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

[RCMAN46]

rjstractor wrote:
It should be noted that the two engines were not rated at the same horsepower, IIRC the 6.2 has 420 and the Eco has 380. It seems as though they were pretty evenly matched although the 6.2 with the 8 speed seemed to be constantly shifting. That would make me crazy.

That is the whole idea behind the 8 speed and there is a 10 speed out there.

A transmission that has many close ratios will allow more gear shifting to keep the engine rpm in it's max power range. Also allows the use of tall rear end ratios which will give better economy at light loads.

Possibly one reason the GM did better on fuel.

If you do not want gear changing we can go back to the old 3 speed transmissions of the 60's and 70's.

[FishOnOne]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

FishOnOne wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

mayo30 wrote:
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.

A very long answer short; yes.

When you put a big 8 cylinders worth of air through a 6 cylinder engine the rings are going to load harder against the cylinders and the cylinder pressures are going to go sky high. (comparative speaking)

The reason the Cummins parts were bigger is because they had to be. They are putting the same amount of power through 6 pistons as other manufactures are putting through 8. So things like rods and wrist pins and things like that have to be built bigger and stronger to hold the power put through them. Think how big and strong the rod would have to be if you put 350 HP and 800 ft/lbs through a 1 cylinder Cummins!! :E

Ford performed a tear down from a abused engine in front of a live audience and actually measured some of the parts that illustrated that were still in factory specifications. Again I would have no concern of the engines internals holding up to boosted cylinder pressures.

Link

You may think a 13% leak down is acceptable; I don't and don't know of any engine builder alive that thinks that's Ok.

LOL at Fords "factory specifications."

I still remember GM's "factory specifications" for BBC oil use. 1 qt for 600 miles was ok with them! :E

13% cylinder leak down must be just like the GM oil use deal and be within "factory specifications"! LOL :R

I don't know about the leak down test but the bottom line is it still made the same HP and Torque as it did brand new. :W

Perhaps GM should grow some ballz and perform a identical test with their V8 engine and dissect it for the world to see. :B

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

FishOnOne wrote:

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

mayo30 wrote:
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.

A very long answer short; yes.

When you put a big 8 cylinders worth of air through a 6 cylinder engine the rings are going to load harder against the cylinders and the cylinder pressures are going to go sky high. (comparative speaking)

The reason the Cummins parts were bigger is because they had to be. They are putting the same amount of power through 6 pistons as other manufactures are putting through 8. So things like rods and wrist pins and things like that have to be built bigger and stronger to hold the power put through them. Think how big and strong the rod would have to be if you put 350 HP and 800 ft/lbs through a 1 cylinder Cummins!! :E

Ford performed a tear down from a abused engine in front of a live audience and actually measured some of the parts that illustrated that were still in factory specifications. Again I would have no concern of the engines internals holding up to boosted cylinder pressures.

Link

You may think a 13% leak down is acceptable; I don't and don't know of any engine builder alive that thinks that's Ok.

LOL at Fords "factory specifications."

I still remember GM's "factory specifications" for BBC oil use. 1 qt for 600 miles was ok with them! :E

13% cylinder leak down must be just like the GM oil use deal and be within "factory specifications"! LOL :R

[FishOnOne]

Turtle n Peeps wrote:

mayo30 wrote:
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.

A very long answer short; yes.

When you put a big 8 cylinders worth of air through a 6 cylinder engine the rings are going to load harder against the cylinders and the cylinder pressures are going to go sky high. (comparative speaking)

The reason the Cummins parts were bigger is because they had to be. They are putting the same amount of power through 6 pistons as other manufactures are putting through 8. So things like rods and wrist pins and things like that have to be built bigger and stronger to hold the power put through them. Think how big and strong the rod would have to be if you put 350 HP and 800 ft/lbs through a 1 cylinder Cummins!! :E

Ford performed a tear down from a abused engine in front of a live audience and actually measured some of the parts that illustrated that were still in factory specifications. Again I would have no concern of the engines internals holding up to boosted cylinder pressures.

Link

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

mayo30 wrote:
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.

A very long answer short; yes.

When you put a big 8 cylinders worth of air through a 6 cylinder engine the rings are going to load harder against the cylinders and the cylinder pressures are going to go sky high. (comparative speaking)

The reason the Cummins parts were bigger is because they had to be. They are putting the same amount of power through 6 pistons as other manufactures are putting through 8. So things like rods and wrist pins and things like that have to be built bigger and stronger to hold the power put through them. Think how big and strong the rod would have to be if you put 350 HP and 800 ft/lbs through a 1 cylinder Cummins!! :E

[AH64ID]

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.

Russia, while that information is not correct it is no neccarrially true anymore. My wife's 2003 4Runner makes more power on premium, but can run both. That is directly from Toyota. In testing it's not worth the cost of premium, unless we are towing. Since we have the truck in my sig the Runner is rarely used for towing.

Lincoln/Ford says the exact same thing about the ecoboost in the Navigator. Premium is required to make the advertised power, but the engine runs fine on regular and regular is acceptable as the main fuel.

[N-Trouble]

Actually Skillet is correct. Just about every motor built in the last 10-15 years have built in knock sensors that will back off timing if they sense knocking/detonation occurring. I believe that is what Skillet was eluding to.

Ford site says that regular fuel (87) is required, not to use E85, and to use 91 octane or higher for increased performance

[We_retheRussos]

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.

[Tystevens]

mayo30 wrote:
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.

Well, this is a 6 cyl designed to be run as a twin turbo. So, much like the Cummins, it has been engineered to deal with the stress by all accounts.

[Tystevens]

N-Trouble wrote:

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.

I don't know ... I own both a GM 5.3 V8 and an Ecoboost in similarly sized trucks. The EB gets about 10% better mpg than the V8 does in most situations, with me in the driver's seat, at least. And the EB has noticeably more power, and tows the pants off the 5.3. I'm happy enough with the "Eco" part, but thrilled when using the "boost!"

Anyway, I don't know that weighing fuel economy when charging up a hill at full throttle is the best measure!

I will say that the 6.2 seems to be a better competitor against the EB than GM's 5.3 is, and has put a new Suburban back in the running for our next family vehicle. I really don't want another 5.3, though.

[rjstractor]

It should be noted that the two engines were not rated at the same horsepower, IIRC the 6.2 has 420 and the Eco has 380. It seems as though they were pretty evenly matched although the 6.2 with the 8 speed seemed to be constantly shifting. That would make me crazy.

[mayo30]

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.

[AH64ID]

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.

[hone_eagle]

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

[MARK_VANDERBENT]

I am in love with GMs 6.2 engine!!