Ford has announced the 2010 Lincoln MKS with the much anticipated 3.5L EcoBoost V6 engine.
The 3.5L EcoBoost V6 officially puts out 355 horsepower and 350 lb-ft of torque. Even with those numbers it is estimated to get 16 mpg in the city and 25 mpg on the highway. With the EcoBoost engine, the MKS has more power and better fuel economy than the Lexus GS460 and Infiniti M45.
PRESS RELEASE:
Detroit, Jan. 12, 2009 – Launched last summer, the Lincoln MKS upholds the luxury and comfort standards unique to Lincoln. Now, with the addition of all-new EcoBoost engines, the Lincoln MKS also will deliver a compelling combination of V-8 power and V-6 fuel economy.
The Lincoln MKS is among the first Ford Motor Company vehicle to introduce a premium twin-turbocharged 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 engine for the 2010 model year and is expected to deliver best-in-class highway fuel economy of 25 mpg. By 2013, more than 90 percent of Ford Motor Company's North American lineup will be available with EcoBoost technology.
"We are committed to delivering fuel economy leadership in every new vehicle," said Derrick Kuzak, Ford's group vice president of Global Product Development. "We do this with affordable technology that can be applied to the widest number of vehicles. EcoBoost is an important component of that goal.
"The beauty of EcoBoost is that it enables us to downsize for fuel efficiency, yet boost for power. We're able to decrease the size of the available engine – such as installing a V-6 versus a V-8 – yet boost the power using turbocharging to deliver similar power and torque of that larger engine."
The 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 is expected to attain fuel economy numbers of 16 mpg city and 25 mpg highway based on preliminary testing of the all-wheel-drive 2010 Lincoln MKS while producing an estimated 355 horsepower at 5,700 rpm and 350 lbs.-ft. of torque at 3,500 rpm.
With its premium EcoBoost engine, the new Lincoln MKS will deliver more power and better highway fuel efficiency than the 2009 Lexus GS460 (24 mpg) or 2009 Infiniti M45 (21 mpg).
"We're delighted with how well the Lincoln MKS has been received. Customers have really responded to the vehicle's balanced combination of luxury, comfort and performance," said Pete Reyes, chief nameplate engineer. "Adding the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 is another great enhancement to our luxury sedan. We now can deliver V-8 power without sacrificing fuel economy."
The Lincoln MKS will be among the first vehicles to receive the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 starting in the summer of 2009, enhancing what's already a strong package. Standard on the Lincoln MKS EcoBoost series will be 19-inch wheels, steering-wheel paddle shifters to the six-speed SelectShift® automatic transmission, all-wheel drive and an expanded technology package that includes Intelligent Access with Push Button Start, ambient lighting, adaptive HID headlamps with Auto Highbeam, rain-sensing wipers and rear-window power sunshade.
"The Lincoln MKS EcoBoost series provides customers the best combination in style, technology and power," said Pei-Wen Hsu, Lincoln MKS Marketing manager. "An EcoBoost appearance package also will be available, offering customers a more aggressive and sporty look that further differentiates the Lincoln MKS from other competitors."
The EcoBoost program is part of Ford's ongoing and wide-ranging initiative to deliver innovative fuel-efficient powertrain systems with horsepower and torque performance found in larger-displacement engines.
"Our EcoBoost engines offer more power and better fuel economy," said Brett Hinds, EcoBoost design manager. "It's all part of Ford's strategy to bring adaptable powertrain technology to all kinds of vehicles and all kinds of lifestyles. This technology is affordable and applicable to all gasoline engines."
The turbochargers recover energy from the exhaust that otherwise would be wasted and put it back in the engine to gain efficiency. Simply, the turbocharging system puts more air into the engine for more power. A compressor increases or "boosts" the pressure of the air entering the engine. An intercooler reduces the air temperature before it enters the engine.
The twin parallel turbochargers, which are water-cooled and operate simultaneously, combine with a direct-injection fuel system to produce power when the driver pushes down on the accelerator pedal. The high-pressure fuel pump operates up to 2,175 psi – more than 35 times the norm seen in a conventional V-6 engine. The high-pressure pump is a cam-driven mechanical pump with a single piston and an electronic valve that controls how much fuel is routed into the fuel rails to the injectors.
