Topic: Test Drive: 2016 Lincoln MKX 2.7 EcoBoost

[Autos_Editor]

Lincoln gets its groove on.
Read More...

[revalations]

I like these. Hoping Lincoln gets rid of the batman front end soon, other than that I think they did a great job on the MKX.

[SaskSpecV]

It's been quite a few years already, but I still can't remember what vehicle is what in the Lincoln nomenclature.  When I started reading the review, I couldn't remember if the MKX is Lincoln's version of the Escape or the Edge (or maybe the Flex?).  Good job Simon in clarifying the Ford platforms in the 4th paragraph. 

I also appreciate the in-house comparison to the donor vehicle (Edge vs MKX).  I'm sure Ford doesn't appreciate having their vehicles compared like that, but I find it enlightening.

[tortoise]

*Sigh*

Another car I had to open the review to see which one it was.

I think they are nice, but not nice enough to sway me from buying an Edge.

[Jaeger]

It's been quite a few years already, but I still can't remember what vehicle is what in the Lincoln nomenclature. 

Same here.

[bridgecity]

It's been quite a few years already, but I still can't remember what vehicle is what in the Lincoln nomenclature. 

Same here.

Same.  Acura nomenclature is similar, but I don't find them confusing.  Maybe because some of their models have been around longer and I've shown more interest in them.

Incidentally, we bought our MDX from a Ford dealership.  They had an MKX in the showroom and my wife was quite smitten with it.  Very nice in person.

[Jaeger]

It's been quite a few years already, but I still can't remember what vehicle is what in the Lincoln nomenclature. 

Same here.

Same.  Acura nomenclature is similar, but I don't find them confusing.  Maybe because some of their models have been around longer and I've shown more interest in them.

Incidentally, we bought our MDX from a Ford dealership.  They had an MKX in the showroom and my wife was quite smitten with it.  Very nice in person.

Both of those factors are at play for me as well.

Love the turbo V6 motor on this thing but I think the CX9 blows it away for exterior and interior style.

[ChaosphereIX]

no thanks, better options in this very crowded segment

oh and their new design language cant come soon enough....

[Treeman]

Holy Toledo! Almost $67k before taxes on this rig...It may be a fairly nice rig, and the 2.7 seems to be the sweet spot in the EcoBoost lineup (but they sure can suck down the Dino juice, and I expect, it's the premium stuff as well) but just too much coin for a Lincoln (cough, Ford).

What do the real world lease deals in Canada look like for the comparables from the Germans and Japanese? Any body know? Maybe that's the secret sauce that moves these things off the lots...

[KD]

The Edge Sport is a better option imo and a fine one at that! 

Besides, features like that massaging seat do not appeal to me in the least.  I've tried those expensive panasonic recliner/massager chair things a few times in the past as was never impressed.

[EV-Light]

Holy Toledo! Almost $67k before taxes on this rig...It may be a fairly nice rig, and the 2.7 seems to be the sweet spot in the EcoBoost lineup (but they sure can suck down the Dino juice, and I expect, it's the premium stuff as well) but just too much coin for a Lincoln (cough, Ford).

What do the real world lease deals in Canada look like for the comparables from the Germans and Japanese? Any body know? Maybe that's the secret sauce that moves these things off the lots...

Fully loaded, yeah it is expensive...but a X5 would easily break into 100s with all the equipment this babe has.

The sweet spot for the 2.7 base at $56k.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[theonlydt]

I eagerly await the day when road testers, car enthusiasts, random internet people and the Tim Horton's line up stop complaining about the fuel economy of turbo-ed engines when they actually use the boost.

The engine is more efficient because it has less friction (less cylinders usually), a smaller swept capacity, and scavenges energy from the exhaust. However, the whole point of the turbo is that when it is spinning it increases the effective swept volume, acting as though it's a larger engine. It can do this because there's more air in the cylinder, so more fuel can be pumped in.

I generally get good economy driving ecoboost, I was getting 8.5 driving the Ford Edge with the 2.0. If I drove it hard I'd expect the fuel economy of a small v8, because those are the power/torque numbers. If I rode the torque wave, let the transmission change up early (ie. no sports mode), and especially if cruising, I'd expect good fuel economy.

[Treeman]

The problem is, IMHO, nobody will cross-shop this with an X5. The X5 is in a totally different universe, badge wise, and frankly, content wise.

The best comparison is a Lexus RX, which maxes out, at $68k, per the Lexus website. And the RX has a bulletproof reputation, despite the outrageous styling of the current model. The RX is probably the peoples choice of the moneyed class in a lot of communities

So $59.9k, fully loaded and maxed out, is probably the best they expect to command, in the current environment, and $52k-$57k would be more realistic, me thinks.

Lincoln and Cadillac used to be the heavyweight champions of the world, along with, arguably Mercedes. But for so many years (decades??), they stopped training (trying), and grew fat and stupid. Now they want to get back in the game, but they need to train extra hard, move up in the rankings, one step at a time is how it's done, take on all the challengers (Audi, Lexus, BMW) and hope for a title shot. That takes time and BTW, when you are moving back up through the ranks after getting fat and complacent for so many years (decades) you can't get away with charging the same price as for a title fight, because the throngs just won't pay. You can only ride your reputation so long, and Caddy and Lincoln rode them for too long, so they must now fight their way back up the rankings, and I have no doubt that they can, but they can't charge premium prices, because they simply aren't title contenders - yet.

[ChaosphereIX]

I eagerly await the day when road testers, car enthusiasts, random internet people and the Tim Horton's line up stop complaining about the fuel economy of turbo-ed engines when they actually use the boost.

The engine is more efficient because it has less friction (less cylinders usually), a smaller swept capacity, and scavenges energy from the exhaust. However, the whole point of the turbo is that when it is spinning it increases the effective swept volume, acting as though it's a larger engine. It can do this because there's more air in the cylinder, so more fuel can be pumped in.

I generally get good economy driving ecoboost, I was getting 8.5 driving the Ford Edge with the 2.0. If I drove it hard I'd expect the fuel economy of a small v8, because those are the power/torque numbers. If I rode the torque wave, let the transmission change up early (ie. no sports mode), and especially if cruising, I'd expect good fuel economy.

please, ditch the marketing and just call it turbo

[theonlydt]

I eagerly await the day when road testers, car enthusiasts, random internet people and the Tim Horton's line up stop complaining about the fuel economy of turbo-ed engines when they actually use the boost.

The engine is more efficient because it has less friction (less cylinders usually), a smaller swept capacity, and scavenges energy from the exhaust. However, the whole point of the turbo is that when it is spinning it increases the effective swept volume, acting as though it's a larger engine. It can do this because there's more air in the cylinder, so more fuel can be pumped in.

I generally get good economy driving ecoboost, I was getting 8.5 driving the Ford Edge with the 2.0. If I drove it hard I'd expect the fuel economy of a small v8, because those are the power/torque numbers. If I rode the torque wave, let the transmission change up early (ie. no sports mode), and especially if cruising, I'd expect good fuel economy.

please, ditch the marketing and just call it turbo

I'll happily call any turbo engine a turbo. However the specific comment in the article was something like "you can either have eco, or boost, but not both". So I was stating specifically in Ford vehicles with their turbo engines (Ecoboost) I've seen good fuel economy, unlike others who complain.

That said, best everyday fuel economy I've seen from a turbo engine are the VW TSI engines. I think because they don't try and push the specific capacity too hard (generally about 100bhp per litre - while lots are pushing 120-140).

[mixmanmash]

I just came back from a 1000km road trip in a 2016 BMW 528i xDrive.  AWD with a 2.0L 4 cylinder turbo and I averaged 6.9L/100km driving at 120km/h.  If you ask me, I think that's damn good for that car.  And plenty of power with the 2.0 turbo.  So, yes, turbos + efficiency can work when executed properly and if driven accordingly.

[SailFastSimon]

I eagerly await the day when road testers, car enthusiasts, random internet people and the Tim Horton's line up stop complaining about the fuel economy of turbo-ed engines when they actually use the boost.

