2015 Lincoln EcoBoost vs the Ike Gauntlet

Question.Isn't there a lot more stress and and wear on a 6 cylinder motor putting out the same power as an 8 cylinder motor?I know my 6 cylinder cummins were a lot beefier then the 8 cylinder diesels but that was years ago.

I am not sure the rpms on the Eco were that low, it was a function of gearing availability. 65 in 3rd was 4000 rpms, but a drop to 2nd would be 6200 with a locked torque converter. Redline is 6,100. It did a great job, but it was running with every bit of rpms it could. There was a shot or two in 4th at 3000, which is quite impressive, making about 260 hp WOT at 3000.

Fuel mileage of the ECO... OUCH!!!

Okay, off to watch video #2.

The 6.2 did great as well, little easier on fuel.

I would like to see them use the features of the vehicles, like cruise control and manual gear selection.

goducks10 wrote:

ksss wrote:
The "Eco" portion of the Ecoboost has been the topic of many a conversation. I had read somewhere, that Ford originally had a different name for the motor which I can't remember what it was at the moment but it made sense. The marketing department changed the name to Ecoboost even though it really isn't eco anything. Four hundred plus pounds of torque in a gas motor is not going to come without burning a fair amount of gas.

Originally it was to be called the EgoBoost :W

twinforce

I am in love with GMs 6.2 engine!!

ib516 wrote:
Agreed. Many people would think a "gas guzzling V8" and a "Eco" V6 would be vastly different in mpg. However, according to the EPA, roughly the same power output costs roughly the same amount of fuel.

Other real world road tests also agree with this, so it's not just the EPA. The long term Motor Trend Ram 1500 4X4 Hemi ended up at around 1.5 mpg better than the F150 4X4 Ecoboost over 30,000 miles. And, a recent Car & Driver test showed a 2015 Tahoe getting around 1 mpg better real world than the 2015 Ecoboost Expedition. So, they are about equal as nobody will probably argue about 1 mpg.

ksss wrote:
The "Eco" portion of the Ecoboost has been the topic of many a conversation. I had read somewhere, that Ford originally had a different name for the motor which I can't remember what it was at the moment but it made sense. The marketing department changed the name to Ecoboost even though it really isn't eco anything. Four hundred plus pounds of torque in a gas motor is not going to come without burning a fair amount of gas.

Originally it was to be called the EgoBoost :W

The "Eco" portion of the Ecoboost has been the topic of many a conversation. I had read somewhere, that Ford originally had a different name for the motor which I can't remember what it was at the moment but it made sense. The marketing department changed the name to Ecoboost even though it really isn't eco anything. Four hundred plus pounds of torque in a gas motor is not going to come without burning a fair amount of gas.

Agreed. Many people would think a "gas guzzling V8" and a "Eco" V6 would be vastly different in mpg. However, according to the EPA, roughly the same power output costs roughly the same amount of fuel.

ib516 wrote:
You know what I couldn't help but notice was that both the EcoBoost in the Lincoln and the 6.2L V8 in the huge Yukon XL were both rated at 16 mpg combined. What happened to the "Eco" part?

"Eco" is just Ford marketing smoke and mirrors.

ib516 wrote:
You know what I couldn't help but notice was that both the EcoBoost in the Lincoln and the 6.2L V8 in the huge Yukon XL were both rated at 16 mpg combined. What happened to the "Eco" part?

You would think two engines rated at the same horsepower the turbo charged would leave a non turbo charged in the dust at 10,000ft!

Again what happened to the "Eco" part?

As for time difference that was all in the driver and how close to the speed limit they keep them.