Diversity Report: Mucking Around Autodom's Hippest Segment With The Most Colorful Crew In Town
First off, we’d like to shake your hand if you’re looking to take the new-car dive into the luxury compact crossover pool. This vehicle segment is the modern-day stand-in for yesteryear’s look-everyone-I’ve-made-it luxury sedan. It appears you’ve done quite nicely for yourself, and automakers are taking notice. Luxe CUV popularity has spiked over the past couple years, and all the big brands are climbing over each other in order to gain your business.
Flip the calendar back 10 years, and just one of our Big Test quintet would have been obtainable for your conspicuous consumption. The small luxe CUV world was the BMW X3’s oyster in the mid-2000s, with the Volvo XC60 still a few years out. Land Rover‘s new for 2012 Range Rover Evoque won Motor Trend’s 2012 SUV of the Year. The promising Lincoln MKC and Lexus NX were finalists in the2015 SUOTY program. Each comes with copious cargo room and footprints similar to its nearest in-brand sedan foil. (We compared the Evoque to the inbound Jaguar XE.) And, critical for the class’ customers, they offer elevated seating to spot the doofus weaving in and out of stop-and-go traffic two cars ahead.
<img src="http://enthusiastnetwork.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/sites/42/2015/03/2015-Luxury-Compact-Crossovers-front-end-in-motion.jpg" alt="New Normal
Do consumers feel safer, smarter, and better equipped for everyday life with a crossover?” class=”wp-image-78889″ />
Each crossover comes equipped with a 2.0-liter, turbocharged four-cylinder for maximum relevance in this era of glorified powertrain downsizing. With displacements tightly clustered between 1,969 and 1,999cc, we walked away impressed and amazed with how each engine had its own personality. Each manufacturer opted to send us an all-wheel-drive example, except for Volvo. (The chosen engine is front-drive only.) So assuming you’re not planning to take delivery of one of these vehicles based on brand cachet or outside appearance, continue on. (If vanity is of utmost importance, our evaluators grade the contestants as follows. Cachet: Land Rover at the top, then BMW, Lexus, Volvo, and Lincoln. Looks: Land Rover, Lexus, Lincoln, Volvo, BMW. We’re certain each marque will be happy to serve you.)
Ride & Handling
One of the biggest buzzwords in autodom is “sport.” A Motor Trend reader’s definition of sport is quite different from the non-enthusiast’s. Our sport consists of fantastic handling, dependable braking, and a tractable engine. After dialogue with non-enthusiasts, the criteria becomes less rigid, with “sport” equating to a responsive throttle (but don’t rev the engine too high, or it’ll break) and responsive steering (but don’t corner too fast, or the whole thing might flip over).
The X3 blew everything else away in terms of handling.
Through the less enthusiastic lens, each of our contestants is rather sporty. But we did not enjoy the ride and handling of the XC60 at all. Associate online editor Alex Nishimoto called out the “needlessly heavy,” torque-steer-prone steering, and fellow associate online editor Kelly Pleskot described it as “lardy around sharp turns.” There isn’t enough compliance dialed into the suspension, and the net effect is a stiff ride with no handling payoff.
At the other end of the field, the NX 200t was praised for its smooth ride despite bearing the F Sport suspension. Chieftain Ed Loh detected a finely honed ride/handling equilibrium and said the Lexus’ “ride quality is pretty good but definitely biased more toward sporty.” At the voting table, the X3 blew everything else away in fun and sheer handling. Not that the Big Test emphasizes big lateral g numbers. Loh on the BMW: “Despite being the heaviest here, it drives the lightest.” The Bavarian’s tradeoff is a firm ride we ranked smack in the middle of the five-strong group.
The NX 200t looks attractive, presuming you can tolerate the grille.
Anti-climactically the luxe-focused MKC delivered the second most comfortable ride, which is adjustable through the Continuously Controlled Damping feature with settings for Normal, Comfort, and Sport (standard with all-wheel drive). Associate online editor Karla Sanchez deemed its handling “a bit clumsy/dopey,” a sentiment we’re sure Lincoln patrons could get on board with. She felt there was more to explore with the Evoque’s “light and tossable” handling, but a flinty and harsh ride penalized the Rover heavily, as with the XC60. Today’s lesson: 20-inch wheels sometimes look good but often don’t feel good on the road.
