Jump to content






Welcome to the Lincoln MKX Forum


Sign In  Log in with Facebook

Create Account
Welcome to the Lincoln MKX Forum. You must register to create topics or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be apart of the Lincoln MKX Forum by signing in or creating an account.
  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members
  • Create a photo gallery and post images. . .more!
Click here to create an account
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Fuel economy


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#1 OFFLINE   shoeguy

shoeguy

    New Member

  • MKX Member
  • Pip
  • 83 posts
  • Region:Canada Ontario
  • LocationTORONTO
  • Current Vehicle:2016 LINCOLN MKX RESERVE
  • My MKX's Year:Decline

Posted 15 May 2016 - 04:27 PM

Was out the past few days visiting clients. Most of the driving was either the 400 series of highways in Ontario or regional roads where speed limit is 80-100 klm per hour. Fuel economy on the DIC is 10.2 litres per 100k . Works out to 28 mpg imperial gallon. Not that I have bought a car by fuel economy , my SRX best was 13.0. Big difference .





Lose this advertisement by becoming a member. Click here to create a free account.

#2 OFFLINE   Cosmos36

Cosmos36

    MKX Member

  • MKX Member
  • PipPip
  • 922 posts
  • Region:U.S. Pacific Coast
  • LocationOregon & Pacific NW wonderland
  • Current Vehicle:2010 Fusion, 2012 Veloster, 2016 MKX 2.7 AWD Select plus
  • My MKX's Year:None

Posted 15 May 2016 - 06:51 PM

For U.S. owners, 28 mpg (Imperial) equals 23.3 mpg (U.S.).

 

Shoe...for the same driving conditions you described (48-60 mph rural), I am averaging ~24 mpg and 19 mpg in suburban locales with a 2.7 engine. However, I REALLY wish Lincoln would make a 25 gallon tank available.



#3 OFFLINE   shoeguy

shoeguy

    New Member

  • MKX Member
  • Pip
  • 83 posts
  • Region:Canada Ontario
  • LocationTORONTO
  • Current Vehicle:2016 LINCOLN MKX RESERVE
  • My MKX's Year:Decline

Posted 15 May 2016 - 07:14 PM

Only issue is the small gas tank. Find myself requiring to fill up much more that I did in the past. Must say the 3.7 has very little torque yet is smooth running and quiet when cruising.

#4 OFFLINE   NOTMY911

NOTMY911

    MKX Member

  • MKX Member
  • PipPip
  • 437 posts
  • Region:Canada Ontario
  • LocationOttawa
  • Current Vehicle:2016 MKX
  • My MKX's Year:None

Posted 15 May 2016 - 08:06 PM

Only issue is the small gas tank. Find myself requiring to fill up much more that I did in the past. Must say the 3.7 has very little torque yet is smooth running and quiet when cruising.

 

 

Yes, smaller than my 2013 one and the MPG sucks the same.  

 

My 2007 Odyssey 3.5 would do 36 MPG (Imperial) while both my 2013 and 2016 barely do 30.


"NOTMY911":  2016 MKX Reserve 102A, Ingot Silver, 3.7 AWD, Driver Assistance Pck, Technology Pck, Climate Pck, 22 Way Seats, Sync 3  

 

"JJ 911SC":     1983 911 Cabriolet, Grand Prix White


#5 OFFLINE   Adam

Adam

    MKX Member

  • MKX Member
  • PipPip
  • 451 posts
  • Region:Canada Ontario
  • LocationEastern Ontario
  • Current Vehicle:2016 Lincoln MKX
  • My MKX's Year:Decline

Posted 16 May 2016 - 05:32 AM

I can easily get as low as 9.5 L/100km on a trip where speeds do not exceed, say, 100 km/h.  On a freeway trip with the ACC locked in at 118, I see as good as 10.2.  My lifetime average consumption at roughly 7,500 km is sitting at 11.5 L/100km due mostly to the fact the most of my driving is in an urban environment and I really enjoy the acceleration of the 2.7.

 

Edit... the 3.7 has very little torque??  I think 280 is pretty respectable!  I get what you're saying though... peak torque is probably pretty high in the rev range.


Edited by Adam, 16 May 2016 - 05:34 AM.

