2015 Lincoln EcoBoost vs the Ike Gauntlet
The EcoBoost performance was pretty impressive and I couldn't help notice how relatively low the RPM's were too.
Link
Link
Forum Discussion
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.- "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. Turtle n Peeps wrote:
At 11:54 Curley did say it doesn't seems like it accelerates that much. But that was at the steepest part. I know what the GMC would have felt like because of math. :)
Math does not always tell the true story in the real world.
Listen to 11:50 of the second video. Pretty much negates the above statement made.
At the top of the hill where it is the steepest and at 10,000 + ft the GMC had more horsepower even though the math said it should not have.We'retheRussos wrote:
Home Skillet wrote:
You use premium fuel for max horsepower.
With the lower octane fuel, the power is reduced.
Incorrect. The Octane level determines the amount of pressure the fuel can withstand before it detonates. Higher performance / turbo charged engines like the EcoBoost have high compression ratios and therefore require a high octane fuel to prevent knocking. Using a low octane fuel can cause knocking and possibly damage to the engine.
On engines that require 87, they have lower compression ratios and therefore its not beneficial to put in a higher Octane. People read "Premium" and go for the marketing when it does absolutely nothing - if anything there are tests that show your MPG will go down slightly by using a higher octane fuel than recommended because your engine is not able to ignite the fuel at the opportune time.
Actually, you are wrong. Most (not all) engines recommended to run premium, is only for max horsepower. Knock sensors, to name only one input, will reduce timing and other parameters that reduce HP while allowing lower octane fuel to be used and your every day driver wont know the difference.
FYI. Sport bikes run 12:1, 13:1 and even 14:1 compression ratio's and can run on 87 octane fuel 24/7/365....and never flinch. Its no longer all about compression ratio. Engine design and fuel requirements are well beyond this.- Given that the trucks finished so close in time, and the 6.2 may have an alibi for the gap that the Eco won by, tells me that nobody got "waxed". Add another 1000 pounds of weight, conduct the test in the Summer, or find a steeper hill and perhaps one of trucks would have pulled away from the other. However given this test, at this time, it looks to me like it is a tie.
- Math is invalid, as you are only applying it to the 6.2. Contrary to popular belief turbo vehicles can decrease power at elevation, so without knowing by how much it's hard to compare with math. Especially considering the 6.2 accelerated where the EB didn't, so what does that do to the math?
Each turbo engine is different, so that data is needed. The EB appears to have mechanical WG's, is that true or is there a solenoid providing air to them??
All I have to do is watch the last 30 seconds of each run. The EB was WOT to maintain speed, the 6.2 was not. So that's tell me the EB didn't have power to spare, and the 6.2 did. Hard to get waxed with power to spare.
Feel is all relative, pedal position is not. They were impressed by it's operation, that doesn't mean it did better or worse... just that they were impressed. Impressions are based on perceptions, maybe they didn't expect it to do so well. Forced induction motors don't need rpms, so they always "feel" like they aren't working as hard as a NA motor. It doesn't mean they aren't.
IMHO the test would be a lot more valid if you were to put each rig in CC at 60 or 65 (lowest speed limit of the climb) and see what happens. Record mpg and time. Right feet are harder to hold steady, one of the reasons I try to pull all grades in CC.
Turtle, watch each video again. Your picking parts out that help your statement, but it's not the whole story. There is about 1/2 mile right at 11K feet that is 7%, this is the highest/steepest part of the climb. That is where the 6.2 had power left and the EB didn't. The 6.2 always had power to spare to accelerate on demand. There were several places the ECO was not able to accelerate.
Where are you getting this info? Listen to 9:05 to 9:30.Larry wrote:
This thing is flying up the hill.Curley wrote:
It doesn't feel like it's straining at all.
10:45 to 10:50Larry wrote:
I feel like if I were to floor this thing right now it would just fly up this mountain. It's not struggling at all.
At 11:54 Curley did say it doesn't seems like it accelerates that much. But that was at the steepest part. I know what the GMC would have felt like because of math. :)Turtle n Peeps wrote:
In summer it may have been different, but in this test the 6.2 was not waxed, as it had power to spare when the EB didn't.
Where did you get this data? I might have missed it but the only way to know if either vehicle had power to spare is look at the TPS data for the whole run. I have no idea where Moe's foot was at any given time in the run.
If you just going off of the comments of Curley, Moe or Larry let me just post one of the completely wrong comments "Larry" made on this "test": :B
7:18 I never knew GM's 6.2 was a BBC. :S And here I thought GM stop putting BBC in trucks years ago. :R
BTW there is a reason pilots love TC'ers on their engines. They can maintain the same power at altitude that they get at sea level. (at least most of it anyway)
Reading about turbo's and altitude.
As far as the WG setting. On this vehicle I have no idea but with the 360HP F150 they are set just slightly under one atmosphere or 14.7.
More HP usually means more boost but not all the time. My guess is that this engine is running around 15 to 16 PSI of boost. That would put it about 1 liter bigger than the 6.2.
Go back and watch the videos. They state the 6.2 always had power to spare and was never run WOT. They also state the ECO had nothing left.In summer it may have been different, but in this test the 6.2 was not waxed, as it had power to spare when the EB didn't.
Where did you get this data? I might have missed it but the only way to know if either vehicle had power to spare is look at the TPS data for the whole run. I have no idea where Moe's foot was at any given time in the run.
If you just going off of the comments of Curley, Moe or Larry let me just post one of the completely wrong comments "Larry" made on this "test": :B
7:18 I never knew GM's 6.2 was a BBC. :S And here I thought GM stop putting BBC in trucks years ago. :R
BTW there is a reason pilots love TC'ers on their engines. They can maintain the same power at altitude that they get at sea level. (at least most of it anyway)
Reading about turbo's and altitude.
As far as the WG setting. On this vehicle I have no idea but with the 360HP F150 they are set just slightly under one atmosphere or 14.7.
More HP usually means more boost but not all the time. My guess is that this engine is running around 15 to 16 PSI of boost. That would put it about 1 liter bigger than the 6.2.
