2015 Lincoln EcoBoost vs the Ike Gauntlet

RCMAN46 wrote:
"Do the math on the gears.. It didn't. 4K rpms is what it was running in 3rd at 65 to hold speed, but not accelerate. "


I did do the math.

The ECO makes it's max horsepower at about 5200 rpm. The 6.2 at about 5600 rpm.

The Eco near the top of the hill was in 3rd gear. With the 3.73 the ECO will turn about 4000 rpm at 65 mph.

The 6.2 with the 3.42 would be in 4th gear and will turn about 4000 rpm at 65 mph.


But the 6.2 was able to accelerate more than the ECO when both were running about 4000 rpm.

It is obvious the 6.2 was able to make more horsepower.

I agree with everything you said except the Ecoboost is going to make around the same HP at sea level or at altitude and the 6.2 will lose around 125 HP or 30% of it's HP at 10,000 feet. (AH64ID brings up a really good point though. Can the EB make 13 lbs of boost at 10,000 ft like it can at sea level? I don't know the answer to that? If it can't, the EB WILL lose power. If it can, 13 lbs of boost is 13 lbs of boost. Sure the turbo will have to work harder and this will get the air hotter and it will lose a little power. But nothing to speak of.) But the turbo in my truck made the same amount of boost in my home town 1,300 ft as it did in Leadville Co, 10,000 ft.

There is a reason turbo diesel (or turbo gas) engines perform real well up high in the air compared to their N/A brothers. Do they keep all of their HP? Nope, just most of it. :) Even if the EB lost 15% (really, really, really hard to believe) of it's HP it would still be putting out more HP than the 6.2 at altitude.

There is a reason they put turbochargers on airplanes and it's not because they preform just a "little bit better" than a N/A engine at altitude. They dominate.