6versus8

[thescreensavers]

Text


Any how

Lincoln MKS Ecobost vs Merc E550 , Jag XF, Maserati Quattroporte , BMW 550i


btw this race is at High Altitude and the German Cars are all NA while the Lincoln is FI

What a crappy publicity stunt imo.

 

[Dr. Detroit]

Agreed.

Really stupid test!

 

[Zenmervolt]

It depends on how much headroom the turbocharger has. If the wastegate is staying fully closed by 3,000 feet, then there would be significant power falloff even for the Lincoln's engine. If, on the other hand, there's sufficient headroom in the turbocharger to allow it to produce full sea-level manifold pressure all the way up to 11,000 feet then it has a huge advantage.

At 11,000 feet, the turbocharged vehicle would need an additional 5 PSI of compression to maintain sea-level absolute manifold pressures.

That said, given the shape of the sea-level power and torque curves for the Ecoboost engines, it's very clear that there is a LOT of headroom in that turbo setup and that power levels are being artificially managed by electronic wizardry so I think it's reasonable to assume that the Lincoln had enough "extra" to maintain sea-level power even at those altitudes.

While the ecoboost is clearly a fantastic engine, Lincoln also clearly needs to do some work on chassis dynamics to create a car that handles as well as its engine pulls.

ZV

 

[LTC8K6]

I think you meant turbocharged. They are all Fi.

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
I think you meant turbocharged. They are all Fi.

I think he meant forced induction, not fuel injection

 

[thescreensavers]

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: LTC8K6
I think you meant turbocharged. They are all Fi.

I think he meant forced induction, not fuel injection

Yea this is what I mean.

 

[mb]

Lincoln MKS Ecobost, est curb weight 4400lbs. 355 horsepower at 5,700 rpm and 350 lbs.-ft. of torque at 3,500 rpm.


vs Merc E550 4,079 lbs, 382hp @6000 , 391 @ 2,800 torque


Jag XF 4,185 lbs, 385hp @ 6,500, 380 @ 3,500 tq


Maserati Quattroporte, 4,387 lbs, 430 bhp @7000, 361 ft/lbs tq @ 4750


BMW 550i, 3,988 lbs, 360 hp @ 6,300 , 360 @ 3,400 torque


Why is this a crappy stunt / stupid test? Does the high altitude have that much of an effect on NA engines vs turbo?

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: mb
Lincoln MKS Ecobost, est curb weight 4400lbs. 355 horsepower at 5,700 rpm and 350 lbs.-ft. of torque at 3,500 rpm.


vs Merc E550 4,079 lbs, 382hp @6000 , 391 @ 2,800 torque


Jag XF 4,185 lbs, 385hp @ 6,500, 380 @ 3,500 tq


Maserati Quattroporte, 4,387 lbs, 430 bhp @7000, 361 ft/lbs tq @ 4750


BMW 550i, 3,988 lbs, 360 hp @ 6,300 , 360 @ 3,400 torque


Why is this a crappy stunt / stupid test? Does the high altitude have that much of an effect on NA engines vs turbo?

High altitude air is less dense - a naturally aspirated engine can only suck in so much air. A turbocharger force-feeds the engine, so air density isn't as much of an issue.

I think.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

Originally posted by: JLee

Originally posted by: mb
Lincoln MKS Ecobost, est curb weight 4400lbs. 355 horsepower at 5,700 rpm and 350 lbs.-ft. of torque at 3,500 rpm.


vs Merc E550 4,079 lbs, 382hp @6000 , 391 @ 2,800 torque


Jag XF 4,185 lbs, 385hp @ 6,500, 380 @ 3,500 tq


Maserati Quattroporte, 4,387 lbs, 430 bhp @7000, 361 ft/lbs tq @ 4750


BMW 550i, 3,988 lbs, 360 hp @ 6,300 , 360 @ 3,400 torque


Why is this a crappy stunt / stupid test? Does the high altitude have that much of an effect on NA engines vs turbo?

High altitude air is less dense - a naturally aspirated engine can only suck in so much air. A turbocharger force-feeds the engine, so air density isn't as much of an issue.

I think.

Yup...

 

[bigal40]

Pretty Biased test setup overall. They also said they had multiple runs with the Lincoln but they only had one run with each of the other vehicles.(He said the understeer in the merc surprised him but he got used to it further into the run, and then at the end they mention they something about the lincoln's "runS")

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

The test was obviously a setup in Lincoln's favor. Bias aside I still enjoyed watching the video. It's not too often we see decent production quality from American car rags. It was no Top Gear but still fun to watch. I wanted to hear more comments from the test driver, Rod Millen. The guy obviously had more to say about each car's ride and handling. Also some more still camera angles setup at the hairpins to see how each car handles corners.

I love that motor but damn the Lincoln looked floaty as hell.