Current: 2016 MKX 2.7 AWD, Reserve, Ingot Silver on Cappuccino, 21s, Luxury, Climate, Driver Assistance, Technology, Cargo Utility, Multi-contour, Adaptive Steering

Previous: 2016 MKX 2.7 AWD Reserve, Luxe on Ebony and 2013 MKX AWD, Elite, Ingot Silver on Light Stone


#6 OFFLINE   akirby

akirby

    MKX Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPip
  • 925 posts
  • Region:Decline
  • LocationSuwanee, GA
  • Current Vehicle:2016 Lincoln MKX Reserve
  • My MKX's Year:None

Posted 16 May 2016 - 08:06 AM

Plenty of torque, it just doesn't come on until you get it around 4K rpm.   That's the big difference between it and the 2.7.   Having driven a 2.0EB Fusion Titanium for the last 3 years I miss that low end torque.   But it's the wife's vehicle and she hates it when I accelerate fast anyway so it's not a big deal.  It is smooth and relatively quiet.



#7 OFFLINE   BobinIL

BobinIL

    New Member

  • MKX Member
  • Pip
  • 12 posts
  • Region:U.S. Great Lakes
  • LocationIllinois
  • Current Vehicle:Audi Q5
  • My MKX's Year:Decline

Posted 16 May 2016 - 08:52 AM

While researching the MKX two things that seem to come up in various reviews are fuel economy and that the 2.7 might be a better fit for the vehicle.  Consumer Reports preferred the 2.7, but had a funny line regarding fuel economy, "unfortunately that engine is more about boost than eco."   I still have to drive one.


Edited by BobinIL, 16 May 2016 - 08:53 AM.


#8 OFFLINE   akirby

akirby

    MKX Member

  • Moderator
  • PipPip
  • 925 posts
  • Region:Decline
  • LocationSuwanee, GA
  • Current Vehicle:2016 Lincoln MKX Reserve
  • My MKX's Year:None

Posted 16 May 2016 - 08:59 AM

Ecoboost engines have a much wider range of mpg than naturally aspirated engines.   They can get better mpg or worse mpg depending on how you drive it.  I find that you have to do a lot of coasting with the EBs where you get completely off the throttle for max mpg.  The way most reviewers drive it typically yields worse than avg results.

 

The tradeoff is significantly more torque at lower rpm for smoother launches.



#9 OFFLINE   shoeguy

shoeguy

    New Member

  • MKX Member
  • Pip
  • 83 posts
  • Region:Canada Ontario
  • LocationTORONTO
  • Current Vehicle:2016 LINCOLN MKX RESERVE
  • My MKX's Year:Decline

Posted 16 May 2016 - 09:12 AM

While researching the MKX two things that seem to come up in various reviews are fuel economy and that the 2.7 might be a better fit for the vehicle.  Consumer Reports preferred the 2.7, but had a funny line regarding fuel economy, "unfortunately that engine is more about boost than eco."   I still have to drive one.

 

I have never purchased or leased as I always do a car because of fuel economy , My preference has always been towards the comfort of the entire car as well as how quiet the drive is. Every write up and review on this car have been done with the 2.7 , as this is the engine that Lincoln is pushing.  When I test drove both engines I did find the 2.7 had more torque , yet the refinement of the engine as well as quiet of the complete drive were almost comparable, thus could not see a $3000 premium for this engine. I actually feel the fuel economy of the 3.7 for this car is fine , the real issue is the small fuel tank.



#10 OFFLINE   thisguy159

thisguy159

    MKX Member

  • MKX Member
  • PipPip
  • 343 posts
  • Region:Decline
  • LocationChicago
  • Current Vehicle:2016 MKX
  • My MKX's Year:Decline

Posted 16 May 2016 - 10:09 AM

Fuel economy on the mkx is crap and the tank size is shit.  Worst two things on the car.



#11 OFFLINE   punch-card

punch-card

    MKX Member

  • MKX Member
  • PipPip
  • 188 posts
  • Region:U.S. Mississippi Valley
  • LocationSTL - O'Fallon
  • Current Vehicle:2016 MKX
  • My MKX's Year:Decline

Posted 16 May 2016 - 11:40 AM

This is the exact reason why I went for the 3.7, I know how my foot works :), and I am happy with the power of the 3.7 in general. It may not burn rubber out of the gate, but it has plenty of get up and go when you need it in a tight spot. As mileage goes,  the 3.7 gets reasonable mileage for the size of the vehicle IMHO.  And I haven't made a long trip yet, I will see if it gets close to EPA averages. The way I see it, your mileage should be rated by your foot size, or the angular velocity of your right ankle :lol:

 

Ecoboost engines have a much wider range of mpg than naturally aspirated engines.   They can get better mpg or worse mpg depending on how you drive it.  I find that you have to do a lot of coasting with the EBs where you get completely off the throttle for max mpg.  The way most reviewers drive it typically yields worse than avg results.