Acceleration from a stop is an effective sales tool during the test drive. Peddlers of the X3 and the 302-hp, super- and turbo-charged XC60 have it easy then, having produced the quickest 0-60-mph runs of 6.0 and 6.3 seconds. That same underrated “240-hp” 2.0-liter in the X3 launched our former long-term 328i sedan to 60 mph in 5.5 seconds.
Each crossover comes with a 2.0-liter, turbocharged four-cylinder for maximum relevance.
You can memorize the hard numbers, but powertrain response and refinement require seat time to document. Although the BMW and Volvo impressed out of the hole, our opinions on the duo’s refinement resided on opposing poles. “Engine and transmission were on point,” Sanchez noted of the X3. “No hesitation between gears.” The XC60 generates a cool supercharger whine low in the powerband, but torque steer makes the inline-four feel like there’s too much engine. Damningly, the eight-speed auto is lumpy under deceleration, as well. We shouldn’t feel each downshift when coming to a stop.
The NX 200t nudged the X3 from behind, as Loh declared: “Shifts are quick and smooth with great gearing; you ride a continuous surge of torque. Never really caught out in normal driving conditions.” That’s a nice compliment for one of the totally new engines seeing first-ever action (Volvo’s T6 Drive-E I-4 is the other) and validation that Lexus’ development of the 4,800-rpm power peak pays dividends in the real world.
With the accelerator pedal fully depressed, the MKC sounds like a less emphatic Ford Focus ST. It tragically happened to be the easiest way to manage its speed, too. “Odd throttle response; sometimes very touchy, other times a bit laggy,” Nishimoto determined of the Lincoln. Guest evaluator Miguel Cortina, on loan from Motor Trend en Español, concurred: “Throttle response needs to be a lot better.”
We preferred the Evoque’s refinement a smidge more than the MKC’s, but the CUVs behind the BMW and Lexus were several steps behind. “Power delivery is peaky/surgey,” Loh said of the littlest Range Rover. “You definitely ride the turbo boost, but it’s not always good.” There was no solace in the lone nine-speed auto, either, with choice transmission adjectives including both “overeager” and “hesitant” while it changed gears.
As always, we defer to the efficiency experts at Emissions Analytics to dispatch each vehicle on a standardized 88-mile fuel economy loop, their test equipment sniffing the tailpipe CO and CO2 discharged along the way to produce our Real MPG numbers. This methodology allows us to share realistic city, highway, and combined mpg instead of relying on a single and ambiguous mpg data point observed after an evaluation drive route.
Occupying the bottom rung is never pleasant, and the chore predictably falls to the XC60. “Predictably” because of a tangible observation: After 119 miles of driving assessment and a 65-mile freeway slog home, its 18.5-gallon tank had already fallen below the halfway mark. With Real MPG of 18.2/25.5/20.9 mpg city/highway/combined, the Iron Mark’s representative is 0.3 combined mpg adrift of the MKC (17.6/27.7/21.2).
With almost 28 mpg on the highway, the Lincoln matches the overall thriftiest-in-test NX 200t (21.5/27.7/23.9) when driven on our vast interstates. The Evoque (19.4/26.6/22.1) switched from a six-speed auto to a nine-speed in 2014, yet the ultra-tall ninth gear with an effective 1.80:1 ratio apparently isn’t enough to overcome the inherent aerodynamic, tire, and drivetrain inequalities that grant the MKC and NX 200t superior efficiency at higher speeds.
Last and certainly not least, the X3’s 18.7/27.2/21.8 Real MPG lands it squarely in the middle of the efficiency order. All the engines do their finest work on premium gas, though the MKC’s fuel-filler door doesn’t advertise as such. (Lincoln specs disclose that best performance is achieved on 93-octane.) If you reserve more faith for the EPA numbers, the Volvo is tops with 25 combined mpg. Then there’s a three-way tie for second between the Bimmer, Land Rover, and Lexus (24), with the Lincoln (22) in the rear.
This Big Test judging crew included individuals ranging from 5 feet 2 inches in height to a full-fledged 6-footer, which helped us approach matters of comfort, outward visibility, and ergonomics from a variety of appendage lengths and sitting postures. Although you can look at the cockpit photo spreads above and at left for critiques on features and interior quality, here’s how the elevated seating, outward visibility, space, noise, and ergonomics rankings shook out. If you value having lots of interior space, do yourself a favor and don’t depend solely on manufacturer specs to inform your purchasing decision.
After devoting a couple hours to jumping in and out of each vehicle in a hot parking lot, with Sanchez’s puppy Baden barking at us the entire time, we found the X3 and XC60 dole out the most space and greatest seat height and visibility advantages. Trailing the Volvo, the NX 200t is slightly compromised on headroom but supplies ample legroom front and rear, even with our 6-footer setting the front-seat positions. Likewise, seat elevation and visibility rated mid-pack.
At the back of the pack are the MKC and Evoque, which not only were the snuggest and most difficult to see out of but also had aggravating ingress and egress because of restrictive apertures and high sills.
In driver ergonomics, the totem pole stacks like this from bottom to top: XC60, Evoque, MKC, NX 200t, and X3. Loh described our collective gripe with the Volvo: “Everything — screen included — needs to be moved up into the sightline for better safety. The screen is small, and the infotainment logic takes getting used to.”
With the Evoque’s strong interior quality, we see where the money is going.
He spotted extra sporty spice in the Lexus, too: “Excellent driver ergos — if you like a sports car: thick steering wheel; supportive, well-bolstered seats; and a beefy traditional gear lever that slides toward you with a satisfying thunk.”
The thunk might have been the loudest thing inside the NX 200t’s cabin, as its interior quietness took second behind the MKC. The X3 parks itself in the middle yet again. Like in the Ride & Handling section, the 20-inch-wheel-wearing Evoque and XC60 took knocks for transmitting excessive, unwelcome sonal feedback to the driver.
Nishimoto unearthed the most notable omission in the enthusiast-friendly BMW. “Ergonomics are good overall, but the transmission paddle shifters are sorely missed,” he reported. (They come in a $2,700 M Sport package.) The other four all had paddles.
We continue to rely on crash tests administered by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Insurance Institute for Highway Safety for passive-safety guidance.
The group’s standout is the XC60. The Volvo is a 5-star overall NHTSA awardee and an IIHS Top Safety Pick+ with Superior-rated optional front crash protection thanks to the presence of forward collision warning and low- and high-speed auto-braking capabilities. The IIHS low-speed test is conducted from 12 mph, and Volvo’s defense mechanism comes standard through the City Safety feature. The high-speed test raises the challenge to 25 mph. Forward collision warning and high-speed braking are available with the $1,500 Technology Package and standard on Platinum models.
Volvo’s low-speed defense comes standard through the City Safety feature.
NHTSA gives the Lexus a five-star overall score, and the IIHS identifies it as a Top Safety Pick+ with Advanced-rated front crash protection ($900 Pre-Collision System).
The X3’s resume is dotted with five NHTSA stars. The Bimmer banks on Good scores from the IIHS’ moderate-overlap, side, roof, and restraints tests along with Basic-rated front crash protection (forward collision warning via the $1,900 Driver Assistance Plus package). The absence of a Good or Acceptable small-overlap crash grade bars it from Top Safety Pick status.
The MKC has four NHTSA stars overall and no published IIHS results. Forward collision warning can be elected through the $2,295 Technology Package. (Our tester had it.)
Because Land Rover doesn’t sell a whole lot of vehicles in the U.S., the Evoque is not subject to federal crash testing. And considering the last Land Rover to make it inside the IIHS compound was a 2003 Freelander, we’re not hopeful that an Evoque will make it to a crash session any time soon. For $1,295, the Evoque’s adaptive cruise control feature includes forward collision warning and auto-braking. That’s not a bad price to pay for peace of mind, because assessing its crash-worthiness within the Big Test is simply impossible.
If your life goal is to get into one of these crossovers at the most minimal cost, step right up to the MKC, which starts at $33,995 for a base FWD model. The next least expensive, at $1,410 more, is the NX 200t (non F Sport). The MKC also happens to be the gateway vehicle to the Lincoln brand. The NX would inherit the same role for Lexus were it not for the CT 200h’s presence.
Because different people interpret cost and worth differently, here’s our cut at the value proposition. Obviously, brand allure has some influence, or else Land Rover wouldn’t be able to charge $42,025 for an Evoque. Some customers may see a lot of value in the Evoque’s Terrain Response system, and others won’t be bothered to learn how it works. Some only want to park the Roundel in their driveway, monthly payment willing. Some are predisposed to specific brand nationalities, and we have five countries present. Some will think all of these vehicles are a waste of money.
