Which MKZ engine do you recommend?

rascars

New member
4
0
1
I am looking at CPO MKZ's.
I'm excited about the purchase---it has been 6 years since my last purchase.
I'm coming from a car I purchased as a commute vehicle (13 Civic EX-L w/Navi--now has 150K miles)
I drive about 20K plus miles a year. /my biggest complaint with the Civic is the lack of power and the UNCOMFORTABLE front seat.
The MKZ seems like a fantastic value compared to most cars on the market.

My question is: Which engine do you recommend and why?
I am leaning toward the 3.7L , but I would consider the Hybrid or the 2.0T with some input.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated
Thank you for your time.:)
 

Sagar810

Active member
251
50
28
Boulder, COLORADO
I am looking at CPO MKZ's.
I'm excited about the purchase---it has been 6 years since my last purchase.
I'm coming from a car I purchased as a commute vehicle (13 Civic EX-L w/Navi--now has 150K miles)
I drive about 20K plus miles a year. /my biggest complaint with the Civic is the lack of power and the UNCOMFORTABLE front seat.
The MKZ seems like a fantastic value compared to most cars on the market.

My question is: Which engine do you recommend and why?
I am leaning toward the 3.7L , but I would consider the Hybrid or the 2.0T with some input.

Any feedback would be greatly appreciated
Thank you for your time.:)

With your driving being above average, if you really want to save on gas, the hybrid maybe a good choice with all the features BUT, it will probably be just as slow as your civic (2900 LBS with 140 HP for the civic and 3800 LBS with 188 HP for the hybrid MKZ).

3.7 has AWD option and the most power but if you live at any altitude above sea level like I do, you are looking at losing power and the 3.7 the least gas mileage of the lot. (There is also a 400 HP version MKZ which is super rare to come by in the used car market).

2.0T is a very good mix of power and has hardly any torque loss over the 3.7 engine. It is ideally the best of both worlds in terms of excitment (your benchmark for now is a 2013 civic :p) and you could get as much as 30+ MPG on the highway and get by with 87 octane gas as well.

So the 2.0 will be your best bet!
 

rascars

New member
4
0
1
With your driving being above average, if you really want to save on gas, the hybrid maybe a good choice with all the features BUT, it will probably be just as slow as your civic (2900 LBS with 140 HP for the civic and 3800 LBS with 188 HP for the hybrid MKZ).

3.7 has AWD option and the most power but if you live at any altitude above sea level like I do, you are looking at losing power and the 3.7 the least gas mileage of the lot. (There is also a 400 HP version MKZ which is super rare to come by in the used car market).

2.0T is a very good mix of power and has hardly any torque loss over the 3.7 engine. It is ideally the best of both worlds in terms of excitment (your benchmark for now is a 2013 civic :p) and you could get as much as 30+ MPG on the highway and get by with 87 octane gas as well.

So the 2.0 will be your best bet!
Thank you so much for your thoughtful response. Your insight for the hybrid confirms what I had expected; performance like the Civic. That is one of the items I want (need) to improve. I am willing to spend a few extra $$ for fuel to gain performance.
I found it interesting that the 3.7 looses power at altitude, but it makes sense. I would LOVE the 3.0T but the premium for this engine in the CPO market places it out of my price range. If I wait about a year, the 17 MKZ with the new engine (and SYNC 3) might come down in price.

There is certainly ample supply of the 2.0T CPO cars to make it easy to select the perfect combo of options.

I wonder if the 2.0T has enough humph for highway passing; that 50 to 80 push that is nonexistent in my current econo-box.

Again, I appreciate all of your insight. Hybrid is off the list!!
 

Sagar810

Active member
251
50
28
Boulder, COLORADO
It does depend on the altitude you live at/commute at. For me, I realized my 5.7 Hemi Chrysler 300 was slower than my 3.5 Ecoboost MKT (5800 ft above sea level).

At sea level the 3.7 is a second quicker to 60 than the 2.0T but with altitude the difference diminishes and almost reverses at higher altitude. (3-4% loss/1000 ft of elevation gain for naturally aspirated VS 1% loss/1000 ft of elevation gain for Turbo engines).

Frankly, its the surge of power feel on a turbo that you are going to get excitement from even if its a little slower on paper.

Think about this: 2.0 vs 3.7 will save you about 400/500 dollars a year in gas (2 years and you have a premium brand tire paid for just in difference)

I think for power biggest decider is you altitude.

Also, I know this is a lincoln forum but have you thought about a fusion? maybe you could stretch a little and get the fusion sport with the 2.7T awd (for power)
______________________________
 

rascars

New member
4
0
1
It does depend on the altitude you live at/commute at. For me, I realized my 5.7 Hemi Chrysler 300 was slower than my 3.5 Ecoboost MKT (5800 ft above sea level).

At sea level the 3.7 is a second quicker to 60 than the 2.0T but with altitude the difference diminishes and almost reverses at higher altitude. (3-4% loss/1000 ft of elevation gain for naturally aspirated VS 1% loss/1000 ft of elevation gain for Turbo engines).

Frankly, its the surge of power feel on a turbo that you are going to get excitement from even if its a little slower on paper.

Think about this: 2.0 vs 3.7 will save you about 400/500 dollars a year in gas (2 years and you have a premium brand tire paid for just in difference)

I think for power biggest decider is you altitude.

Also, I know this is a lincoln forum but have you thought about a fusion? maybe you could stretch a little and get the fusion sport with the 2.7T awd (for power)

Thanks for your input.
I live ion Florida but travel North and into mountain and higher altitudes regularly.
I LOVE the Fusion Sport, but they are so new and there are so few that they are above my budget right now.
What I would really love to buy is a 17 or 18 CPO MKZ with the new 3.0L turbo that generates 350 (fwd) to 400 (AWD) horsepower.--Giddy UP!!

I am going to try to rent a fusion with the 2.0 for a weekend trip to see how it preforms.
Thanks again for your insight.
 

MaryV

New member
2
1
1
2017 MKZ AWD 6 cyl 400 HP in normal or sport mode puts you right back in your seat, even slushy Michigan roads the AWD grips like nothing else, my husbands F350 4x4 has same 400 HP, but weighs 8,000 lbs, great for deep snow, but not as fun to drive.
 

rascars

New member
4
0
1
2017 MKZ AWD 6 cyl 400 HP in normal or sport mode puts you right back in your seat, even slushy Michigan roads the AWD grips like nothing else, my husbands F350 4x4 has same 400 HP, but weighs 8,000 lbs, great for deep snow, but not as fun to drive.
I think you may be right about the 17 model with the new 3.0T.
I also like the fact that it has the new SYNC 3 system --I have only heard that SYNC 1 is really bad and that SYNC 2 is better than 1 but still far from smoothly operational.
I may need to wait a while longer for the 17 model prices to come to down a bit, but it sounds like it will be worth it.
Thank you for your response
 
Your email address will not be publicly visible. We will only use it to contact you to confirm your post.

HTML

Top