2015 Lincoln EcoBoost vs the Ike Gauntlet

[FishOnOne]

The EcoBoost performance was pretty impressive and I couldn't help notice how relatively low the RPM's were too.

Link

[Fast_Mopar]

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.

[goducks10]

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

[ksss]

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.

[ib516]

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.

[N-Trouble]

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.

[RCMAN46]

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.

[ib516]

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?

[lbrjet]

The GM 8 speed tranny seemed to do an excellent job. The GMC appeared to me to be towing quite effortlessly while the Ecoboost was on the floor more than once. The big V8 got better MPG as well although it was 11 seconds slower due to being slowed up more in traffic. Both vehicles did the job and both are ungodly expensive.

[Tystevens]

N-Trouble wrote:

BB_TX wrote:

Fast Mopar wrote:
..............
I was surprised to see that the Ecoboost horsepower rating (380 HP) was listed in the 2015 brochure as requiring 93 octane premium fuel. I did not realize that was a requirement. Either way, impressive numbers.

That is why we bought a 2015 Expedition with the 3.5 Ecoboost rather than a 2015 Navigator. The Navigator requires premium, the Expedition only requires regular. Just annoyed to me to have to pay a 30 cent per gallon premium just to own our previous Navigator. Did not want to do it again.

You got suckered. Its the same engine. WHy would the surrounding vehicle determine octane requirements? It doesn't...

This sounds very similar to early 200x Acura MDX vehicles which Acura called out premium octane fuel for. A few years later Honda come out with the Pilot. Exact same motor/drivetrain only requiring 87 octane. Acura owners were like WTH, but eventually smelled through the BS and now most in the know just run 87 octane and let the knock sensors and adjustable timing do their thing.

The Navigator has a slightly hotter tune on it, though; that might be the difference.

These are 2 great looking trucks. A variant of one or the other will be our next family hauler, and it looks like either would make a fine choice. I love the EB in my F150, but the 6.2/8 spd would probably get the job done, too!

[N-Trouble]

BB_TX wrote:

Fast Mopar wrote:
..............
I was surprised to see that the Ecoboost horsepower rating (380 HP) was listed in the 2015 brochure as requiring 93 octane premium fuel. I did not realize that was a requirement. Either way, impressive numbers.

That is why we bought a 2015 Expedition with the 3.5 Ecoboost rather than a 2015 Navigator. The Navigator requires premium, the Expedition only requires regular. Just annoyed to me to have to pay a 30 cent per gallon premium just to own our previous Navigator. Did not want to do it again.

You got suckered. Its the same engine. WHy would the surrounding vehicle determine octane requirements? It doesn't...

This sounds very similar to early 200x Acura MDX vehicles which Acura called out premium octane fuel for. A few years later Honda come out with the Pilot. Exact same motor/drivetrain only requiring 87 octane. Acura owners were like WTH, but eventually smelled through the BS and now most in the know just run 87 octane and let the knock sensors and adjustable timing do their thing.

[FishOnOne]

Here's a follow up including the GMC and a drag race. :B

Drag Race

GMC Ike Gauntlet


Go Patriots....:p

[Home_Skillet]

You use premium fuel for max horsepower.
With the lower octane fuel, the power is reduced.

[BB_TX]

Fast Mopar wrote:
..............
I was surprised to see that the Ecoboost horsepower rating (380 HP) was listed in the 2015 brochure as requiring 93 octane premium fuel. I did not realize that was a requirement. Either way, impressive numbers.

That is why we bought a 2015 Expedition with the 3.5 Ecoboost rather than a 2015 Navigator. The Navigator requires premium, the Expedition only requires regular. Just annoyed to me to have to pay a 30 cent per gallon premium just to own our previous Navigator. Did not want to do it again.

[Fast_Mopar]

The Ecoboost is the perfect engine for the Navigator. Lincoln is doing very well these days. I was surprised to see that the Ecoboost horsepower rating (380 HP) was listed in the 2015 brochure as requiring 93 octane premium fuel. I did not realize that was a requirement. Either way, impressive numbers.

[Fordlover]

2112 wrote:
Where is the GMC half of it (Part 2)?

They are still trying to get up the hill, that thin air really strangles the N/A engines. :W