Robert Posted February 14, 2015 Report Share Posted February 14, 2015 2016 Lincoln MKX: 3.7L or 2.7L EcoBoost Engine? If you were going to purchase a new Lincoln MKX, which engine would your order and why? 2.7L EcoBoost The available advanced 2.7-liter twin-turbocharged Ti-VCT EcoBoost V6. It is projected to deliver more than 330 horsepower and more than 370 lb.-ft. of torque, based on preliminary test data. 3.7L Non EcoBoost The standard engine is a 3.7-liter V6, projected to deliver 300 horsepower and 280 lb.-ft. of torque, based on preliminary test data. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharon Elliott Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 2.7 Ecoboost for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LincolnFanFl Posted February 15, 2015 Report Share Posted February 15, 2015 No doubt - the 2.7 EcoBoost. Although I'm quite satisfied with the 3.7 on my MKZ, I'd certainly take the additional power and performance of the 2.7 EB because I'm quite confident that it won't have a higher fuel-consumption. I'm also guessing that a fully loaded MKX will be heavier than my MKZ so in order to achieve the same (or better) performance, you'll probably need more power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted February 16, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 16, 2015 I'd have to vote for the 2.7L MKX EcoBoost too. Those engines have so much punch from a small package that it's amazing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LincolnFanFl Posted February 16, 2015 Report Share Posted February 16, 2015 Those engines have so much punch from a small package that it's amazing. Oh, absolutely! An additional 100 ft-lb of torque is certainly noticeable... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Timmay Posted February 16, 2015 Report Share Posted February 16, 2015 Oh, absolutely! An additional 100 ft-lb of torque is certainly noticeable... Is there a reason why they are still offering the non-Ecoboost in the 2016? Is it to keep the cost of the base MKX lower? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharon Elliott Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 I guess if the average buyer might not know the difference and just go buy cost Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LincolnFanFl Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Could also be that they want to offer a cheaper (than the 2.7 EB) V6-option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 I've never had a problem or issue with my 3.7 and it has been both smooth and responsive. Love it. I'd like to drive and Ecoboost version of the MKX since it's an excellent performer in everything else the Ford and Lincoln offer. I would opt for the 2.7 Ecoboost engine if I were to purchase another MKX and the 2016 looks so tempting just from the photos alone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 Could also be that they want to offer a cheaper (than the 2.7 EB) V6-option. My thoughts exactly. The 3.7 engine is more than paid off for Ford and it's far less complex with fewer components than the Ecoboost 2.7. It's an excellent standard engine for the MKX and those who go for it will not be disappointed whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twintornados Posted February 17, 2015 Report Share Posted February 17, 2015 The 2.7L Ecoboost is also lighter and will give MKX a more "balanced" handling characteristic and not be as "nose heavy"....the 3.7L will appeal to fleets and liveries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boilerhawk14 Posted February 19, 2015 Report Share Posted February 19, 2015 Will probably go for the 2.7L EcoBoost. More power for similar fuel economy (hopefully)! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted February 21, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 21, 2015 The 2.7L Ecoboost is also lighter and will give MKX a more "balanced" handling characteristic and not be as "nose heavy"....the 3.7L will appeal to fleets and liveries. We've been kicking around the idea of the 3.7L engine remaining in the lineup and think you're right about that. I am not too sure about there being a big weight difference between the 2.7L EB and the base 3.7L. Both are V6 and I think all aluminum. The 2.7L has the additional weight of the turbos too. The 2.3L would save weight though. What the weight difference between the 2.&L EB and the 3.7L? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LincolnFanFl Posted February 22, 2015 Report Share Posted February 22, 2015 What the weight difference between the 2.&L EB and the 3.7L? On the MKZ, the 2.0L EB is about 140 lbs. lighter than the 3.7... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos36 Posted February 24, 2015 Report Share Posted February 24, 2015 Despite some apprehensions concerning possible GDI turbo engine issues, I will be opting for the 2.7 engine in our 2016 MKX. I am impressed with the clean-sheet design of Ford's Nano engine and the convergence of diesel/NASCAR/Indy engine technologies appearing in the 2.7 engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted February 25, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 25, 2015 On the MKZ, the 2.0L EB is about 140 lbs. lighter than the 3.7... That's a good amount weight under the front end. 140lbs is way more than I thought - I would have guessed 75lbs. Despite some apprehensions concerning possible GDI turbo engine issues, I will be opting for the 2.7 engine in our 2016 MKX. I am impressed with the clean-sheet design of Ford's Nano engine and the convergence of diesel/NASCAR/Indy engine technologies appearing in the 2.7 engine. That's the engine that I would go with too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 On the MKZ, the 2.0L EB is about 140 lbs. lighter than the 3.7... OK but the 2.0 is a four cylinder EcoBoost while the 2.7 is a V6, much like the 3.7, except the 2.7 EB has twin turbos. I'm betting that they are not that far apart weight weise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl Grayson Posted February 26, 2015 Report Share Posted February 26, 2015 I don't know how true it is, but if you go Autoblog.com you can price the 2016 MKX. The Reserve FWD starting price is 45000, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos36 Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 The Autoblog site is very poor, at least regarding the 2016 MKX, e.g. pricing for stand-alone options are absent, the available engine is listed as a 3.7 twin turbo (wow, that's terrible), etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LincolnFanFl Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 OK but the 2.0 is a four cylinder EcoBoost while the 2.7 is a V6, much like the 3.7, except the 2.7 EB has twin turbos. I'm betting that they are not that far apart weight weise. That's true. I agree that the weight advantage of the 2.7 towards the 3.7 won't be too significant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos36 Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 There are enough engine weight numbers online to confuse anyone (dry weights, media-reported weights, package weights, etc.), but a consensus weight for the 2.7EB is 440 pounds while the 3.7 is often mentioned at ~366 pounds. It would appear to me that the CGI Nano 2.7EB, while a smaller engine dimensionally, is heavier than the all aluminum non-turbo 3.7 by approximately 75 pounds. probegt 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted February 27, 2015 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 There are enough engine weight numbers online to confuse anyone (dry weights, media-reported weights, package weights, etc.), but a consensus weight for the 2.7EB is 440 pounds while the 3.7 is often mentioned at ~366 pounds. It would appear to me that the CGI Nano 2.7EB, while a smaller engine dimensionally, is heavier than the all aluminum non-turbo 3.7 by approximately 75 pounds. OK - I was thinking that the 2.7L would be marginally heavier than the 3.7. . .maybe it has to do with the two turbo chargers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
probegt Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 I would definitely choose the 2.7! Low end torque in a heavy vehicle is much more fun than having to wait until 4k for ~280. Loaded up, this vehicle will be 4400+lbs. I can't see how the 2.7 would be lighter though. I'd guess an iron block with twin turbos will be heavier than a normally aspirated all aluminum block. 75lbs sounds about right, and the turbos will account for some weight as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Posted March 3, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 I would definitely choose the 2.7! Low end torque in a heavy vehicle is much more fun than having to wait until 4k for ~280. Loaded up, this vehicle will be 4400+lbs. I can't see how the 2.7 would be lighter though. I'd guess an iron block with twin turbos will be heavier than a normally aspirated all aluminum block. 75lbs sounds about right, and the turbos will account for some weight as well. I am thinking that the extra weight will come from the turbos as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos36 Posted March 3, 2015 Report Share Posted March 3, 2015 Even with the small dimensions of the 2.7, that engine could have been much weightier than it is if Ford hadn't done some clever engineering & design mitigation, i.e. thinner walls of the CGI block, narrower main bearing saddles, aluminum heads & unique aluminum ladder frame, plastic oil pan, absence of cylinder liners, cast induction/exhaust pathways, etc. The engine is a marvel of combined diesel, Indy, and NASCAR technologies in mass produced availability. While not unique, my favorite feature to imagine at the molecular level (and discuss with others) is the laser-fractured main bearing caps. I suspect we'll see this engine in several other displacement iterations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts