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]

AH64ID wrote:

RCMAN46 wrote:

AH64ID wrote:

RCMAN46 wrote:


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.

Not what you were talking about earlier. You made the comment that you didn't think the Eco was out of gears, I was talking about looking at what it would take to downshift, more gears, at 65 out of 3rd... It was out of gears.

I agree, the 6.2 had more power at altitude.


Here is another question, I'm not a EBologist so??, but does it have an OEM EGT sensor? Was is heat soaked and defueling? Maybe IAT was too high from the sustained near max boost?

We know that the 6.2 will lose 30% of it's power at 11K feet, and we know that the 6.2 was pulling harder at 11K feet... So that there should tell us about how much power the Eco lost at 11K feet.

You have assumed the ECO can actually make 380 hp. Ford does not have their hp numbers certified but GM does so we know the 6.2 can actually make 420 hp at sea level.

The 6.2 is in the same boat as the ECO as far as gears. If fact the ECO had an edge as it was closer to it's max hp at 4000 rpm than the 6.2 was to it's max hp at 4000 rpm.

It is interesting that both were running about 65 mph at 4000 rpm.

As for heat soaking etc are their any other excuses why the ECO does not meet expectations?

I love all the excuses made anytime a GM product performs better than the competition

I am certainly not, now nor have I ever been, in the Ford or Eco camp.. not even close.

I have been fairly neutral in this thread looking at it subjectively as I don't need/want/care for either rig. It's fun to look at the test and see how they do.

Published hp curves are not very applicable at 11K feet, the curves do change with altitude even on FI motors. Most, if not all, engines need more rpms to do the same work at elevation.

But lets get back to why I first quoted one of your posts. You made the comment that the "The Eco was not out of gears." and "I am sure the Eco had gears left." I asked you to check the math on that. How are we now talking about SAE certification and GM excuses??? It was a simple comment that the ECO didn't have the rpm band to downshift, that means out of gears. It didn't have the power to upshift and didn't have the rpms to downshift... 1 useable gear at that load and speed.

So why do you now think the GM performed better, when you said "The Eco waxed the 6.2. " 3 days ago??? FWIW I have thought the GM won the test since day 1, despite what you have said above.

If you think I am making excuses for the Eco you better think again. I am simply asking why it didn't preform to the level it should... I mean have you read about that thing on this Forum, it's an engine that walks on water, makes a 1/2 ton a 1 ton, and can do no wrong.... (heavy sarcasm).

As far as the SAE certification it's good GM does it, and Ford should follow but it's here nor there. The Lincoln won the drag race right? Base model curb weights are about the same, with the Lincoln being heavier but the GM appeared to have more options. We also know that Ford and GM both have been known to spoof curb weights.

But does the drag race prove the Eco makes more power? No, it simply means it averaged more hp over time, probably thanks to it's twin turbos. In day to day driving it's about hp over time. It's why torque numbers make a difference, more torque (with a peak hp below 5252 rpm) means more hp in the everyday rpms even if peak hp is a little lower. Does the peak hp help win a drag race? Or a towing race? Yes it does, but higher peak torque will win over time. (Prime example, my year truck the Hemi was a 345/375 and the Cummins was 325/610. The Hemi has the hp advantage yet the Cummins will walk all over it towing. HP is important, but it's a lot more than peak hp that needs to be looked at).

All we know is that a 420hp NA motor will drop to about 300hp at the wheels, and that the 300hp was enough to accelerate at approx 14K GCW but that the Eco couldn't do that. Why?

It's a simple why... a 380hp FI motor shouldn't lose more than 20% of it's power at 11K feet (but will lose some), but it appeared to. So that's the question on heat soak, EGT sensors, or is it simply Ford's lack of SAE certification?? It's an honest question that has nothing to do with brand loyalty, EcoBashing, EcoLoving, EgoGrowing, etc...

"The Eco waxed the 6.2. " 3 days ago???"

A misquote so I will not respond to anything above. It is not clear what your were driving at anyway.

[goducks10]

AH64ID wrote:

goducks10 wrote:
JMO and I'm no engineer but just looking at the torque ratings it seems the GM has the EB beat hands down.

GM 460tq @4100 rpm
EB 420tq @2500 rpm.

EB in the Navigator is 460@2750 rpms.

