You all know how I cheerlead for the big 3, but rarely do I actually advertise. Well, count this toward one advertisement.
check this out, and watch speed next Monday the 12th- http://www.6versus8.com
The reason I'm doing this is because this is what I've been working on for the past 3 years, so it's cool to see it in the press.
What it is:
Rod Millen driving a BMW 550, a Mercedes 550, a Maserati Quatroporte, and a Lincoln MKS with an Ecoboost up Loveland Pass in Colorado. One American turbo v6 vs. 3 European V8's.
I can't spill the beans on the results, so watch next week, and check the webpage out for teasers.
edit- I forgot about the Jag XF...
Eric
No longer having speed I won't be able to watch it, but I can anticipate the results. Between the ecoboost line and the coyote v8's ford has some very impressive performance powertrains coming out, and from the concept photos and press looks like some good cars to put them in.
Turns out there is more to the website than I thought. But I'm still looking forward to watching the Speed TV show.
We get a preview later this week.
BTW, for all the possible detractors- while we may have suggested it, this is NOT advertising- it was Automobile and Motor Trend really getting Rod Millen to run it up. And, I know for sure that the car isn't any special build- 100% stock for 2009 MKS w/Ecoboost.
Eric
Well, N/A V8s vs. Turbo V6s up in Colorado are going to get their butts handed to them simply because N/A loses a lot more power with the thinner air...
It looks like a stacked deck to me.
I too was wondering what the significance the high altitude would play on the engine's performance.
scardeal wrote:
Well, N/A V8s vs. Turbo V6s up in Colorado are going to get their butts handed to them simply because N/A loses a lot more power with the thinner air...
It looks like a stacked deck to me.
Turbos do, too. Been there, tested there, experienced the alititude. Know the losses.
E-
alfadriver said:
Turbos do, too. Been there, tested there, experienced the altitude. Know the losses.
yes, but to a lesser extent. Look at all of the winners of the Pikes Peak hill climb in the last....ever. they are all turbos. Turbo's were invented to offset the pressure loss at altitude on airplanes. (IIRC, so were superchargers)
maroon92 wrote:
alfadriver said:
Turbos do, too. Been there, tested there, experienced the altitude. Know the losses.
yes, but to a lesser extent. Look at all of the winners of the Pikes Peak hill climb in the last....ever. they are all turbos. Turbo's were invented to offset the pressure loss at altitude on airplanes. (IIRC, so were superchargers)
True, but how much changed is very dependant on the turbo selection- since turbos operate on a pressure ratio basis. So if the turbos are selected for quick response, and not huge overall boost, then the losses at altitude can be significant- of course, not as bad as N/A, but still quite significant. More than most people think. Airplane turbos and blowers were not designed for throttle repsonse, so they could be HUGE and well oversized to run at 20-30k ft.
Turbos in race cars do not really resemble turbos in production cars. Especially the ones going up Pikes Peak.
None the less, the power ratings for all of the cars is reasonably comparable- all with less than 400hp.
E-
Ian F
HalfDork
10/5/09 2:16 p.m.
does anyone else see the irony in this? A small American engine vs. big European V8's... 
I like a number of the current Ford and GM cars... if only they would come out with wagon versions...
Ian F wrote:
does anyone else see the irony in this? A small American engine vs. big European V8's...
I like a number of the current Ford and GM cars... if only they would come out with wagon versions...
That's "bad" because why, exactly? It's supposed to be a good thing, if I'm not mistaken. 
E-
alfadriver wrote:
Ian F wrote:
does anyone else see the irony in this? A small American engine vs. big European V8's...
I like a number of the current Ford and GM cars... if only they would come out with wagon versions...
That's "bad" because why, exactly? It's supposed to be a good thing, if I'm not mistaken.
E-
Irony doesn't have to be bad. Stop being so touchy!
I would like nothing better than to see American cars start kicking Eurojap butts on regular basis. Now if we can just wean our engineers from Italian machinery, maybie we will!
""
I can go from 5000' at the shop to 11000' in about 35 minutes. Turbos - even those chosen for responsiveness - definitely have an advantage as you gain in altitude. They'll drop off in efficiency but not to the extent of naturally aspirated cars.
The website kinda comes across as a Lincoln-sponsored ad. I watched the 5th video which gives the results, and the entire emphasis is on how the Lincoln did.
I'll bet there were some pissed-off hazardous cargo trucks up there waiting for the road to reopen 
On a related note, I can't imagine how awesome the E39 M5 will feel with 20% more power. It's almost worth a trip to sea level to find out.
Keith,
You NEED to take the M5 to sea level. The difference is fantastic. Even my lowly old Cressida felt quick at sea level. These days when I head back to Colorado, everything feels lethargic.
I'm looking forward to seeing this show. Loveland pass is a fun road.....when it is dry. I was up there on the 4th of July a few years ago in a snowstorm!
Not much room for error on some of those turns.
I call Rematch in Death Valley.
So we are talking about the MKS which is that huge Ford Five Hundred sized car. I thought we were talking about the Zephyr (MKZ, Fusion, Mazda 6 derivative.) I have not done well keeping up with Lincoln's MK-? naming.
Is this MKS supposed to be the sporty model?
Why not compare the american turbo 6 to the Bavarian turbo 6.
Seems like a better comparison................
cxhb
Reader
10/5/09 4:55 p.m.
z31maniac wrote:
Why not compare the american turbo 6 to the Bavarian turbo 6.
Seems like a better comparison................
WIN. videos/story was good though, and its nice to see domestics getting more and more advanced
alfadriver wrote:
True, but how much changed is very dependant on the turbo selection- since turbos operate on a pressure ratio basis. So if the turbos are selected for quick response, and not huge overall boost, then the losses at altitude can be significant- of course, not as bad as N/A, but still quite significant. More than most people think. Airplane turbos and blowers were not designed for throttle repsonse, so they could be HUGE and well oversized to run at 20-30k ft.
normal matching rules go out the window with VG.
I briefly read the rundown in this month's Automobile...some of the German V8s they chose were only 10 or so hp higher than the Lincoln V6. When you compare the correction factors for turbo vs. NA at altitude, it's obvious what will happen. So, yeah, it looks like the deck's been stacked, but what do you expect when your magazine goes to a manufacturer to set up a comparison test?
I don't put any blame on Ford for this, rather I'd point the finger at Automobile/Motortrend. What kind of a comparison is it when you let ONE manufacturer pick the match-ups? Zero journalistic integrity at all, and a telling peek into the politics of the big car mags.
And I'd also be interested in seeing how well a German turbo car would do against the Lincoln's six. The 3.5l twin-turbo engine is a gem in terms of drivability, power delivery, economy, etc. And there's a ton of power left on the table in stock form.
z31maniac wrote:
Why not compare the american turbo 6 to the Bavarian turbo 6.
Seems like a better comparison................
then the American car wouldn't win... it's all about who's paying for the test
kinda like the comparison someone did recently between some kind of bat. powered / hybrid car and a high performance car.... the bat powered was driven at WOT continuously and the hp car just had to keep up.... not exactly the bat cars forte....
BTW, Autoblog says the turbo MKS placed 2nd. what won?
