Texdriver

My husband and I test drove a base Lincoln MKC to compare it to our RDX, both base models.

Our impressions: 1. It is smaller with a much tighter back seat leg area. The salesman had to sit sideways to fit in with the front seats only mid way back. The hatch area is narrower and not as deep 2. It has much nicer quality seats, memory driver side, better leather and a fully ADJUSTABLE passenger seat, so nice to not sit in the cave. But they are very narrow in the bottom seat area. If a person is on the heavy side, there would be no way to sit in the seats without spilling over the sides. 3. The base comes with black interior only, have to upgrade to have a choice in color. 4. No sun roof, again have to upgrade to a more expensive package. 5. No turn signal lights on outside of rear view mirrors. 6. Much larger screen for rear view camera, better camera view than RDX. 7. Has voice commands, on screen controls and button sound and air controls.

The ride is smoother and less bumpy than the RDX, feels like it's sitting on the road better, some might call it too soft, I liked it. Handling seemed about the same, smaller engine but it's turbo so the power felt about the same. Mileage also similar.

As I said, the above is about the base entry model, which is priced between 33K and 35K (depending on small add ons). They have a few major package upgrades in between this one and their fully loaded model, about 48K. 48K for a Lincoln, not my 48K.

Anyway, it's a nice small suv, they give some things we are missing, and take away some others. Just for the better seats and the adjustable passenger seat, I'd seriously consider it.

rosen39

The MKC is a "dressed up" Ford Escape. The real competition for the RDX would be a Ford Edge or a Lincoln MKX when taking into consideration size dementions, and price. A loaded MKX will run around $48K, but I'm sure there is a big discount from that price. The MKX is actually nice inside. The front "buck tooth" grille has to go. It is butt ugly. The don't hold their re-sale value down the road though.

hand-filer

If its assembled with the same degree of care as the Escape is, it will become a rattle box rather quickly and will have the same suspension rattles that plague the Escape and the Focus from which they are both derived.

HotRodW

No more so than the RDX is a dressed up CR-V. Spend a little time in an MKC and you'll have a hard time telling it's built on the Escape's platform. The biggest issue with the MKC is the relatively small cargo area. Of course, both the RDX and MKC will shame the NX's 17.7 cu ft capacity. That's just a smidge more than an X1, and it will definitely cost Lexus some customers.

rosen39

Profiles of the Escape and MKC are almost identical. My daughter in law has a CR-V. The Acura RDX and the CR-V are "apples" and "oranges". Different power trains, interiors, features, body styles. Maybe they share some of the "under pinnings", but I don't know who could mistake an RDX for a CR-V. Have not seen a Lexus NX yet. I did like my RX-350 and would not want to go any smaller. The Lexus CT-200h hybrid way too small for me.

HotRodW

Identical? The Escape has a noticeably lower belt line and they don't share a single body panel. The front and rear views are even more distinct than the profiles. I'd wager the average consumer would have no idea they're even related.

CoachRick

Dang, they all start to 'look' alike after a while.

I think the cargo capacity might not be as big a concern as some make out. There's a market segment(I'm in it) that would like a smaller footprint but still want the ride height of the CUV and some utility with a flat cargo area(I'll trade taking the front wheel off my bikes in order to have the smaller overall length). This cute-utes are becoming more like tallish hatchbacks...a perfect compromise, IMO.

Can't tell you the last time someone rode in the back seat of our RDX...the cargo area is in use much, much more often...but not for large items that require giant capacity(does anyone really use the top cubic feet in the typical CUV?)

As such, I think there are a couple of folks who might want something along the lines of the new collection of CUVs but don't want to go the CRV/RAV route...especially if some interesting engine options are available.

rosen39

Hotrod, by "profiles" I am saying if you looked at the two vehicles as a "Silhouette" they would be very similar. You can change the body panels, and use different grilles, tail lights, and chrome, but in the end , it is still like putting "lipstick on a pig".

CoachRick

Back in the olden days, Lexus made the IS-300 in a five-door hatch...PERFECT for the time, IMO. Now, it's too short(height-wise) among the sea of SUVs and pickups. I often said our RX 330 could have been lowered a smidge(same for the XC60), more like a tall wagon. SO, the current CT-200 is too low for me(as is the Volvo V60), but the platform is a good one

So, what I will be looking for next year is a smaller footprint, not significantly lower(not as low as the current sportwagon offerings), but still with decent road manners and economy along with some cargo utility. The NX might be it...