Ok, missed that. Hmm.

[dougsee3]

These tests are fun but could change drasticly if done on a different day. Given the big differences between turbo and non turbo and the way they make power.

The lower temperature could of been a big factor to the 6.2 performance, 30 to 50 degrees warmer could of slowed it down a lot.

What was the barometer readings for that day. It could of been high enough to been only equivalent to 7 or 9000 ft at or near the summit.

Having driven in the west a long time. I have had and seen changes in MPG and seat of the pants feeling, on the same roads and mountain passes in different weather conditions. The turbo would not have the wider reaction to weather changes.

I am a GM fan and would like the 6.2 but if I was in the market it would be hard not to consider the Ford with the 3.5.

[AH64ID]

goducks10 wrote:
JMO and I'm no engineer but just looking at the torque ratings it seems the GM has the EB beat hands down.

GM 460tq @4100 rpm
EB 420tq @2500 rpm.

EB in the Navigator is 460@2750 rpms.

[goducks10]

JMO and I'm no engineer but just looking at the torque ratings it seems the GM has the EB beat hands down.

GM 460tq @4100 rpm
EB 420tq @2500 rpm.

The GM was turning 4000 rpms climbing the Ike. That puts the GM at peak tq.
The EB's peak tq is at 2500 rpms so at 4000+ rpms it's beyond it's peak tq.
It's the reason the GM ran in 4th as it didn't need to shift down because it was running at peak tq.

I understand that gas engines lose power at higher elevations, but the higher HP/TQ to begin with gives the GM an advantage.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

You have assumed the ECO can actually make 380 hp. Ford does not have their hp numbers certified but GM does so we know the 6.2 can actually make 420 hp at sea level.

You bring up a very, very good point. Remember Ford's 6.7 diesel rating and what happened against GM's Duramax in the tow-offs? :E

AH the Eco can and does de-rate when things get a bit too warm. I don't think it would happen in this kind of weather but when one pushes that little engine to the max for minutes at a time it very well might have de-rated to save itself. One can't tell if it's getting too warm until the last second either because of Fords stupid "smoothed" gauges idea.

[AH64ID]

RCMAN46 wrote:

AH64ID wrote:

RCMAN46 wrote:


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.

Not what you were talking about earlier. You made the comment that you didn't think the Eco was out of gears, I was talking about looking at what it would take to downshift, more gears, at 65 out of 3rd... It was out of gears.

I agree, the 6.2 had more power at altitude.


Here is another question, I'm not a EBologist so??, but does it have an OEM EGT sensor? Was is heat soaked and defueling? Maybe IAT was too high from the sustained near max boost?

We know that the 6.2 will lose 30% of it's power at 11K feet, and we know that the 6.2 was pulling harder at 11K feet... So that there should tell us about how much power the Eco lost at 11K feet.

You have assumed the ECO can actually make 380 hp. Ford does not have their hp numbers certified but GM does so we know the 6.2 can actually make 420 hp at sea level.

The 6.2 is in the same boat as the ECO as far as gears. If fact the ECO had an edge as it was closer to it's max hp at 4000 rpm than the 6.2 was to it's max hp at 4000 rpm.

It is interesting that both were running about 65 mph at 4000 rpm.

As for heat soaking etc are their any other excuses why the ECO does not meet expectations?

I love all the excuses made anytime a GM product performs better than the competition

I am certainly not, now nor have I ever been, in the Ford or Eco camp.. not even close.

I have been fairly neutral in this thread looking at it subjectively as I don't need/want/care for either rig. It's fun to look at the test and see how they do.

Published hp curves are not very applicable at 11K feet, the curves do change with altitude even on FI motors. Most, if not all, engines need more rpms to do the same work at elevation.

But lets get back to why I first quoted one of your posts. You made the comment that the "The Eco was not out of gears." and "I am sure the Eco had gears left." I asked you to check the math on that. How are we now talking about SAE certification and GM excuses??? It was a simple comment that the ECO didn't have the rpm band to downshift, that means out of gears. It didn't have the power to upshift and didn't have the rpms to downshift... 1 useable gear at that load and speed.

So why do you now think the GM performed better, when you said "The Eco waxed the 6.2. " 3 days ago??? FWIW I have thought the GM won the test since day 1, despite what you have said above.

