• Hint: Use a descriptive title for your new message
    If you're looking for help and want to draw people in who can assist you, use a descriptive subject title when posting your message. In other words, "1998 Town Car" isn't going to indicate to anybody that you need help. However, "Need help with my 1998 Town Car" will. Be as descriptive as you can. Please use common sense... This message can be closed by clicking the X in the top right corner.

MKX 3.7 L vs MKX 2.7 Turbo

indy_mike

New member
3
0
1
New poster here. I am hoping to purchase a 2016 or 2017 MKX in the near future. I have been reading through the posts on this forum hoping to read about the satisfaction level people have with the 3.7 L engine. I have test drove most and was amazed at the power and quickness of the 2.7 Turbo, but I have never been a big fan of Turbos, mostly because of reliability and maintenance costs if something does go wrong. I would prefer going with the safer choice of the 3.7 but I am afraid I will get bored with it quickly and regret my decision.

I was hoping some of you could share your thoughts on this matter. Especially if you have the 3.7 L and are happy with it and do not regret your decision. Any comments that will help me in making this decision would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance!

Mike
 

sean_p_lynch

New member
13
3
3
Chicago, USA
We've owned a 2017 MKX with the 3.7 L since this April (2019). I test drove both, and both engines have more than enough power.
The 2.7 does have a little more power and is way more responsive, but the 3.7 is not weak in any way.

I've been on two long road trips with the 3/7l we bought. On steep country roads in both Colorado and western Pennsylvania, I had no problem accelerating and maintaining speed. The engine was more than powerful enough. Even above 80mph on the highway there is still enough power for passing when needed without any feeling of needing more. the 3.7l had much more in reserve.

The 3.7 liter engine is the same as the base engine used in the Ford F150 pickup for many years, and also the base engine in the Ford Mustang for the last 7 years or so (around 2011 thru 2017, I think). It is a very durable, reliable engine, if well maintained and not abused.

The 2.7l not only has more horse power and torque, it also gets slightly better mileage. Both of these are pluses for the smaller engine.
The 3.7l is simpler and will probably cost less in repairs and maintenance over its lifetime.

If you plan on keeping the Lincoln for many years, the simply 3.7 may be worth it.

There are only 2 real 'flaws' for these engines, and they are shared by both the 2.7l and 3.7l:

1) The water pump is built into the engines. It is not a separate unit. When the water pump needs replacing, the entire engine must be removed in order to take the front of the engine off to replace the pump. Having an internal pump, if the pump fails early, the symptoms are sometimes hidden leading to damage to engines or engine heads. Regular maintenance should detect this, so get your car serviced regularly. (And I don't want to scare you, this was the base engine in the F150, it is just a silly design that makes the repair more expensive)

2) The fuel injection is a GDTI fuel injection. This means that the gasoline is injected directly into the cylinder and not mixed in the manifold before the valves. The gas does not clean the valves as it doesn't pass over them to do so.
This is a common design that can improve performance, or mileage. However GDTI injection engines are more likely to build up carbon deposits on their valves than other engines. This is something your going to worry about at or above the 100,000 mile mark. Use quality gasoline (it doesn't have to be premium, regular is fine, just good quality) and get your car serviced regularly. A mechanic will know if it's time to get the valves cleaned.

'flaws' was probably too hard a word for these points. There are benefits to the designs. The water pump design isn't bad mechanically, it just costs more to service it, and the benefits aren't really that great. The GDTI fuel injection does improve performance/mileage, but the carbon build up on the valves is a draw back after many miles.

Either engine has more than enough power. If you are looking at owning the car for 3 or 4 years, get the turbo and have (a little) more fun. If you are planning on driving the thing for 200K or more, there is no loss going with the 3.7l. (You can save a little money)

Either way, it is a great car!
 
Last edited:

indy_mike

New member
3
0
1
Sean, I want to thank you so much for taking the time to write your response! Very helpful information.

I'm not talking to myself here....there really was a response from Sean, which has now disappeared or been deleted? Strange!:unsure:
 
Last edited:

sean_p_lynch

New member
13
3
3
Chicago, USA
Sean, I want to thank you so much for taking the time to write your response! Very helpful information.

I'm not talking to myself here....there really was a response from Sean, which has now disappeared or been deleted? Strange!:unsure:
There is a message on my screen saying my answer is awaiting moderation. I don't think I said anything against the rules. it is strange, I thought my answer was pretty positive
______________________________
 

indy_mike

New member
3
0
1
Your answer was great. I'm more committed to buying an MKX now than before. I think I am going to go with the Turbo since I only put about 6K miles a year on my car, if I can get a low mileage MKX with a Turbo, odds are in my favor that I shouldn't have any major problems with the engine for many years! Thanks again!

I hope they put your response back on here because I think it would be helpful to other/future members!
 

hey rube

New member
2
0
1
New to forum. Read a lot as visitor. Sean I would like the reply you sent to indy _mike.
I have an order for a used mkx at my dealership, but undecided on 3.7L or 2.7. Waiting to purchase a 2017 with luxe ext with cappuccino int.
 

sean_p_lynch

New member
13
3
3
Chicago, USA
Your answer was great. I'm more committed to buying an MKX now than before. I think I am going to go with the Turbo since I only put about 6K miles a year on my car, if I can get a low mileage MKX with a Turbo, odds are in my favor that I shouldn't have any major problems with the engine for many years! Thanks again!

I hope they put your response back on here because I think it would be helpful to other/future members!
That sounds like a good plan. Find the right MKX for you and enjoy driving it. The turbo is definitely more responsive.
Like I said, I have not felt 'underpowered' with the 3.7l

Take your time and find a clean used MKX and enjoy the heck out of it.
 
Last edited:

sean_p_lynch

New member
13
3
3
Chicago, USA
New to forum. Read a lot as visitor. Sean I would like the reply you sent to indy _mike.
I have an order for a used mkx at my dealership, but undecided on 3.7L or 2.7. Waiting to purchase a 2017 with luxe ext with cappuccino int.
The TL;DR version is that either engine is fine. The turbo has a little more power, but is more 'responsive' because the power really seems to 'kick in' when the turbo engages.

I've had a '17 non-turbo 3.7 l for 6 months now and it has plenty of power. Taken 2 long road trips and the car performed great even at high altitude and steep grades.

My conclusion was:
If you keep a car a few years or don't drive much, get the turbo and have a little fun
If you plan on putting 200k or more on the car, the 3.7 might be a better choice because the simpler features mean fewer things can break.
 

HTML

Top