HotRodW

Lipstick on a pig? Seriously?? I think there is a slight possibility you're not looking at this objectively. Have you compared the rooflines of the CR-V and RDX? The Escape and MKC are at least as distinctive by comparison.

wildeklave

for the ford and lincoln I don't like the grayish / silver skid plate. It is just plastic that looks like metal. It should be black or the same color as the vehicle. The Santa Fe and Cherokee have this too and I think it is cheesy. For some of the Mercedes vehicles they have the same thing with fake chrome.

mrgold35

How was the front leg room? Was there an opting for more "sporty" suspension with the larger engine? I like the higher seating position of a CUV/SUV. The kid will be out the house in two more years and it would be nice to have a something sporty with some zip to it just for the wife and I to run around town or for a weekend get-a-way.

rosen39

"The Escape and MKC are at least as distinctive by comparison"
Go into the Lincoln showroom.........the MKC screams "Escape".

HotRodW

Screams? More like whispers. I've already driven them both. Obviously you have not, or you'd know they don't look, feel or drive the same.

rosen39

I sat in it, shook my head, and said to myself WTF would spend money on this thing.
Now stop screwing around on the internet and get back to work!!

PS a girl in my office owns and Escape (came from a Ford Edge) and she would like to dump the Escape.

HotRodW

Tell the girl in your office to try the MKC 2.3. She'll be surprised.

rosen39

Out of her price range.

HotRodW

I assume you were asking the OP, but I'll respond if you don't mind ... front leg room is actually pretty good. A hair more than the RDX. Hip and shoulder room aren't as generous.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-compariso...atorId=7896015

Regarding the handling, electronic damping with Comfort, Normal and Sport modes is available. The 2.3 in Sport isn't exactly track-worthy, but it's better than I expected.

wildeklave

This vehicle and the Lexus NX are why Acura needs to update the RDX a bit in the upcoming refresh. Ford / Lincoln and Toyota / Lexus had 3 extra years to learn from the shortcomings of the RDX and other class competition to make improvements. I would expect these vehicles to handle a bit better and offer a softer ride than the RDX just because they could use the RDX as a basis to work off of. If these vehicles don't handle better or ride softer than Acura can choose not to make changes but if they do Acura should try and address this.

Texdriver

Mr. Gold 35, The front leg room was OK tho the whole cabin is smaller and tighter than RDX. And if you back the seats up you will crush anyone or anything in the back seat. As I mentioned the back seat is really almost useless. And if anyone is large in any way I'd say the seats are way too narrow both on the seat area and on the back area. Take away maybe 4 or 5" from the RDX seats. I'm not particularly large in any way and I felt tho the seats were comfortable, they were too narrow for comfort on a long trip. Around town, fine, over a few hours, they'd get uncomfortable.

And yes they have have sports and other packages you can add or buy a higher model than the base.

It's a nice vehicle. It seems much better made than the Escape, tho only time can tell about the quality.

Comfy

So overall I'm getting the impression that MKC is a nice vehicle but slightly smaller than RDX/ or meant for slightly smaller people.
For me rear seat and cargo space are important.

HotRodW

That was essentially my conclusion. The cargo capacity can't compete with the CR-V's, CX-5's and Forester's, but it's pretty competitive with the RDX and other "premium" offerings in the class. The rear leg room isn't as generous, but then the RDX is exceptional in that regard. For reference, the published rear leg room for the MKC falls shy of the Q5's, matches that of the X3, and far exceeds the X1's. I think it will appeal to empty-nesters and younger families that don't need space for four full size adults on a regular basis.

Comfy

Thanks for the comparison references.

RDX2014Acura

Thanks for taking the time to document what you found in comparing the two. Some interesting information you posted.

rosen39

Lincoln MKC has it's first major recall. They have to change the location of the "push button" shift/start buttons.