As demands on the twin-turbocharged 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 engine are increased, the control system responds to maintain optimal combustion, timing and injection duration.
On each stroke, six individual jets spray fuel directly into the combustion chamber, mixing with the incoming air. "By bringing the fuel injector right into the combustion chamber, there's no delay from the time you inject the fuel to when it's used by the engine," Hinds said.
The fuel injectors are located on the side of the combustion chamber. When the fuel is injected into the cylinder, it evaporates and cools the air that's been inducted into the cylinder. "Another benefit of our direct-injection method is that it cools the air right where you're going to burn it," Hinds said. "This action both improves the breathing of the engine and minimizes knocking."
The direct injection of fuel into the cylinder also helps provide a well-mixed air-fuel charge, increasing engine efficiency. Direct injection provides several benefits in terms of fuel burn and lower emissions.
"Because the fuel is directly introduced into the combustion chamber, you don't get fuel wetting the combustion wall like with port fuel injection, you don't saturate the ports and you don't get droplets that might recombine and add to saturation," Hinds said. "By injecting fuel directly into the combustion chamber and under high pressure, the fuel can be directed to exactly where we want it to be for a given combustion cycle."
The spray pattern for the fuel was optimized after extensive computer modeling work, with the angle of how the fuel is sprayed key to the process. "The better combustion process is a big advantage of direct injection," Hinds said. "In a port fuel system, at key off it's possible to have fuel on the walls of the intake port, which migrates to the top of the valve and puddles. So when you key on, you get that emissions spike. Direct injection is much cleaner from that standpoint."
Turbo lag virtually eliminated
The simultaneous turbocharger operation paired with the direct-injection system help to virtually eliminate turbo lag, one of the main reasons turbocharger technology was not previously more widely used.
The dual-turbocharger setup has several advantages over previous turbocharging systems, including:
The turbochargers are smaller, resulting in more-compact exhaust manifolds, which don't generate as much heat
Turbochargers are packaged adjacent to the cylinder block and have improved mounting providing NVH (noise, vibration, harshness) improvements
The dual turbochargers spool up quicker, allowing the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 engine to reach peak torque faster. The turbochargers spin at approximately 170,000 rpm. By comparison, the redline for the engine is approximately 6,500 rpm
"The two turbochargers both operate identically over the speed range of the engine – one is responsible for the left bank of the engine and the other is responsible for the right bank," Hinds said. "Both spin immediately and produce boost, even at low engine speeds."
The turbochargers are designed for a life cycle of 150,000 miles or 10 years.
"Our testing is far, far more harsh than could be achieved in the real world," Hinds. "In an extreme situation, a customer might be able to hit peak power for about 10 seconds – probably not even that much. We test at peak power for hundreds of hours to ensure we can reach our durability and reliability goals."
The turbochargers are only about the size of an orange, but help provide a big performance advantage to customers. Hinds describes the torque response in terms of linear acceleration – power whenever you need it.
"You get peak torque across a very wide engine speed range," he said. "It's available when you pull away from a stoplight or pass someone on a secondary road at a comparatively low speed. You don't need to wind up the engine to get performance out of it. It's there all the time."
Turbocharger "whoosh" is mitigated by electronically controlled anti-surge valves, which proactively relieve the boost in the intake, which can range up to 12 PSI. Careful software calibrations manage the pressures in the intake manifold.
"We control the boost to make sure that customers don't recognize when the boost is building," Hinds said. "As the turbochargers spool up, the electronic control system takes over. Our active wastegate control along with the throttle controls the boost and torque levels very precisely and the customer perceives a continuous delivery of torque."
Extensive durability tests on the twin-turbocharged 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 engine ensure it will excel in all conditions. Start-up tests, with a wide variety of fuels, were made in conditions ranging from minus 40 to 110 degrees Fahrenheit. Altitude testing up to 12,000 feet in Colorado also was performed.
"The direct-injection fuel system allows us some real opportunities in terms of optimizing cold start for both emissions and robustness," Hinds said. "We have multiple injections for each combustion event, and we can essentially tune where those injections should take place to deliver the strongest start possible with the lowest emissions."