As tested, the vehicles are very similarly equipped, with the $50,200 X3 leaving the most unchecked options on the table. The XC60’s true engine competitor in this Big Test is the 240-hp T5 Drive-E turbo-four, whose substitution would knock $1,650 off our T6 Platinum’s starting price. Either way, when the nickels and dimes have been emptied from the piggy bank, there’s no denying the $45,970 NX 200t looks pretty attractive. Presuming you can tolerate the spindle grille, of course.
BMW X3 xDrive28i
Back seat’s outboard map lights shine brighter than the other guys’.
Land Rover Range Rover Evoque
Side-angled engine-air intake duct: crucial engine bay packaging or an off-road design? We’ll dream it’s the latter.
Lexus NX 200t
F Sport Brand’s first turbo engine also comes with a neat digitized boost-pressure meter in the instrument cluster. No need for an unsightly A-pillar-mounted gauge.
Lincoln MKC 2.0 AWD
Push-button transmission on the center stack is modern-retro, elegant, and frees up the console. It’s amusing watching R and N sequentially light up after pressing D.
Volvo XC60 T6
Rear dropdown center armrest is wide and integrates a tray below the cupholders to catch residual moisture/spillage. Swedish thoughtfulness.
Cost of Ownership
Depreciation and financing are always killers in our Big Test’s five-year/70,000-mile cost of ownership analyses, provided by IntelliChoice. There’s no surprise the most expensive vehicle here is dinged mightily. The Evoque’s depreciation would still lead the group by a large margin even if it shared the X3 and NX’s most desirable residual percentages. (It would save more than $3,000.) To get the best picture possible, we plotted ranges of costs of ownership for each crossover so we could compare each model at identical target purchase prices. At a target price of $45,000, you’d be shopping a relatively basic Evoque against a deeply optioned XC60 or MKC. But the Land Rover’s cost of ownership would be less egregious because the COO would pencil out close to the NX 200t’s in the ranking pyramid. Were you to spend $45,000 and not a penny more, the COO order would assign the Volvo with the lowest cost of ownership, followed by the BMW, then a close jockeying between the Land Rover and Lexus for third position, concluding with the Lincoln tracking several thousand dollars higher than the scrum beneath it.
What’s that, you say? You earned a $10,000 bonus and want to blow it all on luxury CUV options? At a target purchase price of $55,000, the XC60 and X3 costs of ownership close in on each other but still hold the order. We ticked every option we could find for our NX 200t F Sport and topped out at $52,500. But if it could cost $55,000, the Lexus’ COO is a clear No. 3. Meanwhile, at the costliest part of the curve, a $55,000 Black Label MKC projects to cost about the same to run over five years as a $55,000 Evoque.
The MKC happens to be the gateway vehicle to the Lincoln brand.
We conclude that, relative to their target purchase prices, the Volvo and BMW offer the most respectable COO. The Lexus shadows these two. Then the Land Rover and Lincoln put out just OK costs of ownership, but if you’re a huge fan of either brand, don’t let us dissuade you from your ownership fantasy.
An aside: We’ve seen your comments and concerns on the cost of ownership’s fuel values not reflecting our Real MPG findings. As IntelliChoice tabulates the cost of ownership table, we won’t go fiddling with their numbers. But if we did, the X3’s fuel cost would be 7 percent greater, the Evoque’s 10 percent more, the NX 200t’s 0.4 percent lower, the MKC’s 0.6 percent more, and the Volvo’s a whopping 16 percent higher.
|2015 BMW X3 xDrive28i||2015 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque||2015 Lexus NX 200t F Sport||2015 Lincoln MKC 2.0 AWD||2015 Volvo XC60 T6|
|AVG STATE FEES||$559||$593||$517||$527||$545|
|DEPRECIATION||$24,773 (49%)||$34,323 (54%)||$22,299 (49%)||$26,334 (55%)||$25,247 (51%)|
|5-YEAR COST OF OWNERSHIP||$51,646||$65,166||$49,554||$52,366||$49,426|
|INTELLICHOICE Target Purchase Price||$51,067||$63,627||$45,763||$47,725||$49,602|
|PURCHASE PRICE: Target purchase price includes destination and average applicable state taxes applied to a transaction price between invoice and retail, based on applicable incentives.|
Selecting a last-place finisher in a Big Test is sometimes difficult, but we had no qualms putting the Swede in the back. If you love safety, fiscal sense, Scandinavian sensibility, and interiors that squeak more than in our long-term Nissan Versa Note, then the XC60 has your name on it. We were disappointed with how non-luxurious the Volvo was compared with the rest of the group. (Our tired-feeling XC60 test vehicle had more than 6,000 hard press-fleet miles on the odometer, but the Versa Note had more than 12,000 last we checked.)