 

[PlasmaBomb]

So despite the biased test the Lincon doesn't manage to win :laugh:

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: bigal40
Pretty Biased test setup overall. They also said they had multiple runs with the Lincoln but they only had one run with each of the other vehicles.(He said the understeer in the merc surprised him but he got used to it further into the run, and then at the end they mention they something about the lincoln's "runS")

Rewatch video 3 starting at 1:00 mark. Millen says they told him he gets 3 runs in each car. Then later talks about how the first run is to get a feel for the car. Then lets the car hang out on the second run.

http://www.6versus8.com/showdown/video3/index.html

 

[EightySix Four]

The dyno charts for the EcoBoost look just like the dyno charts did for the Ecotec LNF. Completely flattened out at the top. The LNF was 260/260 at the crank, and with GOOD tuning you can do 310/350 at the wheels, and a few mods puts you at 325/400. Those EcoBoost motors are going to be a tuners wet dream. The PCM's they use (I'm assuming they're the Bosch direct injection units) are damn tough to crack though. We'll see.

 

[Dman877]

Now if they would just put that engine in a decent car...

Kind of a lame premise too. There are people out there making 600+ hp on four-bangers. Number of cylinders really isn't important when it comes to turbo setups.

In their commercials, Ford claims the power of a V8 with the fuel economy of a V6 but that's a farce. Everything review I've seen has found the ecoboost to get high-teens for mileage and that's worse than you'd get with some V8's (LS3 for instance).

 

[mb]

I got to watch the videos (didn't have time this morning).

I understand that the high altitude hurts the performance of the NA cars, but I still wonder what the numbers would have been like at sea level.

MKS came in #2 on their own test. Think they'd drop to 5? How far below? Or could the MKS still manage a respectable time?


Anyway, I would have LOVED to drive that course in any of the cars with the road closed like they had it!

 

[ChaosDivine]

Originally posted by: Dman877
In their commercials, Ford claims the power of a V8 with the fuel economy of a V6 but that's a farce. Everything review I've seen has found the ecoboost to get high-teens for mileage and that's worse than you'd get with some V8's (LS3 for instance).

Sounds like the AJ-V8 variant in my Lincoln LS. Rated 18 city, 25 highway.

 

[Q]

Color me confused

 

[HannibalX]

It's only a stunt when your car loses.

 

[jlee]

Originally posted by: Dman877
Now if they would just put that engine in a decent car...

Kind of a lame premise too. There are people out there making 600+ hp on four-bangers. Number of cylinders really isn't important when it comes to turbo setups.

In their commercials, Ford claims the power of a V8 with the fuel economy of a V6 but that's a farce. Everything review I've seen has found the ecoboost to get high-teens for mileage and that's worse than you'd get with some V8's (LS3 for instance).

Really? I get better than that out of my car..granted it's probably a bit lighter..but it's also a lot older.

 

[Arkaign]

Nice to see Lincoln coming so far, reminds me of Cadillac at the beginnings of the V era. Apparently the 3.5L EcoBoost can be tuned up to 415HP, so there's more room for improvement, though presumably at the cost of higher fuel consumption and increased emissions.

 

[LTC8K6]

Originally posted by: Arkaign
Nice to see Lincoln coming so far, reminds me of Cadillac at the beginnings of the V era. Apparently the 3.5L EcoBoost can be tuned up to 415HP, so there's more room for improvement, though presumably at the cost of higher fuel consumption and increased emissions.

The Cyclone can also be made in a 4.0L version...


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Cyclone_engine

 

[amdhunter]

Originally posted by: bigal40
Pretty Biased test setup overall. They also said they had multiple runs with the Lincoln but they only had one run with each of the other vehicles.(He said the understeer in the merc surprised him but he got used to it further into the run, and then at the end they mention they something about the lincoln's "runS")

I heard that too.

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

Originally posted by: amdhunter
I heard that too.

Originally posted by: KnightBreed
Rewatch video 3 starting at 1:00 mark. Millen says they told him he gets 3 runs in each car. Then later talks about how the first run is to get a feel for the car. Then lets the car hang out on the second run.

http://www.6versus8.com/showdown/video3/index.html

 

[exdeath]

Originally posted by: Dman877
Now if they would just put that engine in a decent car...

Kind of a lame premise too. There are people out there making 600+ hp on four-bangers. Number of cylinders really isn't important when it comes to turbo setups.

Not on pump gas they aren't. And that's also a very peaky power band. Anything more than approx 400-450 to the wheels in a four-banger is borderline and taking it a step beyond being a pump gas street car.

*WHEN* the power is available is much more important in a casual street car than any peak number. And this is where an engine like the Ecoboost excels with it's broad flat power curve. You won't get that out of a four cylinder no matter what (eg: 300-400 ft lbs at 2000+ RPM on pump gas friendly low boost).

A production car made for the masses and a customized car that an enthusiast is willing and able to put up with have two completely different requirements.