Mated to the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 engine is the 6-speed 6F-55 SelectShift automatic transmission, which is dedicated to the twin-turbocharger engine. The 6F-55 transmission was developed from the successful 6F-50 transmission to specifically respond to the increased torque demands of the EcoBoost V-6 engine. Upgrades were made to the transmission's friction material in response to the higher shift energies, and a new torque converter has been optimized for performance and fuel economy.
Additionally, the 6F-55 transmission operates more efficiently. The transmission team was able to reduce the fluid level in the transmission, which in turn reduced weight and drag torque on the system. Upgrades to the transmission's thermal valve mean the system warms up quicker, reducing gear-spin losses.
"We've upgraded the gear sets to handle the increased torque," said Joe Baum, powertrain team leader. "We've also adjusted the final drive ratio and matched the gear ratios to provide the optimum performance and fuel economy.
"Our final drive ration is 2.73. With a lower final drive ratio, the engine spins lower at highway speeds, which helps save fuel. And with all the torque, the Lincoln MKS still delivers good low-speed launch performance."
One harmonious system
Careful powertrain system management ensures the engine, turbochargers and transmission work together harmoniously.
The Lincoln MKS team also was careful to give customers an exhaust note from the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 that was pleasing but not overpowering. A precision-tuned induction sound tube directed into the cabin complements the feeling of power.
"It has the powerful sound Lincoln MKS customers will respond to," Hinds said.
With the addition of the twin-turbocharged 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6, the overall package for the Lincoln MKS is one customers will respond to as well.
"With its elegant styling, wide suite of convenience technology and incomparable ride, the Lincoln MKS is an outstanding luxury sedan," Reyes said. "We're pleased and proud to add the 3.5-liter EcoBoost V-6 to an already-great car."
| « Previous | Next » |
Comments (34)
Hmmm, a G8 GT gets 15/24 with 361 hp and 381 ft-lb of torque. I would take the 1 mpg hit, since it would more then make it up with the cost difference between premium and regular and slightly more power. Also, the Gen IV small blocks don't have DI, Gen V will. So it will be like the 3.6L engines in the CTS. More power and better gas mileage for engine for engine.
Sorry Ford. EcoBoost might match a v8 power and get slightly better gas mileage. However, it doesn't make up the cost difference between regular and premium. And when Gen V comes out, all bets are off.
Posted by Avatar | January 12, 2009 1:21 PM
Posted on January 12, 2009 13:21
Avatar...
Where in heck did you find the cost of the EcoBoost to state that the engine wouldn't make up for the premiun vs reg cost? It was stated earlier by Ford the Ecoboost would be an 800 extra cost, so I am presuming it be more, around 1,000.
Even at that, it blows away premium.
And having driven both the MKS AND the G8, they are 2 totally different cars and shouldn't be compared.
The G8 is fun to drive, but comes nowhere near the MKS in luxury.
Its not even close.
I mean come on!
One has airconditioned front seats and is silent as a tomb!
The other runs like a go-cart, but is noisy as heck on the highway!
Posted by paul | January 12, 2009 1:42 PM
Posted on January 12, 2009 13:42
"....the MKS has more power and better fuel economy than the Lexus GS460 and Infiniti M45."
Yes, and a standard low quality, domestic interior and atrocious resale (if it follows Lincoln's grand tradition of hosing its dumb as a post customers).
Posted by Noya | January 12, 2009 1:57 PM
Posted on January 12, 2009 13:57
lol u guys funny...when u are getting a car that has more than 300hp and u care so much about a bit of mpg...if u really care about mpg and cost why don't u buy an yaris or a fit?
Posted by zard | January 12, 2009 1:58 PM
Posted on January 12, 2009 13:58
...the MKS has more power and better fuel economy than the Lexus GS460 and Infiniti M45..
That wouldn't take much to beat out Lesux these days. Lesux is way overpriced for the little bit more quality of it interior plastic. In the end, your buying into the Lesux name and little else anymore.
