.9".
Thanks for the info re the Benz GLA. Read the press release, due out late 2014. Has a 2.0 liter 4-cyl with 208 HP. Should give those considering the Buick Encore a good option. I prefer the height of the MKC at 65.2 in. vs. Benz GLA at 58.8 in. Need the ease of entry/exit. Hard for me to think of this as a SUV...more like a sedan, due to its height, but with a hatchback.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
The true Compact Luxury SUV competitors are:

Audi Q3: 172.4"
Benz GLA: 173.9"
BMW X1: 176.5"
Benz GLK:178.3" <== for now
Lincoln MKC: 179.2"

The MKC is actually on the top end of the Luxury CUV segment. :eek:

The new Lexus NX is 182.3", belonging to the next catergory/class.

Contrary to most belief, the Buick also belongs to the compact class with a length of 168.4". Price, performance, and (IMO) brandwise, it's not in the luxury segment as most people would believe it to be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
According to Wikipedia, a compact SUV is between 167 to 181".

Source: Compact sport utility vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

P.S.: Benz GLA length is 173.9".
Psychoart, thanks for the reference. Note that entries at Wikipedia are at times an author's "opinion", and I don't agree with Wikipedia's "opinion" on what constitutes a compact (aka small) SUV in terms of vehicle length. At a length of 168.4" the Buick Encore (which is the same length as the Chevy Trax) is clearly a mini SUV, yet Wikipedia includes the Encore in its compact SUV category. With that said Wikipedia puts the Chevy Trax in its mini SUV category. Go figure. So there can be errors at Wikipedia. What Wikipedia need to do is announce the existence of the "sub-compact" SUV category and then place all appropriately-sized SUV's within that category.

With that said, my definition (size-wise) of the compact luxury SUV segment is/was my "opinion", which I stated... and today after giving it further thought I've decided to slightly widen my definition of the segment's length range from my previous 178"-184" to now 177"-185".

The M-B GLA, with a length of 173.9, represents a sub-compact SUV and is not on my radar. Neither are the Q3 or X1, which are also considered sub-compact SUV's.. at least by most people. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
I've never misunderstood you. I knew in your previous posting that you wrote that it was your view of what a compact SUV is.

However, I agree with Wikipedia categorization. I've owned several actual compact cars from Golf and above size, and still own a compact car. I know what is a compact vehicle, and what is beyond one when I see or drive one. I also own a 7-seat SUV, and I could tell the difference of what is in between, and what is too small.

I've driven Lexus RX and BMW X3 before, and it is by no mean compact to me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
62 Posts
To this list I would add the Porsche Macan, however its overall length (184.29 in.) is slightly longer than RB's definition of this "small/compact luxury SUV" segment.

Can anyone add another vehicle to this group, staying within this definition?

I have compared all these luxury vehicles. The MKC offers all the advanced driver assistance features I'm looking for (Adaptive Cruise Control, Lane Departure Warning, Park Assists, Blind Spot Detection, and Rear Cross-traffic Alert) AND has the largest dimensions for Rear Seat Legroom and Shoulder Room. The Volvo XC60's Rear Seat Legroom and Shoulder Room is less (slightly), and the Porsche doesn't offer Rear Cross-traffic Alert.

Please add another vehicle to this luxury category for me to consider so I can be absolutely certain the MKC is the best choice. Staying in this overall length size definition is the goal.

Thank you in advance...
Tom, thanks for pointing this out. I'm not sure why I didn't include the Porsche Macan on my list of relevant competitor models in this segment, because that vehicle is definitely relevant and is very desirable! I guess because of its restrictive price (especially the price of its options) I subconsciously decided to leave the Macan off the list. I can't help but think now that if I win big on the lottery, the Macan will zoom right to the top of my compact luxury SUV shopping list! :)
Hmm.. on 2nd thought.. lottery win or not the Macan may still go to the top of my shopping list. ;) I haven't driven an MKC as yet.

At this time I don't believe there is another available vehicle in this particular luxury category - other than the MKC and the Macan - for you (and me) to consider. There will no doubt be some interesting vehicles coming along - such as the redesigned all-new Q5 for m-y 2017 - but that vehicle and a few others are still a couple of years away.

/RB
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
Tom, thanks for pointing this out. I'm not sure why I didn't include the Porsche Macan on my list of relevant competitor models in this segment, because that vehicle is definitely relevant and is very desirable! I guess because of its restrictive price (especially the price of its options) I subconsciously decided to leave the Macan off the list. I can't help but think now that if I win big on the lottery, the Macan will zoom right to the top of my compact luxury SUV shopping list! :)
Hmm.. on 2nd thought.. lottery win or not the Macan may still go to the top of my shopping list. ;) I haven't driven an MKC as yet.

At this time I don't believe there is another available vehicle in this particular luxury category - other than the MKC and the Macan - for you (and me) to consider. There will no doubt be some interesting vehicles coming along - such as the redesigned all-new Q5 for m-y 2017 - but that vehicle and a few others are still a couple of years away.

/RB
Agree about the Macan S...to the extent I ordered one in March, equipped as close to the MKC as possible, but did not include (not offered) Cross-Traffic Alert. The MSRP was USD68,000. My wife nixed it during the dealer party displaying the Macan S. Her entry/exit was not easy...it has fairly high ground clearance, the roof line is low for its height, and the passenger seat is placed inboard, inset from the rocker panel, to the extent that she would bump her head getting in/out, going for the seat. She's maybe 5'1". The price/maintenance cost also may have influenced her ability to easy enter/exit!

Along comes the MKC...a perfect fit for both of us. And a good USD23,000 less, "comparably" equipped.

So my challenge has been to find something in this size/luxury category, that beats the MKC.

Still looking...
 
1 - 20 of 22 Posts
Top