Ford Ends 2014 with Recall; GM Kicks Off 2015 with Recall | TheDetroitBureau.com

RDX10

I was just creeping the forum without logging in, but had to log in just to thank you for your posts. I am so tired of all the hate ford and lincoln products get from people who have not even driven them. Yes past ford and lincoln products were basically the same vehicle with different grills, but not really anymore.

I think the MKC is a solid effort on Lincoln's part. I call the comments about dressed up escape B.S. The Q3 is a golf, the RDX is a civic, the nx is a rav4, the RX and GX are a camry and tacoma respectively, Infiniti jx is an altima, porsche cayenne turbo is a touareg....I can go on.

The products share no body pannels, seats, interiors, and a lot of features are Lincoln exclusive. Yes they share 1 engine.....awful how VW offers the 2.0t engine in golfs and A6's.....really not a big deal so stop acting like it is. Go and actually test an escape and an MKC and come back and tell us that it is the same vehicle. The "crossover shape" is shared by 85% of current crossovers...not a big deal.

panamera125

^ Just to add to that, I never get why people care what a car is based on. Does the general size of a Ford Escape scream "low quality"? That's a stupid question. I agree that the MKC is a good try on Lincoln's part, it'll probably do well. As long as everything you actually touch and deal with is "premium" feeling, then you've got a luxury car. The moment you have to do an out of warranty repair on your MKC, you'll be glad you're driving an Escape and not a GLK or something.

RDX10

Totally, "based on" can be a very loosely used term as well. The only time it bothers me when a car is based on another car is when it is basically the same car with a different grille (think escalade vs tahoe). So many times I have been shocked to find out that 2 cars share platforms because of how differently they drive. You can tune the same exact platform to be a grocery getter and a canyon carver. Would you know that the current grand cherokee is based on a mercedes ml platform....never.

I like your point about it "being an escape" at the end of the day. Repairs will be MUCH cheaper vs mercedes or audi products and honestly, I feel that reliability vs mercedes products will be better too. The quality of leather used is not even close to any other ford and honestly much nicer than many premium products and it even has real wood accents and the soft touch is used liberally. I would get one for sure if I could afford it.

rosen39

It's your hard earned money that is being spend on the car. You have to consider how well the brand holds it's value. Historically the Asian and German brands retain more of their value than the "big three" Ford, GM, and Chrysler. My mother bought a new Chrysler 200 a few years ago, and I will admit, it was a very nice car.......smooth, quiet, and with the V-6 had great performance. It was a vast improvement over the old Chrysler Sebring. But at the end of the day, it depreciated very fast. Due to her passing, I had to sell the car, one year old and only 5,000 miles on it. it was a shame in one year it lost $7,000 in value. See attached article on value retention.

http://www.nada.com/B2B/Portals/0/as...0Retention.pdf

There are many reasons a brand does not hold it's value. Safety flaws, history of repair frequency, ugly design. As much as I would like to buy a domestic car (the Lincoln MKX for example) they will have to have a proven track record of producing a problem free car that retains it's value, and this could take many years.

Brock79

I don't understand the Ford/Lincoln bashing either. I also don't understand why people hold Acura in such high regards. All I hear is how great Acuras fit and finish is, but my TL has more rattles than any car I have ever owned. It's also been in the shop more than any other car I have ever owned. It's actually in the shop right now and has been there since Monday. My Taurus SHO on the other hand, has yet to go in for any repairs or recalls and has no rattles to speak of.

HotRodW

Much of it is perception vs reality. Most cars today are generally reliable. The older I get, the less I understand the logic behind purchasing based solely on reputation ... many times with little consideration given to the product itself and/or the dealership experience. I would much rather have a car I genuinely enjoy driving, than to compromise my wants/needs in hopes that I'll get away with one fewer trip to the service department every year.

The resale value argument is valid. But if I like a car, I just consider the additional depreciation the cost of driving what makes me happy. It can also work in your favor if you buy pre-owned. A low-mileage CPO European or domestic brand can look like an absolute bargain compared to something comparable from Acura or Lexus, and they often come with free maintenance and a better warranty.

RDX10

I totally agree with you. Resale value is a VERY valid argument to get a vehicle or to not get a vehicle. However I feel that no car will ever be an investment and if you plan to keep a car, at a certain point the depreciation hits a plateau. Car A may cost 35k and Car B may cost 28K.....after 5 years or 10 years, they will be within a couple thousand of each other.