Posted by sparky | January 12, 2009 2:23 PM
Posted on January 12, 2009 14:23
Um, paul, no where did I state that Ford stated that. Simply that I would much rather have 1 MPG less, more power, and save on fuel costs ultimately, since that's what EcoBoost promises to do.
More power, nope. Better fuel economy, yes, but not worth the cost difference, and not much better at that. Oh, I'll admit it is a good bit of marketing Kool Aid, but I am simply pointing out the dirty secret Ford hasn't.
Ford has also been talking about putting this in other cars. "more than 90 percent of Ford Motor Company's North American lineup will be available with EcoBoost technology." That means this will be competing against v8s like the one in the G8, the ones in the used in trucks, the ones used in the Camaro, etc. So while you might not cross shop a G8 and an MKS, the fact that they weigh roughly the same, make roughly the same power with this new engine in the 2010 MKS, and the gas mileage is relatively the same, we can loosely transfer numbers to other vehicles.
Ford was also nice enough to compare the engine to DOHC v8s instead of OHV v8s, which generally do better then DOHC in 350+ hp situations.
So EcoBoost Mustang vs Camaro, Camaro is probably doing the same gas mileage, with more power. And that is a comparison that has been going on since the 60s. Heck, even after the F-bodies stop production, the new S197 was still being compared to a car roughly 14 years older then it at that point.
Posted by Avatar | January 12, 2009 2:45 PM
Posted on January 12, 2009 14:45
@avatar
the issue is that you are comparing a chevy V8 which IMO is the best in the world, while ford has no understanding about great V8's Ford V8's make 315 hp and get 23 MPG so a twin turbo V6 that makes 355 hp and 25 mpg this is a huge improvement for them.
Posted by muscleoverrice | January 12, 2009 7:29 PM
Posted on January 12, 2009 19:29
True muscleoverrice, then let me compare it to something else then.
2009 Chrysler 300C
368 hp, 395 ft-lb of torque
16/25 MPG, Regular Gas
That happens to tie gas mileage with the 3.5L EcoBoost, makes more power, and gets the same gas mileage. And paul, I am sure you will agree that a Chrysler 300 and a Lincoln MKS are a closer comparison then a G8 and an MKS.
So I am still not impressed and sucked in by marketing Kool Aid. Chrysler, as I am sure many will agree, is the worse off currently of the Big 3, and Ford isn't really catching up to them with this engine. Bring back the Windsor already.
Posted by Avatar | January 12, 2009 8:06 PM
Posted on January 12, 2009 20:06
all i have to say is
corvette Z06
7.0L V8
505 hp
16/24 MPG
LOL take that Ford
Posted by muscleoverrice | January 12, 2009 8:24 PM
Posted on January 12, 2009 20:24
haha, the man has a point... although if i was in a Z06, i wouldn''t be getting that mileage, nor would i be worried about it.
Posted by BigO | January 12, 2009 9:01 PM
Posted on January 12, 2009 21:01
Lol, little extreme, but still proves the point. Of course weighing 20% less also helps.
Posted by Avatar | January 12, 2009 9:02 PM
Posted on January 12, 2009 21:02
Avatar:
True muscleoverrice, then let me compare it to something else then.
2009 Chrysler 300C
368 hp, 395 ft-lb of torque
16/25 MPG, Regular Gas
While those numbers are correct,the car can return up to 30 mpg cruising on the highway.
Before anyone states the hemi motor is American junk, Wards automotive has placed in the the ten best motors 6 times since it came out in 2002. While certain other aspects of their product line has doomed them,their powertrains have definitely improved.
FoMoCo V8's definitely lag GM and Mopar V8's
Posted by Bob T | January 13, 2009 5:34 AM
Posted on January 13, 2009 05:34
Avatar:
Look, EVERBODY...
I INSIST upon real data and not false numbers.
Right now, today the EPA specs for the 300 are NOT as Avatar shows.
Tose are 6 Cyl numbers and it gets no where near that power.
In fact, he has mixed V8 power with 6 specs.
Horrible and missleading.
Come on, dude, keep yourself reliable and reaus the facts
EPA
300: Hemi 13/19, V6 17/25
AWD: Hemi 16/23, 6 cyl 16/23.
Thats TODAY, right off the EPA sight.
So what gives?????????
