BlackPano Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 I have found it interesting to hear reviewers (mainly big companies or well known reviewers) say that they feel there is no reason to upgrade to the 3.7L over the 2.0 eco. Now I am a younger guy, but I have owned and driven 4cyl, 4cyl turbos, 4cyl boxer turbo, v6, v8, and v10 cars with all different displacements in FWD, RWD, and AWD. With that said I noticed a considerable difference in power between the 3.7L and 2.0eco. Do not get me wrong the 2.0 is a great motor (have it in my wife's escape and love it!) but I just don't see these motors as being close enough for a true car enthusiast to say it really doesn't matter. It is as if they are saying you won't notice a difference. I suppose this is more of a rant than anything, my bad, but I just didn't understand where people are coming from on this. Again, both are great motors...not putting one ahead of the other overall, but if we are talking seat of your pants feel I just think the 3.7 should be getting the nod. I suppose it is possible reviewers are also considering mpg? Being that the 2.0 is newer with direct injection and a turbo, I would think longevity (less potential maintenance) of the 3.7 would negate much of the difference in mpgs. Perhaps that is flawed thinking though. Anyone agree or feel that there really isn't a big "feel" difference between the two? JoeBrown 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drolds1 Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) There's definitely a big difference. I've driven both. After having the 2.0 demo for 24 hours as part of the Lincoln Date Night promotional, there was no question in my mind that the 3.7 was the only choice for me. It's just fine for the average buyer but I'm not the average buyer. Back in the day I was drag racer. I see many more 2.0s around here than 3.7s, proving the point. I also don't feel that this engine is refined enough to be in a Lincoln. IMO, the 2.3 Ecoboost from the MKC should be the entry level engine in the MKZ. They promised that the "new" Lincolns would have exclusive engines. True for the 3.7. Not so much for the ubiquitous 2.0. My daughter's Escape has that engine, which it's OK for. I'm hoping they'll offer the 2.7 EB in the future. Edited July 8, 2015 by drolds1 JoeBrown, Robert Iggy Cerami and BlackPano 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackPano Posted July 8, 2015 Author Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Glad I am not alone here. I drove both and felt the same way. The 2.0 was nice but it felt like settling for me. As you said I am sure it is great for many as I also see more of those than the 3.7. I too use to drag race (my dad still does...see pics here) What car(s) did you race? Edited July 8, 2015 by BlackPano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBrown Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 Well, first of all if one has the 3.7 with AWD that indicates to me that gas mileage is not much of a concern. The fact that I don't need 91 octane (which is what my Lincoln LS V6 required) saves me a few pennies. I don't know timing numbers all I know is when I "punch" my 3.7 it snaps my head back and really gets underway. I just can't see the 2.0 being equal or better overall. I tell you what, when I'm tryng to merge onto the highway I have no worries about getting up to speed. I too have seen the reviews that suggested getting the 2.0 instead of the 3.7. My reaction to those reviewers is they are ignorant. I wonder if they actually drove both versions and compared them. Probably not. I also was a drag racer having competed at New York National Raceway on Long Island. I had a 1965 Plymouth Barracuda in those days. Robert Iggy Cerami and BlackPano 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackPano Posted July 8, 2015 Author Share Posted July 8, 2015 (edited) Well, first of all if one has the 3.7 with AWD that indicates to me that gas mileage is not much of a concern. The fact that I don't need 91 octane (which is what my Lincoln LS V6 required) saves me a few pennies. I don't know timing numbers all I know is when I "punch" my 3.7 it snaps my head back and really gets underway. I just can't see the 2.0 being equal or better overall. I tell you what, when I'm tryng to merge onto the highway I have no worries about getting up to speed. I too have seen the reviews that suggested getting the 2.0 instead of the 3.7. My reaction to those reviewers is they are ignorant. I wonder if they actually drove both versions and compared them. Probably not. I also was a drag racer having competed at New York National Raceway on Long Island. I had a 1965 Plymouth Barracuda in those days. With the 273ci? And you are probably right that the reviewers never actually drove the 3.7 (it seems many referenced the 2.0 in the write up). I found it humorous that they all inevitably talked about the equal torque numbers and how that is what gives someone the "head snap" effect. So based on that little nugget the assumption is they both feel the same until you get to higher speed when horsepower takes over... :doh: Edited July 8, 2015 by BlackPano Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBrown Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 With the 273ci? And you are probably right that the reviewers never actually drove the 3.7 (it seems many referenced the 2.0 in the write up). I found it humorous that they all inevitably talked about the equal torque numbers and how that is what gives someone the "head snap" effect. So based on that little nugget the assumption is they both feel the same until you get to higher speed when horsepower takes over... :doh: Yes the 273CI V8 with the Toqueflite transmission. I used to eat those 289CI Mustangs alive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackPano Posted July 8, 2015 Author Share Posted July 8, 2015 Based on responses to this topic, I pose this question: Which motors (past or present) would you like to see offered for the mkz? Do try to be realistic haha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2015mkzhybrid Posted July 8, 2015 Share Posted July 8, 2015 This is an interesting topic. I think the type of engine one would like for their MKZ relates to why one bought an MKZ. For me, I wanted smoothness, good acceleration and fuel economy. The 2.0 Hybrid met all the criteria for me. In fact, I was surprised how good the passing gear is on the Hybrid. Mind you, I also own a CTS and a Thunderbird show car - both give me that rocket ship feeling when I want them to go. BlackPano 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackPano Posted July 8, 2015 Author Share Posted July 8, 2015 Good points. I am sure some people are quite happy with the current offerings. Personally I won't complain (too loudly) about the 3.7 as the "performance" option, but it would be nice to offer the 3.5 turbo in the mks. I mean Lincoln did send out models for review with the not stock super sport tires, so clearly they do care about how the mkz stacks up performance wise. I don't believe they would see much of a drop in mpg with a larger turbo motor offering since the car weighs so much that the 2.0 is getting into boost fairly quickly/frequently. So I would like to see: The current hybrid 2.0 2.3 Eco boost 3.5 Eco boost or a revamped 4.6L (I have a soft spot for that motor) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drolds1 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Well, first of all if one has the 3.7 with AWD that indicates to me that gas mileage is not much of a concern. The fact that I don't need 91 octane (which is what my Lincoln LS V6 required) saves me a few pennies. I don't know timing numbers all I know is when I "punch" my 3.7 it snaps my head back and really gets underway. I just can't see the 2.0 being equal or better overall. I tell you what, when I'm tryng to merge onto the highway I have no worries about getting up to speed. I too have seen the reviews that suggested getting the 2.0 instead of the 3.7. My reaction to those reviewers is they are ignorant. I wonder if they actually drove both versions and compared them. Probably not. I also was a drag racer having competed at New York National Raceway on Long Island. I had a 1965 Plymouth Barracuda in those days. Get outta town, Joe! I raced at NY Nat'l. Speedway too. I won a couple of trophies there. First with a 66 Olds Cutlass, 330ci, 320hp. A real sleeper. After that a 69 Olds 442 W30. A rare car. Some nostalgia for you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drolds1 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Yes the 273CI V8 with the Toqueflite transmission. I used to eat those 289CI Mustangs alive. My friend had a 67 Dart with the 273 2bbl and Torqueflite. He surprised a lot of cars with that thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drolds1 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Good points. I am sure some people are quite happy with the current offerings. Personally I won't complain (too loudly) about the 3.7 as the "performance" option, but it would be nice to offer the 3.5 turbo in the mks. I mean Lincoln did send out models for review with the not stock super sport tires, so clearly they do care about how the mkz stacks up performance wise. I don't believe they would see much of a drop in mpg with a larger turbo motor offering since the car weighs so much that the 2.0 is getting into boost fairly quickly/frequently. So I would like to see: The current hybrid 2.0 2.3 Eco boost 3.5 Eco boost or a revamped 4.6L (I have a soft spot for that motor) Aside from being out of production, I doubt that the 4.6 would even fit in this chassis crossways. I'd go for the 3.5EB but I think that the 2.7EB is more likely. A few years ago the rumor was that it was being developed for Lincoln. I was surprised to see it turn up in the F-150 first. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackPano Posted July 9, 2015 Author Share Posted July 9, 2015 Yeah I was thinking 2.7 as well but wasn't sure how it was designed since its in the f150 And I realize the 4.6 is a no go, just would be fun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drolds1 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 IDK if it was designed just for the F-150. It's also available in the new Explorer, Edge and MKX. I have a suspicion we'll be seeing it in other applications. The forthcoming Continental is supposed to be powered by a 3.0EB. I wonder if it's an enlarged version of the 2.7. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackPano Posted July 9, 2015 Author Share Posted July 9, 2015 They have not seemed shy about rolling out new displacements of similar design of late. I don't see anything above the 2.7 going into the mkz. It very well could be the 2.3 and 2.7 that are offered in future iterations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBrown Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 Get outta town, Joe! I raced at NY Nat'l. Speedway too. I won a couple of trophies there. First with a 66 Olds Cutlass, 330ci, 320hp. A real sleeper. After that a 69 Olds 442 W30. A rare car. Some nostalgia for you Wow! You got the t-shirt. Yes I won a few trophies there. But most of all I liked going to see the "funny cars." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackPano Posted July 9, 2015 Author Share Posted July 9, 2015 There use to be a strip right down from where I live at the airport on rt.30 outside of York, PA (in Thomasville). I think it was called rt.30. They had a few famous racers from my understanding. It closed before my time though. However, I've been/raced at South Mountain Dragway, Mason Dixon, Beaver Springs, and Maple Grove (nationals for High School class). I was able to see some of the "funny cars" run at South Mountain when I went there regularly. One of my favorite classes is the Pro-stick class. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drolds1 Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 (edited) Wow! You got the t-shirt. Yes I won a few trophies there. But most of all I liked going to see the "funny cars." No, not mine,Joe. I got the image off the web. ;) Edited July 9, 2015 by drolds1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robertlane Posted July 9, 2015 Share Posted July 9, 2015 There's definitely a big difference. I've driven both. After having the 2.0 demo for 24 hours as part of the Lincoln Date Night promotional, there was no question in my mind that the 3.7 was the only choice for me. It's just fine for the average buyer but I'm not the average buyer. Back in the day I was drag racer. I see many more 2.0s around here than 3.7s, proving the point. I also don't feel that this engine is refined enough to be in a Lincoln. IMO, the 2.3 Ecoboost from the MKC should be the entry level engine in the MKZ. They promised that the "new" Lincolns would have exclusive engines. True for the 3.7. Not so much for the ubiquitous 2.0. My daughter's Escape has that engine, which it's OK for. I'm hoping they'll offer the 2.7 EB in the future. Not sure what happened to those Lincoln exclusive engines: the 2.3L powers the Mustang and the 2.7L powers the F-Series. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billyb Posted August 6, 2016 Share Posted August 6, 2016 I realize this is an old thread, but the question remains... What are your thoughts on the 2.0 vs 3.0 for the 2017 model? Has anyone driven both? Thanks, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brucelinc Posted August 6, 2016 Share Posted August 6, 2016 Oh my, there is no comparison between the 2.0 4 cylinder and the 3.0 V6. I have test driven both. Honestly, I am a bit surprised that they didn't keep the naturally aspirated 3.7 to bridge the gap between the 2.0 and the 3.0. The 2.0 provides adequate acceleration but still has a bit of that typical 4 cylinder "buzz" under heavy throttle. The 3.0 is dramatically quicker and sounds like a well oiled electric motor in comparison. Billyb and drolds1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axle1320 Posted August 6, 2016 Share Posted August 6, 2016 There use to be a strip right down from where I live at the airport on rt.30 outside of York, PA (in Thomasville). I think it was called rt.30. They had a few famous racers from my understanding. It closed before my time though. However, I've been/raced at South Mountain Dragway, Mason Dixon, Beaver Springs, and Maple Grove (nationals for High School class). I was able to see some of the "funny cars" run at South Mountain when I went there regularly. One of my favorite classes is the Pro-stick class. It was called York US 30 Dragway. I went there way back in the 60s. It was one of THE East Coast tracks. It was and still is an airport. They had to stop the races every once and awhile to let planes land. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drolds1 Posted August 6, 2016 Share Posted August 6, 2016 Oh my, there is no comparison between the 2.0 4 cylinder and the 3.0 V6. I have test driven both. Honestly, I am a bit surprised that they didn't keep the naturally aspirated 3.7 to bridge the gap between the 2.0 and the 3.0. The 2.0 provides adequate acceleration but still has a bit of that typical 4 cylinder "buzz" under heavy throttle. The 3.0 is dramatically quicker and sounds like a well oiled electric motor in comparison. I haven't driven a 3.0 yet but I've had a few 2.0s as service loaners. I can't imagine there'd be any comparison. The 2.0 is just barely adequate, IMO. The standard engine in the MKZ should be, at least, the 2.3EB. Leave the 2.0 for the Fusion. I agree that they need an in-between choice. The 2.7TT should be available to fill that gap. In fact, when that engine was first rumored to be under development, they said it was to be a Lincoln exclusive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
schteve Posted August 6, 2016 Share Posted August 6, 2016 I haven't driven a 3.0 yet but I've had a few 2.0s as service loaners. I can't imagine there'd be any comparison. The 2.0 is just barely adequate, IMO. The standard engine in the MKZ should be, at least, the 2.3EB. Leave the 2.0 for the Fusion. I agree that they need an in-between choice. The 2.7TT should be available to fill that gap. In fact, when that engine was first rumored to be under development, they said it was to be a Lincoln exclusive. agree that the 2.0 should be a fusion motor for the entry level... however the 2.3 in the MKC trim @ 285hp 305tq would be a great entry motor for this car (just under what the 3.7 had) with the 3.0 and the standard hybrid (shared with fusion) power train would be 3 EXCELLENT powertrain choices. The entry 2.3 would fill the "effortless power" in the entry level cars with the option to step up to the 3.0T. as an aside... a small piece of advice... if you can swing getting the summer tire package (and complementary set of winter tires if you live in northern climates) ESPECIALLY with the 3.0... DO IT. I have had mine for about 2 weeks now and from a dead stop with aggressive power application, the car will still kick in the traction nanny (yes it makes the tires spin/slip even in sport mode and with driver package) so sticker tires for summer and winter would be highly recommended from my perspective. I am considering a set of summers starting next spring and will evaluate the stock AS over this winter to see if i need both. 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.