I buy a car based on how much I like it, I don't care for badges and depreciation never enters my mind because I don't hold a high value to it.



I fully agree, Acura has never really been that high in my books and I put them at the same level as Lincoln. Btw I really like the Taurus SHO, good choice!


Yeah for sure! Most cars are very reliable these days and it is pretty hard to find bad cars anymore honestly. I feel that Honda and Toyota have been resting on their reputation the last few years and people automatically choose them because of reputation and never consider other brands.


Hyundai and Kia have made some very nice vehicles the last few years, yet people run around calling other brands better without ever steeping foot in them. In Car reviews, all I ever hear about is how the CRV and Rav4 are such amazing high quality vehicles when the current rav4 has a nasty plastic dash and literally a cardboard headliner. I drove the current 2014 genesis and WOW, I could never tell it was an economy brand car.

Type34

I always cringe when a person says, "I heard that XXX suck. My friend drives a XXX and she hates it." GM sold almost 3 million vehicles in the U.S. in 2014. Honda sold 1.5 million. Simple math tells you that even things being equal, you should here twice as many complaints from GM owners as you do Honda owners (because there are twice as many opportunities for error).

Bottom line is that it's not the 80s-90s any longer. Honda and Toyota can't just sell on their reputation of quality any longer. In addition, with the popularity of leasing, the perception and concern over "quality" has changed. Consumers who lease are often more concerned with Initial Quality (first 90 days) than they are with Vehicle Dependability (5 years).

Keeping this in mind...using JD Power's most recent 2014 studies, considering the MKC is too new, we'll use the Lincoln MKX...

• 2014 Initial Quality: Lincoln MKX highest ranked Midsize Premium SUV (ironically the Ford Edge was the highest ranked Midsize SUV)
• 2014 JD Power Vehicle Dependibilty Study: Acura RDX highest ranked Compact Premium SUV

If I were planning on keeping a car 10 years (which is our plan on our 2006 MDX), I'll choose Honda/Acura all day long. But Ford/Lincoln have come a long way to earn business and for a short or near term lease/purchase, their products are worth a look.

wildeklave

With GM remember some of the numbers need to be taken with a grain of salt:
- They have a lot of fleet sales. It is easier to find a Chevy at a rental counter then a Honda.
- They have the GMC line serving the light truck and van industry. Honda is really not competing in that space. (esp since there is no Ridgeline or pick up right now)
- They offer more large SUVs vs Honda. Honda has the Pilot and MDX. GM has the Escalade, Suburban, Tahoe, Enclave, Acadia, and Yukon.

If comparing passenger vehicles of a similar class sold to individuals the Honda and GM numbers should be equal. Of course the contractor / construction industry buys a lot of vehicles along with the rental industry.

bovicious

the real question should be: Do you want your vehicle to actually be worth SOMETHING after 3-5 years? If yes, RDX...If money is no object... still go RDX lol

CanTex

I drove an MKC just because I was offered a $75 gift card at a car show (Texas State fair) and was impressed. The rear footwell room is a downer for us for an unusual reason. In the RDX, we move the right seat up a tad to fit one of those recyclable cat litter pans, then move the seat back almost to normal when the pan is in there. Plus we do pack the cargo area more than full a couple of times a year. (The cat "owns" the back seat on long trips to our summer place.)

What didn't impress me was that it was a Ford - Lincoln dealer, with the general ambiance of a Ford, not a Lincoln, dealer. There is something about the Acura dealer experience.

But would I consider one to supplement our RDX? Sure. I have a TLX but the H-point is way too low for my aging hip. In the absence of an Acura HR-V equivalent, the MKC would be high on my list.

bouhunter

Hey everyone - my first post here. CR-V owner, going to look at an RDX soon. I drove an MKC this week. Liked the vehicle in general, but the back seat leg room is SMALL!!!!! I think if you compare overall vehicle length and size they are similar. I don't know how Lincoln managed to get that back seat so much smaller than a CRV or RDX......... Not that they are alone, some of the other smaller SUV's have much less rear seat and cargo space than a CR-V or RDX.