Inhabiting fourth is the MKC, which had luxe-worthy ride quality and leather seating but failed to move the judges with rousing innovation or a serious content-for-the-money play. If non-enthusiast buyers are seeking seat height and a responsive throttle, they won’t find it here.
Third belongs to the Evoque. The Rover will cost ya, but with strong interior quality (even if we weren’t the biggest fan of its leather) we could at least see where the money was going each time we got behind the wheel. We’d recommend forgoing the 20-inch wheels on the most outwardly off-road-craving vehicle in attendance.
Luxe CUVs are the modern stand-in for yesteryear’s I’ve-made-it sedan.
Second place shows how important driving manners are taken in the Big Test. The X3 had an incredibly spacious cabin but not the greatest materials, plus average ride and interior noise abatement. But driving this high-riding luxury crossover hard was like driving a vehicle from a completely different (and much sportier) segment. It didn’t do too shabby with fuel consumption, value, and cost of ownership, either.
This leaves us the NX 200t F Sport. It comes well-dressed at the lowest as-tested price, with good cost of ownership and high marks for driving experience, cabin and leather quality, ride and handling balance, efficiency, and safety. And as Loh asserted, its “engine sounds great under wide-open throttle, especially in Sport mode.” Lexus isn’t for everyone. But if you’re hunting for a compact luxury CUV with the most diverse skill set, look no further than the NX 200t.
1st Place: Lexus NX 200t F Sport
The sharp creases in the sheetmetal say otherwise, but the NX is one of the most well-rounded vehicles on sale today.
2nd Place: BMW X3 xDrive28i
Scary days await the competition if BMW ever decides to sex up its interiors.
3rd Place: Land Rover Range Rover Evoque
The scenery has changed significantly since the Evoque was our SUV of the Year, but it’s still hanging in there.
4th Place: Lincoln MKC 2.0 AWD
Lincoln has been making decent strides lately, but we’re still looking for a magic spark.
5th Place: Volvo XC60 T6
The safety star is utterly outmatched in several areas of evaluation.
Audi Q5 TDI
We Bat 1-for-3 on Diesel Acquisition
<img src="http://enthusiastnetwork.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/sites/42/2015/03/2015-Audi-Q5-TDI-front-three-quarter-in-motion.jpg" alt="DIESEL POWER
Real MPG findings of 26.4/35.0/29.3 mpg city/highway/combined seem unreal for a vehicle this size.” class=”wp-image-79012″ />
The original plan was brilliant and comprehensive. In addition to the existing five 2.0-liter crossovers in our Big Test, we’d have a sixth in the form of an Audi Q5. When it came time to execute said brilliancy, we hit a snag. Audi doesn’t stock Q5s with the standard 2.0-liter, turbocharged four-cylinder for media evaluations.
But Audi did have a Q5 TDI powered by a 240-hp, 428-lb-ft, 3.0-liter turbodiesel V-6 for us. Excellent. We could then order up a BMW X3 xDrive28d and Mercedes-Benz GLK250 Bluetec for a little side comparison. Except BMW didn’t have any diesel X3s on hand and the GLK250 just plain disappeared from the delivery schedule a couple days before it was supposed to touch down at MT HQ.
We brought the ineligible-for-victory Q5 TDI along for the Big Test ride anyway, and it performed, in a word, brilliantly. The diesel V-6 is a generous proprietor of effortless thrust, allowing the Audi to be even zippier than the already-quick X3 xDrive28i. Our drive program called for editors to rank the Q5 alongside the gas-slurpers in the numerous surveys distributed during looping. Just to see where it shakes out.