Posted by paul | January 13, 2009 8:49 AM
Posted on January 13, 2009 08:49
OK, what about the Hyundai Genesis V8 which is EPA rated at 17/25? Lincoln *really* likes to pretend the Genesis doesn't exist.
Posted by BigWill | January 13, 2009 9:31 AM
Posted on January 13, 2009 09:31
Hmmmm, I go to fueleconomy.gov. Then I click 'Compare Side-by-Side'. After that, '2009' followed by 'Chrysler'. Then it is onto '300/SRT-8' and 'Automatic 5-spd, 8 cyl, 5.7 L, Regular Gasoline, CMODE' for which it says, "new EPA MPG, Regular Gasoline, 16 City, 19 Combined, 25 Hwy.
So paul, you are giving the 6.1L SRT numbers, in which case up the horsepower the 425 and 420 ft-lb of torque.
Come on dude, learn to read.
Posted by Avatar | January 13, 2009 9:49 AM
Posted on January 13, 2009 09:49
the point is that ford is able to make a v6 with v8 fuel economy and close to v8 power lol
Posted by muscleoverrice | January 13, 2009 10:01 AM
Posted on January 13, 2009 10:01
You mean like Honda does already muscleoverrice? Well, at least Ford get's closer power wise then Honda does.
I wonder if the LLT tuned on premium makes around 350 or so horse power with a few tweaks. Then its even worse, because the 3.6L gets 17/26 in the CTS with 304 hp. If it goes down to 16/25 for the tune and makes around 350 on premium, then Ford needs a twin turbo roughly same size engine to make the same power and gas mileage, lmao. Granted the twin turbo will make more torque, but you get the idea.
Posted by Avatar | January 13, 2009 10:24 AM
Posted on January 13, 2009 10:24
avatar
I stand corrected.
Posted by paul | January 13, 2009 1:47 PM
Posted on January 13, 2009 13:47
By the way, does anybody understand how the EPA numbers work?.
While researching Avatar's statement, I saw the MKS at 16/23/19 overall.
Then the 300 16/25/19 overall.
Now, how can you get an extra 2 MPG highway and still end up the same overall???
This sounds like strange math.
What's the use getting the extra HWY MPG?
I mean, then Avatar is right.
Why pay extra and get little in return.
Posted by paul | January 13, 2009 1:54 PM
Posted on January 13, 2009 13:54
Avatar
Although you are correct with the strict numbers, there is a little bit of a twisting of numbers.
The cars are totally different.
For instance, the Taurus is listed at 28 HWY.
The Lincoln at 24.
Both have the same chasis.
I do not know the 300, but I seriously think the MKS is a very heavy luxury car.
I drove it, but never the V8 300, only the 6.
And not impressed.
The 3.7 MKS engine is very nice, but not turbo like, which the Ecoboost will solve.
The argument that Ford can't build a high MPG engine with horsepower is wrong.
The 3.5 V6 in the Taurus is wonderful and gives 28 hwy.
The 300 V6 gives 25, as you pointed out.
Posted by paul | January 13, 2009 2:00 PM
Posted on January 13, 2009 14:00
Wow, you are aware that the 3.5L in the Taurus isn't turboed, right? It makes 263 hp, which is no where near 368 hp or 361 hp.
The MKS weighs around 4100-4200 lbs. The 300C weighs in at 4100 lbs. G8 GT 4000 lbs. The Taurus comes in at 3600 lbs, hence the reason it gets better mileage. The Taurus X however, comes in at 4000 lbs and gets the mileage down to 17/24 with the same engine 3.5L engine in the regular Taurus as well as same platform. So at that point, the 300 with a 3.5L v6 gets the same mileage 17/25 with 250 hp.
There is no number twisting, its just one weighs more then the other, so worse fuel economy from Taurus to MKS. The 300C, G8 GT, and MKS are more or less directly comparable do to same relative curb weight, making same relative power (in the MKS EcoBoost case), and are all using autos, 6 speeds in the case of the G8 and MKS, 5 in the case of the 300C.
In the case of the non turboed Taurus X, it just embarrasses Ford since it gets the same mileage as the v8s in the G8 GT and 300C yet makes 27% less power then the G8 GT and 28% less then the 300C.