If you think I am making excuses for the Eco you better think again. I am simply asking why it didn't preform to the level it should... I mean have you read about that thing on this Forum, it's an engine that walks on water, makes a 1/2 ton a 1 ton, and can do no wrong.... (heavy sarcasm).

As far as the SAE certification it's good GM does it, and Ford should follow but it's here nor there. The Lincoln won the drag race right? Base model curb weights are about the same, with the Lincoln being heavier but the GM appeared to have more options. We also know that Ford and GM both have been known to spoof curb weights.

But does the drag race prove the Eco makes more power? No, it simply means it averaged more hp over time, probably thanks to it's twin turbos. In day to day driving it's about hp over time. It's why torque numbers make a difference, more torque (with a peak hp below 5252 rpm) means more hp in the everyday rpms even if peak hp is a little lower. Does the peak hp help win a drag race? Or a towing race? Yes it does, but higher peak torque will win over time. (Prime example, my year truck the Hemi was a 345/375 and the Cummins was 325/610. The Hemi has the hp advantage yet the Cummins will walk all over it towing. HP is important, but it's a lot more than peak hp that needs to be looked at).

All we know is that a 420hp NA motor will drop to about 300hp at the wheels, and that the 300hp was enough to accelerate at approx 14K GCW but that the Eco couldn't do that. Why?

It's a simple why... a 380hp FI motor shouldn't lose more than 20% of it's power at 11K feet (but will lose some), but it appeared to. So that's the question on heat soak, EGT sensors, or is it simply Ford's lack of SAE certification?? It's an honest question that has nothing to do with brand loyalty, EcoBashing, EcoLoving, EgoGrowing, etc...

[RCMAN46]

AH64ID wrote:

RCMAN46 wrote:


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.

Not what you were talking about earlier. You made the comment that you didn't think the Eco was out of gears, I was talking about looking at what it would take to downshift, more gears, at 65 out of 3rd... It was out of gears.

I agree, the 6.2 had more power at altitude.


Here is another question, I'm not a EBologist so??, but does it have an OEM EGT sensor? Was is heat soaked and defueling? Maybe IAT was too high from the sustained near max boost?

We know that the 6.2 will lose 30% of it's power at 11K feet, and we know that the 6.2 was pulling harder at 11K feet... So that there should tell us about how much power the Eco lost at 11K feet.

You have assumed the ECO can actually make 380 hp. Ford does not have their hp numbers certified but GM does so we know the 6.2 can actually make 420 hp at sea level.

The 6.2 is in the same boat as the ECO as far as gears. If fact the ECO had an edge as it was closer to it's max hp at 4000 rpm than the 6.2 was to it's max hp at 4000 rpm.

It is interesting that both were running about 65 mph at 4000 rpm.

As for heat soaking etc are their any other excuses why the ECO does not meet expectations?

I love all the excuses made anytime a GM product performs better than the competition

[MitchF150]

As to the regular gas or premium gas debate, here is what my 2013 manual says about it..

3.5L V6 EcoBoost engine
“Regular” unleaded gasoline with a pump (R+M)/2 octane rating of 87 is
recommended. Some stations offer fuels posted as “Regular” with an
octane rating below 87, particularly in high altitude areas. Fuels with
octane levels below 87 are not recommended. Premium fuel will provide
improved performance and is recommended for severe duty usage such
as trailer tow.

Mitch

[AH64ID]

RCMAN46 wrote:


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.

Not what you were talking about earlier. You made the comment that you didn't think the Eco was out of gears, I was talking about looking at what it would take to downshift, more gears, at 65 out of 3rd... It was out of gears.

I agree, the 6.2 had more power at altitude.


Here is another question, I'm not a EBologist so??, but does it have an OEM EGT sensor? Was is heat soaked and defueling? Maybe IAT was too high from the sustained near max boost?

We know that the 6.2 will lose 30% of it's power at 11K feet, and we know that the 6.2 was pulling harder at 11K feet... So that there should tell us about how much power the Eco lost at 11K feet.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

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.

[FishOnOne]

In the 0-60 test the Lincoln EcoBoost waxed the GMC 6.2. The GMC is a larger vehicle so it was packing more weight.

0-60 Link

[RCMAN46]

"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.

[RCMAN46]

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.