In nine different subjective group ratings not tied to reviewing the powertrain, the lowest the Q5 TDI placed was fifth out of sixth for leather quality. In the remaining eight surveys, it never graded any lower than third. Seat height, ergonomics, and cabin noise consistently fell into the upper echelon of our test. This suggests the Audi would have done quite well. A few handpicked quotes:
Karla Sanchez: “Smooth power delivery, very seamless. The torque is like — whoa.”
Alex Nishimoto: “Overall interior design is pretty boring and old, but for the most part things feel nice.”
And finally, Ed Loh’s stamp of approval/indication that life is indeed cruel to Ed: “Of course the one that is not in the Big Test is my favorite.”
|2015 Audi Q5 TDI|
|PRICE AS TESTED||$53,275|
|VEHICLE LAYOUT||Front-engine, AWD, 5-pass, 4-door SUV|
|ENGINE||3.0L/240-hp/428-lb-ft turbodiesel DOHC 24-valve V-6|
|CURB WEIGHT (F/R DIST)||4,436 lb (54/46%)|
|LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT||182.6 x 74.7 x 65.2 in|
|0-60 MPH||5.8 sec|
|QUARTER MILE||14.5 sec @ 92.6 mph|
|BRAKING, 60-0 MPH||120 ft|
|LATERAL ACCELERATION||0.82 g (avg)|
|MT FIGURE EIGHT||27.1 sec @ 0.76 g (avg)|
|EPA CITY/HWY/COMB FUEL ECON||24/31/27 mpg|
|ENERGY CONS, CITY/HWY||157/122 kW-hrs/100 miles|
|CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB||0.83 lb/mile|
|Our Test Vehicles, With all the Fixins’|
|2015 BMW X3 xDrive28i|
|DRIVER ASSISTANCE PACKAGE||$950|
|COLD WEATHER PACKAGE||$950|
|ENCHANCED BLUETOOTH AND SMARTPHONE INTEGRATION||$500|
|2015 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque|
|DYNAMIC PREMIUM PACKAGE||$15,500|
|20-INCH FORGED VIBRATION POLISHED WHEELS||$1,500|
|ADAPTIVE CRUISE CONTROL WITH QUEUE ASSIST||$1,295|
|CONTRAST BLACK ROOF||$650|
|CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS COMPLIANCE||$100|
|2015 Lexus NX 200t F Sport|
|F SPORT PREMIUM PACKAGE (W/COMFORT PACKAGE)||$2,705|
|NAVIGATION SYSTEM PACKAGE||$2,265|
|INTUITIVE PARKING ASSIST||$500|
|POWER BACK DOOR||$400|
|Qi WIRELESS CHARGER||$220|
|2015 Lincoln MKC 2.0 AWD|
|EQUIPMENT GROUP 102A||$7,110|
|ENHANCED THX II BRANDED SOUND SYSTEM||$995|
|CLASS II TRAILER TOW PACKAGE||$645|
|19-INCH 5-SPOKE ALUMINUM WHEELS||$545|
|2015 Volvo XC60 T6|
|20-INCH TITANIAM ALLOY WHEELS||$1,000|
|BLIND SPOT INFORMATION SYSTEM PACKAGE||$925|
|CRYSTAL WHITE PEARL PAINT||$560|
|HEATED FRONT SEATS||$500|
|LINEAR WALNUT WOOD INLAY||$400|
|2015 BMW X3 xDrive28i||2015 Land Rover Range Rover Evoque||2015 Lexus NX 200t F Sport|
|DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT||Front-engine, AWD||Front-engine, AWD||Front-engine, AWD|
|ENGINE TYPE||Turbocharged I-4, alum block/head||Turbocharged I-4, alum block/head||Turbocharged I-4, alum block/head|
|VALVETRAIN||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl|
|DISPLACEMENT||121.9 cu in/1,997 cc||122.0 cu in/1,999 cc||121.9 cu in/1,998 cc|
|POWER (SAE NET)||240 hp @ 5,000 rpm||240 hp @ 5,500 rpm||235 hp @ 4,800 rpm|