Posted by Avatar | January 13, 2009 3:04 PM
Posted on January 13, 2009 15:04
One more thing.
I don't know what's wrong with the EPA sight and numbers, but everybody else shows the 300 V8 at much lower hwy...23.
Now, somebody explain to me how the EPA sight shows 300 V6 and V8 at the same mpg?
Other auto comparison sights show the V8 at 23.
So again, what gives on the EPA sight?
Posted by paul | January 13, 2009 4:37 PM
Posted on January 13, 2009 16:37
By the way, I don't mean to sound Un'Chrysler.
I have one.
In fact, I have always been a fan of the very same V8 and its ability to shut down cylinders when on the hwy.
I wonder just why ALL engines, above 4 cyl don't do this?
It seems a simple thing everybody should be doing!
I actually like the Hemi.
I just have become a bigger fan of powerful 6 and 4 cyl engines think they will become even better tomorrow.
The V8 is dead, it just doesn't know it.
Posted by paul | January 13, 2009 4:52 PM
Posted on January 13, 2009 16:52
Simple really. For the weight of the car in question, the v8 doesn't have to work as hard and rev as high to go a certain speed. There comes a point at which small engines just don't have the power to propel the cars they are pushing efficiently.
As for gas mileage and the EPA, there is a reason why they say your mileage may vary. I can drive my Firehawk like I stole it and get it into single digits, or just cruise around and get 30 mpg out of it.
As for a dead v8, wait for Gen V small blocks. DI, VVT, Active Fuel Management like you have pointed out. The Denali XT has a Gen V small block in it, the first one. It is a 4.9L two-mode hybrid making 326 hp and getting 50% better fuel economy then the Gen IV small blocks. On the Gen IV small blocks, two-mode gets about 31% better gas mileage engine for engine, so Gen V is getting 19% better mileage by itself.
If we add 50% to the current non 5.3L Canyon, we get 22.5 city, 30.5 highway, and 25.5 combined, though it will probably be more like 25 or 26 city and 25 or 26 highway because its a hybrid. This is will also be the smallest of the bunch mind, the 5.3L gets better mileage then the current 4.8L. Reports are saying that they are making 'well north of 450 hp' with better gas mileage. The v8's death is greatly over exaggerated.
Posted by Avatar | January 13, 2009 5:20 PM
Posted on January 13, 2009 17:20
See here's the problem: Ford like GM and Chrysler still believe it's the 70's.
And frankly you all are right there pushing them.
450hp in a sedan? or hell 350 for that matter....
350hp!? in something that isn't a performance edition or at least even setup to handle the speed that it could bring (thinking along M3 lines)...
But in reality you'll need 300+hp to push that fat bloated piece around, with 25 air bags, reinforced crumple zones, dvd, sat-nav, 10 speaker surround sound, with dual 10 inch lcd's in the head rests... good grief...
It's no wonder family sedans weigh 4000+ lbs.
Just like in the 70/80's when you had big cars that needed big engines just to feel peppy.
@Paul
Honda does do deactivation on some of their V6's.
A lot of it has to due with engine layout (bore vs. stroke, internal friction and efficiency, air intake and design, ect..) Think about idle speeds vs. cruising speeds for I4, V6, V8. The idle speeds would be similar 500-800 rpms. But cruising speeds would probably drop by half for the V8 vs. I4... And that's part of the issue. Can your V6 potentially create enough torque at it's new lower acting rpm to maintain speed? Because the engine is going to turn the same speed at 60, but it's only firing half as much, so it's really like having the engine turn half as fast (in a way)....
Posted by Brain | January 13, 2009 11:47 PM
Posted on January 13, 2009 23:47
Who in their right mind would compare this car to a G8? And while we're being stupid, lets quote Z06 fuel economy figures...
Posted by Arthur Pappas | January 15, 2009 1:46 PM
Posted on January 15, 2009 13:46
"The 300C, G8 GT, and MKS are more or less directly comparable do to same relative curb weight, making same relative power (in the MKS EcoBoost case), and are all using autos, 6 speeds in the case of the G8 and MKS, 5 in the case of the 300C."
