walkabout Posted May 24, 2018 Report Share Posted May 24, 2018 That makes sense to me! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos36 Posted May 24, 2018 Report Share Posted May 24, 2018 (edited) Re: the '2.7L is a "louder" engine' in post #72 above...according to Auto Decibel Database & Car and Driver testing of the 2016 MKX with the 3.7 and 2.7 engines respectively, the 2.7 is louder at idle (as many have noted here) than the 3.7 (44.1dB vs. 40.2dB), while at 70 MPH the 2.7 is quieter than the 3.7 (63.9dB vs. 65.2dB). There are, however many factors, both mitigating and contributing, that must be taken into account with such comparisons and how the data were gathered. Think, the effect of active noise cancellation, etc. That's for another time and thread. I recall reading an article back in 2015 regarding Ford's media reveal of the 2.7 engine testing at the Dearborn test labs. A Popular Mechanics (as I recall) writer reported that a Ford engineer mentioned that during the thousands of hours of 2.7 engine testing (mounted to a test stand), it was noted by the lab staff that the 2.7 was one of the quietest engines ever tested at full red-hot RPM. Edited May 25, 2018 by Cosmos36 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walkabout Posted May 24, 2018 Report Share Posted May 24, 2018 I've driven every combination of drivetrains available in the MKX/Edge (granted, I drove with the 6 speed auto, not with the new automatics with more speeds). Engine noise is certainly not a factor in either vehicle. It may be the case that the 2.7T is quieter at at high speed and the 3.7 is quieter at idle, but engine noise is not a huge factor with either vehicle. The 2.0T in the Edge (and, granted the Edge may have less sound insulation than a Lincoln) is louder during hard acceleration but that's to be expected with a four banger. All the Ford engines have good NVH characteristics. The 2.7T is smooth as silk. Cosmos36 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOTMY911 Posted May 24, 2018 Report Share Posted May 24, 2018 Like some else said in another thread, if you are concerned about MPG on a $60K SUV, forget it... My "2006" (long time ago) Honda Odyssey was doing about 18% better but I love my MKX, end of story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walkabout Posted May 25, 2018 Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 I don't think many of us are concerned about MPG. It's just not a board that tolerates claims that are slate from reality. Hence there are pushbacks against the idea that the MKX will get 40 on the highway. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mkx-wanders Posted May 25, 2018 Author Report Share Posted May 25, 2018 I don't think many of us are concerned about MPG. It's just not a board that tolerates claims that are slate from reality. Hence there are pushbacks against the idea that the MKX will get 40 on the highway. What 'reality' are you talking about? Newton's first law says that your '4400lb mass', once set into motion, continues in that vector, unless influence by another force (or vector). You have provided nothing other than vague EPA estimates. Is my 'Economy Computer' broken? Did Ford cheat like other European Manufacturers? Of course, none of us are concerned with MPG, but it still can be interesting when one goes from a Grand Cherokee 5.2L to a 3.7 or 2.7L MKX and have more HP and Torque *and* many MPGs over that 5.2L. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKXMark Posted May 28, 2018 Report Share Posted May 28, 2018 Just got back from our beach trip -- here are the results: 996.3 miles 23.0 mpg (per computer) 16:11 Which means an average speed of 61.56 mph. Mostly interstate between PA and NC. Car ran flawlessly. Timmer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos36 Posted May 28, 2018 Report Share Posted May 28, 2018 Good on ya and the 3.7, mate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos36 Posted May 28, 2018 Report Share Posted May 28, 2018 To active members and veterans, all comrades in arms...THANKS FOR SERVING. Timmer, thisguy159, Adam and 1 other 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKXMark Posted May 28, 2018 Report Share Posted May 28, 2018 Thanks, I served but please remember today is about the fallen. Veterans day is for the vets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos36 Posted May 28, 2018 Report Share Posted May 28, 2018 Mark...thank you for serving and providing an appropriate reminder to some. I honor the fallen in my family and the nation alongside active and veteran members daily. Today seemed fitting to express recognition to the latter. Truly, thanks again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EnMoCo Posted May 28, 2018 Report Share Posted May 28, 2018 Thanks, I served but please remember today is about the fallen. Veterans day is for the vets.Wow... really? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walkabout Posted May 29, 2018 Report Share Posted May 29, 2018 What 'reality' are you talking about? Newton's first law says that your '4400lb mass', once set into motion, continues in that vector, unless influence by another force (or vector). You have provided nothing other than vague EPA estimates. Is my 'Economy Computer' broken? Did Ford cheat like other European Manufacturers? Of course, none of us are concerned with MPG, but it still can be interesting when one goes from a Grand Cherokee 5.2L to a 3.7 or 2.7L MKX and have more HP and Torque *and* many MPGs over that 5.2L. I'll be honest - I have no idea what you're post is even trying to prove. I pushed back at Walt's RIDICULOUS claim that he has a special driving style that can exact 40mpg out of the MKX. I had no comment on your personal "economy computer." I wasn't even interacting with you. However, if you really want me to comment on your post, I find your fuel economy estimates completely believable. Pretty close to the numbers most folk here are getting and also what I get. Fyi:I have more than vague EPA numbers - I have 22,000 miles on my MKX. I doubt there is anything exceptional about my use pattern so I'd expect that most drivers will get similar mpg. And, my numbers also nice with most published data as well as what everybody else here is saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walkabout Posted May 29, 2018 Report Share Posted May 29, 2018 Yikes! Now I see your point. You are reacting to my skepticism about the fuel economy meter. To be clear, I was not talking about what the epa found. I filed up my tank, drove roughly 200 miles, filed it up again, and then divided odometer/fuel used. When you do that time tested method, I think you will find the dash readout to be slightly generous (for me the diff was less than 1 mpg) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 29, 2018 Report Share Posted May 29, 2018 On my F150 it read 20.3 but hand calculation yielded about 18,9. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walkabout Posted May 29, 2018 Report Share Posted May 29, 2018 That's a bigger difference than I got. I have 19.7 on the metter and my hand calc was lower by a bit less than 1 mpg. Meter is probably best for comparison purposes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltcmusic Posted May 30, 2018 Report Share Posted May 30, 2018 (edited) Edited July 9, 2018 by waltcmusic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NOTMY911 Posted May 30, 2018 Report Share Posted May 30, 2018 I already mentioned several times in other threads that I should expect to get only 33-36 MPG max on highway. 40 MPG is just only lucky, and I don't expect it. Glad to see that your are dreaming in Technicolor... I barely get 30 MPG (Highway on cruise @ 63 mph) and our gallon is 20% larger then yours. Maybe you should cancel your order... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos36 Posted May 30, 2018 Report Share Posted May 30, 2018 ~ 560 to ~ 615 miles on a full tank with a gallon reserve? Sweet dreams Walter Chan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltcmusic Posted May 30, 2018 Report Share Posted May 30, 2018 (edited) Edited July 9, 2018 by waltcmusic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltcmusic Posted May 30, 2018 Report Share Posted May 30, 2018 (edited) Edited July 9, 2018 by waltcmusic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos36 Posted May 30, 2018 Report Share Posted May 30, 2018 450-525 miles on 18 gallons=26.5-30.8 MPG. How does that equate to your 33-36 MPG expectations in post #92? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waltcmusic Posted May 31, 2018 Report Share Posted May 31, 2018 (edited) Edited July 9, 2018 by waltcmusic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted May 31, 2018 Report Share Posted May 31, 2018 I’m getting over 700 miles per tank. On a 36 gallon tank F150....... Timmer 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cosmos36 Posted May 31, 2018 Report Share Posted May 31, 2018 Swell (as the saying went during the Glenn Miller era)...the new gen 3.5 is a much-improved engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.