 


  • akirby likes this

416517.png


#12 OFFLINE   enigma-2

enigma-2

    MKX Member

  • MKX Member
  • PipPip
  • 729 posts
  • Region:U.S. Great Lakes
  • LocationIndiana
  • Current Vehicle:2009 Lincoln MKX
  • My MKX's Year:2007-2010

Posted 16 May 2016 - 02:12 PM

For those middle-ager's who can remember the Mobile Gas Economy Run of the 1950'& 60's, they were able to achieve those incredible milage figures (22-28 mpg when normal driving yielded 6-14 mpg) by teaching the drivers to accelerate from a stop by placing a raw egg under their foot. They also waxed the car's to minimize wind resistance and drove at a constant speed as much as possible, driving faster on the open road to make up time for city driving, etc.

Your right, mpg is all in the foot.

Edited by enigma-2, 16 May 2016 - 04:12 PM.


#13 OFFLINE   cafpaf

cafpaf

    MKX Member

  • MKX Member
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Region:Decline
  • LocationPittsburgh
  • Current Vehicle:Cadillac cts
  • My MKX's Year:Decline

Posted 19 March 2017 - 10:30 AM

I started this process MUCH to early and thus I have MUCH too much time on my hands prior to taking delivery of my MKX. (Hopefully next month)  Thus, I have done MUCH TO MUCH  research and reading of reviews etc.  Now I have TMI (too much information) syndrome.  Based on all of this, one of my concerns has been the comments on fuel economy.  So.....I decided to make a comparison to the two vehicles we currently drive.  They are a 2011 Lexus RX-350 and a 2014 Cadillac CTS with a 2.0 turbo engine.  Here is what I have learned.  Using the projected COMBINED highway mileage for all vehicles (19 for MKX, 20 for Lexus, and 22 for Cadillac) and assuming that I drive 12,000 miles per year I would use 632 gal for the MKX, 545 gal for the Cadillac, and 600 gal for the Lexus.  To make the math easy, I used $2.50 per gallon.  However, since both the Cadillac and the Lexus require premium fuel they are more expensive per gal. (average around $.30/gal here in Pittsburgh).  The long and the short of it is this.  The MKX will cost $52 more to drive 12,000 miles than the Cadillac, and $101 LESS then the 2011 Lexus.  If I use the CITY figures, the MKX will cost $107 more than the Cadillac and $8 more than the Lexus.  The HIGHWAY figures are $104 more for the Cadillac and $96 less than the Lexus.  FYI the Cadillac and the Lexus both have 19 gal fuel tanks.  I just thought that I was interesting. Now I will get back to doing something else that is just a useless.



#14 OFFLINE   thisguy159

thisguy159

    MKX Member

  • MKX Member
  • PipPip
  • 343 posts
  • Region:Decline
  • LocationChicago
  • Current Vehicle:2016 MKX
  • My MKX's Year:Decline

Posted 19 March 2017 - 12:02 PM

I started this process MUCH to early and thus I have MUCH too much time on my hands prior to taking delivery of my MKX. (Hopefully next month) Thus, I have done MUCH TO MUCH research and reading of reviews etc. Now I have TMI (too much information) syndrome. Based on all of this, one of my concerns has been the comments on fuel economy. So.....I decided to make a comparison to the two vehicles we currently drive. They are a 2011 Lexus RX-350 and a 2014 Cadillac CTS with a 2.0 turbo engine. Here is what I have learned. Using the projected COMBINED highway mileage for all vehicles (19 for MKX, 20 for Lexus, and 22 for Cadillac) and assuming that I drive 12,000 miles per year I would use 632 gal for the MKX, 545 gal for the Cadillac, and 600 gal for the Lexus. To make the math easy, I used $2.50 per gallon. However, since both the Cadillac and the Lexus require premium fuel they are more expensive per gal. (average around $.30/gal here in Pittsburgh). The long and the short of it is this. The MKX will cost $52 more to drive 12,000 miles than the Cadillac, and $101 LESS then the 2011 Lexus. If I use the CITY figures, the MKX will cost $107 more than the Cadillac and $8 more than the Lexus. The HIGHWAY figures are $104 more for the Cadillac and $96 less than the Lexus. FYI the Cadillac and the Lexus both have 19 gal fuel tanks. I just thought that I was interesting. Now I will get back to doing something else that is just a useless.


That was useless. May I suggest getting into your car drive down a deserted road till your fuel runs out and for good measure leave ur cell phone at home. I'm not looking forward to your report.