But then people would buy the cars, drive 'em like they stole 'em and say "You guys lied about the fuel economy!" 

Anyhow, you won't need to wait long to get your wish because my upcoming review of the Volkswagen Golf GTI says the following in terms of fuel economy:
"The GTI's power doesn't come with excessive pain at the pump, either: Official ratings are 9.5 / 7.2 L/100km (city/highway), and despite some spirited driving I managed fuel economy within reasonable striking distance of the official numbers, with an average of 9.4 L/100km in mixed driving and mid-8s on a mountainous highway drive. I likely could've achieved numbers even closer to the official ratings if I'd been content to leave the transmission in Drive…"

The difference is, the Volkswagen doesn't weigh nearly so much as the 1,990 kg (4,387 lb) MKX.

So ultimately, my comment on the MKX economy isn't so much a complaint about turbo'ed engines returning poor fuel economy when driven hard, but rather it's an observation that a 1,990 kg car tends to burn a lot of dino juice if you insist on accelerating quickly, regardless of the engine you use to do the job (and yeah, I should have put the vehicle's curb weight in the review. My bad).

Read the comment as "The small turbo engine can help you get decent highway economy, but it'll still burn gas like a big V8 if you use all the available V8-like power." Because that's what it's trying to say. (Actually, I might just sneak back in here and borrow those very words for my next review of a turbo'ed ground-pounder).

[theonlydt]

I eagerly await the day when road testers, car enthusiasts, random internet people and the Tim Horton's line up stop complaining about the fuel economy of turbo-ed engines when they actually use the boost.

But then people would buy the cars, drive 'em like they stole 'em and say "You guys lied about the fuel economy!" 

Anyhow, you won't need to wait long to get your wish because my upcoming review of the Volkswagen Golf GTI says the following in terms of fuel economy:
"The GTI's power doesn't come with excessive pain at the pump, either: Official ratings are 9.5 / 7.2 L/100km (city/highway), and despite some spirited driving I managed fuel economy within reasonable striking distance of the official numbers, with an average of 9.4 L/100km in mixed driving and mid-8s on a mountainous highway drive. I likely could've achieved numbers even closer to the official ratings if I'd been content to leave the transmission in Drive…"

The difference is, the Volkswagen doesn't weigh nearly so much as the 1,990 kg (4,387 lb) MKX.

So ultimately, my comment on the MKX economy isn't so much a complaint about turbo'ed engines returning poor fuel economy when driven hard, but rather it's an observation that a 1,990 kg car tends to burn a lot of dino juice if you insist on accelerating quickly, regardless of the engine you use to do the job (and yeah, I should have put the vehicle's curb weight in the review. My bad).

Read the comment as "The small turbo engine can help you get decent highway economy, but it'll still burn gas like a big V8 if you use all the available V8-like power." Because that's what it's trying to say. (Actually, I might just sneak back in here and borrow those very words for my next review of a turbo'ed ground-pounder).

Thanks for the reply.

Yeah, anything that's 2 tonnes is going to be a problem.

Borrow away

[Fobroader]

The Edge Sport is a better option imo and a fine one at that! 

Besides, features like that massaging seat do not appeal to me in the least.  I've tried those expensive panasonic recliner/massager chair things a few times in the past as was never impressed.

See the Explorer Sport with that kick a$$ 3.5 TT V6 would be where I would go......the soccer mom SUV that makes chu chu turbo noises, yes please!!!

[KD]

The Edge Sport is a better option imo and a fine one at that! 

Besides, features like that massaging seat do not appeal to me in the least.  I've tried those expensive panasonic recliner/massager chair things a few times in the past as was never impressed.

See the Explorer Sport with that kick a$$ 3.5 TT V6 would be where I would go......the soccer mom SUV that makes chu chu turbo noises, yes please!!!

Funny you mention that as I was mulling one over at the dealer last week when I brought the wife's car in for a recall.  Very impressive piece of gear!  I'd love something like that for a long haul road trip.