|TORQUE (SAE NET)||258 lb-ft @ 1,450 rpm||250 lb-ft @ 1,750 rpm||258 lb-ft @ 1,650 rpm|
|REDLINE||7,000 rpm||6,400 rpm||5,900 rpm|
|WEIGHT TO POWER||17.6 lb/hp||16.9 lb/hp||17.8 lb/hp|
|TRANSMISSION||8-speed automatic||9-speed automatic||6-speed automatic|
|SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR||Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar||Struts, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar||Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar|
|STEERING RATIO||17.8:1||15.4:1 (on center)||14.5:1|
|BRAKES, F;R||12.9-in vented disc; 13.0-in vented disc, ABS||11.8-in vented disc; 11.9-in disc, ABS||12.9-in vented disc; 11.1-in disc, ABS|
|WHEELS||8.0 x 18-in, cast aluminum||8.0 x 20-in, forged aluminum||7.5 x 18-in, cast aluminum|
|TIRES||245/50R18 100Y M+S Goodyear Eagle LS-2||245/45R20 103V M+S Continental CrossContact UHP||235/55R18 100V Bridgestone Dueler H/L 33|
|WHEELBASE||110.6 in||104.8 in||104.7 in|
|TRACK, F/R||62.8/63.4 in||63.9/64.1 in||61.8/61.8 in|
|LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT||183.8 x 74.1 x 66.1 in||171.9 x 74.8 x 64.4 in||182.3 x 73.6 x 64.8 in|
|GROUND CLEARANCE||8.0 in||8.3 in||6.9 in|
|APPRCH/DEPART ANGLE||26.0/23.0 deg||19.0/30.0 deg||16.8/24.0 deg|
|TURNING CIRCLE||39.0 ft||37.1 ft||39.8 ft|
|CURB WEIGHT||4,215 lb||4,053 lb||4,175 lb|
|WEIGHT DIST., F/R||48/52%||58/42%||56/44%|
|TOWING CAPACITY||3,500 lb||3,500 lb||2,000 lb*|
|HEADROOM, F/R||40.7/39.1 in||40.3/39.7 in||37.4/38.1 in|
|LEGROOM, F/R||39.9/36.5 in||40.1/36.4 in||42.8/36.1 in|
|SHOULDER ROOM, F/R||57.3/56.0 in||56.6/55.4 in||57.3/55.3 in|
|CARGO VOLUME BEH F/R||63.3/27.6 cu ft||62.2/31.3 cu ft||54.6/17.7 cu ft|
|ACCELERATION TO MPH|
|0-30||2.0 sec||2.7 sec||2.4 sec|
|PASSING, 45-65 MPH||3.3||3.8||3.7|
|QUARTER MILE||14.7 sec @ 91.3 mph||15.8 sec @ 87.5 mph||15.3 sec @ 90.7 mph|
|BRAKING, 60-0 MPH||114 ft||115 ft||116 ft|
|LATERAL ACCELERATION||0.82 g (avg)||0.86 g (avg)||0.79 g (avg)|
|MT FIGURE EIGHT||26.9 sec @ 0.77 g (avg)||26.7 sec @ 0.79 g (avg)||27.2 sec @ 0.65 g (avg)|
|TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH||1,700 rpm||1,600 rpm||2,000 rpm|
|PRICE AS TESTED||$50,200||$61,070||$45,970|
|AIRBAGS||Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, driver knee||Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, driver knee||Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, driver knee, passenger thigh|
|BASIC WARRANTY||4 yrs/50,000 miles||4 yrs/50,000 miles||4 yrs/50,000 miles|
|POWERTRAIN WARRANTY||4 yrs/50,000 miles||4 yrs/50,000 miles||6 yrs/70,000 miles|
|ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE||4 yrs/unlimited||4 yrs/50,000 miles||4 yrs/unlimited|
|FUEL CAPACITY||17.7 gal||18.5 gal||15.9 gal|
|EPA CITY/HWY/COMB ECON||21/28/24 mpg||21/30/24 mpg||22/27/24 mpg|
|ENERGY CONS., CITY/HWY||160/120 kW-hrs/100 miles||160/112 kW-hrs/100 miles||153/125 kW-hrs/100 miles|
|CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB||0.82 lb/mile||0.80 lb/mile||0.81 lb/mile|
|REAL MPG, CITY/HWY/COMB||18.7/27.2/21.8 mpg||19.4/26.6/22.1 mpg||21.5/27.7/23.9 mpg|
|RECOMMENDED FUEL||Unleaded premium||Unleaded premium||Unleaded premium|
|*Non F Sport models only|
|2015 Lincoln MKC 2.0 AWD||2015 Volvo XC60 T6|
|DRIVETRAIN LAYOUT||Front-engine, AWD||Front-engine, FWD|
|ENGINE TYPE||Turbocharged I-4, alum block/head||Turbocharged & supercharged I-4, alum block/head|
|VALVETRAIN||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl||DOHC, 4 valves/cyl|
|DISPLACEMENT||122.0 cu in/1,999 cc||120.1 cu in/1,969 cc|
|POWER (SAE NET)||240 hp @ 5,500 rpm||302 hp @ 5,700 rpm|
|TORQUE (SAE NET)||270 lb-ft @ 3,000 rpm||295 lb-ft @ 2,100 rpm|
|REDLINE||6,500 rpm||6,500 rpm|
|WEIGHT TO POWER||16.8 lb/hp||13.5 lb/hp|
|TRANSMISSION||6-speed automatic||8-speed automatic|
|SUSPENSION, FRONT; REAR||Struts, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, adj shocks, anti-roll bar||Struts, coil springs, anti-roll bar; multilink, coil springs, anti-roll bar|
|BRAKES, F;R||13.2-in vented disc; 12.4-in disc, ABS||12.9-in vented disc; 11.9 disc, ABS|
|WHEELS||8.5 x 19-in, cast aluminum||8.0 x 20-in, cast aluminum|
|TIRES||245/45R19 98V M+S Michelin Latitude Tour HP||255/45R20 105V M+S Pirelli Scorpion Zero Asimmetrico|
|WHEELBASE||105.9 in||109.2 in|
|TRACK, F/R||62.4/62.5 in||64.3/62.4 in|
|LENGTH x WIDTH x HEIGHT||179.2 x 73.4 x 65.2 in||182.8 x 74.4 x 67.4 in|
|GROUND CLEARANCE||8.0 in||9.1 in|
|APPRCH/DEPART ANGLE||18.0/23.5 deg||22.0/27.0 deg|
|TURNING CIRCLE||38.0 ft||38.4 ft|
|CURB WEIGHT||4,041 lb||4,078 lb|
|WEIGHT DIST., F/R||57/43%||59/41%|
|TOWING CAPACITY||3,000 lb||3,500 lb|
|HEADROOM, F/R||39.6/38.7 in||38.1/38.1 in|
|LEGROOM, F/R||42.8/36.8 in||41.2/36.4 in|
|SHOULDER ROOM, F/R||56.0/55.3 in||56.7/55.2 in|
|CARGO VOLUME BEH F/R||53.1/25.2 cu ft||67.4/30.8 cu ft|
|ACCELERATION TO MPH|
|0-30||2.4 sec||2.4 sec|
|PASSING, 45-65 MPH||4.2||3.1|
|QUARTER MILE||15.9 sec @ 86.5 mph||14.8 sec @ 95.4 mph|
|BRAKING, 60-0 MPH||111 ft||117 ft|
|LATERAL ACCELERATION||0.82 g (avg)||0.81 g (avg)|
|MT FIGURE EIGHT||27.4 sec @ 0.73 g (avg)||27.3 sec @ 0.64 g (avg)|
|TOP-GEAR REVS @ 60 MPH||2,000 rpm||1,600 rpm|
|PRICE AS TESTED||$48,080||$50,430|
|AIRBAGS||Dual front, front side, f/r curtain, driver knee||Dual front, front side, f/r curtain|
|BASIC WARRANTY||4 yrs/50,000 miles||4 yrs/50,000 miles|
|POWERTRAIN WARRANTY||6 yrs/70,000 miles||4 yrs/50,000 miles|
|ROADSIDE ASSISTANCE||Unlimited||4 yrs/50,000 miles|
|FUEL CAPACITY||15.5 gal||18.5 gal|
|EPA CITY/HWY/COMB ECON||19/26/22 mpg||22/30/25 mpg|
|ENERGY CONS., CITY/HWY||177/130 kW-hrs/100 miles||153/112 kW-hrs/100 miles|
|CO2 EMISSIONS, COMB||0.90 lb/mile||0.78 lb/mile|
|REAL MPG, CITY/HWY/COMB||17.6/27.7/21.2 mpg||18.2/25.5/20.9 mpg|
|RECOMMENDED FUEL||Unleaded regular**||Unleaded premium|
|**Premium recommended for best engine performance|