#15 OFFLINE   enigma-2

enigma-2

    MKX Member

  • MKX Member
  • PipPip
  • 729 posts
  • Region:U.S. Great Lakes
  • LocationIndiana
  • Current Vehicle:2009 Lincoln MKX
  • My MKX's Year:2007-2010

Posted 19 March 2017 - 12:04 PM

One flaw, you forgot to consider the purchase price difference and factor in all of the ongoing costs such as excise tax, insurance, etc. I figure this will probably take at least one additional day of serious thought and calculation so we will allow a generous two days to correct your numbers. :lol:

Btw, http://www.thecarcon...055294,40052237,
  • Timmer likes this

#16 OFFLINE   Cosmos36

Cosmos36

    MKX Member

  • MKX Member
  • PipPip
  • 922 posts
  • Region:U.S. Pacific Coast
  • LocationOregon & Pacific NW wonderland
  • Current Vehicle:2010 Fusion, 2012 Veloster, 2016 MKX 2.7 AWD Select plus
  • My MKX's Year:None

Posted 19 March 2017 - 12:34 PM

After you take delivery of your MKX and put a few miles of mixed driving on the odometer, return here with another comparative report of PPM (pleasure per mile) instead of MPG. Including the MKX, I have three vehicles less than five years old, one of which consistently delivers 38 MPG. Guess which one provides more PPM and thus gets driven more often.

 

FWIW, the high MPG vehicle costs half of what the MKX cost and the annual insurance premium is double that of the MKX. I enjoy juggling numbers too and I also have the time, but sometimes the numbers are really disturbing.


  • Timmer likes this

#17 OFFLINE   cafpaf

cafpaf

    MKX Member

  • MKX Member
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Region:Decline
  • LocationPittsburgh
  • Current Vehicle:Cadillac cts
  • My MKX's Year:Decline

Posted 20 March 2017 - 09:33 AM

Just a few additional comments;

 

1.  thisguy159   If you read my post you will see that even I said that it was useless.  I just like manipulate numbers when I have nothing better to do and thought it was interesting and fun.  No one is forcing you to read it and I personally do not need your snide comments.  Not to worry though, at the moment, I have not intention to update this post further.

 

2. enigma-2, thanks for the link.  I enjoyed it.  I really had no intention of comparing  the total cost of ownership.  I just wanted to see how the cost of fuel would compare to the vehicles we currently drive and was pleased to see that it is VERY comparable. 

 

3.  Cosmos36, I have read literally dozens of reviews and scores of YouTube posts and have learned just one important thing.  That is that only opinion that matters or that is important is mine.  I am sure that I will thoroughly enjoy the MKX once I get it.  I love your comment about PPM.  That is what is really important to me as I really enjoy the simple act of driving.  I even take the long way home most times just so I can drive more.  Thanks again.  

 


  • MTM likes this

#18 OFFLINE   punch-card

punch-card

    MKX Member

  • MKX Member
  • PipPip
  • 188 posts
  • Region:U.S. Mississippi Valley
  • LocationSTL - O'Fallon
  • Current Vehicle:2016 MKX
  • My MKX's Year:Decline

Posted 20 March 2017 - 12:23 PM

Cafpaf, I assume you got your data from Fuelly, or similar source, while I don't dispute that your own mileage will vary depending upon the number of miles you drive city verse highway, and the type of driver you are. But if you getting real numbers, at least it in not what people are reading from MPG gauge which at best is good for overall mileage over a very long period of time, at worst not going there...  At least long term real data from sites can give you a better insight... 

My2₵

 

I started this process MUCH to early and thus I have MUCH too much time on my hands prior to taking delivery of my MKX. (Hopefully next month)  . . .


Edited by punch-card, 20 March 2017 - 12:24 PM.

416517.png


#19 OFFLINE   walkabout

walkabout

    MKX Member

  • MKX Member
  • PipPip
  • 428 posts
  • Region:Decline
  • LocationLos Angeles
  • Current Vehicle:Lincoln Mkx
  • My MKX's Year:Decline

Posted 20 March 2017 - 01:06 PM

Fuel economy on the mkx is crap and the tank size is shit.  Worst two things on the car.

 

That's one major downside.  the other is lousy visibility.

 

I don't hold either against the vehicle because I know about both issues going into the purchase. 



#20 OFFLINE   cafpaf

cafpaf

    MKX Member

  • MKX Member
  • PipPip
  • 101 posts
  • Region:Decline
  • LocationPittsburgh
  • Current Vehicle:Cadillac cts
  • My MKX's Year:Decline

Posted 20 March 2017 - 01:53 PM

I did not  get scientific with this in any way.   I just know that I drive around 1000 miles per month and I used the published figures from Lincoln.  It was just mental exercise on my part to kill time.  I am sorry if I have created some controversy.  As I said in my post it is really useless just interesting.  If I average between 19 and 20 I will be a happy camper as far as mileage is concerned.








Custom Search


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Privacy Policy Terms of Service ·