Cost wise, not so much. But spec wise, very comparable.
Posted by Avatar | January 15, 2009 1:55 PM
Posted on January 15, 2009 13:55
I don't get it from some of you guys. I'm no great Ford fan, but the MKS is simply a beautiful car. The design is executed so well. the car just flows and has great lines. If the badge of the car bared the Infiniti or Lexus name many of you would be touted it. My only issue with the car is the price, the quality and the predicted resale value. Ford has to start building quality into their vehicles or they won't turn around or address the resale value.
Posted by John Campi | January 15, 2009 6:20 PM
Posted on January 15, 2009 18:20
I'll never understand you GM -vs- Ford guys, or the Import -vs- Domestic argument. Every company has some good product, and some, well, not so good product. The fact that Ford is going this direction is great for them, and perhaps in the end for the consumer as well. GM has great V8 motors, but these mpg numbers are complete crap (by all). Give us real world numbers. I'd love to see someone with a G8 GT or a Vette, ZO6 or whatever that gets 17 to 18 around town. Only if they are an old lady and never get it over 2500rpm.
For comparison, I drive a 335 BMW that is twin turbo charged, when driven moderately I'll get 18.5 to 19 around town and 30 on the highway. When hammered around town, the lowest I've gotten is 16.9. Inversely, the 300c SRT that I had would usually get 12 to 14 around town. I'm not an advocate for Ford or GM, or Import cars, just trying to throw some real world perspective out there. I'm sure some guys have obtained these mpg figures, but I'm guessing they are more of an exception to the rule, than the norm.
Posted by DarthBalls | January 18, 2009 7:23 PM
Posted on January 18, 2009 19:23
@DarthBalls
You should poste here more often.
Posted by 426Hemi | January 18, 2009 8:28 PM
Posted on January 18, 2009 20:28
Its funny you mention driving above 2500 rpm DarthBalls. I can drive my truck without going over 2000 rpm with a 4 speed auto in it all the way up to 75 mph and still out accelerate some people at traffic lights. And I do this constantly, and manage to get 15-16 mpg around town. And the EPA rates it at 13/16 now, was 14/18. Highway gets around 18-19. Being able to cruise a little above idle at 35 mph and pretty much at idle at 25 mph helps a lot. Like you stated, its how you drive it. Same thing with the M3 vs Pirus test Top Gear did.
Also, with the new EPA numbers, most people are getting about 10-20% more then what EPA is rating vehicles at now.
Posted by Avater | January 18, 2009 9:07 PM
Posted on January 18, 2009 21:07
@ Avatar & Bob T:
"FoMoCo V8's definitely lag GM and Mopar V8's"
I guess you haven't heard about Koenigsegg. The Modular Ford V8 was what powered early Koenigseggs. The newer Koenigsegg engines are heavily influenced by the Modular V8's design.
It was a Ford V8 that powered the CC8S, at its launch the fastest street legal car in the world. It produced around 650BHP.
Of course I realize these engines were heavily modified and differ from what you'd get in an F-150, however I'd hardly call the Ford V8s weak.
The Modular V8 also powered two of the finest supercars ever in my option, the Ford GT and Koenigsegg CC8S.
Posted by Engineer | January 20, 2009 3:52 PM
Posted on January 20, 2009 15:52
24 Hours at Le Mans. Vettes have won 5 times out of the 8 years they have been racing in the event. The C6.Rs use an LS7.R, which is an LS7 with a corroborator instead of fuel injection. So it isn't really modified at all, just changed a bit to meet the rules for GT1, unlike the CC8S you pointed out.
Saleen S7, the only Ford 'powered' entry, doesn't use a Modular v8, but a 7.0L OHV v8 from Ford casting of the old 427 ci.
That should tell you something right there about GM v8s vs Ford v8s. You are entitled to your opinions, but facts are facts.
Posted by Avatar | January 20, 2009 7:46 PM
Posted on January 20, 2009 19:46
Sorry, not corroborator, but air restrictor plates to limit horsepower. Wow, I need sleep.
Posted by Avatar | January 20, 2009 7:51 PM
Posted on January 20, 2009 19:51